text:
Moving from absorption to self-awareness
Practice : Mindfulness

I'm taking a concrete example to get the right help.
Reading a book ,

Reading without being absorbed , mind keeps wondering but still able
to read words
Reading with being absorbed , mind more likely continuously anchored
on reading with minimal mental movements

Now I want to be aware about myself while being absorbed in reading or be aware about the reader while reading
Could anyone provide me a guide to proceed to that ?

It does look like there's an interesting question trying to express itself here... but it's not clear exactly what you are asking. Can you please clarify what it is that you want a guide towards? Is the book just a metaphor or do you really want advice on how to read a book and be aware of yourself at the same time? Buddhism doesn't really teach such things, as far as I am aware.

@yuttadhammo I think the question is: how can you stay "self-aware" aka "mindful" even when, for example, reading a book? The list items describe the progress/state attained to date, i.e.: either, not absorbed in the book but still reading words, but mind wanders (and/or is self-aware of wandering); or, absorbed in the book, therefore not self-aware, and with minimal wandering (perhaps because it's guided by or focused on what the book is saying).

In Buddhism

awareness is on:

Arising and passing of phenomena pertaining to the mind and matter process (Samudaya-vaya-dhammanupassi)

more particularly:

through sensations (as you experience phenomena and any characteristic of the aggregates or characteristics of matter though a sense door - vidita vedana - and also make you whole body sensitive - Sabbakayapatisamvedi)
any mind and matter phenomena creates sensations

arising from:

internal and external sources (Ajjhatta-bahiddha)

with:

equanimity, and
absence of clinging and craving of any type

So it is good to be aware of the reading so you don't miss any facts, but this might not liberate you from stress and misery.
If awareness alone did the trick then the happiest people would be the circus performers, gymnasts, etc.
So what ever you are absorbed in, be aware of the sensations and their arising and passing, keeping your mind firmly equanimous and devoid of craving and clinging. This is the type of awareness you have to develop in daily life including when reading.
Reading on its own creates verbal fabrications but if you can limit thought proliferation this is good. The though proliferation can be limited by:

calming the fabrication - less distraction from bodily pains

though observing the speed and length off the breath cycles - may be not easy while reading
passively looking at sensation, ideally in a small area like the upper lip

anchoring the mind

realise your mind has left the anchoring object
objectively looking at sensations or experience created by the distracting object
objectively look at the sensations created by:

reaction of your perception
though proliferation

bring back your mind to the anchor

For further details see:

http://www.vridhamma.org/Discourses-on-Satipatthana-Sutta
http://www.vridhamma.org/The-Discourse-Summaries
http://www.vridhamma.org/The-Significance-of-Vedana-in-Vipassana
http://www.vridhamma.org/Importance-of-Vedana
The Great Discourse on the Establishing of Awareness
http://www.vridhamma.org/Sampajanna
Sampajañña
http://www.vridhamma.org/Sampajanna-the-Thorough-Understanding


text:
Is it okay to have addictions and still call yourself a Buddhist master?
Some 'Buddhists' believe that it is okay for one to be addicted to smoking and drinking. They give examples of Chogyam Trungpa and the like who were known to indulge in these and other addictions.
It might seem puritanical, but I don't agree with them, and I believe the Buddha wouldn't either. I think any kind of addiction is connected with cravings and a 'master' cannot be called one until he/she has at least mastered these cravings. I also think that as a Buddhist of any stripe, one follows the Four Noble Truths (and the 8-fold path within it) and if one does, one clearly understands the perils of unregulated cravings. And then there is the issue of creating wrong 'role models' for the followers of the 'master'.
What do people on this forum think about this issue?

Hello Jagger and welcome to Buddhism.SE. Your question appears to ask for opinions/discussion and as a Best Answer Q & A site, we are not well suited for these type of questions. We do have several questions regarding alcohol consumption among Buddhists already. If none of these answers your question, please try to rephrase your Q in a way that it can be answered objectively. Thanks!

Similar topics here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1344/do-all-buddhists-abstain-from-alcohol, http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2512/is-moderate-drinking-acceptable-in-buddhism/2535#2535,

I'm putting this on hold; please feel free to edit it and submit for reopening - as Robin says, try to aim for questions looking for a single right answer.

Apparently Chogyam Trungpa taught "Tibetan Buddhism" so you might ask what role if any such might have within that tradition (i.e. beware of trying to judge it from the perspective of a different school). Also Wikipedia says that he gave up his monastic vows to work as a lay teacher so perhaps the 'vinaya' tag isn't appropriate.

Sometimes i wonder how people judge others. Putting a q. on hold ! There's one more option with so many another sub options in it, Edit the question.

@jitin People have tried to discuss the various options on meta: here and here and in the comments to this question. Putting the Q on hold isn't judging others, I hope: it's giving the OP a chance to rephrase their own question before people try to answer it. If you want to discuss (add to or influence) the policy, please add to the discussions on meta, and/or start a new topic on meta to discuss this specific question.

I really think there is a good questions in here around seemingly unethical practices of teachers such as Chogyam Trungpa. I think if it was reformulated to ask about his actions and how this fit in with his lineage then it would be very interesting. It's a question that I've had in mind to ask to be honest

@jitin putting the question on hold prevents answers to a problematic question. As it stands, my assumption is that this question would solicit opinions, not expert answers. The idea is to prevent answers until the question can be reworded to fit the format of this site. If you think the question was closed in error, please vote to reopen the question. There certainly wasn't any judging of a person involved in the decision.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to reduce distractions in sitting practice?
How are people supposed to practice sitting meditation
when there are so many distractions around like working,
internet social media pages and other things like that?

How are people supposed to practice sitting meditation when there are so many distractions around like working, internet social media pages and other things like that?
1.You can try to make the time to do sitting meditation.Even if it's just for 5 minutes.Put it down in your organizer or calender. Hopefully this will give you the motivation to do it.
2.Practice working meditation,social media meditation,and other things like that meditation.What i mean is practice being aware of what you are doing.If you are working be aware of working.If your on social media be aware of being on social media.Whatever you do just be aware of it.Nothing is beyond awareness.You can be aware of anything from the greatest happiness to the most torturing pain.
Basically what you need is Right Effort.

Good answer.  I think it probably speaks to the listener better than mine does.

aging is murder.

My hips are super sore now when i walk i am trying to follow Master Dogen's instructions to sitting now just facing the wall.

@ChrisStefanidis Yoga was invented to help with meditation.

While on the surface there are more distractions in today's day and age than any other before, there are in fact not any more distractions than there have ever been.
While it would appear that what pulls you away from meditation is working, internet social media pages, and other things like that, these are not what pull you away.  What will always pull you away, and what has always pulled any human away is the stream of incessant chatter that you hear when you sit down and close your eyes.
There is nothing in the external world that is capable of causing distraction by itself.  There are stories of Zen Monks who did not stir from Zazen as an earthquake struck.  Distractions happen internally; not externally.
I'm going to limit the scope of my answer to a specific kind of meditation - the kind of meditation where you sit and focus - but for the record, meditation is in no way limited to that one definition.  Meditation is available always; independent of circumstances.
For now, what would be powerful, I think, is if you really tell the truth to yourself about some things.
First - I don't know anything about your circumstances; but I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that time is not the issue.  If you really confront how many hours you have in a day, and what it is that you are doing during each of those hours; I would be shocked if there were not 20 minutes you could claim for uninterrupted meditation time.
Most people live their lives in a haze of abstractions and stories about reality.  Few people live their lives grounded in reality.  In reality, you can only ever do the thing you are doing when you are doing it; and whatever that thing is doesn't take a long time or a short time - it takes some specific relatively predictable amount of time.
In our stories, "I have too much to do", "I never have enough time" , etc.  In reality, quoting Werner Erhard:

The only thing you are going to do today is: what you do today.  Therefore, the only thing there is to do today is: what you do today.  That’s all there was to do when you started no matter what you thought or think.

So, there is time for meditation.  There are no distractions that you deal with that are bigger than the distractions the millions of people who meditate deal with.  What it takes to meditate is to be willing to listen to the chatter in your head and to see it for what it is.
It is not you!  It is just noise.  There is nothing that happens in your mind that requires immediate action.  All there is to do when meditating is to give space to the noise; to observe the noise without becoming the noise.  Thoughts are just that; thoughts.
What you will also find is that the moment you sit to meditate, your mind is suddenly a buzz with things you have to do.  You will notice yourself becoming overwhelmed with concerns about incomplete projects, promises un-kept, dreams unfulfilled, things you have to do today, etc.  All there is to do is to let the thoughts be...and eventually...they will let you be.

1st you have to recognise the main source of distraction is within.
You have to practice the following:

recognise that the mind wondered away
there always some delight or sensation associated with the object. E.g. your phone. Recognise this and stay with it until it disappear.
this will have rippling or other associated sensation in our whole body due to though proliferation or sustained thought. Recognise this and bring your attention to the chosen object

With practise your inclination for delight in external objects will diminish. Also have a strong determination that you will meditate for x time every day. As you go on increase the time actually spent without distraction to be in line with what you want it to be.

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


text:
Does the fifth precept refer exclusively to chemical stimulants?
The fifth precept is

I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that
  causes heedlessness

but I have read interpretations that translate it as

I undertake to abstain from intoxicants

Are there any references in the Buddhist scriptures about the fifth precept having a broader interpretations that refer to intoxicants of different forms - not just chemical stimulants?
I'm interested in views of any schools as I imagine the interpretation of the precept may be different between them. I'm also interested in any references to more modern teachers who take this broader approach if anyone knows of them.

I think most Theravada teachers take headlessness as the keyword there. So keeping to the fifth precept means not consuming anything that leads to headlessness except in the case of medication.

by canonical do you mean Theravadin?

@yuttadhammo I was aiming to get an answer from any established school. So including but not exclusively Theravadin. I'll amend my question to clarify

@ChrisW You're right I was inspired by that answer but I'm also interested because of my own practice and from what has been said to me in the past on this kind of issue. I might fill in the details for this question but I see if this current edit attracts any attention first

In my opinion, alcohol and drugs cause intoxication and heedlessness. However, nicotine and romantic relationships, while being possibly intoxicating or addictive, would certainly not cause heedlessness. Although, I understand that some might disagree with me, with regards to romantic relationships. :-)

A modern teacher who takes a very broad approach is Thich Nhat Hanh. I became familiar with his "Five Wonderful Precepts" at a Seon temple where his translation of the precepts is used regularly. This is his translation of the Fifth Precept:

Aware of the suffering caused by unmindful consumption, I vow to cultivate good health, both physical and mental, for myself, my family and my society, by practicing mindful eating, drinking, and consuming.  I vow to ingest only items that preserve peace, well-being, and joy in my body, in my consciousness, and in the collective body and consciousness of my family and society.  I am determined not to use alcohol or any other intoxicant, or to ingest foods or other items that contain toxins, such as certain TV programs, magazines, books, films, and conversations.  I am aware that to damage my body or my consciousness with these poisons is to betray my ancestors, my parents, my society, and future generations.  I will work to transform violence, fear, anger, and confusion in myself and in society by practicing a diet for myself and for society.   I understand that a proper diet is crucial for self-transformation and for the transformation of society.

These are from his book "For a Future to Be Possible: Commentaries on the Five Mindfulness Trainings"
From "The Mindfulness Bell" newsletter, dated Spring/Summer 1990, Thich Nhat Hanh gives an in depth interview about his translations of the 5 precepts (which were in a slightly less detailed version back then).

Someone who practices the Fifth Precept could not say "This is my body, I can do anything to it. I have the right to." They cannot say that because they know that their body belongs to all their ancestors, themselves, and the future generations.

He talks about the interconnectedness of all things; how the grain used in the production of whiskey and meat can lead to starvation in the world when people don't have enough grains to eat. That particular idea may be arguable to some. But I think his statement below (also from The Mindfulness Bell) is really a key point for those who aren't quite ready to accept the Fifth Precept:

So mindfulness is the base of all precepts. Drinking a glass of whiskey with mindfulness is already practicing the precepts, because if you drink with deep mindfulness, you will live with the reality of the world and you will stop drinking very soon.

First of all dear user - "Crab Bucket"
Remember this before taking advice from our online community.
In lord Buddha's last few moments a question was asked by a monk from lord Buddha.
"After you who should be our leader"
The answer was,
"My teachings are timeless,anyone with the will can learn and realize the truth by themselves.after my death my teachings will be your leader"
What i want to say is,
as lord Buddha himself said that the teachings are timeless.Be careful of the people who claim to have a modern view about things
(who might teach you a much different but a equally logical path,Because it will be logical for sure but it is not Buddhism!If you follow that you are no longer a follower of lord Buddha,you are a follower of that new teacher!)
And here is the answer-
The reason of not using Alcohol and things like that is the childish mindset it create.You are no longer in control of you actions and you are not aware of what you are doing.Also what you might do is a question to yourself!
Buddhism repeats only one thing in almost every teaching "Mindfulness".Loose this you are fragile to anything.Loose your ability to think you are no higher than an animal!
You might steal,lie,destroy and you might even take the life of a loved one.This kind of behavior does not help the path to nirvana.
But if you are taking some kind of medicine,supplement for something that cause similar behavior there is no need to panic.
You are not in a addiction+It is not bad for your health+You are not going paranoid like a drunk.
You are safe my friend and have no fear you are within boarders and doing nothing wrong.Just be careful about the dosage!


text:
Body scanning - right way of attention moving
Practice - Mindfulness of body
When I move attention part by part in the body I don't feel sensations in every part . Is this right ? Or should I feel sensations in all body parts ?
Sometimes I do quick sweep of attention from head to feet . I do this at any moment during the day when I remember to be aware of my body .
Would this be helpful for practicing  mindfulness of body ? Or is there any better way of doing this ?

When I move attention part by part in the body I don't feel sensations in every part . Is this right ?

Initially you some times feel in some parts and not the other. Wait for a while to see if you feel something or not.

Or should I feel sensations in all body parts ?

Sometimes you might feel sensation on the whole body and some time not.
If you do not feel any sensations take those parts and look at them part by part, piecing and penetratingly, lingering until you see some sensation.

Sometimes I do quick sweep of attention from head to feet . I do this at any moment during the day when I remember to be aware of my body . Would this be helpful for practicing mindfulness of body ?

Yes. Try to do one down / up sweep in a in / out breath.

Or is there any better way of doing this ?

If you feel your whole body in one instance just keep looking at the body at some occasion without sweeping.

When I do a body scan, I do a visualization of a "golden nectar" slowly filling my body from the toes all the way to the top of my head. This is a way of helping you keep a focus of attention to the body. For me, sometimes as I am doing this technique, there is a sensation of warmth that I feel or think I feel as my attention to the body scan grows.
I hope this also helps a bit during your meditation practice.

I used to get a spontaneous visualization of a rapidly rotating golden energy ball traversing my body wherever my attention went. When I told my teacher about it at an SN Goenka retreat, I was severely reprimanded. But then it's an SNG retreat, so I kind of expect a  dogmatic attitude in any case.

There should be no visualisation or verbalisation. Even things like counting in Anapana is not allowed as the duration of the retreat is short.

I should have refrased my answer as you are correct as to no visualization or verbalisation. I was referring to a technique for bringing the distracted mind into a centered focus and once focused, bring the attention back to the breath and let go of the visualization.

Partial answer:
I was told on a vipassana retreat in the tradition of S.N. Goenka that at first one may not be able to feel sensations in all of one's body, but being able to feel sensation in every part of one's body is a milestone that practitioners should reach as they advance in the practice.
This seems to accord with my experience as well, that after prolonged practice one's sensitivity to the body increases.
Also, in that tradition, one does a body sweep from the top of the head to the feet as you say you do.
Hope that helps somewhat.


text:
Lost mind while Meditating
I'm practising Vipassana meditation and I noticed that most of the time my mind thankfully doesn't wonder about things (past, future, judging).
But I notice that my attention is not really sharp. It's like my mind its in standby not really paying attention to anything in particular. I lost my attention of my breath, sensations, etc.. but not because of wondering.
What's is happening?. Could I get further information about this issue?

you should consult a experience meditation teacher. because this is what expecting in vipassana. Any way consider this also -
http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9614/in-the-anapanasati-sutta-what-is-the-difference-between-mind-and-mental-process?rq=1

That sounds like the hindrance of "sloth-torpor". There are lots of ways to counter this.
The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Sloth

Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sloth and torpor:

Knowing that overeating is a cause of it;
Changing the bodily posture;
Thinking of the perception of light;
Staying in the open air;
Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation.

Mindfulness, investigation of reality and energy are factors that will help overcome sloth-torpor.
Also, don't lay down when you are meditating and experiencing sloth-torpor or you will probably fall asleep. If you need to, get up and practice walking meditation . . . or splash water on your face.

When practicing Vipassana, there are three factors you will play with:

Mindfulness
Concentration
Introspection (or 'alertness' or 'vigilance' depending on the translation).

Laxity (sloth, torpor) and excitement are the main adverse conditions to the mind abiding on an object continuously.  There are things you can do, before and in between meditation sessions, to prevent laxity from arising; and there are antidotes to apply, during the meditation session, when laxity arises. But first, you must study well enough so as to be able to identify the arising of laxity whenever it arises.

MEASURE OF LAXITY
Laxity is due to (1) the mind being overly withdrawn inward and (2) the mode of apprehension of the object being slack, loose. The occurrence of gross laxity results in a lack of clarity in your apprehension of the object.
While lethargy is characterized by confusion, heaviness, darkness, sleepiness... is of the type of an affliction... and occurs even outside the meditation session, laxity only occurs within meditation session, is not heaviness, but a lack of clarity. In the Middle-Length Lam Rim, Tsongkhapa writes:

Lethargy is said to be a heaviness, an unserviceability of the body
  and the mind that forms part of delusion. With laxity, the mode of
  apprehension of the mind holding its object is slack, and the object
  is not held clearly or tightly.

Once mindfulness is established (i.e. you are holding your object) and free from laxity, you will apprehend your object in such a manner that your mind will become clear with regard to it.  Conversely Gross laxity causes a lack of clarity. Tsongkhapa writes:

In every meditative stabilization that is free from laxity, the
  clarity factor of the mind will definitely arise.

APPLYING ANTIDOTES
The obvious antidote consists in tightening the apprehension of the object. As a beginner, you have to train in this:
First, you have to put more emphasis on the introspection factor than mindfulness or concentration. The thing is to recognize any instance of (1) excitement, (2) scattering, or (3) laxity. Such recognition should be accompanied with joy (you shouldn't feel "I lost the object, I failed"). Tsongkhapa writes:

If you do not rely on introspection, your meditation will come under
  the influence of laxity and excitement.

Introspection is (1) a way to recognize faults and (2) to prolong an established concentration. Introspection is important in order to establish an interrupted concentration, but also in order to prolong it once it is established.
A mind that is lax has withdrawn inward too much and lost its mode of apprehending the object. For that reason it says in Stages of Meditation that you should:

Tighten your mode of apprehending the object and sustain it
Attend to a cause for the mind to move outward again, something joyful and virtuous.
Attend to a sign of light, such as sunshine, and clear away the laxity.
Not meditate on a disenchanting object, because disillusionment is a cause for the mind to withdraw inward.
Remember that enthusiasm[...] will counteract laxity.

As a way to train in tightening / loosing the apprehension, it is advised to do sessions in which you try to hold onto your object tight for a while (making quiet an effort) and then you relax to effort without loosing the object. You repeat that throughout the whole session.  In Stages of Meditation, Kamalashila writes:

You should eliminate laxity and hold the object tight.

If breath is your object of concentration, drawn you awareness to the manifold features of your breath (its warmth, its arising as one, its falling as another, its trajectory, and so forth) so as to (1) stimulate the mind (2) familiarize with your object and make it clearer to you. This exercise is called “expanding the object”. The Compendium of the Perfections states:

When there is sinking uplift the mind through the power of striving
  for special insight.

Other antidotes are:
1. Directin the mind outward
2. Rinsing your face with fresh water
3. Putting an end to the session and going for a walk

PREVENTIVE PRACTICES
What to do

Taking refuge and generating motivation before meditation session
Short sessions
Emphasizing introspection
Finding joy in applying introspection
Studying the Dharma in between sessions

What not to do

Dwell in a warm room
Dwell in a dark room
Meditate with your eyes completely closed
Meditate with a full stomach

You need to do short sessions, because as a beginner, you have to strengthen the power of introspection. This take effort and easily lead to feel discontent. In relation to the length of the sessions, Tsongkhapa writes:

Moreover, if your sessions are long in the beginning, it is easy to
  fall under the power of laxity and excitement[50]. Since it is
  difficult to correct this state of mind once you have got used to it,
  you should do many short sessions.

In relation to studying the Dharma, Tsongkhapa writes:

In between sessions, you should also be concerned with the Dharma
  texts teaching that object and recall it again and again.

If you lack enthusiasm on the outset, you will be very prone to generate laxity. Thus, taking refuge in the beginning of the meditation session is useful. The purpose of doing is to generate a virtuous motivation, enthusiasm, dwelling on the reasons for practicing, give yourself a sense of direction so that you are not lost and that your practice really makes sense. That is usually uplifting. While setting motivation, it is customary to intend the application of the antidote (i.e. "Aware that laxity and excitement might arise during my meditation session, I will apply mindfulness to oppose excitement, and introspection to oppose both of them. I will tighten my mind to the object when I will notice it is lax. And so forth"). Tsongkhapa writes:

If you have a strong and constant awareness that sees the positive
  qualities of the Three Jewels, and so forth, it is quite easy to
  overcome laxity, for many valid sources say that its antidote is to
  uplift the mind by looking at positive qualities.

As a conclusion, I would advise you to emphasize the taking of refuge, generating motivation, intending to protect your mind from laxity and excitement from the beginning… emphasize the application of introspection as well… and emphasize the training in tightening/relaxing the apprehension.

I am new to this message board so please bare with me.
I too am a practitioner of Vipassana meditation and have had the same challenges. The thing to remember is when you notice your mind loosing attention to the object of focus, gently note to yourself that you have wondered off and bring the mind back to the breath. You may have to do this many times but remember to not get discouraged. It is natural for the mind to wonders and with practice, you can learn to bring it back. Also, you can shorten the time you meditate until you feel more comfortable with your progress.
I hope this helps.

Since your attention is not sharp perhaps you had Sloth and Torpor hence you should:

start with a large areas and narrow down to small areas gradually trying to see the arising and passing of phenomena
move your attention from object to object  starting at a slow pace and increase pace as time to experience arising and passing of phenomena in a particular areas becomes less.  In doing so your mind is always with a wholesome object and it also to stir up energy and increase alertness. As a result you will get Piti.

Sloth and torpor => large areas, effort directed towards see arising and passing of phenomena in an area, mental movements, mental chattering / contemplations, physical movement / walking meditation, light
Also in higher stages of Breath meditation you can experience Passadhi or equanimity which there is hardly any sensation and perhaps the breathing stops.

We cannot come up with a logical answer to explain this occurrence without conducting a medical exam while this occurs.
But my theory is you are in such a deep meditation trance your heart beat has slowed down to the point your brain is not getting enough oxygen due to low blood circulation.
If you can master this without fainting you would not have to eat or drink for longer periods.


text:
Shariputra and a bodhisattva losing bodhicitta
In my copy of Shantideva's Bodhicaryavatara, there is a footnote referencing a story about Shariputra losing bodhicitta.  Apparently a demon asked for his right arm, Shariputra willing gave it.  But the demon is offended that Shariputra offered it with his left hand, at which point Shariputra dispairs.  According to the footnote, this story is told in the Lotus Sutra.  But, I cannot find it there.  (Granted, I do not have complete version of the sutra to search through available to me.  So perhaps it's in the missing material.)
But I also have a vague memory of another story about a bodhisattva losing bodhicitta.  The story, as I recall it, recounts how the bodhisattva works tirelessly to save all hell beings and at long last manages to liberate the last being from hell.  Hell is empty.  Having completed his work, the bodhisattva lets out a sigh of relief.  And, in that instant, hell is completely repopulated once more.  The bodhisattva grows despondent that his efforts have been to no avail.
I've tried a web search for this last one. While, not surprisingly, I get many hits on bodhicitta, I haven't found this particular story.
So, I have three closely related questions.  Where in the Lotus Sutra does this particular story about Shariputra's loss of bodhicitta occur?  And, who is the bodhisattva in this second story?  In which sutra(s) can this story be found?

I can only answer the part of your question relating to the Lotus Sutra. I hope a partial answer is better than none.
From my recollection of reading the Lotus Sutra - Shariputra is portrayed as someone who hasn't made the journey all the way to enlightenment yet. He believed he had however the Buddha clarified this and states that he is stuck on the lower teachings. Unlike some other Mahayana sutras he is portrayed in a positive light and it is predicted that he will attain full enlightenment and become a Buddha named Flower Glow.
Though it isn't translated as bodhicitta in my copy I think this might be the quote you are looking for

Shariputra in the past I taught you to aspire and vow to achieve the
  Buddha way. But now you have forgotten all that and instead suppose
  that you have already attained extinction.

[Quote from pp 51 of the Burton Watson translation]
I read

vow to achieve the Buddha way

as the bodhicitta - which I have previous heard translated as the 'will to enlightenment' which I propose is the same thing.

I believe this is the 3rd chapter of the Lotus Sutra that you're referring to.  But, in that chapter, no where have I found the story of this demon and Shariputra chopping off his right hand.

I've found the story also here http://www.rinpoche.com/shamatha.html but I've looked through the Lotus Sutra again and I don't see it. The nearest thing is Chapter 23 when the Buddha Gladly Seen By all beings casts away both his arms (then they come back). I'll continue to browse through


text:
How to deal with sore hips during sitting?
I have been finding my hips to be getting super stiff after sitting practice. I have been stretching before and after, but it doesn't seem to help much. Does anyone have any tips to deal with this problem?

Hi Chris. Would you like to mention some details about your sitting such as whether you sit on the bare floor or a low cushion or a higher cushion with hips raised above the knees? Do you sit in Burmese position or half lotus or something else? And are you new to sitting meditation or is this something that just starting happening in a regular practice? These details might be helpful to those submitting answers.

I have been sitting half lotus now for like a month. Before that i was sitting kneeling style. I use a cushion and sit facing the wall like Dogen suggests to do.

kneeling style is for women.

Kneeling style like Seiza? So you have only been sitting in a cross leg position for "like a month"? I spent years sitting indian style, before I could move to burmese style. Then it took me two years of sitting in burmese style to move to half lotus. I feel like a month is not very long in my experience.

@SankhaKulathantille, kneeling seiza style is common in Zazen. Image of kneeling on seiza bench here: http://zmm.mro.org/teachings/meditation-instructions/ Image of kneeling on zafu here: http://www.stillsitting.com/about-us/sitting-down.html. But it's not related to gender.

Yes, I believe in Japan, it's not limited to a gender since it's part of the culture. But in Theravada tradition, it's mostly recommended for women.

well i am trying Burmese now and still the same pain and soreness when i walk, i am just following what Master Dogen wrote about sitting practice. He says to sit any way but doesn't mention kneeling, so that's why i am switching posture and also switching to sitting facing the wall.

In Zen meditation, posture is important. This is what I was taught. One sits on a zafu placed on a zabuton as below. It's important that the hips be elevated above the knees. The spine is erect (imagine a string coming through the top of your head and pulling you upward) and the pelvis is tilted forward slightly. The knees form the stable base to support the posture; i.e. you are leaning on your knees a bit. Balance and symmetry is important so half lotus wouldn't be ideal; a Burmese style would be more balanced and is also considered to be an easier position for those newer to sitting on the floor. Going from sitting kneeling style to sitting with the knees extended; it will take some time for the hip muscles to relax and become flexible. Best wishes.

How to deal with sore hips during sitting?
1.Gradually increase your sitting time.This will help your body get used to the posture.
2.Continue to do gentle stretches before and after meditation.Try Yoga.
3.Get up and do walking meditation.
4.Also this depends on what meditation your doing if you practice samadhi breath meditation like i do don't worry the pain will disappear.If you practice vippassana you'll have to observe the pain but if it gets too much then gently and mindfully adjust it.
Hope it works

I agree with the suggestion to try yoga. If you can incorporate it into your daily practice you will find your body saying "Thank You!"  For the hips, my all-time favorite asana is Pigeon Pose (http://www.yogajournal.com/article/beginners/pigeon-pose/).

This is a common problem for people who has a lot of sitting posture in their everyday lives e.g. meditators, office workers etc. due to mainly tight hip-flexors and weak gluteal muscles. These problems can usually be taken care of by stretching and strengthening exercises.
I will refer you to my answer to this question. In here i address a similar problem from both a anatomical/physiological and theravada buddhist point of view. This might help you out or else you can write me and we will have a chat. I would also like to know if you are currently having or previously had problems with your lumbal spine, hips or pelvis. By the way i'm a physiotherapist thats why i ask about this.
Lanka

Try the burmese posture and experiment with different levels of cushion.
Do yoga postures which help open up the hips. One of the many purposes of yoga is to prepare and help the body for long periods of meditation.
Controversial suggestion:
Ultimately train yourself to do the lotus posture (which is the most blissful and joyful too) because all other postures have side-effects associated with them.

Following strategy can help:

When there is a urge to move recognise it and keep looking right at the stimulation that causes the pain. Look into the pain dividing and dissecting the pain.
Have a determination to stay in the chosen posture. If you must move but try to gradually increase the time.
Try calming the bodily fabrication by looking at the breath
Mental movement can stimulate Piti. So try scanning the body as a fast space.
Try some metal recitations. Do Metta meditation focussing you attention on the pain.


text:
What does Buddhism say about the consequences of good and bad behaviour?
Please someone clarify:

Does Buddhism believe in rebirth?
There is an general belief in almost all religions that our good and bad will be carry forwarded to next and next to next generation and all, what does Buddhism say about that?
Almost all religions says give a part of money to god and that will be honoured after death. What is Buddhism's stand on that?
In many religions, if the leaders (monk, sadhu or what ever may be.. ) do something wrong other monks says that they will be punished after death by god,but they keep on doing it. If god punished him instantly many will be saved. But this is not happening. How does Buddhism look at this?

Welcome to the site. I edited your question title, to summarize the question: I hope that's alright, and I hope you'll get the answers you're looking for.

You can use the 'tags' to find other questions and answers which have the same subjects as yours: for example, here is a list of previously-asked-and-answers questions about 'rebirth', in case those help to answer your question.

Disclaimer: My answers may lean towards the Theravada tradition.

Does Buddhism believe in rebirth?
Yes. But there is no permanent soul that transmigrates from one body to another. Instead, just as how the flame of one candle could light another, one is reborn with the final state of mind (representing the overall volitional tendencies cultivated during life) of the previous birth shaping the circumstances of the future birth. You can read the essay The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice by Thanissaro Bhikku. There is a section of another essay by Nyanatiloka Mahathera that discusses Kamma and Rebirth.

There is an general belief in almost all religions that our good and bad will be carry forwarded to next and next to next generation and all, what does Buddhism say about that?
The past volitional actions of thoughts, words and deeds shape the future circumstances according to the Ekamsena Sutta (quoted below). There is a good essay on Karma: A Study Guide, again by Thanissaro Bhikku.

"Given that I have declared, Ananda, that bodily misconduct, verbal
  misconduct, & mental misconduct should not be done, these are the
  drawbacks one can expect when doing what should not be done: One can
  fault oneself; observant people, on close examination, criticize one;
  one's bad reputation gets spread about; one dies confused; and — on
  the break-up of the body, after death — one reappears in the plane of
  deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell.
"Given that I have declared, Ananda, that good bodily conduct, good
  verbal conduct, & good mental conduct should be done, these are the
  rewards one can expect when doing what should be done: One doesn't
  fault oneself; observant people, on close examination, praise one;
  one's good reputation gets spread about; one dies unconfused; and — on
  the break-up of the body, after death — one reappears in the good
  destinations, in the heavenly world.

However, according to the Sivaka Sutta, not everything we experience is the result of past kamma.

"There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
  internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
  change of the seasons... from uneven care of the body... from harsh
  treatment... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how
  some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed
  on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any brahmans &
  contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an
  individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is
  entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they
  themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I
  say that those brahmans & contemplatives are wrong."

Almost all religions says give a part of money to god and that will be honoured after death. What is Buddhism's stand on that?
Buddhism encourages Dana, the practice of giving. You can read the essay, Dana: The Practice of Giving for details. Here, giving is not to the gods, but to monks, guests, travellers, the sick and the needy. The manner and attitude of giving is very important. The essay will tell you much more. There is a whole sutta for this, the Dana Sutta. I quote from it here:

"Then there is the case of a person who gives a gift not seeking his
  own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to
  store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after
  death.' Instead, he gives a gift with the thought, 'Giving is good.'
  He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland,
  perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a
  contemplative. ... "Having given this gift with the thought, 'Giving
  is good,' on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in
  the company of the Devas of the Thirty-three. Then, having exhausted
  that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a
  returner, coming back to this world.

In many religions, if the leaders (monk, sadhu or whatever may be.. ) do something wrong other monks says that they will be punished after death by god,but they keep on doing it. If god punished him instantly many will be saved. But this is not happening. How does Buddhism look at this?
Surely one who does wrong would face the consequences of his words and actions. This applies to monks and religious leaders too.
Your question hints that a religious leader who preaches wrong views or encourages wrong actions would influence many towards the wrong path. Hence, if such leaders get punished instantly, many would be saved from going down the wrong path.
According to the Kalama Sutta, the onus is on the follower of the path to select his teachers wisely and to discern the right teachings wisely. There are some details on how to do this, in the sutta. Thanissaro Bhikku, the translator, has these comments for this sutta:

Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha's carte blanche
  for following one's own sense of right and wrong, it actually says
  something much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be
  followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as
  historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the
  source seems reliable. One's own preferences are not to be followed
  simply because they seem logical or resonate with one's feelings.
  Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields
  when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any
  bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they
  must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise.
  The ability to question and test one's beliefs in an appropriate way
  is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and choose
  wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends.

Great answer with lots of references to the texts +1.

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


text:
Who or what decides that someone has enlightened himself?
Who or what decides that someone has enlightened himself?
It's just about an urge to know the point where/how enlightened one's or their followers approve that 'they are enlightened'. What happens immediately after that?

You don't need anyone's approval! Enlightenment is a direct experience.

Just as an example 'Why we say that gautam buddha was enlightened ?'. It was his direct experience only, not mine. I have info. only.

Listen to this: Monk Radio: The Buddha's Nibbana

You ask, "what happens immediate after that?", but I think a better question is: what is happening immediately, right now?  If enlightenment were conditional on some achievement or happened to some particular person, then it would end, just like a distant mirage in the desert disappears when the sun goes down.  Any enlightenment that can end (and, as such, any enlightenment I might 'have') is just as illusory as the mirage; after all, I will surely die.  I think this is good motivation for further investigation.

In the Dona Sutta, Dona the brahmin observed the Buddha meditating under a tree and based on his demeanour, Dona thought that this cannot be an ordinary human being.
So, Dona asked the Buddha whether he is a god (deva), a celestial musician (gandhabba), a nature spirit (yakkha) or a human being. The Buddha answered "No" each time. Then when asked, "Then what sort of being are you?", the Buddha replied:
"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."

So, the Buddha knows by himself that he is awake.
He knows by himself that he is not smeared by the world in the way that others are.
He knows by himself that all fermentations have been destroyed permanently and would no longer arise.
Here is my take on your question:
Imagine a scenario where a bunch of people are soundly asleep and suddenly one of them wakes up.
Now, he looks at the people around him who are still asleep, he knows for sure that he is awake and he knows for sure who else is sleeping and who else is awake.
But for those who are still asleep, could they know who is awake? Could they know what it means to be awake?
No, surely not.

Only you can decide for yourself that you are truly enlightened.
Why: Because enlightenment is overcoming any and all ideals and dogma you impose upon yourself, including the need for enlightenment.

Thank you. I wish to read some incidents/examples. In the context of changed actions/way of living/thinking and perception making (Before enlightened vs. Now enlightened).

Hi, welcome to Buddhism.SE Could you include some source material to support your answer?

I can confirm this. Source: I am enlightened.

See this article "What Does It Mean To Be Enlightened?" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.
In this article it is explained how the Buddha views enlightenment. Its based on a conversation the Buddha had with a Brahmin where the Buddha explains what is meant by a "Buddha".
This is the Buddhas own words:

“What has to be known, that I have known;
What has to be abandoned, that I have abandoned;
What has to be developed, that I have developed;
Therefore, O brahmin, I am a Buddha.”

In the article Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi then takes each step and explains it, what it consists of and how it leads to enlightenment. I must say that this article is brilliantly written by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi.
Lanka

I wish to read some incidents/examples. In the context of changed actions/way of living/thinking and perception making (Before enlightened vs. Now enlightened)
One theory is that there are Four stages of enlightenment.
The first of these four stage is stream-enterer or stream-winner,

In Buddhism, a Sotāpanna (Pali), Srotāpanna (Sanskrit; Chinese: 入流; pinyin: rùliú, Tibetan: རྒྱན་ཞུགས, Wylie: rgyun zhugs[1]), or "stream-winner"[2] is a person who has eradicated the first three fetters (sanyojanas) of the mind, namely self-view (or identity), clinging to rites and rituals, and skeptical doubt.

To try to understand that, I asked this question: What are examples of identity-view? It's not a great question (it's too long) but some people answered it well. If "abandoning identity-view" is a necessary characteristic of the first stage of enlightenment, you might like to read those answers to see what identity-view is.
Also the comments to this question, Are there any living enlightened people? explain there's a taboo (i.e. it breaks a Vinaya rule) about claiming to be enlightened (especially about claiming to be enlightened when you're not), so beware of that.

You can read about Nibbana and what Enlightment means
in this excellent Nibbana Sermon by  Venerable Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda
There are 33 sermons and they combine deep insight into the Dhamma with academic erudition, being based on copious quotations from the Pāli discourses that alternate with illustrative similes and useful indications for meditation practice.
http://www.seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/ms/html/Mind%20Stilled.htm#Mindstilled33
as an example from the above link on an arahant (one who is enlightened)

Tiṇakaṭṭhasamaṃ lokaṃ,
yadā paññāya passati,
mamattaṃ so asaṃvindaṃ,
'natthi me'ti na socati.

Translated:

"When one sees with wisdom,
This world as comparable to grass and twigs,
Not finding anything worthwhile holding onto as mine,
One does not grieve, saying: 'O! I have nothing!'"

Th 717, Adhimutta Theragāthā,
All the explanations are in the above link of the sermons  of Venerable Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda

If there is beauty, there must be ugliness;
If there is right, there must be wrong.
Wisdom and ignorance are complementary,
And illusion and enlightenment cannot be separated.
This is an old truth, don't think it was discovered recently.
"I want this, I want that"
Is nothing but foolishness.
I'll tell you a secret -
"All things are impermanent!
Ryokan, One Robe, One Bowl: The Zen Poetry of Ryokan

In the Palicanon I know two stories concerning this. The Buddha talks about when he himself (not yet judged by others) knew he's got the full awakening, the full wisdom - that was part of the story of his awakening process, and even a couple of self-assuring details are given.
And there are a lot of stories where people admit about themselves, that they are not yet fully awaken, one of the most prominent in the Parinibbans sutta, where Ananda, after 20 or more years of personal attendence with his master, says: my master goes away and I've not yet met my goal...
When it comes to the other problem, that others should recognize/accept etc that one has reached the full enlightenment, then the medium of communication is the "lion's roar" (not specific to the Buddha-dharma, but as well as to the Samana/ascetics movement) I think DN 8 or DN 12 contains the Buddha's "lions-roar" and there is also one about Sariputta's "lions roar". That means, there is no licensing authority but the recognizing depends on whether the "lions-roar" is convincing. Devadatta is an example, where high achievements also can -later in the course of life- revert and a formerly really high ranked samana/bhikkhu can get horribly compromized.
There is no enlightenment-"license" and the above means also that such a "license" given by others cannot be perfect/permanent.
If you ever vet yourself the experience of "whoa, now I know it really" - be it learning piano until mastership, ice-dancing or whatever then you likely shall understand that problem of "knowing-only-yourself" and the problem (is it one?) that to prove this to others is only by doing things masterly and convincingly.

I knew I had mastered the C programming language when I had a problem that could only be solved by the Comma Operator, and I thought it through and implemented it. Alas, no one to share my achievement with!

Ultimately one finds out if you are enlightened at the time of death and rebirth. :)

If i claim that i am enlightened will you believe? If if you take my words there will be lingering doubts about me. Is there any way to figure out? yes by becoming one. So that is the reason nobody asks the enlightened being. But if you ask an enlightened person he might say yes.
There is one way which is indicative of enlightenment. Brain waves can be monitored through wearable neural sensors. If a person brain emits delta waves which implies low activity level most of the time, he is most likely enlightened or close to enlightenment.

I didn't understand what were saying about delta waves, and/or why you  said it.

In East thoughtlessness is a sign of health. Healthier you are, more thoughtless you will be. Enlightenment is the healthiest state. There are wearable sensors like NeuroSky which can be used to figure out brain activity. Enlightened person have very low brain activity (Delta Wave).If a person's brain emits delta wave almost all of the time he is either enlightened or close to being one. Try it out on a monk and yourself. You will see remarkable difference.

I am talking about scientific way of figuring out whether a person is enlightened or not. Although answer cant be simple yes or no but probability can be determined.

I've seen this which claims that "happiness" resulting from meditation practice is visible on a functional MRI. But I haven't seen news of a test which would associate "enlightenment" with delta waves.

When you say "thoughtlessness" is "healthy" I guess you're talking about Mushin.

when u hit that stage you know it, some people call it mushin, some label it as no-mind, others thoughtlessness. Important thing is to measure it to some extent. MRI is expensive. $100 neurosky is cheaper way. Though one will be required to wear for few hours. But it is good indicator for judging progress too. Try it on yourself.

I thought that an Alpha State was indicative of 'flow' or the engaged awareness of people fully immersed in what they are doing, usually creative activity. Delta waves are normally only seen in the deepest dreamless sleep. If enlightenment is to be awake, sleep brain waves would seem odd.

If something is inefficient it uses lots of energy. For example a car with flat tyres. Same thing is true for brain too. It is a highly congested phenomenon where one part of the brain  kicks off others and a chain reaction follows. When your awake and relaxed at the same time delta state is reached. Most people are tensed while awake.


text:
Is the attempt to understand others a form of value judgement?
In a recent conversation and in an attempt to understand others, i found myself not able often understand the actions or behaviors of others to leading to a sense of mind numbness.
If i am not able to understand the actions of others, i find that i am in a state of not understanding and my mind/brain attempts to make sense of it.
This can be extremely vicious since i am unable to let go and i often find myself in an infinite loop of sorts which in many situations is very demotivating, depressing and saddening.

Should i not attempt to understand the behaviors of others especially if they have cause harm be it mental, physical or emotional?
If i do not understand their actions, how does one approach the individual?
If i did understand, is it a form of value judgement?
If i were to abandon the choice to understand, is it a form of value judgement?

Examples - This are real-world situations i have faced

For example, if i were approached by an individual who had
traumatized another and my inability to reconcile their behavior made
it highly saddening as to why one would hurt another?
Another example is when i find others taking a short term view of
situations or simply not working with others in a cohesive manner
(looking after their own interests).
The unwillingness to help when help is sought or to forsake other priorities when attention is needed in other areas

I am unsure what the Buddha would do in situations such as these. If he were approached by a murderer for example, what would the Buddha's do, say, not say, etc?

look up Angulimala for how the Buddha would treat a murderer.

Even when everyone's motivation is understood, there is still the challenge of overcoming our habitual reaction to their actions. Most people like to blame others, and not look deeply inside and effect change. Explaining to someone why they act the way they do won't change their action. Often they are powerless. All we can do is look inside and change our reaction to everyone's actions.

This is one of the interesting aspects of Buddhism, that in its ideal form it doesn't allow prejudice (valid or otherwise) to interfere with the teaching. The Buddha taught people of all sorts, good and bad.

"Brethren, the omniscient Buddha whose wisdom is vast, ready, swift, sharp, crushing heretical doctrines, after having converted, by the power of his own knowledge, the Brahmins Kūṭadanta and the rest, the ascetics Sabhiya and the rest, the thieves Aṅgulimāla &c., the yakkhas Āḷavaka &c., the gods Sakka and the rest, and the Brahmins Baka &c., made them humble, and ordained a vast multitude as ascetics and established them in the fruition of the paths of sanctification."
-- Jāt 542 (Cowell, trans)

The only distinction he seems to have made when deciding who to teach is between worthwhile and pointless.

Now the Blessed One thought: 'To whom shall I preach the doctrine first? Who will understand this doctrine easily?'
Mv 1.6 (Rhys-Davids, trans)

Since Buddhism teaches the overcoming of partiality, the first thing one should accomplish when trying to come to terms with other people's behaviour is to free oneself from sadness or anger at the bad deeds of others.

Whether that venerable one dwells in the Sangha or alone, while some there are well behaved and some are ill behaved and some there teach a group, while some here are seen concerned about material things and some are unsullied by material things, still that venerable one does not despise anyone because of that.
-- MN 47 (Bodhi, trans)

Having said and quoted all this, on to your questions:
1. Should i not attempt to understand the behaviors of others especially if they have cause harm be it mental, physical or emotional?
There is no reason to single out such behaviours. But the question of whether one should ever attempt to understand the behaviours of others is more interesting. The goal of Buddhism is ostensibly the attainment of freedom from suffering. Insofar as understanding the behaviours of others leads to freedom from suffering, it should be pursued.
Certainly, understanding others is considered useful in understanding oneself; it is also useful in helping others to understand themselves, as you can then provide advice and point out (tactfully) facets the other person may be missing about their situation.
2. If i do not understand their actions, how does one approach the individual?
Buddhism doesn't recognize the existence of an individual in ultimate reality. Hence, taking the present for what it is. This helps immensely in interpersonal relations, as one need not bear grudges or prejudge others based on their past. Since beings are fluid and dynamic, the best way to approach others is with an open mind, ready to take them at face value in the present moment.
3. If i did understand, is it a form of value judgement?
In Buddhism, we tend to think more in terms of partiality than judgement. Judging whether something is good or evil can be wisdom based; partiality is always based on delusion (or more directly, one of four: desire, anger, delusion, or fear - the four agati). So, understanding whether someone's actions are good or bad is useful; liking or disliking them is harmful.
4. If i were to abandon the choice to understand, is it a form of value judgement?
I guess you mean is it a form of e.g. aversion if you reject the impulse to understand others? If so, then for sure it can be; it all depends on one's mindset. In general, the Buddha was critical of those who refuse to help others:

‘In the same way, Lohicca, if anyone should say: “Suppose an ascetic or Brahmin were to discover some good doctrine and thought he ought not to declare it to anyone else, for what can one man do for another?” he would be a source of danger to those young men of good family who, following the Dhamma and discipline taught by the Tathāgata, attain to such excellent distinction as to realise the fruit of Stream-Entry, of Once-Returning, of Non-Returning, of Arahantship — and to all who ripen the seeds of a rebirth in the deva-world. Being a source of danger to them, he is uncompassionate, and his heart is grounded in hostility, and that constitutes wrong view, which leads to ... hell or an animal rebirth.
-- DN 12 (Walshe, trans)

but this doesn't mean one need go out of one's way to try and figure others out, just that one should help others as appropriate. And of course, in order to help, one must understand.

One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.
-- Dhp 158 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

In summary, understand others is useful in that it gives the potential to help oneself and others. It is partiality that is problematic, as well as obsession with others to the extent that one forgets oneself.

Thank you yuttadhammo. You pointed to a number of things and this leads to wanting to understand it deeper. You comment that there is no need to single out behaviors. What if these behaviors repeat? Wouldn't the acceptance of such behaviors simply reinforce the actions? Isn't that simply human that if one sees that the behavior is validated (or ignored), one continues with it?

You note that the best way to approach others is with an open mind, ready to take them at face value in the present moment. I appreciate this however how does wisdom play a role in this. For example, over the course of one's life and experiences, do this not provide pointers or hints to what is being confronted? For example, as a child i was raised in an environment surrounded by violence, lies, etc. This led to learning body language, the behaviors exhibited and whether the person could be trusted.

I am far from being a saint however am tired of the continuous role playing and facades of keeping up appearances. We tend to wear masks when at work, with friends, with loved ones, etc. I don't want to be a dichotomy of each one of these.

You make the final comment that It is partiality that is problematic, as well as obsession with others to the extent that one forgets oneself. I agree hence i am tired, confused and am wanting to take a different path. I want to help (especially when i can see it being valuable to not just myself but others). I want to reduce the playtime of the concepts of superiority or inferiority. I want to contribute and would like others to for the greater good. I feel like i am lost, fighting a losing battle with others and myself.

You also note that but this doesn't mean one need go out of one's way to try and figure others out. Where does one draw the line in the sand be it understanding or allowing certain behaviors and actions?

One of the reasons for not "understanding" others is our own unwillingness to accept that others can act out of malice, selfishness and basically unskillfully. Their actions are conditioned by their upbringing, their values, friends, families, books they read, goals they want etc.. Can we really understand their conditionings when they are that numerous?
We accept that they behave badly because of their conditioning. If you and I had their conditioning we would behave exactly the way they do, because we are conditioned.
People behave because they are conditioned both good and bad.
How hard is it to change our own conditioning and how much more difficult others conditioning.
If we want (craves) to change others, and that craving is not satisfied, suffering arises (2nd noble truth).
One can earnestly try and then accept the results as there are and no suffering arises and then try again, and again..


text:
Mindfulness : relation between manasikāra and Citta
What is the  correct use of manasikāra ( attention ) and Citta in the context of Mindfulness ?
Is there any difference in terms of spiritual  effect of keeping attention while I do daily works and keeping attention on breath with the mental recitation of "Buddho" ?

Manasikara is a cognitive and thinking function of the mind and related to volition or sankharas. Basically you bring your attention to an object, but this can be tainted by our perception, views and habitual tendencies. Yonisho-manashikara is wise habits of thinking where attention is directed to the source or cause of experience and events. It is a factor of stream-entry (Sotapanna) or first stage of enlightenment. Ayonisho-manasikara is unskillful habits of thinking (paying attention or fixating on unwholesome thoughts, feelings, perception and irrelevant issues)  that perpetuates suffering and entanglements.
Your attention should be on the awareness of the arising and passing within the framework of the 4 foundation of mindfullness, without clinging and craving towards any sense inputs / sensations (equanimous). This way your attention is right.
When reciting a word it creates verbal fabrications. When you have sloth and torpor then this is fine, to stir up energy. But in general practice may not be the best thing to do, unless you are aware of it's implications.
When doing daily work be mindful of the breathing, postures by scanning the outline of your body, sensations on your body, as they are generally easy to do.


text:
Non Buddha Realms
I am not sure if I am asking about Original Enlightenment, but suppose that a sentient being doesn't (really) know they are a Buddha.
Are they really in e.g. a human or animal realm, or are they in a Buddha realm but experiencing obstructions to their awareness of that?

Hello. I noticed your question is tagged as "tendai". Are you looking for an answer from that perspective only?

no really, no - answer from any tradition. my question the way it is framed just reminded me of what i know about that school :)

From a Theravada point of view, a Buddha is an enlightened human with perfected insight and wisdom who lives in a human realm until he passes away into parinibbāna; at which point he would cease to exist. As an enlightened human with perfected insight and wisdom, it would not be possible to experience obstruction to awareness.
From some Mahayana points of view, we are all Buddhas already:

Another way of putting this is to say that Buddha Nature is "something" -- perhaps not the right word, but I don't think there is a right word -- that you are, together with all beings. And this "something" is already enlightened. Because beings cling to a false idea of a finite self, set apart from everything else, they do not experience themselves as Buddhas. But when beings clarify the nature of their existence they experience the Buddha Nature that was always there.
  Source: http://buddhism.about.com/od/mahayanabuddhism/a/Buddha-Nature.htm

(The above is a very basic reference to Buddha Nature, but I didn't want to get off topic with too much detail of something I am not well versed in.)
The concept of Buddha Nature also allows for non humans to be Buddhas:

The Lotus Sutra, written between 100 BCE and 200 CE, further developed and popularized the doctrine of the Buddha-nature. It influenced subsequent later sutras.[26]
  The tenth chapter emphasizes, in accordance with the Bodhisattva-ideal of the Mahayana teachings, that everyone can be liberated. All living beings can become a buddha, not only monks and nuns, but also laypeople, śrāvakas, bodhisattvas, and non-human creatures.[26] It also details that all living beings can be a 'teacher of the Dharma'. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

So from this point of view, with all beings as part of an enlightened "something" many of whom do not experience their enlightenment due to delusion of a separate self; it would be possible for a Buddha of any realm to not know they were a Buddha.


text:
Is the title of tathagata ever literal?
I think it translates as e.g. "one who has thus gone".
My question is whether any historical being has ever really and in entirety "thus gone".
Perhaps in spirit, or in expression, but if e.g. Gautama really did - wouldn't we all be likewise "thus come"?

possible duplicate of Why does the Buddha call himself the Tathāgata?

@ChrisW i don't think the question is the same - please do edit the question if you feel you can help  :) ??

The answers to that question say that it has several (eight) possible 'etymological' meanings. I don't know what a 'literal' meaning is, that you could be asking about anew, apart from the several/ambiguous 'etymological' meanings. Unrul3r's answer is that they can't tell whether it's "gata" or "agata" i.e. going or coming. Andrei's is that it means "rooted". My guess is that its meaning includes the Buddha's loss of identity-view. And then you're asking about "in spirit, or in expression" which might be the very opposite of "literal".

I'm not sure what you trying to ask. Is it something like, "What does 'tathagata' mean? Was Gautama telling the truth when he called himself 'tathagata'? And/or any other historical being? Are we the opposite of whatever 'tathagata' means?" And you added the [tag:boddhisattva-vows] tag: do you want to connect that, somehow, with what you're asking?

This question is hard to interpret. By asking, "is X ever Y?", it seems like you are asking about the usage of X in a particular context; but then you clarify in the form of "has anyone ever P" which is a totally different question. Lastly, why would Gautama's having done P mean that we have all ~P?

Also "~P" could be "not-thus gone" as well as or instead of "thus not-gone".

The term Tathagata is gramatically ambiguous. You can parse it in two main ways. You can parse it as Tatha+gata, "He who has gone thus" which refers to going over to the other shore, which is a title of Nirvana, or you can take it as Tatha+agata (in which case the first a in agata drops out due to Sandhi) which means "He who has come thus" referring to coming to see the truth, or as "He who has come to see thus" because the term thus here is related to the term Tathata, meaning suchness, which is another title of Nirvana.

This article is highly relevant
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.054.olen.html
I don't have time to write a full response, but that article (especially the Notes section) contains a lot of worthy information about the origins of the name.

Thank you for the reference! The note says, "consciousness of a Tathagata is untraceable" but the referenced Sn 1074 says, "goes to an end that cannot be classified". So, IMO it's consciousness after death that's unclassifiable. Using the bird-and-sailors simile, I can see the advantage of a bird that's unattached to the ship, but presumably the sailors need to be able to watch the direction in which the bird will fly away.

I think there is a clue when the Buddha was asked "Who are you?"
Buddha thought for awhile and then said I am awake.
Buddha did not say I am the son of a king, the father of a child and a husband, he did not say he was the head of a spiritual order.
http://www.noble-buddhism-beliefs.com/buddha-quotes.html

I am Awake
A Brahman saw the Buddha resting under a tree in meditation. The
  Brahman was impressed with the Buddha's disposition and demeanor.   He
  asked, "Are you a god?"
"No, Brahman, I'm not a god."
"Are you an angel?"
"No", replied the Buddha.
"You must be a spirit then?"
"No, I'm not a spirit," said the Buddha.
"Then what are you?"
"I'm awake."

"I am awake" he said. In modern terms it is not a long stretch to say I am consciousness. Well if I am consciousness or I am awake, is there any historical figure the Buddha would point out to us? Is it not probable that those who are trying to establish historical figures waking up have missed a fine point? It is not the historical figure that changes, it is their state of consciousness.
One who has thus gone would then be one who has gone out of the awareness of the world seen as things to a state of seeing all as an expression of consciousness.
We are all potential Buddha realized beings so we are all potentially "One who has thus gone." The spiritual preparation does have steps of purifying intentions and disciplining an unruly sense of self. But the emphasis is more on realizing awakeness than on categorizing our unpolished diamond nature.
So for me the question is what can I do to know in my heart without wavering or doubt that "I am awake." No more illusions then. Perhaps that is the going beyond, going beyond illusions. More than that is difficult to say with certainty.


text:
Breath getting shorter and shorter
Practice : Meditation using breath
I'm practicing sitting meditation using breath according to  Thai Forest Tradition method.
Mentally reciting of "Buddho" .
I practice at home so would like to get help based on my experience so far
I noticed my breath getting shorter and sometimes period of no breath or "nano/very short" size of breath .
When it is a series of "nano/very short" size of breath , mostly what I experience is "waiting" for next "in" breath ? Is this right or where should I concentrate during such occasions ?

This may not be directly related to your tradition but maybe of some value to you or perhaps another reader.
Generally when your bodily fabrications calm down, your breath becomes very short, becomes far apart and even stop for a while. At this point you have to switch to sensations. Generally this will be pleasant sensations but sometimes maybe even gross. If you want to increase your concentration keep it at a point in your upper lip. If not you can choose your whole body.
There are 16 stages of Anapana. This is where you transition at the 5th stage.
Also see: Mindfulness With Breathing : A Manual for Serious Beginners by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Author), Santikaro Bhikkhu (Translator) which is a good book to read.
Also another and free books is: Manual of Mindfulness of Breathing (Anapana Dipani) by Ledi Sayadaw Mahathera, Aggamahapandita, D. Litt.

I found the answer in the first book you have listed above . Many thanks
Can be found free here https://campuslink.okstate.edu/organization/buddhist-student-association/DocumentLibrary/View/234593


text:
Buddhism's views on environmental stewardship questions
1)  What does Buddhism’s religious texts say about the environment
2)  How much importance is placed environmental stewardship in Buddhism
3)  What is Buddhism’s beliefs on humans living with the environment
4)  What do Buddhism’s religious figures state about environmental stewardship
5)  Are the teachings of Buddhism related to environmental stewardship open for interpretation

Hi John and Welcome to Buddhism.SE! You've submitted some interesting questions but it might be best if they are split up and submitted as several different questions. Our Welcome page has useful information for getting started on the site.
http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1502/i-am-a-new-user-here-at-buddhism-se-what-should-i-know-before-i-post

See also Are ecological concerns supported explicitly in Buddhism?

Hello John and welcome to Buddhism SE. Nice to see such interest and enthusiasm for learning. As Robin said it might be a good idea to split up your questions. This way it will be easier for other people to answer and you will probably get better and more precise answers.

I'm putting this on hold... Please flag it for reopening if it can be pared down to a single question. Also, feel free to post new questions for each issue.

This free downloadable book might have something useful for you. http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/en/displayimage.php?album=15&pid=1606#top_display_media

"The Buddhist Attitude Towards Nature"


text:
Why will-power could not be used to regulate kaya , vedana and citta?
I found the below from the book
Mindfulness with Breathing: A Manual for Serious Beginners
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindfulness-Breathing-Manual-Serious-Beginners/dp/0861711114

The Thai word kuab-kum is used throughout these talks. It can be
  translated 'to regulate; to control or confine; to oversee,
  supervise, or superintend.' When one of these translations appear, all
  of the rest should be understood. In all cases, kuab-kum depends on
  sati and wisdom, never force or will-power.

Could someone explains why will-power could not be used to regulate kaya , vedana and citta?

I have no knowledge of Thai but what I think is said here is:
Anatta nature is such that you cannot effect any of the aggregates by will power alone in an absolute way ever lasting way. You can stay in one posture but this is to a limited time. So you have limited influence but not absolute at a grosser level. At the level of arising and passing you have no control, whatsoever. When phenomena arises you cannot make it not pass away. You cannot stop phenomena arising.
But having said this you can have limited influence over all the aggregates by what you do at the present moment though influencing the fabrication process (Karmic and Citta Niyama resultants). E.g. by calming the breath you can calm the bodily fabrications. Certain volitions give certain results later. These can be viewed as regulating, i.e. you regulate the present moment. Awareness of the arising and passing away of: the aggregates / mind matter process / within the 4 foundations of mindfulness, equanimous to sensations devoid of clinging and craving, creating positive fabrication (like Metta), etc. are forms of regulation.

"you can have limited influence over all the aggregates by what you do at the present moment" from whom/what this influence comes ? having this very little ability to regulate confuses me with the concept of "anatta"

At the present moment you can do skillful action which will condition the future as Karmic results.

You have no absolute control though. E.g. if you have no hair and you do a good deed wishing it to grow back will likely not materialise. At least not in the way and extent that you want it to be but there will be some karmic consequence.

Also strong will power backed by concentration can cause some conditions to materialise. But again not exactly the way you want it and will not last for ever.

Thank you . Even it is negligible in "power" , what ever the ability we have as "will-power" , to whom/what belongs to ? e.g. Nature ,Atma ?

It is not negligible. It is not absolute and everlasting.

Hi Suminda. I changed some grammar in your answer. Hope that is okay.

Very much appreciated!

Also see my answer: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/8979/295


text:
Is there a conflict between dependent origination and right effort?
My current understanding of dependent origination is that things cause other things to arise and cease and ultimately it a big interconnected web of influences. If that's reasonably correct (on a provisional level) then what meaning does right effort or just effort generally have in that context.
If I arise and cease dependent on other things then where does my own effort come into it? If I decide to practice the Dharma how does that come about? Isn't my decision to practice just the interplay of causes in a big interconnected web?
I appreciate that this kind of questioning can be (rightly) criticised as metaphysical nitpicking. However when I meditate (or even just sit around and reflect) this kind of question comes up for me. It's like a little personal koan that keeps nagging at me so I would appreciate any input - even if it is just a reminder not to worry and get practicing.

See also other topics tagged '[tag:free-will]' ... I think you might be asking about the connection between 'self' and 'will' (i.e. intent or effort).

@ChrisW it does have a strong element of free will. I didn't want to use that term as I didn't want to influence any answerers. Also I don't really want the question to go onto free will in the western tradition which I feared it might. However the tag is a good idea. I shall retag

Although not strictly a Buddhist perspective, Ramana Maharishi used to say - the only freedom we have is how we choose to respond. Victor Frankl also mentioned "Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom." I think the stimulus is caused by dependent origination, but the response is our free will and right effort.

"Is there a conflict between dependent origination and right effort?"
I'm not sure I understand...but I think one conflict is in the word "causes", and also with how to interpret (and make use of) dependent origination. For example, one could express the following idea: "because of his effort, Gotama reached nibbāna". Does that mean that nibbāna was conditioned by his efforts? And yet, where is the "effort" link in dependent origination formulation? Also, in that case, would it be proper to conclude that nibbāna is conditioned?
When dependent origination is taught in the suttas, often what seems to be stressed are, literally, conditions, not causes as we often understand them (eg. agents that actively produce or directly contribute to a result).

When this, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
-- Ud. 1:3

For example, we see in a sutta:

with the six sense bases as condition, contact;
-- SN 12:1

And yet, we cannot say from above that the six sense bases cause (or produce) contact; contact is the "meeting of the three" (which is detailed elsewhere). If a contact is present, it means the corresponding sense base is present.
"If I decide to practice the Dharma how does that come about? Isn't my decision to practice just the interplay of causes in a big interconnected web?"
Answering "yes" to "decision is just interplay of causes" could open to a deterministic view, depending on what these causes are. But here's a nice sutta that this reminds me of:

"Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.
SN 12.23

Finally, always good to have in mind:

"Lord, who craves?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said.
-- SN 12.12

Where we don't have a choice:

stop, maintain or prolong, create phenomena and influence, control arising and passing of phenomena. Even at a grosser level the influence is limited.

Where we have a choice:

not being reactive to sense stimulus but proactive to it
influence and regulate your mind towards skillful states and away from unwholesome states

Exercising the latter help you to fabricate better existence or stop fabrications altogether.
There are two places to work on breaking the cycle of Dependent Origination (DO).

To keep your mind free from delusion focus on arising and passing of phenomena.
Keep your mind equanimous and devoid of craving and clinging thus not reacting to sense stimulus with unwholesome mental states

Like any other processes DO needs it's fuel to continue. The fuel is an untamed mind influenced by craving. So you can extinguish this process by not feeding it with it's fuel, i.e. be equanimous without clinging and craving towards sensations and being mindful of arising and passing of phenomena of the aggregates. The existing fuel will burn out and DO will collapse. You can catalyse this process by actively calming the fabrications, i. e. do some fire fighting.

Your question basically boils down to "is there anything called free will?".
There is 'will'. But it is not necessarily free. Even when you get a decision made in the courts, if the jury or the judge is influenced by politicians or corporates, can you call it a free judgment? But it's a judgement nonetheless. Likewise, our will is influenced by greed, hatred and ignorance. So we can't really call it free.
The Citta section of the Abhidhamma explains 17 thought moments of a thought. The 8th is the one responsible for decision making. But that doesn't mean the 8th cittakhana is uncaused. The only uncaused Nama Dhamma is Nibbana and it has nothing to do with decision making.
Speaking of the right effort, it is of four kinds:
The effort
(1) to prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states;
(2) to abandon unwholesome states that have already arisen;
(3) to arouse wholesome states that have not yet arisen;
(4) to maintain and perfect wholesome states already arisen.
But this effort is not uncaused. It has multiple causes. Why would you want to make such an effort, if you didn't realise that it's important? How would you realise that it is important if you are deluded or if the Budhha did not preach the Dhamma or if there's no suffering in the world or if you were not born as a human etc.?

"If I arise and cease dependent on other things then where does my own effort come into it? If I decide to practice the Dharma how does that come about? Isn't my decision to practice just the interplay of causes in a big interconnected web?

A lot, for the flapping of a butterfly's wings can result in a drastic change in a system's later state (see the Butterfly effect). Also it's a mistaken view to believe that one has no freedom of choice. The Buddha refuted this view in MN 101. Therefore one's decision to practice or not practice the Dhamma now can result in 2 very different futures in this life and the many to come.

In short i would say do not worry that much about such matters. The thing is that intellectual knowledge will not get one to enlightenment or allow a deeper understanding of the dhamma. Like the onion-simile. By using the intellect one can only penetrate the top layers. By using the method of insight meditation one can penetrate into the core of the onion.
It can be beneficial to try to contemplate such matters intellectually and to a certain extent it is helpful to try and grapple with these concepts but one should know the limit of the intellect. Intellectual knowledge also called "book knowledge" because it has no reference point to reality, will not set one free from samsara.
For liberation to happen insight knowledge into how reality functions is needed. That can be gained through insight meditation practice. The experiental knowledge that is gained here is also called wisdom/insight and that knowledge will create understanding of reality.
This understanding of reality will allow one to see clearly, also called clear comprehension of phenomena. One will come to see that both beings and non-beings consist of mental and physical phenomena that arise and cease on their own accord. These mental and physical phenomena consists of a configuration of the 5 aggregates. As we know from the Buddhas teachings then when these 5 aggregates come together and create a biophysio-psychological machine - a being - then there arises the false notion of an I, a Me, a Self.
This false idea of a Self is merely a mental formation belonging to the 4th aggregate of mental formations.
For references to the texts please see MN 28: Mahahatthipadopama Sutta. In here its talked about the 5 aggregates and how they are not a Self. I am here quoting from "The chapter of The Greater Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant's Footprint on p. 281, in The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi"*:

Now both the internal earth element and the external earth element are simply earth element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self".
"Now there comes a time when the water element is disturbed and then the external earth element vanishes. When even this external earth element, great as it is, is seen to be impermanent, subject to destruction, disappearance, and change, what of this body, which is clung to by craving and lasts but a while? There can be no considering that as "I" or "mine" or "I am".

The above quotes are concerning the earth and water element out of the four great elements which belongs to the 1st aggregate of form. The above words of course is the same for all the aggregates.
So regarding your question; if you take out the I, Me, Self is there then a problem?
Everything becomes problematic and confusing when a Self is added to the equation. It reminds me of a story told by Ajahn Punnadhammo. The story is from Zen buddhism and involves a man looking for the owner of an empty house and not finding him. Then who is doing the looking? Ajahn Punnadhammo then explains that no one is doing the looking. There is nobody home.
When one does insight meditation and come to see that all phenomena are impermanent and unsatisfactory one will then come to understand and realize not-self.
So in short. Its useful to contemplate such questions as you ask but only to a certain extent. One should not get obsessed with such matters since intellectual knowledge will not get one far. Insight practice is the way to go. Direct investigation and examinination of reality. That produces wisdom which will grant one access to understanding reality by realizing the drops of pure insight.
I hope this might be of some help. On purpose i did not answer the relation between Dependent Origination and Right Effort because as i understand it the combining factor was "an experiencing I, Me, Self and when that is added to the equation the question becomes meaningless. Like when the Buddha was asked questions about e.g. the infinite/finite universe i.e. The Four Imponderables and The Ten Indeterminate Questions.
Here the Buddha remained silent. Why? Because he knew that the question was framed in the wrong way. The question was already flawed from the beginning impliying something that is not there.
Through practice you will get an answer to your question but it might be an answer much different that what you think or expect. You might realize that there wasnt a question to begin with.
Lanka

First a brief answer:
DO is in operation all the time and the reason we do not yet see it is because we have the wrong view that there is a self (me) doing all this things.
Then the question is: if "not I" is doing all these things even though I have the wrong view that all this things are done by me, how then does things get done by "not me"?
Here DO comes in (I use because instead of depending just to make it clearer):
Because there is contact, feeling arises, because of feeling craving( or its lesser form desire arises). At this point desire(craving) is a past conditioning, habit if you like, and conditioning takes over when mindfulness is weak.
Question: what conditioning takes over when "not me" choose an orange instead of an apple?
Is it because "not me" like an orange over an apple? No, because there is "not me" there cannot be like and dislike. So what conditioning then?
The answer is that there are 24 types of conditioning it could be:
Dominance condition, habitual condition, proximity condition, etc..
The subject of causal relationship is complex it is in the 7th book of Abhidhamma called the patthana (contains summary of conditions)
For the book Patthana Dhamma is practically unreadable even for those who have some mastery of Abhidhamma.
It is said of  the "Patthana", or "Causal Conditions and Relations".
... And while he contemplated the contents of the "Dhammasangani" (the first book) , his body did not emit rays; and similarly with the contemplation of the next five books. But when, coming to the "Great Book" (the seventh book) , he began to contemplate the twenty-four universal causal relations of condition, of presentation, and so on, his omniscience certainly found its opportunity therein. For as the great fish "Timirati-pingala" (a giant fish) finds room only in the great ocean, so his omniscience truly finds room only in the Great Book. Rays of six colours- indigo, golden, red, white, tawny, and dazzling- emitted from the Teacher's body, as he was contemplating the subtle and abstruse Dhamma by his omniscience which had found such opportunity....

In a bit more detail of the conditions that leads to one practising or not:
“If I arise and cease dependent on other things then where does my own effort come into it? If I decide to practice the Dharma how does that come about? Isn't my decision to practice just the interplay of causes in a big interconnected web?”
It is not only our effort which gets us to continue our practice, there are lots of skilful/unskilful conditions that conditioned us.
I’ve listed them down with their conditions. It is not exhaustive but just an indication of how complex are these interplay of conditions.
There is also the repetition (habit) condition (Asevana paccayo) when we do our practice daily.
i.  There are six Roots Condition (Hetu paccayo):

Greed,
Aversion,
Delusion,
Non-attachment,
Goodwill,
and Wisdom.

ii. There are twelve constituents of the Path Condition (Magga paccayo) :

Right Understanding,
Right Thoughts,
Right Speech,
Right Action,
Right Livelihood,
Right Effort,
Right Mindfulness,
Right Concentration,
Wrong Views,
Wrong Thoughts,
Wrong Effort,
Wrong one-pointedness.

Some Faculty condition (Indriya paccyo):

Happiness,
Pain,
Pleasure,
Displeasure,
Equanimity,
Confidence,
Effort,
Mindfulness,
Concentration,
Wisdom,

There are four Dominating conditions (Upanissaya paccayo)  :

Intention (or Wish-to-do),
Energy (or Effort),
Mind (or Thought) ,
and Reason (or Intellect).

etc.....

Hello Samadhi. Thank you for your contributions to the site. Just noticing that multiple accounts seem to be started under the same name for  your contributions. There may be an advantage to sticking to one account and having points accumulate as at certain point levels different functions such as the ability to edit the site become available. Just a suggestion though. Be well. :)

I couldn't sign into my first account because I didn't register so had to use re-sign. Shame about the points unless you can tell me a way of merging the 2 accounts.

Ah, I see. That would be a good question to ask on http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/. Our moderators might be able to assist.

My simple vision on this is that, while you being on an intrincate Web, you are part of this Web.
Furthermore, even though you couldn't change the inputs you receive, it's your decision how to react to them, or whether not to react.

Hello Albert and welcome to Buddhism.SE! Our Welcome page has useful tips for posting answers and questions. http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1502/i-am-a-new-user-here-at-buddhism-se-what-should-i-know-before-i-post

You can analyse this with the following analogy:
Say I have a ball in my hand and I'm going to throw it for you to catch it. From an objective point of view, we know with absolute certainty that the trajectory of the ball is subject to gravity, the wind, and depends on the initial push given to the ball. In fact, it is totaly determined by these factors. However, even though we are absolutelly sure of this, this doesn't help us a lot when we try to catch the ball. Subjectivelly, you have to decide intuitivelly where you're going to put your hands to catch the ball. And the reason is simple: there's simply too much detailed information to take in so that you can calculate the trajectory with perfect precision. Instead you make an intuitive best decision.
The same is true when you're in a situation where you have to make an effort to choose the best action. Objectivelly, we can be absolutelly sure that the situation at hand is entirely subject to causes. But there is just too much detailed information for us to take in and "calculate" the absolute best action with perfect precision. Therefore, subjectivelly, you have to apply effort to make the best decision with the limited information you can grasp.

The word "I" is simply mentioned too many times in the question and this is what the "conflict" is.
If the "I" itself was seen as "dependently originated" then no special effort would be required for practice because that insight itself would be the culmination of practice.
SN 12.12 makes it clear that the "I" does not practise meditation (i.e., observe dependently arisen sense objects). Instead, the "I" arises at a later time from the process of "becoming".

No.
Dependent Origination, or as I have heard it expressed slightly differently, "Interdependent Co-Emergence", is a philosophical point to be studied. It is an idea to be explored.
Right Effort is a Practice.
There is no conflict, as they are different Kayas, as it were :-)

Other terms I know of: Dependent Arising, Dependent Co-arising, Connected Causes (my favorite).