text:
Is the Ocean Samadhi a metaphor or an actual meditation?
In Huayen related documents I see the phrase "ocean samadhi" a lot. (also ocean mirror samadhi, ocea seal samadhi) Here is one source:

Huayan teaching features a range of holographic samadhi instructions
  drawn from the Flower Ornament Sutra. These practices help clear away
  limited preconceptions, foster fresh perspectives on reality, and
  expand mental capacities by expressing our deep interconnectedness.
... Another model is the
  "ocean mirror" or "ocean seal" samadhi. In this image, awareness is
  like the vast ocean surface, reflecting and confirming in detail all
  phenomena of the entire universe. Waves of phenomena may arise on the
  surface of the ocean, distorting its ability to mirror plainly. But
  when the waves subside as the water calms and clears, the ocean mirror
  again reflects all clearly. Our individual minds are like this, often
  disturbed by turbulence, but also capable of settling serenely to
  reflect clear awareness.
Ref.

I searched Cleary's Avatamasaka translation and only found the word Ocean used as a metaphor or simile. (The kindle stops searching at 500 hits, well before the end of the book)
Anyhow, can't tell if this is a sort of visualization exercise, literally involving thinking about waves and the ocean, or if this is just a metaphor for the meditative states achieved in samyak-sam-bodhi.

The waves and the ocean metaphor are found in several places in the Lankavatara Sutra where the storehouse consciousness is said to be like the ocean and the waves are like the other seven consciousnesses, so I think the term Ocean Samadhi most likely refers to the state in which the other seven consciousnesses cease.

Sounds like Mahamudra ,  (Maybe? Let me know if I am off base here)

Mahamudra cannot be taught. But most intelligent Naropa, Since you
  have undergone rigorous austerity, With forbearance in suffering and
  with devotion to your Guru, Blessed One, take this secret instruction
  to heart.
Is space anywhere supported? Upon what does it rest? Like space,
  Mahamudra is dependant upon nothing; Relax and settle in the continuum
  of unalloyed purity, And, your bonds loosening, release is certain.
Gazing intently into the empty sky, vision ceases; Likewise, when mind
  gazes into mind itself, The train of discursive and conceptual thought
  ends And supreme enlightenment is gained.
Like the morning mist that dissolves into thin air, Going nowhere but
  ceasing to be, Waves of conceptualization, all the mind's creation,
  dissolve, When you behold your mind's true nature.
Pure space has neither colour nor shape And it cannot be stained
  either black or white; So also, mind's essence is beyond both colour
  and shape And it cannot be sullied by black or white deeds.
The darkness of a thousand aeons is powerless To dim the crystal
  clarity of the sun's heart; And likewise, aeons of samsara have no
  power To veil the clear light of the mind's essence.
Although space has been designated "empty", In reality it is
  inexpressible; Although the nature of mind is called "clear light",
  Its every ascription is baseless verbal fiction.
The mind's original nature is like space; It pervades and embraces all
  things under the sun. Be still and stay relaxed in genuine ease, Be
  quiet and let sound reverberate as an echo, Keep your mind silent and
  watch the ending of all worlds.

From Tilopa's Mahamudra Instruction to Naropa
              in Twenty Eight Verses


text:
Gender : Is it truly what it seems?
Now before you read and answer i would like to invite you to keep the term "Sexism" aside as this is a discussion on gender and it is impossible to talk about it without pointing out some things that would look like stereotypes.

We all belong to some gender and if we write a paragraph and ask someone to read it and guess the gender obviously that person can identify the gender that is represented in that particular paragraph.
For example Men would like Bikes and women would like luxury cruse ships, Men would not give any attention to lighting when women would work hard to decorate with candle light because they think it is romantic...
And the list goes  on and on proving that we Humans who differ from each other in almost every way tend to be so much alike in some things.
But how does this happen?  Clearly no one would know the answer because if you ask some guy why did you started liking Bikes he would give many reasons but he would not be choosing a single answer to be the best fit as the answer, If you ask a girl why do you like Pink she would go trough the same situation.
Now we can suggest that all of these can be influences from the environment,Good marketing,Social factors and etc.

But then we end up with a question what exactly make "Gender" apart from a biological standpoint?
or in a much simple term,
Other than the body what makes a man and what makes a woman; Spiritually?

Now there are dozens of videos on the internet, people hypnotizing others to change the gender attached behaviors and it works in fact it can permanently change someones idea about his or her own gender.
After thinking about these things i came to an idea like this,
Gender as a spiritual part is an illusion. As Lord Buddha has said "Gender is also subjected to "Anatta / Anatman", Even gender can change according to the desires and actons of a being". So as to Buddhism you and i,we all have been in both genders and we all have even been "Transsexual". So as there is no "Soul" it is OK to think that gender is a post Birth process that we learn and act after. Because there is no point that we can show to say that gender is real.

Let me say one last thing before i rest my case....
Imagine yourself going through a Transgender phase, by the end of it you will end up in the other side of the river. Now you have a mind that functions according to the rules of your last gender and a body which resembles the opposite gender. Now what reason do you have to show for the love you have for your last gender other than the attachment that you have?
I suggest that Gender is an acceptance that we make while we are alive to behave in a certain pattern. And because like anything else we get attached to it we carry it in "Samsara" until some circumstance change it.

What is gender apart from the body as to Buddhism?
If gender is subject to Anithya (Anichcha) + Anatman is it right to think of gender (spiritually),an Illusion?

(-1) When I saw that question on the screen I suddenly doubted I'm on an Q&A site for Buddhist topics. But I am. "Is xxx what it really seems?" - I think that question (even if some more material is written in your Q) should be closed as offtopic because "opinion based"/"opinion polling". What actually does it seem to? Do we have the same view as to what it seems to be, do we the same opinion about this at first?

Some question may inspire some, some not, and question which do not seek not for opinions are less and its not that bad to know ones view and know ones thoughts. The notion of "I think such and such... What does the Master Gotama thinks, is a pattern that appears very often in the Canon. Its merely a more open and "innocent" way of asking and very usual for Asian people when they feel integrated and part." Die haben nicht diese neurotisch Art vieler Westler, perfekt zu sein und Wege zu suchen um so zu erscheinen, werter Upasaka @GottfriedHelms Sie sprechen mit einer anderen Welt, nicht so...

I feel this question can be answered,  op is asking what gender is, if anything, aside from the body. Which leaves the mind. And Buddhism clearly does not hold the view that the mind has a gender.

I'm not sure how this question is different from Male & Female - Is gender an illusion? -- the titles are similar, anyway.

@Ryan Can you give a reference for that, "Buddhism clearly does not hold the view that the mind has a gender"? If so then that sounds like that might be an answer (a short answer). Also what do you mean by "mind"? Because I'd guess that socially-conditioned gender distinctions might exist as 'fabrications' (saṅkhāra).

I once read a Buddhist story of how a man became a woman, gave birth, and then later changed back to a man. If you can find it, it might be of some use to your question. Can't find the reference, hence a comment.

@KaveengaWijayasekara thats a Dhammapada story, I can't remember which it is either, though.

Sorry i've downvoted this question. For me it's just too wordy - I struggle to see what the question is. Is an edit (radical edit) possible? Also I agree with @ChrisW - this seems to be a duplicate of male-female-is-gender-an-illusion though it could be because both questions are too long and my attention wanes befofre I can properly process them. I won't vote to close though unless there is more consensus

@KaveengaWijayasekara It's the story of Soreyya, who wished for Maha Kaccayana to be his wife. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel405.html#ch4

To explain my downvoting a bit more. I was silently expanding the question "is gender truly what it seems to me?" Of course I cannot answer it. I'm sure, it seems a much different thing to me from the wide common since I've a long history and friendship with women in the feminist movement, even with activists and as such much profoundly having studied that concept "gender". So, if the question were "Is gender truly what it seems to you?" I have a long answer (but which surely does not fit in here), and everyone else who thinks is adressed by the "you" has another one (...continued...)

(...continued...) . So the question without further specification invites to speculate (and then bramabase) about the view on "what  gender seems to be" for any anonymous part of the people - arbitrarily chosen by my preferences. A question, for instance, whether the Buddha had spoken about "gender" as (an additional) non-biological aspect as derived from the biological and common social property of "sex" were much more precise and given it had triggered my attention enough and I was fit enough I might have contributed about what I know from the Sutras (and comments etc).

@ChrisW , The question you mentioned was a one by me. i asked this again in a different pattern because previous question ended up in the same way. Chris, i do not understand one thing about our SE and as you have helped me before i hope you can help me in this. When you ask questions about Taboo like questions here those immediately get down voted, and unlike our friend "Crab bucket" people do not mention why. So can you give any instruction about asking deep questions and Taboo like questions? I am not afraid to loose few of my rep, i mean look at the discussions on this question :-)

@GottfriedHelms , i have mentioned my ideas and what i need my friends here to focus on and i also mentioned my questions in BOLD so people would not feel lost. It seems you got lost in my far too long question :-) , But it's OK. Next time leave a comment why you down vote a question. It is very helpful to the OP. May triple gems bless you!

@SamanaJohann , Thank you Bhante, This is indeed the way us asians are used to ask anything Dhamma related. Actually if anyone listen to a dhamma discussion between a monk and an asian,it would go just like this.

@Ryan , thanks for the comment. if you can leave an answer. people who read will use it to widen their knowledge. May triple gems bless you.

@CrabBucket , The question you mentioned was a one by me. i asked this again in a different pattern because previous question ended up in the same way. When you ask questions about Taboo like questions here those immediately get down voted, and unlike you  people do not mention why. So can you give any instruction about asking deep questions and Taboo like questions? I am not afraid to loose few of my rep, i mean look at the discussions on this question :-) . Thanks for not voting to close :-).  May triple gems bless you

In theory I could try to guess why this was downvoted but I don't know (I didn't downvote it). You could post a topic on Meta, using the [meta-tag:specific-question] tag, to ask for opinions on what might be wrong with this question, & how to edit/improve it. Or, you could ask on Meta, "What's a good question?" I see I posted here, here, and here. I'm not sure what further general advice I can add; and I don't know why you wrote "Taboo".

Theravada, many thanks for your warm (last) comment at me. It is a nice emotion in my heart to think of that blessings. So the same might happen to you!

@ChrisW , Thanks chris. I wrote "Taboo" because when you discuss topics like Gender,other religions and etc, people often corner you as an extremist before listening properly.

Being male is not being free of the eight worldly Dhammas, being female is not being free of the eight worldly Dhammas, being a King..., being a tycoon..., being a beggar..., being a outcarst..., being a star... being a Buddhist... wanting to be a male... wanting to be a female... wanting to be an Arahat... wanting not to be... is not being free of the eight wordily Dhammas and being subject to them.
Being after the eight Dhammas one is subject and object of love and hate, makes and is reason for politics and the arrow is not removed, still seeking for a boot for ones fellows...

The world was entirely without substance. All the directions were
  knocked out of line. Wanting a haven for myself, I saw nothing that
  wasn’t laid claim to. Seeing nothing in the end but competition, I
  felt discontent...

Yet those now rich are debauched to play with the salt justice for the blind is not seen but demanded. So the Buddha talk very straight in regard of sex and how it can be seen without touching regulation worldly conditions and ones health self-estimate.
Obsessing over one's gender identity causes only suffering: AN 7.48 so it has to be abounded for the yogis sake.

"A woman attends inwardly to her feminine faculties, her feminine
  gestures, her feminine manners, feminine poise, feminine desires,
  feminine voice, feminine charms. ...Delighting, caught up in her
  femininity, a woman goes into bondage with reference to men. This is
  how a woman does not transcend her femininity.
"A man attends inwardly to his masculine faculties, masculine
  gestures, masculine manners, masculine poise, masculine desires,
  masculine voice, masculine charms...Delighting, caught up in his
  masculinity, a man goes into bondage with reference to women. This is
  how a man does not transcend his masculinity.
"And how is there lack of bondage? Saññoga Sutta: Bondage

Yet, since you are in the world, since you live in dependency of society and measures, such thinks matter and you would give up the cause first and not fall into imitating a result and even demand it. Never go in between because such causes all orientation.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

According to the Abhidhamma gender distinction is there in every part of the corporeal structure. In Buddhism illusion is used if the meaning breaks down at a lower level of abstraction, but in this case, gender is there to the most basic material composition, hence not an illusion. This is more on how you define illusion and what gets translated into the word illusion.
If you have any view, perception about gender this is illusionary as it it is constituted by Citta and Cetasika.
Gender does decay and has the potential to change from birth to birth.

"Gender does decay and has the potential to change from birth to birth." That is what most forget when taking on a stand. Sadhu!

If Paramartha (in this case Rupa Paramartha) is non illusion or ultimate reality then gender is ultimate or a non illusion. This is being in line with the words of the Buddha who I do not try to second guess.

Sadhu again! Yes, "one may call it "object" what ever mind has as object has the notion of rūpa. What ever of the six kinds of consciousness come into being has rūpa as its object. Or without rūpa, without and object (essence of food) there is no consciousness. If liked very lit. Abhidhamma maybe Kalāpas - Groups of matter is of use. But better look for your self where it is, one would easily take words as very inmaterial and give them inherent substance (!). Reading woman, thinking woman, perceiving male... what appears? rupa nama, "being", and decay.

If you look at rupa in meditation and if your are sharp enough to see the gender element what you would see is the ultimate which is not an illusion. In this more or less discussion or talking in this matter under social convention we have mental construct of the concept which is a illusion.

Sadhu! But since still paramatha, it matters in daily life and is therefor subject for Sila (Vinaya).

Thank you for taking the time to answer a question that was severely down voted. A lot of people do not do that.

Mind can be seen as having a gender. It is true that thoughts are not classified in Buddhism as female thoughts or male thoughts. But the gender conditions your likes and dislikes, which intern condition the mind (Thanha paccaya Upadana, Upadana paccaya Bhava). When you were born, your gender(physical) was not selected randomly. You were born as male or female because of the conditioning of the mind in the previous life. Generally males are less emotional, less fearful and less capricious compared females. But a female can condition her mind like a male and as a result be born as a male next life. Same goes for men who are very emotional and need lots of comforting. They can be born as females next life as a consequence.
Furthermore, those who attain Jhanas are born as Brahmas who have no physical gender. So it is obvious that conditioning of the mind determines your gender.

Hi Sankha, it the causality you mentioned above from a sutta?

It's dependent origination

"You were born as male or female because of the conditioning of the mind in the previous life." interesting notion, yet dangerous. How ever, is there any hint known that the Buddha risk to let such a danger be assumed or a matter of discussion? Don't forget you are in female dominated and ruled world here and there is also much danger in victim-blaming you would vast be subject of attack. But lets see :-)

@SamanaJohann Sex elements (bhaava ruupaani) are not uncaused: Vinnana paccaya Nama-rupa. Not sure what you mean by 'danger'.

Sorry, I meant the causality of one being less emotional, less fearful and less capricious will lead to a male birth and vice versa to a female birth. Is this specifically mentioned in a sutta?

@KaveengaWijayasekara Not that I can recall. But you can deduce that from Bhava paccaya Jyati. Conditioning of the mind leads to the next birth(which gender is a part of).

Upasaka Sankha Kulathantille, of cause everything has its course, but the question is "if the Buddha did not risk to make it much an issue (aside of certain rule indirectly) why risk to get hardly rebuked". Think for example that those who feel discriminated are more fearful, more emotional... western and modern people have heavy problem if they are disturbed in their feeling "all are equal", which give certain worth and balance.

"Not that I can recall." good, than be as wise as the Buddha and don't play to much with is, even if not wrong. DANGER!! :-) To become a macho has also reason and to come as a macho in an area where there is danger for machos is then the fruit. :-) so let it be a so called "womans sacred" one would not tell or talk about.

@SamanaJohann It is not intended as discrimination. It is intended as information or knowledge. ex: The Indian society of the time of the Buddha strongly believed in Athma. Yet the Buddha was not hesitant to teach Anatta.

Atma knows. And in regard of the Buddha, he did not take strong Atmans to teach Anatta. Papanca is really a big cause of suffering and conflict. That is why he was very carefully with such things.

Atma knows? Knowing is not an Atma. Knowing is just knowing. It's ok to say it like it is as this is not teaching directed at a specific person

Thank you for taking the time to answer a question that was severely down voted. A lot of people do not do that.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can one alter the 6th precept to accommodate one's family or daily routines?
My understanding of the 6th precept is that one should only eat between sunrise and noon.
There's another question (What is the purpose of not eating after noon? ) about the purpose of it from monks' point of view. I would like to know about it from the laity's perspective.
My questions are:

Is the purpose of this precept to practice discipline, to renounciate
pleasures and so one can gain more certainty in their ability to be
diligent?  Is it so that one knows hunger and does not act on it?
if one is taking the 8 precepts, they should take all 8, right? There
is no "pick and choose the most convenient"?
This sounds silly when expressed, though I've read statements on Buddhism.SE and in books saying "don't do X if it would cause major conflicts in your life and you don't value X over the absence of conflict", be it child raising, vegetarianism while dependant on ones parents, meditating more at the expense of getting sufficient sleep, etc.
I still eat meat (and dinner) due to family pressures. Is it acceptable to make these allowances?

My concrete example is that I often stay up very late when it is the days surrounding the New Moon, for Astronomical observation. (This is a date that many Thai laypeople commit to the precepts). So leading up to that day, I gradually stay up later and wake up later. Eventually, I am waking at noon.
It is impractical and unhealthy at these days to be eating at sunrise, only to fall asleep, and then fast until I return to sleep the next day.
Should I just fast for the same duration, shifted to healthier hours?

Upasaka Brayton

My understanding of the 6th precept is that one should only eat between sunrise and noon.

Yes. (if one is very interested, there is a very informative work about the beginning time: When Is Dawn (aruna)? When Is Dawnrise (arunuggamana)? - Bhikkhu Ñāṇadassana for astrological and people interested to be strict and informed)

My question is twofold.
  Firstly, what is the purpose of it. Is it to practice disciplin, to renunciate pleasures and so one can gain more certainty in their ability to be diligent? Is it so that one knows hunger and does not act upon it?

The reasons are many. Yes, the 8 precepts are to reduce sensual pleasure which is the biggest obstacle for meditation.
While doing so, one is naturally forced to keep mindfulness because otherwise he/she would be overwhelmed by sense desire and could not keep the precepts. That means observing them is already much about sati (mindfulness). The next reason is reducing food which means one does not like to harm for just pleasure. This is the metta and karuna aspect of "fasten". A further aspect is the time aspect. One safes a lot of time which are normally used to search and organize food, prepare earn money ... with all its dangers to break basic precepts.
And yes, it is also to learn about dukkha which one does not know when just eating when hunger arises or sense desire. Yet one also learns to know the different between bodily hunger, hunger after pleasure and also what the body needs.
One more reason is that normal people have the most pleasant food in the evening, so one needs to let go of such as barbecue and dinner and such things with all its other most not so good involvements.

Secondly, if one is taking the 8 precepts, they should take all 8, right? There is no "pick and choose the most convienient". This sounds silly when expressed, though i've read statements on buddhism.SE and in books saying "don't do X if it would cause major conflicts in your life and you don't value X over the absense of conflict", be it child raising, vegetarianism while dependant on ones parents, meditating more at the expense of getting sufficient sleep, etc.

Silly goes most again clinging on something. There is no such as keeping precepts without giving up and letting go. BUT, it really no problem to start with one precept and step to it and then maybe the next. One would not be called a person who keeps 8 precepts, but that should not be important. Important is that one sticks to his/here resolves. It might be that one has a job where he/she needs to be attractive and is not able to let go of that the specific silas demand in his/her time of work and for now there is no other way. So its really better to make such compromises as to say "I can not keep all". Better 6, 7, 7.5 strict that 8 just literary.

I still eat meat (and dinner) due to family pressures. Is it acceptable to make these allowances?

Its no fault and not unwholesome to EAT meat. One does good not to demand it, not to speak about bringing people to organize it or even being involved in killing. That is a thing that comes step be step. Even in a family members start to adopt good behavior and will respect if one members does not like to be involved in demanding meat. But again, there is no problem to eat meat. Just do not develop joy when people still stick to it and maybe give them your portion if they can not let go of desire for meat and eventually problems with it.

My concrete example is that I often stay up very late when it is the days surrounding the New Moon, for Astronomical observation. (This is a date that many Thai laypeople commit to the precepts). So leading up to that day, I gradually stay up later and wake up later. Eventually, I am waking at noon.

If you keep the Uposatha, its usual for mediator to even do not sleep the night before. An its no problem to let go of one night sleep.
Uposatha can be hold (just) on the Uposatha days and Sila days (7 or 8 day after full and half moon) some give it some additional days.

What are the different categories of observance?
    pakati-uposatha
    pati-jagara-uposatha
    pati-harika-pakkha-uposatha

The times for keeping the pakati-uposatha are the 5th, 8th, 14th and 15th of the waxing moon and the 5th, 8th, 14th and 15th of the
  waning moon.
The times for keeping the pati-jagara-uposatha are the five days of the waxing moon, i.e., the 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and the 13th, and
  the six days of the waning moon: the 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th, and 12th
  or 13th. That makes eleven days in a month for the observance of this
  type of Uposatha. ... see more: Uposatha Sila

And then there are people who make it akaliko, so with no difference of day, to keep the eight precepts which is normally possible for everyone and most suggested, especially of those who strive for an end of suffering and to go the upward path. No gift is great as this for all being of this world like the gift of silas, the Uposatha-precepts.
Atma has to say that he is not that happy with this very traditional and formal explaining which has adopted much from the Vinaya and much which is out of context. Also Atma is not happy about the factors and many more. So generally its good to stick with the suttas:
Muluposatha Sutta (AN 3.70) — Discourse on the Roots of the Uposatha
Uposatha Sutta (AN 8.41) — Discourse on the Uposatha Observance
Visakhuposatha Sutta (AN 8.43) — Discourse to Visakha on the Uposatha
Sakka Sutta (AN 10.46) — To the Sakyans (on the Uposatha)
Also DN2 give much info about virtue of a eventually yogi. For family life maybe to much.

It is impractical and unhealthy at these days to be eating at sunrise, only to fall asleep, and then fast until I return to sleep the next day. Should I just fast for the same duration, shifted to healthier hours?

No. If you need that sleep. Eat breakfast, noon. If you than really need to rest, there should be no problem.
More infos Upasaka might find here: Uposatha Observance Days and also a this years calender
If more question arise and certain which for discussions appears, Upasaka and others are always invited to make use of the online monastery sangham which might be in some cases maybe a better place. This environment is certain limited and for some issues not so proper even if most helpful and supportive in many aspects. So it the "invitation" should be not misunderstand.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

Is Uposatha the best term for fasting? It looks like it is an entire day?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uposatha
I added the fasting tag, will add a synonym pending your reply.

No :-) , fasting might be a western synonym for Uposatha (usually called Uposatha Observance in English (day)) one might call it also Sabbath or Buddhist Sunday cleaning and/or reconciliation day or practice.

I see, but what about fasting on a non Sunday? Or on a day other than Uposatha? What is the term for fasting in general ?

Upoastha in this context (fasting is what itchies most) "being a good buddhist = keeping uposatha on mondevents" and a perfect does it the whole week.

Ok, you arent answering my question though, is there a more specific term for only the act of fasting?

Keeping "8 precepts", "8 sila", "attha-sila" are also synonym. Fasting (pali), there are many: Upavāsa , Anasana (is maybe good) but not very usual in use generally or even for a tag. Therefor not answered before.

Oh wow, no joke, 15 different terms for fasting, that is amazing.

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


text:
Does the fifth precept ban smoking?
The fifth precept started off as a ban on the drinking of alcohol. It has since been expanded to ban the use of intoxicants. Is tobacco also forbidden under the fifth precept?

Forget the fifth!  How about the first??

Body is chariot, senses are charioteer, mind and heart(i am yet to learn this kind of perception & reason on this state, spiritually and scientifically) are advisors. Don't think too much, stay healthy, do not harm your nature or any other, practice what you think-observe and do not be afraid of practise, 'what is good for all and everything'.

Yes smoking is included.
This document, Five Precepts, says the following about the fifth precept:

There are four conditions
  for the partaking of intoxicants.
i) There must be an intoxicant.
  ii) There must be the intention of taking it.
  iii) Action must be taken to ingest it.
  iv) There must be actual ingestion of the intoxicant.
Condition (iv) states clearly that the precept is broken once the intoxicant is ingested intentionally. It does not matter whether one is intoxicated or not as a result of the action.
In taking medicines containing alcohol or intoxicating drugs for medical reasons, no breach of the precept is committed. This is because one's intention is to take the medicine to cure one's sickness.

See also this description, The Five Precepts
pañca-sila:

Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness.

I always approached the precepts as very important guidelines rather than rigid rules for banning one's actions.
Certainly, while on the eightfold path, if one intakes a substance that even subtlety  clouds the mind  then that substance would lead to one's suffering and the suffering of those around one. The more one understands this and the more one sees things as they are, the more one will follow the presepts naturally like a river follows the best way down the side of a  mountain.-Metta

There's a Zen story titled, Non-Attachment, which I read as having suggested that it's better to avoid it:

"How pleasant this smoking is ... Such pleasant things may disturb meditation. Before this goes too far, I will stop now." So he threw the smoking outfit away.

Tobacco packaging (in this country) has labelling like, "Smoking Kills" -- so I guess it shouldn't be recommended!
On the other hand, there are some monks who smoke (see Why do Thai monks smoke?), so I guess it's not technically against the five precepts. On the other hand: addiction, eh?
I suppose that nicotine withdrawal causes heedlessness -- so (unless you're willing and able to chain-smoke for the rest of your shortened life) I suspect it isn't recommended and in my opinion is contrary to the spirit of the fifth precept.

If smoking, as long as not intoxicant things, it does not violate the precept, but since it is most common sense please one goes against what is good in the frame on Dhamma. Yet it is a sense pleasure which causes very less harm for others. Driving for example a car or being after chocolate or burger is over all more harmful. Smoking is somehow the bad child under the really bad and much worthier under the overabundance of sense drugs.
The point of abstaining from intoxicants is "making one heedless" and so act mostly very unwholsome and unskillful.
To raise the argument that it causes heedlessness it one does not get it, and therefore it is to be seen as causing heedlessness is pointless. If such argument would be valid your woman or you child would be causing even more heedlessness. So that is merely not so well thought. People living indulged in attachments and drugs with cause them permanently heedlessness if not gaining or possible to maintaining the pleasure out of it.
Surfing in internet or this or that food kill far more, not only one self but a lot of other beings to be provided. There are less "drugs" which are in its hole so less harmful like smoking, yet for sure also harmful especially for ones own health.
Monks are even explicit allowed to smoke pipe and keep certain items for it (MV.VI.13, Mahāvagga VI.01-15 6. Bhesajjakkhandhako). Of course here it seems to have certain health usage.
How ever, is best to let go, if there is a possibility (effort to keep mindfulness arosen, nothing else is needed to abound it) but Atma would see less reason to change ones addiction just to another if it would be not something lesser harmful, the point where Buddhas medicine for certain joy comes in: doing Jhana (meditation)
At least, one who has touched an amount of liberation will find it more easy to let go of all kind of sensuality.
Matters of Sila and virtue is for sure not not disturbing others with ones smoke and a matter of concern is also not to encourage smoking and if certain addicted to stay ashamed and seclusive when indulging in it.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

I think that references to smoking in the monastic code were in the context of medicinal purposes.

Yes, it seem like that and is mentioned in the answer.

Does the definition of what substances are considered "medicinal" change? So far as I know, medical doctors no longer recommend smoking tobacco (also the original references to "smoking" couldn't have been references to "tobacco", assuming that tobacco was unknown until the New World was discovered). I thought of mentioning it in my answer but for these reason decided it wasn't relevant to the question.

Opinions in regard of medicals change as fast as mind in this world. Atma knows less modern medicine which does not cause more harm as it helps. In allowing certain medicals the Buddha did not play doctor but was more concerned of what things are causing other living beings harm So for example medicine made from animals are not very promoted so are medicals made form soil. Practice is always a matter of "for one self and for others". If the only addiction would be tobacco in the world, it would be as peaceful as it is, but since people "taboo" such for a "development" purpose it grows otherwis

People who walk against smoking (at least to have something that they look better) are no match for a smoking yogi or monk, no match at all in all regard, for one self and for all other beings.

Fifth precept exist because of few reasons. Addictive drugs and beverages are not only unhealthy they are severe distractions for someone on path.
Now let's look at smocking,
First of all i am not a smoker :-) but here is the full story.
As lord Buddha taught there is a thing called dependent arising. Alcohol,cigars,cigarettes,other drugs have a negative effect on the body of the user which effect brain directly and instantly and total health in the long run.Lord Buddha directly said that Health is the true wealth.
Your brain is the center of the thought process and if something happens to your brain you are left with your sub consciousness. That is not how a Buddhist deal with things, we as Buddhist rely on our conscious thoughts (Mindfulness). And as lord Buddha has said beings should not harm their lives and it is bad Karma if you do so. Doing any drug is equal to poisoning yourself slowly to your death, because eventually what happens is that you by conscious choice harm your body which results younger death.
And as we all know smoking is an addiction, There is no taste,comfort or and aid to the body from smoking. There is only the joy of consuming. As Lord Buddha clearly said addictions are bad for the path.

Clearly there is no possible perspective in which addictions like smocking or any other addiction can be justified. If you smoke take time but come out of it never to return.
May triple gems bless you!

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

The fifth precept of Buddhism underscores the importance of abstaining from alcohol, extending its scope to encompass all forms of intoxicants, including drugs and tobacco.
Buddha included this precept due to the profound impact of addiction on an individual's life. Addiction can erode one's financial stability, consume valuable time, and significantly deteriorate mental and physical health, making it challenging to pursue personal aspirations. Additionally, addiction may give rise to social issues and lead one away from the path of Dhamma and virtuous living, due to the inconsistency of mental health. In essence, the consumption of tobacco and drugs does not contribute to one's overall well-being, aligning with the precept's core principles.

https://suttacentral.net/dn31/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=linebyline&reference=main&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin#8.1

yes, smoking belongs to fifth precept, and we should avoid from these things which cause to unhealthy.

But Thai monks smoke... http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=20222

Its very simple.
If you're bored/frustrated with life as it is, you look to external stimulants to give you a lift because you don't wish to face life, as it is and as you are.
Smoking/Drinking are stimulants/intoxicants and alter your state of mind. Your breathing changes. Your experience becomes more and more subject to external stimulation.
Please see that it is not about wrong or right. I can't stress this point enough. The moment you think about wrong or right, you're starting to put unwanted curbs on freedom. It is natural to want to do/try something because everyone else seems to do it. But on the other hand, it is about your experience of life.
Reflect on the following question.
Do you want an unsullied/pure experience of life's moments? Or do you just want to zip through it?

Master hsuan Hứa from the City of ten thousands buddhas said that smoking makes the bodhisatvas not protect you:
5 Precepts Talk by Venerable Master Hsuan Hua

The smell from smoking is terrible. Not only does it make a person smell bad outside, it also makes the inside of his body smells bad. Bodhisattvas and Dharma-protecting good spirits will not want to protect you when they find out you smell like smoke. No matter how much merit and virtue you may have, they will leave you alone and you will have many accidents happen to you. We don't have to talk about others, currently there is one person among us who smoked stealthily and caused a very dangerous incident to occur. It happened because he was smoking, but he still doesn't realize it.
People who smoke will fall into the hell of Flames after they die. The hell of Flames is especially prepared for smokers. Whoever likes to smoke has the chance to go down there. If you refrain from smoking, you will cut off the path that leads to the hell of Flames. If you don't, however, you will have a share of it in the future. People do not know the seriousness of such matters and do whatever they like. When you understand, you will not do it. Smoking is a more severe problem then drinking. Why didn't Shakyamuni Buddha prohibit smoking but disallowed drinking? It is because during that time when the Buddha was in the world no one knew how to smoke.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. Could you add a reference to the statement?

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


text:
Pāramitāyāna and Tantrayāna
Wikipedia includes this (unreferenced) sentence:

According to the perspective of Tibetan Buddhism, Mahāyāna practitioners have the choice of two practice paths: the path of perfection (Sanskrit: pāramitāyāna) or the path of tantra (Sanskrit: tantrayāna), which is the Vajrayāna.

Would you say a bit more about that (for someone who hasn't been taught Mahāyāna practice or Tibetan Buddhism)?
For example, some related questions include:

Is the quoted sentence more-or-less true?
Is this a good high-level view of (introduction to, or taxonomy of) Tibetan Buddhism?
What are pāramitāyāna and tantrayāna:

What is the goal of each?
What is the purpose of each (do they tend toward the goal)?
What (or how) is the practice of each (how, for example, is the purpose implemented)?

To what extent is it true that "practitioners have the choice"? On what basis should or do they choose (e.g. which practice path is suited for, or available to, what practitioners)?

chris this seems REALLY broad. I think you should break it up into several questions, to include:

Is the quoted sentence more-or-less true?To what extent is it true that "practitioners have the choice"? On what basis should or do they choose (e.g. which practice path is suited for, or available to, what practitioners)?
What are pāramitāyāna - goal, purpose, practice
tantrayāna: - goal, purpose, practice

Im saying all that knowing nothing at all about any of what you asked; I just get the impression that a thorough answer to any of that would be fairly comprehensive and lengthy, and it may serve the site better overall to break it up.

@Ryan Yes. Theoretically we're allowed to ask questions which are "too broad" as long as we're willing to get some shallow (high-level, introductory, not very detailed) answers -- I don't know whether I should, in this case. Answering my questions might take (at least) 10 sentences; answering your four questions might be at least 4 paragraphs. So yes, it could be quite long. Maybe someone who knows the subject would know how to summarize it (or be willing to answer at some length). Maybe people will close this as too broad and I should ask on Meta how to rework it e.g. into multiple questions.

I'm sort of simply asking for an explanation of one (quoted) sentence though; that (one sentence) is what this question is based on. I am inclined to agree with you (your suggestion that this question is too dense); however IMO I also tend to write too much, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to write/expand/elaborate four different questions out of one sentence.

you are rather wordy Chris, but that's not a bad thing :) I guess just wait and see what responses you get, and from there if need be you could expand it.

@ChrisW one thing not mentioned, but not enough to be a stand alone answer, is that most Vajrayana practitioners also practice paramitayana.

I don't know much about "official" stance on these, but from what I gather, the main difference between the two is that:

"paramitayana" is when you work within a framework of progressive self-improvement,
while "tantrayana" is when you work within a framework of the target state.

Meaning, with "paramitayana" you first hear about the obstacles, then you identify the obstacles in your behavior, then you work on distancing and ridding yourself of them. You hear about paramitas (perfections), then you reflect on your imperfections, then you work on removing them.
While with "tantrayana" you are given a simplified image or prototype of the Enlightened Mind to emulate, and you act it until it becomes your second nature.
Depending on the student, and the lineage or school, an image you're given may be either be anthropomorphic or completely abstract. In some cases you're given a role model e.g. Avalokiteshvara that represents an aspect of the enlightened mind, and your main job is to imitate that, and in general to permeate your life with the mood/energy of the prototype. In more interesting cases, you could be given some abstract quality to imitate - like the quality of wind or space etc. Or if you are a difficult student you could be given the task of fulfilling some practical objective that would require you to manifest certain quality - to give a naive example if you have fear problems you could be asked to get into an actual fight etc. The common theme here is that you learn to generate the target qualities directly, bypassing instruction about obstacles.
With "paramitayana", you are here and your goal is there, and there are obstacles between you and the goal. With tantra, especially the higher levels, you are already "there" in Rome and now your job is to be like a roman.
Is the quoted sentence more-or-less true?
Well, all of these attempts to describe the Path are simplifications and generalizations. In actual practice people don't progress through levels one-by-one and more often than not don't follow one "yana" after the other either. Real people are much more complicated than the "low capacity / middling capacity / high capacity" model. So yeah, in general you and/or your mentor could be leaning towards conceptual or experiential mode of instruction but usually some elements of both will be present.
To what extent is it true that "practitioners have the choice"? On what basis should or do they choose (e.g. which practice path is suited for, or available to, what practitioners)?
This is not entirely clear to me either. On one hand there maybe an element of fate - what kind of mentor you will encounter and get along with. On the other hand, there seems to be some affinity between types of students and certain teaching methods, whether due to predominance of particular types of obstacles/obscurations in the student's character or because of the past lives influence or most probably both (these two being of the same nature anyway). If anyone does have a choice here, I suppose it would be more appropriate to say that's the mentor, rather than the student.

The quote is more or less true. The position that Tibetan Buddhism distinguishes between pāramitāyāna and tantrayāna is accurate. Pāramitāyāna is most often translated 'perfection vehicle' or 'sutra vehicle' while tantrayāna is usually translated as 'tantra vehicle' or 'secret mantra vehicle'.
In the Middle Length Lam-Rim, Tsongkhapa says:

[Atisha] held numerous lineages of masters such as the two lineages of
  the common vehicle and of the great vehicle, with regard to which
  there are the two – (1) the perfection and (2) secret mantra [vehicles]. In
  the perfection vehicle he held three lineages: the lineages of the
  view and of conduct, the latter of which has the lineage from Maitreya
  and the lineage from Manjugosha. In the secret mantra he had received
  five types of transmission as well as numerous lineages such as the
  lineage of teaching systems,[tenets] the lineage of blessings, and the
  lineage of various instructions.

In this context, 'common vehicle' refer to:

a lineage common to the Hinayana and Mahayana

As Geshe Jampa Gyatso phrases it in his commentary to Tsonkghapa's Middle-Length Lam Rim. These refer to the teachings and practices 'common to beings of small capacity' (wishing for a precious human rebirth) as well as those 'common to beings of middling capacity' (wishing for abiding-nirvana, individual liberation). One might say that, of these two, only the linage common to beings of middling capacity is a fully qualified path, because a path is found in the continuum of a practitioner generating effortless, renounciation, that is 'a mind of definite emergence from samsara'.
'Great vehicle' refers to the practices exclusive to 'beings of great capacities' (those wishing for perfect buddhahood, that is non-abiding nirvana, freedom from both afflictive and knowledge-obscurations). The entrance to the Mahayana path is effortless renounciation + uncontrived bodhicitta (whether it be aspirational or engaged).
Within this category of teachings [of the great vehicle] you have indeed the two 'vehicles' or 'lineages':

Perfection vehicle
Secret mantra vehicle

As Geshe Jampa Gyatso writes:

The lineage of the Mahayana has two: (1) the perfection vehicle and (2) the
  vajra vehicle. In the perfection vehicle there is also two: (1) the
  lineage of the view and (2) the lineage of the conduct or the lineage of
  the vast. One lineage was passed on from Buddha Shakyamuni to
  Maitreya, to Asanga, to Vasubandhu, to Arya Vimuktisena, and so forth.
  The other was passed from Buddha Shakyamuni to Manjushri and so forth.
  In the secret mantra lineage there are five lineages. There is also
  the lineage of tenets, the lineage of blessings, and the lineage of
  instructions.
  As both 'vehicles' are Mahayana, they serve the same purpose: causing one to achieve enlightenment in order [for him] to benefit all sentient beings. Prasangika-Madhyamika claim that one has to come to practice tantrayana/secret mantra vehicle to achieve full enlightenment (and could not get pass the tenth bhumi without it). This is merely because the secret mantra vehicle purifies one's mind all the way through.

The perfection vehicle includes what we call 'the linage of the view and that of the conduct' or 'the profound and the vast' or 'wisdom and method' or 'the view of dependent-arising and great compassion'. It is so significant that, as Geluk students, teachers often say to us "if anyone asks you what Buddhism is all about, answer that it is about the view and the conduct: the meaning of dependent arising on one side, great compassion on the other".
Furthermore, we claim that a path is entered upon generating definite emergence. That a path of the perfection vehicle is entered upon generating bohdicitta as well (because it is a Mahayana path), and that the tantra path is entered upon generating renounciation + bodhicitta (becaus it is a Mahayana path) + realization of emptiness (whether it be inferential or direct, although this is a subject of debate). It does not mean you can not engage in tantric practices such as, say, Medicine Buddha Puja, or Guru Yoga, and so forth before having realized emptiness. On the contrary, we claim that engaging in those will get you plant the seeds you need to come to be able to actually practice tantra. You can not practice it unless you had a transmission or at least a permission from a qualified teacher, though.
There are four degrees of Tantra, but I will not go into that. This being said, Tantra has to do with understanding that one's aggregates are created by karma, it is playing with 'pure view' and the notion the behind the veil of the two obscurations, phenomena are naturally pure (as in 'abiding in natural nirvana'), and it encourages us to 'take the result as the path' as the Sayka emphasize very much (they call it Lam-Ré). This 'taking the result as the path' can take the aspect of self-generation visualizations (you generate yourself in the aspect of this or that deity manifesting from emptiness).
There are differences in tenets between tantra and sutras as well. The notion of 'subtle wind that goes from one life to the next' is hardly a notion of the perfection vehicle.

Since these are graduated steps on the path, the following paths need to include the practices and realisations of the preceding paths. The intermediate path requires realisation of the lesser path and the great beings path of sutrayana requires both the lesser being path and the intermediate beings path.

The Tantra path is part of the great beings path and is not an 'OR' with respect to to sutra path. It is only having gained a sutra understanding of the six paramitas that one can enter the tantrayana. Your answer is great however I think it needs a clarification that one cannot skip the sutra path and go straight to tantra.

The answers above are great, but I want to address two sub-questions specifically.

Is this a good high-level view of (introduction to, or taxonomy of) Tibetan Buddhism?

It is important to note that Tibetan Buddhism is not mutually inclusive with the Mahayana. That is, "Tibetan Buddhism" are just those forms of Buddhism which trace their lineage from the Sanskrit tradition of Buddhism in India as opposed to the Pali.
Within Tibetan Buddhism you can find fully formed paths other than the Mahayana (Bodhisattvas vehicle) including the Hearers vehicle and the Solitary Realizers vehicle.

To what extent is it true that "practitioners have the choice"? On
what basis should or do they choose (e.g. which practice path is
suited for, or available to, what practitioners)?

Teachers or lamas in Tibetan Buddhism are supposed to teach students according to their capacity. Of course, unless the teacher is a highly realized being it might not be possible to correctly measure a students capacity in all cases. That said, it is my understanding that teachers should strive to do this to the best of their ability.
For instance, it is considered a very grave transgression to teach emptiness to dharma students who are not ready for this teaching. Why? Because it can be harmful to themselves and others by causing the student to misunderstand emptiness and believe that it doesn't matter whether we conduct ourselves virtuously or not... etc.
Now, it is also best if students take some responsibility and do some self-diagnosis to decide what they are capable of in the same way students are encouraged to really check for themselves about the qualities of the teacher.
I hope this helps to prevent misunderstandings and encourage beneficial dharma practice. For more, I highly recommend reading Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions.

What does "you can find fully formed paths" mean (e.g. does it mean that doctrine acknowledges that these paths exist elsewhere, or does it mean that these paths are ... taught)? And, how do teachers assess whether a student is ready for the "emptiness" teaching (e.g. is it mostly academic and curriculum-based, like in grade school I'm ready to start Year 4 after I've been tested on the Year 3 curriculum)?

It means that the Sanskrit tradition contains all the teachings/teachers/lineages/vinaya/vows/etc necessary for a being to progress from knowing no dharma to achieving the attainments of a Hearer as opposed to a Bodhisattva. I'm not a teacher, but I can tell you that the center I go to is based on the lamrim, a graduated path and that not all students study or are encouraged to study the highest teachings @ChrisW Although it is fair to say that everyone is encouraged to develop altruistic intentions


text:
Can cold showers benefit or harm our practice (our concentration)?
I actually have two different questions :

Can cold showers benefit our practice?
Someone once told me not to take showers when doing a lot of meditation because the cold reduces the concentration level: is this true?

The person who told me this talked about "regular showers" not "cold showers"; now that I got interested in cold showers after reading about their health benefits, it made me worried that they would harm my concentration level.
For the record the person who told me this was a theravada monk

Let me tell you a story from Lord Buddha's time....
One day a maid who was a follower of Lord Buddha went early in the morning to the nearby river to bring water.
She saw a sage in the  river taking an early bath, knowing the temperature of the water in the morning she asked him a question.

Dear sage what are you doing in this cold water, it is very cold in this part of the day?
the sage replied, I am washing away my sins. When i take cold baths it brings me closer to salvation.

The maid was surprised by the answer and said,

Dear sage if cold water brings you closer to the path what about the fish in the water?

Then she went on to describe how mind matters to the path not the body.

This is what you should take from this story...
Lord Buddha clearly said "Mind is the thing that comes first,that it is on top of the order".
Lord Buddha also said "thoughts are Karma" ("Chethanahan Bhikkave kamman wadami")
It is the mind that matters not the body...

Let me convince you with some stories from the history of the Great Arahats,

One day a determent monk started to do the walking meditation around the "Bodhi tree" of a monastery. The monk was determined to keep going no matter what. After some time he felt that his legs hold no more power to carry him and he fell down, but he did not stop. He started to keep going on his knees. Then his knees gave up on him after some time. He was bleeding and fell down on the sand. Later on he was directly instructed by Lord Buddha to take things slow, Not too hard and not too soft.

So this is how taking things too hard ended up. Now lets see how taking things too soft ended up...

In the early age of Buddhism monks used a wooden pillow to rest their heads when sleeping. But this was later on replaced by the kind of pillows we use today.
And it can be found in many dialogs among Monks and Arahats (In text) that this replacement which is seemingly good actually reduced the potential of the monks. It was considered a bad choice because the replacement actually represented the love for the well being of the body.

So have people or monks meditated without any regard to their bodies?
Here's the answer...

Once there was a monk called "Ven. Chakku pala". while he was at the peak of his practice he started having troubles with his eyes. The doctor gave a medicine which needed to be dropped in to the eyes while the patient is lying on a bed. But he could not agree to that because the practice style he was doing needed him in only to poses (sitting or standing). So all along he was either standing or sitting,skipping the sleeping. He chose his Nirvana above his eyes and kept going. In the very day he turned blind he reached Nirvana.

Do not have many concerns. Try to relax and not to worry about the minor details. If you have pains while meditating do some vipassana meditation and focus on the impermanence of that pain and keep going on. It is essential that you give up the love for your own body and to do that you need to learn and realize just like all other things your body is temporary too.

Be strong and keep it up,
May triple gems bless you!

Taking a cold shower is a usual way of yogis to stay awake. So if weariness arises such may help but also no quarantine.
Walking backward is also a way to force mindfulness and other kinds of "dangers" which give mind a reason to stay on topic.
On that level one does not need to think about concentration since one is far way and has actually problems to keep ones persistence arose. A certain danger for concentration would be if the thought come up "oh a cold shower, that would be pleasant" and then give it attention and follow this approach of the defilement beguiling.
Taking a cold shower it self is also a good test in regard of ones mindfulness. Can you bear it? How is the relation of mindfulness and reaction to cold water. One could gain awakening or insight by having proper attention (yoniso manasikara) at such event.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

Why yet another user account?

You are right, one should not take what is not given.

I don't mind. You can have all the accounts you like, as long as you don't start voting on your own posts. BTW you can ask a moderator to merge all your accounts into one if you want.

Nelly Nelly on FB; U meditate after u gain Sovan; First u see  & try grasping the world as Impermenance (Anithya),  Dukka,  Anaathma (Soulless);  Sunaatha, Dhaareetha, Charaatha.. Are you aware of these 3 components of learning? The Buddhist way of Learning (absorption) is NOTONLY listening/Reading. Sunatha means - listening, Dhareetha means to carry and charatha means to -carry forward (practice what you've learnt. Of course listening is the most important and everytime you listen to dhamma you willgather little bits of information you could carry forward in practice; Read the Tripitaka ten or as much, take a brush and tooth brush of daily applying the theory of Anithya, dukka, Anathma; As u sweep the house, cooks, for every ur daily chores, u should mindful and aware as u perform and then sunatha, daretha, charatha Hon -As u get a good grip of ur true nature / reality, u will get ur stage advanced to Samma Dhitti (Right view); Sovan; Then u start meditation, coz how u try to emerge something already not in ur stream or u r not accustomed of; First u need to enter the stream then the meditaion would flow in u, obvious enough effortlessly; Theruwan Saranayi; with all due respect sir, this is what I ve learnt recently Thank you

Meditation means as you are in hot, cold showers or cooking or walking. So in the cold shower, you focus on your body - the true nature of it. I washed this yesterday, how many times ? 3 ….. I am 35 now. In my this Sansara I have washed this continuously, previously an animal, how many times I ve washed this,but this jara , marana (death, decay) impermanent. This is ANICHCHA...as I m not fond of it keeps change. if its anichcha, its dukkha, if something is dukkha, is it mine -no -ANATHTHA - NOT ME/ MINE - So would I cling to something and ask for a bawa (become) over and over for such body? NO


text:
Burst bubble : How to deal with a traumatizing event?
Recently i stumbled upon a movie disc and on it was a movie called "American guinea pigs".
It wasn't a typical funny horror story, it was a ultra realistic documentary style movie.
There was a woman laying on a table (tied to it) and she was surrounded by masked group who injected something into her.
Then her skin was removed from her neck and her calves were cut of in pieces.
I was shocked and i felt my heart pumping and i was about to faint. i stopped the movie and just waited for this rush to pass.
But i couldn't close the movie until i knew it is a movie not a real life event (if you have seen it you will know why, it is very real). So i played it again and dragged it manually to the end.
Then the carnage was followed by them chopping her arms and gutting her. I couldn't take anymore so i skipped to the end.
Just like all the movies this had a clip from the sequel too.
It was a new born baby and a little boy on the table this time, i was too traumatized to remember but the text below meant that this would be the sequel.
This was hard for me and my mind burst into a sea of emotions and it kept reminding me the equally disturbing real life events i unfortunately witnessed in my life. I had no other idea but to write them all down on a book.Now whenever i feel i'm loosing my edge with my still very young practice i read that book and somehow it immediately bring me back to mindfulness.

This was meant to be entertaining to some audience and someone knowingly gave her baby to be presented as the next pray to this. I know the world isn't alice's wonderland but i am left with some questions and i hope you can help me....
1:- How do we understand this kind of sick entertainment in a Buddhist perspective (why do people enjoy this kind of things)?
2:- How to deal with this kind of emotional trauma?

More commonplace examples of traumatic events might be: serious car accident (been in 2) mugging (1) being yelled at (...) losing your own cool at someone (...). The answers below could equally apply after being sensitized by such things in anyone's life.

Know that they are only actors and don't watch it if it's going to traumatize you. Don't watch any movies unless you like distraction.

I did not knew about the movie, If you can see a trailer or something from that movie. I am a movie buff and i have seen all sorts of stuff but this was far too realistic. i still doubt it was real or not.  Thanks @uilium

This is also a good point I overlooked myself. Since you are still new in your practice, you would do well for yourself to be mindful of the things you consume, be it through the ear, eyes, etc.

@Theravada like a snuff flick?

I can't watch TV or the characters and events would really have a party while I'm practicing.

@Uilium , Pardon me bro. What's a Snuff flick? i don't know.

@Theravada The movie you watched is not real, it is fiction, that might help with some of the emotions.
You probably do not want to know what a Snuff flick is... especially in your current state.

@hellyale , Thank you man actually i'm already feeling better after reading it is not real.

Simply keeping precepts especially
Nacca-gita-vadita-visukkadassana... veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from dancing,
singing, music, going to see entertainments...

attha-sila
To understand trauma and Buddhas medicine: The Healing Power of the Precepts
And as some other anwerer have pointed out: The first step in traumata curing is to avoid contact with the object that causes things coming up.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

Yes Bhante, But to us regular people it can be a bit hard to escape all the time with our distracting live. But i will try harder.  Thank you.

How do we understand this kind of sick entertainment in a Buddhist perspective (why do people enjoy this kind of things)?

I don't enjoy that kind of thing (i.e. "horror movies"), so I don't ever watch them and don't have to think about them.
It might be a bit like asking, "how do we understand drug addiction?" and one answer is that most people aren't in an environment where they need to understand that: because they don't expose themselves to it.
For a slightly similar reason to avoiding horror movies (i.e. in order to avoid their emotional contagion) I would prefer to read news articles, than listen to newscasters narrate news stories on television.
I'm not sure that Buddhism has explanation for people enjoying this kind of thing. A partial conventional explanation might be that some people become habituated or tolerant. Someone who enjoyed it to begin with, and who then watched horror movies for another 20 years, might grow to tolerate (or enjoy) more horror (or simulated horror) than someone else with less experience of the genre: like someone who's been alcoholic for 20 years might tolerate a larger dose of alcohol than a 'normal' person could.
Or maybe they learn to control their horror, see the movie as unreal, and have enough experience to say, "It's just a movie, clever cinematography, I wonder how then produced those special effects".

How to deal with this kind of emotional trauma?

You wrote, "equally disturbing real life events I unfortunately witnessed in my life", which I haven't witnessed so I'm not an expert. If you meant it literally (I hope you didn't) it could be a question for you to ask a responsible professional e.g. your medical doctor.
My guess is that one component of post-traumatic stress is a kind of dukkha, i.e. thinking something like, "I wish that had not happened, that should not have happened, that was morally wrong, they were wrong, or I was wrong, or etc."
One of the therapies for post-traumatic stress (as it, i.e. the therapy, is taught in non-Buddhist circles in the West) consists of training the victim to remain mindful of the present. For example, perhaps you've been attacked while you were in the shower and now you have "flash-backs" when you're showering: one form of therapy encourages you to remain conscious of this shower which is happening now, which is normal and safe and under your control (I haven't had that training/therapy myself but perhaps it means to stay conscious of your five senses e.g. what you see and hear and feel now, as an antidote or alternative to getting lost in the sixth sense of mind-ideas and memories).
Perhaps the parallel between that and Buddhist meditation is clear.
Another form of suffering that can afflict a victim with PTSD might be an inability to forgive the aggressor (e.g. "I hate him because he did that to me"). To deal with this kind of trauma, Buddhism might recommend metta and/or anatta (and averena, non-hatred).

Thanks chris, Unfortunately yes i saw some bad stuff for real. I do not have flash backs but i try to memorize those things and every time i do i say to myself "This is why you should fear samsara". I mean there are only two possibilities, either i will end up a victim or the perpetrator. I do not like Horror movies, I just played it because it was the only movie in the store i have not watched at that moment.

My own theory is that people who have been traumatized in some way are either trying to work through it by re-exposure, or have become dulled and cannot adequately feel normal levels or kinds of things. And there are ways to revise one's thoughts of something troubling to get past the distress. A Therapist can help.

1:- How do we understand this kind of sick entertainment in a Buddhist perspective (why do people enjoy this kind of things)?

How do we understand this? As impermanent, not ultimately satisfactory, and void of any self.
Like all experience that make up samsara, giving rise to wanting or aversion to any of it is the seed for future suffering.
As you now see, your aversion to this is bringing you mental anguish. The path the Buddha taught is the middle way; equanimously moving through any and all experience, unmoved by even the most horrific of things.
Why do people enjoy this? They are delusional. The same reason anyone enjoys anything, they mistake it as being a source of happiness, failing to see the suffering latent in their grasping, and the manner in which this twists their mind and sets the stage for future becoming and suffering.

2:- How to deal with this kind of emotional trauma?

The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths, and the Noble Eightfold path. This is the path that leads to the cessation of suffering. Through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path, the practitioners mind becomes balanced and equanimous; able to discern the arising and ceasing of all phenomenon as it is, rather than giving rise to states of anger or greed towards it.
When traumatic memories arise, the meditator clearly sees "this is thinking";
if these memories give rise to sadness, the meditator clearly sees "this is sadness (or feeling). And as such, knowing all things as they are, the mind remains unperturbed. This practice is outlined in the Satipatthana Sutta, Magga-vibhanga Sutta, and Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.
You can also take refuge in the Buddha during times of distress, as illustrated in SN2.9 and SN2.10
The four protective meditations, in particular recollection of the Buddha, may also be of use to you. I hope this helps out, be well friend.
As far as journaling goes, I think this can be a helpful tool for beginning meditators. Being able to write down experiences you otherwise have trouble accepting in meditation can allow you to "hold" these issues in your hand and read them, somewhat as a middle-ground between repressing them altogether and fully accepting them as they are in your mind.
So I would say, if you find this helps, then this is ok. Just so long as you do not become attached to this, dependent upon it, and averse to dealing with these things in your meditation.
In short, you have to stop using the training wheels at some point. So its important that you push yourself as far as you're able to, within reason, and do no become complacent.

Thank you ryan! , What do you think about the writing on a book part?

i edited the answer to include this as well


text:
Miscarriages & Natural abortions as a result of evil beings?
There is a belief in my country that Miscarriages & Natural abortions can happen as a result of evil beings taking revenge from someone.
I recently heard a story from a teacher of mine that some couple visited him about a series of Miscarriages because they had a suspicion about it. He is a Famous monk in my country and he does not have any reputation for doing such Exorcism stuff, But as a monk he could not turn two troubled people away so he started reciting dhamma hoping something would come up.
As my teacher said then the lady started acting strange and like in those movies she talked like a completely another person. My teacher said that she told them the story's beginning.
So long story short ; she was pregnant in the earlier part of their marriage and they did not wanted a child back then so they took an abortion and that dead child is now haunting them as a being from Yakkha or Pretha realm.

What is the teaching has to say about these kind of things?
If these things actually happen what can a person do?

Upasaka Theravada,
Things happen, and killing a human being is not a just a peccadillo. But things have been done.
There is no better than to maintain as much as possible mindfulness, train the mind and do meritorious deeds. Focus everything on Metta Bhavana and keeping precepts eager from a mind of metta. Being aware that things may ripe and not engaging to fight against things.
Its also good if such as a forgiving ceremony for her former child is made. Such declaring of the misdeed and closure should come from heart and should have an understanding for the "victim" and not be made just to protect one self. So one must see ones fault accept the results and act simply as an obligation for the victims welfare.
Atma is not sure if there are people who are trained and taught in such as "family constellation", which, if the teacher is a good one, helps a lot since he/she would help that such things are not done just on the surface but form heart to heart which gives one the needed release to walk on.
In the same spirit, one should not do such things as having the intent to dispel or harm or kill spirits. That would make things even worth. So she would do good NOT to seek and wish for any exorcism. That is like to kill again and has not confession and accepting of ones misdeed as a drive. So she should work firm to see the transgression and simply act like that. But also, it does not make sense to fall into "I am bad. Punish me" thinking. That is also foolish. What has been done, has been done.
Its good to seek good teacher in Dhamma who explain and make here Dhamma understandable but never ever hire people to fight or even hurt and kill spirits. Seek for people who are able to explain what and how one self should act and practice, so that there are no causes that one gets hurt.
For giving spirits no opening, there is nothing better as mindfulness, being mindful and never lose earthing. One being aware does not give his body. Mind and body needs to be firm together. Sometimes such as physical exercises maybe even such as yoga, are good that people get aware of there body. And again: All training, all actions, are not meant to fight others or to harm them but with the purpose "May I not harm any being, may I am always firm in my precepts so that no beings is caused harm by heedless actions of mine"
There might have been no fault by the monk aside that he just did something that they wanted. Even he canted such as a protective paritta, when such is used with aversion mind it turns out even more worse. So its needed that she learns about the Dhamma and why metta is useful and how the mind have to be that it is a protection. Atma thinks even to make a month a retreat and been taught by monks and nuns would be good, taking on 10 precepts. Maybe in the nunnery of Na Uyana Aranya. It makes less sense to approach normal village monks and those making a living with spells and services for laypeople. They make it even worse.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

Thank you Bhante. Actually my teacher was able to help the couple and he managed to convince the spirit to leave after doing some good Karma by the hands of the couple. he instructed them about the whole situation. The couple as far as i know wasn't a Buddhist couple.


text:
Why monks have to take alms for their food?
Why did Buddha take to alms for his food? Is there any reason for it? As fruits and vegetables grow in forest, couldn't he sustained himself with what is available in forest?
Are there any rules for taking alms? and what kind of food can be taken or refused? Whether karma is passed from the giver to the receiver?
Can monks have a garden , where they can grow their fruits and vegetables ?

I don't hink there is a canonical answer in the Pali-canon about the "why".
But in the books of Thich Nhat Hanh which I accept as quite authoritative there is an explanation in the following spirit (don't have the exact text at hand):
at one hand the monks shall not be concerned with the common daily life and samsara and what else and thus should -in priciple- should stay with the common samanas'/ascetics' practice. However, to avoid the danger that the monks become too remote from the society, from the human world(so to say) they should somehow remain in contact.
Derived from this that has two intertwined advantages: the monks give the people the chance to try and experience wideheartedness so they help them to train wholesome emotions, thoughts and practice, and even help them to simple stay aware of the existence of the Buddha's sangha, teachings and doctrine - and the monks themselves don't loose the contact with that from where they come from, with their own history and samsaric relations and don't become, for instance, hypocrites (the latter is a word from me, I don't really think that Thich Nhat Hanh had used this expression).
All in all, I find this a nice and very helpful interpretation - but as I said in the first sentence: I've no idea at the moment whether and where the Buddha might have been given such an explicite explanation of the "why" .

this might help.  Maybe I should have posted my answer in comment section?  I intend to jog memories and seek help from other readers.  anyway, when Buddha returned to  Kapilavastu after enlightenment and established Buddhism, his father king Suddhodana didnt invite Buddha to eat in the palace because he assumed Buddha would have come anyway, but instead, Buddha and his disciples took alms round on the streets.   This brought a great embarrassment to king Suddhodana.  Buddha took this opportunity to explain the importance of alms round, etc.  Maybe someone can help me find reference for this sutta? First of all, alms round is a right occupation in the 8 fold path. Buddha said looking back for aeons, no one was ever ruined by giving alms.

Dhammapada Verses 168 and 169

thanks!!!!!  it might have been in other sutta where someone reprimanded Buddha and disciples for taking advantage of the community by taking alms round.  I believe in that sutta, Buddha said looking back 91 aeons (not sure why 91-maybe buddha looked back that far that and determined that no need to look further),  no one was ever ruined by giving alms.

Sentient may be Buddhist / non-Buddhist and each one may have different karma and different occupation, so the food they give, will it affect  the monk who partakes it

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn42/sn42.009.than.html   kula sutta:  tells us that alms is harmless.

Yes there is a clear reason why Lord Buddha himself didn't to that and forbid others to do it too.

As you know Prince "Siddhartha" (the prince who became our Lord Buddha) gave up all hopes of life and started his journey towards understanding. Let me tell you about how extreme that will was, Before giving up all food Lord Buddha ate only one "Mung" seed per day.
The reason why this rule was given has two sides....
If monks try to grow their own food and consume two questions arise. They will have to waste valuable hours to do the whole farming thing that they could use to further the path if there was no growing.
The other reason is they will obviously be drawn to grow what they like to eat and that will not help their path (Because of it feeding the attachment to taste).
And every time a Monk consume temple grown food that would be a chance lost to a lay person to gain some good karma.

Historical updating of the rule....
Long after the Parinibbana of Lord Buddha kings took things a bit seriously. They saw that in case of a national emergency monks are at risk. Because if people have no food they can't give to monks.
So kings came up with a good solution. They granted temples and monasteries with land & people to work. So the villagers would build houses and farm and in return share the harvest with the temple. As kings have already given the rights to the land and all upon it the rule does not break.
Modern day updating of the rule....
Now as the society is getting busier there is a good chance that a family might miss their turn to offer food to the temple. So there is a trend to innovate. No matter if they are giving their offering or not people now bring some supplies with them to the temple as offerings, things like Rice,vegetables,Soya,Dried fish and etc. As the offering have been made it is OK to consume then when the need arise.

Monks can garden if the Land and all upon it has been offered to the temple. It happens all over Asia. But monks keep themselves from digging and such tasks because of the possibility of harming an animal. Most of the times all the work is outsourced to laypeople and a share of harvest is given.