text:
How to reveal truth about a liar or a person who is trying to deceive others?
If someone is intentionally deceiving someone else and if I am aware of it, if I inform the innocent person in this matter, would that be against five precepts?

Maybe you could edit the question-title to better reflect the content and the question, i.e. "If i inform the innocent person in this matter will it be against five precepts?". Defining betrayal and backstabbing seems not to be related to the question about breaking a precept. Thank you.

Show sympathy for the liar, he is in more trouble than his victims.Sacrifice yourself to him with all the help you can but show no anger show him something he has never seen before hospitality and forgiveness.

It would not be against the 5 presepts in the Theravada tradition.
There could be a better skillful way to approach the situation. For instance:
If someone was trying to sell your friend a car and he tells your friend that it is in pristine condition but you happen to know that it is really held together with bubblegum, then you could remind your friend to test drive the car.
However, while your friend is distracted, the salesman has his security guards escort you off the property and guard you from coming back and alerting your friend.
Anger arises in you but after you practice Metta for a bit the lay buddhist guards notice the difference in you. While your manner is drenched in metta, You simply state what the hell realms are like and you simply state what unwholesome transgressions one can do if they want to go there.
Hearing there own unwholesome actions in the list, they let you go and they make sure their boss doesn't go to hell by simply stating that if he lies all the time he will most likely go to hell all the time.
So now your friend is free to buy a real car.

What an amazing question. Surely you mean "if I don't inform the innocent victim will I be lying". Lies are specific things, and you will only be lying the victim asks what you know about it and you continue to deceive them.
NB I believe there isn't the same imperative against breaking promises as there is in the Christian tradition (they only count as lies if the promise was intended as deceit at the time).


text:
Polyamory in Buddhism
What does Buddhism say about polyamory? By polyamory I mean a consensual romantic relationship that involves more than two adult people, which may or may not involve sexual contact.
Is it wholesome, unwholesome or neutral? Is it any different than a romantic relationship between two people? Do different branches or traditions have different views on this subject?

Re: do different traditions have different views.  I think you'd need to be careful there not to conflate Buddhism with the culture where it's practiced.

Here's a video related to the topic (haven't watched it yet): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5KR9elWFqM

What does Buddhism say about polyamory?

Buddhism is not conserned with the title of the romantic relationship or the sexual orientation of the partners in it.
Buddhism goes much deeper than that, it looks instead at the defilements that are connected with romantic relationships, e.g. "lust, craving, desire, jealousy, hatred etc."

Is it any different than a romantic relationship between two people?

It is not. The above mentioned defilements, are the same no matter what kind of romantic relationship we are talking about.

Is it wholesome, unwholesome or neutral?

According to the Abhidhamma, there are 52 mental factors (cetasikas). 14 of these are unwholesome mental factors, among those are "hatred, jealousy, avarice, craving". They are of course also part of the 3 root defilements, i.e. greed, hatred and delusion.
If one or more of these mental factors are present, it becomes unwholesome.

Do different branches or traditions have different views on this subject?

Good question. I do not have an answer to that. I would think that it's the same opinion, since we are dealing with the root defilements. I might be wrong about this though.

+1 As for the last question, I'm pretty sure it's considered normal in Tibetan Buddhism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyandry_in_Tibet), but I wouldn't be surprised if it was problematic e.g. to some Theravada teachers. But I don't know.

I really like your answer (+1), but I'm curious about your tradition, especially while your addressed the question about traditions.

@Oliver. Thank you. I follow the theravada-tradition and within that, the burmese method by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.

As far as the core of Buddhism is concerned, anything that causes craving is to be abandoned, if your ultimate goal is Enlightment or becoming an Arhat.
There maybe some lenient rule regarding this in different forms of Buddhism, but those are just for the lay followers, someone who just follows Buddhism without any stringent aim..
So it depends upon what you want to become and to what extent you want to follow Buddhism.
You can always find excuses like this in atleast any one form of Buddhism.
Making excuses just makes you a lay follower.
It doesn't lead to cessation of suffering or give knowledge.
If you think my answer is irrelevant, you are free to downvote :)

Does polyamory "cause craving"?

I don't like the notion in this answer to separate "lay"-people from sincere Buddhist (monks). It would be easy to argue (at least in some traditions), that the craving to become an Arhat is a craving, too. To say, the desire is wholesome, because the goal is Arhatship is an excuse, as well. And unintended compassionate love for one or more women could be easily considered wholesome.

@ChrisW Yes, that's a form of attachment, and you don't attach to anything in this material world unless you crave for it, or want it. 'Wanting' is more or less 'Craving'.

@Oliver Yes I accept, but an Arhat is far more better and has greater insight than lay followers. There's a separate book in Buddhism which is for lay followers (I don't remember its name because I've never read it). By lay followers, I just mean the commoners. As far as I know, we too are just lay-followers, even if you don't accept. The only excuse that an Arhat makes is clinging to this world and is unable to drop his five-aggregates eventhough he knows it's not the Truth. That's how I've read & understood it :)

I think I've read a proponent of polyamory claim that there's less attachment (and less jealousy) than in a one-on-one relationship.

"Love one another" - Jesus.

@nocomprende Yes, I accept, but that's true only upto an extent.. Everything is ok until it exceeds the limits.. Universal Love is different from Personal Love.. "Love one another" - It's not just to a specific person, but to everyone & everything in the universe. :) That's how I see it.

I just realized in the last couple days why I never understood jealousy, clinginess and so on: it is because I have never in my life had a relationship that I could actually feel safe in and count on the other person (mostly) being there for me - I am 50,and formerly married for 20 years. So the picture most people seem to have of what a primary relationship means, I have no idea where they got it from, was incomprehensible to me. I just didn't get their point of view at all. Now I can see it, but things like jealousy and exclusivity still seem stupid. I keep learning new things about people.

Ignoring cultural beliefs and traditions and thinking in terms of pure Buddhism, it can be a sin and at the same time can not be a sin.
Polyamory is not a sin if both your partners knows what is exactly happening and both of them know that you are in a polyamory. Hence if either of the partners do not like it, they have a choice to leave. You have been honest.
If you mention to both of your partners that you are monogamous yet you continue the polygamous relationship, then you are deceiving both of your partners ( because each of them thinks they are the only one you have). This is a sin. Assuming one day both of them find out that you did, then you have caused pain and anger to both of your partners, that is also a sin.
Take a look at the 5 precepts:

harming living things.
taking what is not given.
sexual misconduct.
lying or gossip.
taking intoxicating substances eg drugs or drink.

The third precept says to refrain from sexual misconduct. So assuming your partners are aware of the polygamous nature in your relationship but if one or all of them happened to be spouses of another individual (or happened to be in a relationship), then you are violating the 3rd of the 5 precepts as you have caused adultery.
You would immediately ask me why? Well it is because, although you wont hurt your partners, the other partners of your partners does not know it. They are deceived. Therefore that is a sin. It is true that your partners made that choice of getting into the polygamous relationship with you ignoring their spouses or boyfriend/girlfriend. In this scenario, your partners will commit a sin for deceiving their spouse or the person with the relationship, and you will face the karma of committing adultery because you knew they were married/engaged/in a relationship.

Are you sure "sin" is a proper word to use in the context of Buddhism?

Michau, it is not. But i used it as a term to symbolize the karma which a happy seeking being would not like to experience.

why not include infidelity under lying, if that's all that it amounts to?

So far as I know, "Buddhism" has no views on sexual norms. The Pali Canon mentions different types of gender, but seems to be non-judgemental about different kinds of marriage. In traditional Tibet, for example, a woman might marry two brothers. Logically, all varieties of sexuality must ultimately be abandoned, but the Buddha had important married householder followers, some of whom even attained arhantship.
One might assume that the Buddha would counsel married householders to respect each other and practice restraint, but this does not imply a preference for one sort of "arrangement" over another. The Pali Canon seems to suggest that wrongful sexuality or sexual misconduct (the third precept) implies adultery. "Sexual misconduct" and "wrong behaviours" are referred to, but not defined.

Household followers never attained arahatship...please correct.

You are mistaken.

please give example

"The Anguttara Nikaya (AN 6.119 and AN 6.120)[22] identifies 19 householders (gahapati)[23] who have "attained perfection" or, according to an alternate translation, "attained to certainty" (niṭṭhamgata) and "seen deathlessness, seen deathlessness with their own eyes" (amataddaso, amataṃ sacchikata).[24]." (Wikipedia, Householder [Buddhism]). I will see what else I can find. Apparently this point is disputed but is widely cited.

"the early texts refer to a few laypersons who attain Arahatship" (Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism, 2nd edition (Cambridge University Press, 2013), p. 288.

"The householder Citta, considered by the Buddha pre-eminent amongst his lay followers in teaching the dhamma, discusses his own proficiency in all eight jhanas. He is elsewhere praised as one of the chiefs of laymen: he was a stream-enterer and never became a monk, attaining enlightenment on his deathbed." (Sarah Shaw, Buddhist Meditation (Routledge, 2006), p. 13.

"Anathapindika also appears in a list of named householders who are said to have gone to the end, to have seen the Deathless and to have their being in the realisation of the Deathless. ... Purana and Isidatta appear, with Anathapindika, in the list of named householders who have their being in the realisation of the Deathless ... although the tradition is somewhat confused as to the fate of a layman attaining arahantship, it does not deny the possibility of a layman becoming an arahant." (Peter Masefield, Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism (George Allen & Unwin, 1986), pp. 10-12

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Lay_arahant#Arahant_Lay_followers

Another thing to consider is that not all of the early schools (Im not talking about the Mahayana here) think of arhantship as the highest attainment. Quite a few of the early schools held this view (I summarize them in my book, Conversations with the Buddha). Its really just an accident of history that we think of arhantship as the highest state, because this was the view of the Theravadins, who are the only early school to have survived, and they held this view. So we think that Theravada = original Buddhism. But this is not accurate.

The five precepts, which include sexual misconduct, are often said to be open to interpretation. If an open relationship works for everyone concerned, then I'd say it's likely no different from a homosexual one.
But, I don't think that as long as one does not deceive anyone then you're fine. Take e.g. this in Sexuality in Classical South Asian Buddhism, p521

I've not read the book, but would guess that simply being up-front would not be enough: that if one of the parties would prefer a monogamous relationship then it's a form of misconduct.
You are violating the wishes and so commitment of your partner if they don't have a reasonable say in who else you are sexually involved with. It's not really a complex issue, ethically, only inter-subjectively.

I think that means that it's immoral to have an "open relationship" with someone whose husband or wife doesn't approve.

yes, i agree it means that. but, even if we don't care about the other people in the relationship, their preferences etc., i would say that you are "violating" the relationship you have with them if they themselves don't approve @ChrisW

When the Buddha was going to die and Ananda asked him 3 questions, one was "Who will be our teacher when you are gone?" The Buddha answered "The precepts will be yr guide"  That is to say, the moral code.  Avoiding killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and taking intoxicants. A "poly" lifestyle would be considered sexual misconduct and will ultimately lead to a lower rebirth.  See the Shurangama Sutra for more details.

But why would it be considered sexual misconduct if the relationships are consensual and loving, e.g. just like a non-married partnership?

All "Poly" - ism's for example, polygamy and polyamory etc are attempts at dodging a major flaw with existence.
The attraction eventually fades away leaving you to deal with the consequences afterwards. i.e. You are unable to maintain the gratification the way you wish. The result is sadness. The Buddha called this the Anicca nature of things.
So in essence its a trap. It is a carrot that is dangled to keep you engaged in a revolving rat wheel called Sansara. This is an act of futility.

The same argument could be made for monogamy.

Access to Insight has an article titled A Happy Married Life: A Buddhist Perspective by Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda.
It's fairly detailed about many topics, but here's quoting one subsection from that:

Polygamy or Monogamy
To the question of whether Buddhists can keep more than one wife, the direct answer is not available in the Buddha's teaching, because as mentioned earlier, the Buddha did not lay down any religious laws with regard to married life although he has given valuable advice on how to lead a respectable married life.
Tradition, culture and the way of life as recognized by the majority of a particular country must also be considered when we practice certain things pertaining to our lives. Some religions say that a man can have only one wife whilst others say a man can have more than one wife.
Although the Buddha did not mention anything regarding the number of wives a man could have, he explicitly mentioned in His discourses that should a married man go to another woman out of wedlock, that could become the cause of his own downfall and he would have to face numerous other problems and disturbances.
The Buddha's way of teaching is just to explain the situation and the consequences. People can think for themselves as to why certain things are good and certain things are bad. The Buddha did not lay down rules about how many wives a man should or should not have which people are forced to follow. However, if the laws of a country stipulate that marriages must be monogamous, then such laws must be complied with, because the Buddha was explicit about His followers respecting the laws of a country, if those laws were beneficial to all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "romantic relationship". Maybe the Samajivina Sutta (AN 4.55) is an example:

As they were sitting there, Nakula's father said to the Blessed One: "Lord, ever since Nakula's mother as a young girl was brought to me [to be my wife] when I was just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to her even in mind, much less in body. We want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come."
And Nakula's mother said to the Blessed One: "Lord, ever since I as a young girl was brought to Nakula's father [to be his wife] when he was just a young boy, I am not conscious of being unfaithful to him even in mind, much less in body. We want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come."
[The Blessed One said:] "If both husband & wife want to see one another not only in the present life but also in the life to come, they should be in tune [with each other] in conviction, in tune in virtue, in tune in generosity, and in tune in discernment.

I don't know but Polyandry in Tibet suggests that polyandrous marriage was practiced for socio-economic reasons (e.g. to avoid dividing inherited land among several separate families). I don't know whether that counts as "romantic".

I thought that maybe "romantic love" was a modern invention (and that traditional relationships had practical motives), but Wikipedia doesn't confirm or deny that theory. It does say,

... states that romantic love introduced the idea of a narrative to an individual's life, and telling a story is a root meaning of the term romance. According to Giddens, the rise of romantic love more or less coincided with the emergence of the novel. It was then that romantic love, associated with freedom and therefore the ideals of romantic love, created the ties between freedom and self-realization.

A "narrative" is, I'd guess, a "self-view" according to Buddhism.

I don't know much about polyamory. One little thing I read once, maybe not on-topic here, was that the Islamic Koran says something like, that polygamous marriage is OK as long as the husband treats all his wives equally -- and that some people interpret that as a prohibition because such equality is impossible in practice.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Nose Object Problems
If one practices Goenka style  Vipassana or Anapana meditation then the main object of contemplation is the nose area.
If one has a cold and the nose is blocked then is it o.k. to breath through the mouth, chest or abdomen(in the Goenka, Anapana or any Buddhist meditation that uses the nose area)?
If, in that situation, it is proper to breath through the mouth,  then are there any special instructions for breathing through  the mouth in Anapana, Goenka or any other Buddhist meditation practice that uses the nose area?
What if one has always found it difficult to breath through the nose because of a partial blockage or some unknown condition that might be psychological?

If breathing is difficult concentrate on the sensation at the focal point. Apply (Vitarka) Sustained (Vicara) Attention Directing your Mind (Manasikara) to keep your mind on the focal point to cut out Thinking and Pondering / Verbal Fabrication (Vachi Sankhāra). Even with a stuffed nose you still breath hence you can just concentrate in the in and out flow. I don't think it is very advisable to breath through the mouth through.
See my answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12342/295 which contains more  details.

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


text:
Is too much of good kamma an obstacle for enlightenment?
The more good kamma one has, the more likely one is to be reborn as a deva, and not a human, right? This article says the following about devas:

So in spite of their excellent concentration and present opulence, they are even at a disadvantage compared to human beings, who are driven by pain and frustration to seek the path to deliverance.

Later on, it says that devas actually aspire to be humans, in order to comprehend impermanence, suffering, and non-self. Does it mean that generating too much good kamma is an obstacle for following the path towards enlightenment?

I've also been wondering this. I feel too many good fruits may lead to complacency.

First of all some information in the question needs enplaning before going any further.

About devas aspiring to be humans

This is the full story...
Just like any other being the karma of devas run out.Then something amazing start to appear.The flowers they ware start to loose their beauty and die (Like our flowers in the evening),their body's start to sweat for the first time,They loose the appeal for the comforts in deva realm.
When others see this they come to these friends who are about to leave them and say this "Focus on the Human realm,you can continue your path there.You can even come back to us."
Then they follow as advised and come for a birth here.
The common misunderstanding
Do this before believing what i am about to say.
Go to "Youtube" and watch few executions by terrorists,If you watch anymore than half a dozen you will need some help to sleep today.
So what's the point of doing that?
This is why,
That was only few videos Devas are not bunch of playboys having a good time without a care in the world.As to "Suttas/Sutras" they are given territories
to look after,Some come down to earth to help the people in need (After all we are their children,parents,relatives),Some travel between realms to teach other the path to nirvana.
Unlike us they do not look away,You only experienced few tragedies and cruelty.They see it million times bigger all over the globe everyday.Not to mention the other realms with life.What is our pain they do see the pain in hell (the naraka / apaya).pain in those realms are nonparallel with any other,it is that high.
They are not covered from reality of life.

One day a monk who genuinely tried his best to reach nirvana died
before reaching nirvana.Now he opens his eyes as if he just woke
up.He is terrorized by what he sees,"The deva realm." A lot of devas
were gathering to greet him knowing that he was a good monk.They were
beautiful and kind but our ex-monk deva saw them as if they were ugly
ghosts.With immense pain he came to see lord Buddha and told what
happened to him.Lord Buddha kindly advised him and asked him to
continue his practice.He went back to his realm and told his many
female devas (who were born for him) "I am continuing my practice and
i consider you all my sisters."

This is only one story,Let me present the details directly from lord Buddha..
Lord Buddha said that what happens there is more like what happens here.Just like in our world people who look away from pain and go get lost in joy exist there.The people who want an understanding search for truth,They get help from others and they even have discussion sessions with "Brahmas (Beings from the highest realms)".
If you think having anything on demand is going to harm concentration or the path to nirvana itself do this.
Look at yourself,now you are on the internet.Whatever you wish to have is on demand, you can entertain all of your six senses,go after any temptation for free!
Let me remind you...
Instead of reading about Buddhism you can do anything else right now.I mean what's wrong with us?, reading texts on some page about Buddhism!
This is the difference between common people and people like us.It's the fire that keeps burning leading us to try to find more meaning to life.This my friend is the spark that burns in any wise being in higher realms!
Also let me tell you some less known fact!
I hope you know about "Albert Einstein's - Relativity" because it will help you to understand this easily.
"Lord Buddha said beings in Deva realm have very long lives".The relativity comes in to action making us live in different speeds of time.
I know it was a bit hard to understand.Let me tell you a story mentioned in Buddhism that would do the trick.
One day a female in deva realm went to a garden with her husband and their friends.While spending time there she died because of her birth karma expiring.She was born among humans,she remembered her last life so she became a follower of lord Buddha and did many good things in hope of seeing her husband again.she lived a full human life and lied.She was born back at her place like she wanted.S she rushed to that garden of her last life they were still there and they asked an amazing question "Where were you in the morning we searched everywhere" she replied saying i was born among humans and lived a whole life time there.They were very sad and said "Oh how short is a human life!"
Get ready for the surprise of your life!
As to calculations given in Buddhism to deva Realms it has been only five days from Lord Buddhas leaving (death).There are still arahants there who offer doubtless advice to the ones who practice the path.
Looking at the Extra long life,A mind that is way faster and better than ours,Being in the company of arahants it is way better than being human!
Here in my country (Sri Lanka) where there is a Theravada practice we are often advised to focus on Deva realms because of the growing evilness of the world.Most of us plan to leave here,honestly i advice you the same if you do not reach nirvana in  this life.The future world is not for us,it is for "kill or be killed" people.
About too much of good karma
There is no such thing,Lord Buddha said that any good karma is good no matter the size.
This is Lord Buddhas words.....
"There is only one friend to the beings who wander in sansara,it is nothing else but their own karma"
May triple gems bless you!
Please comment if you have any questions.

I hope readers completely read my answer because it has a lot explained in it and could complicate someones understanding of the matter if not completely read.

Living in the obsession of good karma is obstacle. It will make you a egoistic. Enlightenment is, you are not fascinated with any type of karma. Wish to be an enlightened person is also a karma. So, leave your all type of karma or wishes and do your any type of work consciously. because you are already enlightened. The only difference is you are unaware with this truth.

Hi Jordan and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like.

Good Karma is needed to create the needed environment to practice towards Nibbana hence needed. Also it has it's down side. If you have a lot of wealth and comforts what ever the realm you are born in, for a average person attachment is imminent. This can be a stumbling block. Also there is not motivation to seek the end of suffering.
If you read the Upanisa Sutta (Bikkhu Bodhi's related work: Transcendental Dependent Arising A Translation and Exposition of the Upanisa Sutta) says Suffering is the forerunner that motivated you to take the path.
So in Deva realms and even among the rich and famous hedonistic practices become prevalent and the Dhamma forgotten or put on the back burner during prosperous time.

Householder Michau, interested,
Is too much of good kamma an obstacle for enlightenment?
No, never, the path is pattern with good actions (kamma). There is no way to access and walk the path without kusala actions. If doing skilful without really having accessed the path it will lead to better states, better existences. If skillful on the path, it will lead to fruits, paths and liberation.
Even doing merits when actually leading the holy life, the Buddha told his monks not to fear such. One having gained stream would have another seven resistances. Would one spend them in possible lowest or highest birth?

So no. Good actions by body word and speech can never be an obstacle.
The more good kamma one has, the more likely one is to be reborn as a deva, and not a human, right?
Your current outwardly situation and kind of body is for the most a matter of past existences or great efforts in this life. Of course great situations are often an obstacle as one easy sees no reason why to put further effort into, thinking things are for sure. But where ever one might be for now, what done right here matters. That best or most worse situations are not determining ones success is good shown in the Darkness Sutta. That counts similar for Devas as well. Some are wise, have accumulated needed merits, some, even rich, waste such off. But once firm faith in the Tripple Gems there is less to fear to fall of again, yet right view need effort to adopt.
Later on, it says that devas actually aspire to be humans, in order to comprehend impermanence, suffering, and non-self.
My person doesn't thinks so, since if one is already aware of the Dhamma, why stepping back? And if not, enjoying lighter existences, who would desire for lower? Yet sure, most Devas have not gained right wisdom, might just be on "holiday" and could even fall into bad reams after the exhausting of their merits. As for what Devas wish each other, when one dies away, they actually ask for soon comeback:

"When a deva is about to pass away from the company of devas, five omens appear: his garlands wither, his clothes get soiled, sweat comes out of his armpits, a dullness descends on his body, he no longer delights in his own deva-seat. The devas, knowing from this that 'This deva-son is about to pass away,' encourage him with three sayings: 'Go from here, honorable sir, to a good destination. Having gone to a good destination, gain the gain that is good to gain. Having gained the gain that is good to gain, become well-established.'"
When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One, "What, lord, is the devas' reckoning of going to a good destination? What is their reckoning of the gain that is good to gain? What is their reckoning of becoming well-established?"
"The human state, monks, is the devas' reckoning of going to a good destination. Having become a human being, acquiring conviction in the Dhamma-&-Vinaya taught by the Tathagata: this is the devas' reckoning of the gain that is good to gain. When that conviction is settled within one — rooted, established, & strong, not to be destroyed by any brahman or contemplative; deva, Mara, or Brahma; or anyone else in the world: this is the devas' reckoning of becoming well-established."
When a deva passes away
  from the company of devas
  through his life-span's ending,
  three sounds sound forth
      — the devas' encouragement.
'Go from here,
      honorable sir,
  to a good destination,
  to companionship
  with human beings.
  On becoming a human being,
  acquire a conviction
  unsurpassed
      in True Dhamma.
  That conviction of yours
  in True Dhamma, well-taught,
  should be   settled,
          rooted,
          established,
  — undestroyed
  as long as you live.
  Having abandoned
      bodily misconduct,
      verbal misconduct,
      mental misconduct,
  and whatever else is flawed;
  having done with the body what's skillful,
  and much that is skillful with speech,
  having done what's skillful
  with a heart without limit,
      with no acquisitions,
  then — having made much
  of that basis of merit
  through giving —
  establish other mortals
  in  True Dhamma &
      the holy life.'
With this sympathy, the devas —
  when they know a deva is passing away —
  encourage him:
          'Come back, deva,
          again & again.'

It's like coming here, this here is a fine-material realm as well. There are many who fall of back into normal human existences but less for them for practice sake, simply out of merits. And less are able to come back, once fallen off from a higher place. So who would not wish them to be able to come back and take a step even further now?
Conclusion:
Others than the most think is, that the investment into meditaion without doing much merits aside that, without learing to develop right view, will cause them such Deva existances where they are caught for a long, not able to penetrate Dhamma and then, for the most, fall straight down into hell.
So the wise way is the same as in business. If working constant, virtuous and step by step by ones own effort, how ever less will stick with one, get not fast lost. There are many ways to make fast huge businesses but the ways and the debt cause them all to fall down as fast as the business has been grown. Not good and in-honest work will not bear long fruits.
May all those who have fallen of, being playful or corrupt, soon reappear where the Dhamma can be heard, read, and may those who have not been touched by such be informed by the Devas to join the merits.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)


text:
What is "love" to a lay person?
As a budding Buddhist, one cannot help but investigate day to day phenomena with the magnificent tools made available to us by the Buddha.
An interesting thought occurred to me today and prompted me to ponder the nature of love. The conclusion that was arrived at the end of this particular stream of consciousness is that love is non hate, non greed, and (hopefully) non delusional. It is experiential, highly conditional, impinges on all faculties, and reverberates through the heartstring. As with all formations, it is impermanent. Wordly beings crave it, but few truly uncover it.
How do other lay people conceptualize love? And how would a monk approach this investigation?

Love is a very overloaded term. There are many different phenomena that fall under the umbrella label of "love":

There is love as obsessive kama (liking/desire) towards someone or something. This should probably be classified as lobha (greed, obsessive desire).
There is non-reciprocated love, longing for something you can't get. This is probably tanha (unsatisfied thirst, craving) - the root of dukkha.
There is love towards your mother, family, friends, town, country. This could be pure metta (loving-kindness) or metta with attachment. The first is a wholesome kind of love, producer of good karma. The second subtype, love with attachment, will serve as the root of dukkha once the impermanence kicks in.
There is love of self. This can be an egoistic form of love, or a kind of acceptance/appreciation - a factor of healing.
There is love as unconditional acceptance/appreciation of someone or everyone and everything -- a non-dual kind of love that does not draw lines between "self" and "other". In my understanding, such love is a factor of Enlightenment.

Summarizing the above, there seems to be two main types of love: attachment-type and acceptance/appreciation-type. The first type is a factor of dukkha, the second type is a factor of good karma, healing, Enlightenment.

You describe the love towards one's mother, family, etc as pure metta or metta with attachment. How is different to love with attachement. Second, what is pure metta? Unconditional as you would have for a child? Void of expectations?

pure metta is just infinite friendliness or infinite kindness to someone - while metta with attachment (or love with attachment - same thing in this context) is friendliness/kindness on the basis of identifying with something as "me" or "mine" or "us" or "we" or "ours".

Thanks Andrei. If pure metta is infinite friendliness or kindness, how is this expressed? How do you differentiate between pure metta and metta with attachment?

I think they appear identical in peaceful times, but in the times of trouble, the one with attachment shows its dark side - and manifests as either suffering and/or as aversion.

If you mean kind some kind of romantic love, my own experience isn't the same as yours. You said ...

love is non hate, non greed, and (hopefully) non delusional

... but I'm not sure I agree:

"non-hate" -- if the 'love' is the result of (i.e. conditioned by, conditional on) experience[s] that you like, then when the experience ends the love-you-experience becomes aversion-you-experience.
"non delusional" -- to the extent that "identity view" (of self) is a delusion then love might be a similar type of delusion (e.g. seeing the object of your love as a person who has/is a fixed identity)

In summary I suspect that love is "attachment".

There's a book I mentioned in this answer titled The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness. It says that most of the suttas were written by and for monks, but that some of the Buddha's advice was for people in lay society, and it summarizes some of that advice.

In my limited experience the good side/aspect of love might be right/moral/ethical actions and views.
In retrospect (i.e. looking back) there was a time in my life when I was motivated by (i.e. when my love was expressed as) wanting to be kind and to do the right thing.
It's these "ethical" actions that I don't regret -- which is inline with the Buddhist suttas, for example the Kimattha Sutta:

Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda, and freedom from remorse as their reward

It might be worth also considering the doctrines about admirable friendship. The various doctrines (e.g. "Keeping company with the wise" and "Never with an evil companion") suggest that the benefit is conditional on who you love -- i.e. not just on the nature of your love but on the nature of your beloved.
"The whole of the holy life" is I suppose (in context) about the benefit of the monastic sangha; perhaps if you're lucky or wise or both then you might experience something like that in a lay relationship.

The deepest description of love I have come across in my walk is a state where one does not oblige oneself to draw a distinction between one and the subject of one's love.  One can give freely to the other, not out of obligation or expectation or even altruism, but simply because one does not see a reason to distinguish between giving to their love and giving to oneself.


text:
Killing and planing to kill
As to Buddhism killing is wrong and planning such things is also wrong.
So what is the difference between the Karma of a person who killed someone and a person who only planned but never killed.

My answer is not from a theravada viewpoint. If you want me to delete it on that basis, you need only ask.

No i prefer Theravada because i belong to it,But that doesn't mean i am not open to knowledge.Thank you :) @TenzinDorje

Please stop using the [tag:theravada] tag with your questions. The convention on this site is to assume that questions welcome answers from any of the Buddhist schools/traditions. The tags like [tag:theravada] and [tag:mahayana] are used sparingly, to signal that for this question, people should only answer from the perspective of that specific school, and that answers from other schools are unwelcome and off-topic (and shouldn't be posted, and should be deleted if they are posted).

Tags are merely search aids: "A tag is a keyword or label that categorizes your question with other, similar questions. Using the right tags makes it easier for others to find and answer your question." Nothing is stated about deleting ceretain posts based on certain tags. The Buddha was not sectarian, and this is clear from a close study of the Pali suttas.

Je Tsongkhapa differentiates between (1) karma that is done (2) and karma that is accumulated. Between the two, there are four possibilities.
1. Done, but not accumulated. Tsongkhapa states:

Killing that is karma which you have done but not accumulated is seen
  in the following cases: that done unknowingly, that done in a dream,
  that not done intentionally, that which another person forced you to
  do against your will, that done only once and then regretted, [and so forth]

2. Accumulated, but not done. Tsongkhapa writes:

Killing that is karma that you have accumulated but have not done is
  seen in the following case: you investigate and analyze for a long
  time in order to kill a living being, but you do not kill it.

3. Done and accumulated. Tsongkhapa writes:

Killing that is karma that you have done and accumulated is seen in
  all the killing not included in the previous two permutations.

4. Killing that is karma that you have neither done nor accumulated is whatever is not included in the above three. Tsongkhapa does not give example.

He further explains that karma that is not done and accumulated (the third) is karma whose result you will not definitely experience.
The Levels of Yogic Deeds (Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra):

Karma whose result you will definitely experience is that consciously
  done and accumulated. Karma whose result you are not certain to
  experience is that consciously done but not accumulated.

Further debates settles on the meaning and reason of such a statement: karma that is done and not accumulated, for instance, is not as heavy as that which is done and accumulated. The weight of karma is one of the five factors that determines the time and the likelihood of its ripening.

Killing breaks the first precept and planning does not.
One commits Kaya(bodily) Kamma when killing. Planning may not necessarily involve Kaya Kamma as it could just be limited to thinking.
Killing causes greater Kamma compared to simply planning as it takes a greater degree of corruption in the mind states to actually carry out the plan until it's fulfillment.

It is the teaching of the Jains (which is actually very accurate under the label of Buddhism also here, who held the view that physical actions have the highest impact) that physical deeds are heavier then mental. As for what the Buddha taught is that mental actions are by far more powerful and have much more consequences, even to an extend that can lead beyond all kamma of what simple verbal and physical actions are incapable to cause.
One should understand the difference between "breaking precepts" and act unskillful by thoughts, words and deeds.
In how far certain kamma (action by intend) is heavier does actually not depend only on whether it's "only" by thoughts, words (signs) or physical deeds, but foremost on the quality of mind, prompted, unprompted and the amount of effort put into to uphold such.
So to speak: a worldling, not knowing his minds quality, not knowing what is kusala and what is akusala, although seeming as if "keeping the law" will not easy act toward and along the path.
People would wonder about the huge impact of certain "silence and inaction" and the minimal impart of their "rites and rituals" with impure mind.
SO one should be clear that "just" mental approving, or mental joy, or agreement, or accept association mentally "earns" likewise fruits like if ordered or done by oneself. And that is why one should take care not to associate with fools, especially mental approve or acceptance.
And like always, before you up-vote and down-vote to make your earnings here, think and investigate twice, since it's the law of nature that mass and fools are in one line.
See also On denying Defilement and the Uposatha of the wolf is also a good lesson for some open to look at ones defilements.
Why one "planing" to kill "act"-ually does not may have many reasons, sometimes just verbal or physical incapacitates, and if such would protect and lead to liberation, all "we" would need to make "heaven on earth" would be cutting of all limbs and possibilities of signs of all beings...
As for what is breaking the precepts, and how such is punished in certain society, that is another topic, but also requires the intention to be investigated, at least in the society and convention of the Noble Ones.
(note that this here is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment here, but as a tiny door to escape for those capable)

If someone intentionally kills another life, it breaks the first precept.
But if someone does not kill but plans to kill, it does not break the precept, but collects some negative karma due to hateful emotions.
If you have a hateful mind, it results in negative karma. If you have a hateful mind and hurt someone, then you get MORE negative karma than the previous scenario. If you intentionally kill someone, you break the precept.


text:
Is nirodha (cessation of suffering) dependent on the existence of suffering?
This answer includes the following statement:

But some other dharmas are still empty without being dependently originated, like nirodha or tathata.

A comment after the answers gives the following definitions:

nirodha is cessation of suffering (nirvana), and tathata is true reality.

Doesn't the cessation of suffering depend on the existence of suffering, and is therefore dependently originated?

The distinction you are making is a lower octave of the ultimate distinction between nirvana and samsara. From the perspective of samsara, nirvana is negation and therefore dualistic and relative. Thus the Buddha says that nirvana is the door to the supermundane, not the supermundane itself, which is transdual.
This led to the distinction between a nirvana attainment that excludes samsara, and a nirvana attainment that includes samsara. One can fall back into nirvana from the former, but not from the latter. Even in the Pali Canon one finds a distinction between nibbana and parinibbana, the latter only being attained at death. From the supermundane perspective, both nirvana and samsara are illusions.

+1 thanks for your thoughts. This also shed some more insight to the other answer. At least to me...

what do u mean 'fall back into'?

Although nirodha is usually translated "cessation", its main meaning is "restraint", "prevention" - e.g. of crime or any undesired activity/outcome. In modern Hindi, nirodh is even used as a word for condom.
If you really think about it, this makes sense. The way cessation of dukkha is achieved is through non-attachment - i.e. non-creation of conditions that make arising of dukkha possible. In other words, non-attachment is prevention of dukkha.
Prevention of X does not depend on existence of X.

I don't know if the word "dependent" is 100% correct.  I would say suffering is the supporting condition for cessation.
From  Upanisaa Sutta

suffering is the support condition for faith
faith is the support condition for joy
joy is the support condition for delight
delight is the support condition for tranquillity
tranquillity is the support condition for happiness
happiness is the support condition for concentration
concentration is the support condition for for knowledge and wisdom for things as they are
knowledge and wisdom for things as they are is the support condition for disenchantment
disenchantment is the support condition for dispassion
dispassion is the support condition for liberation (another word Buddha used for Nirodha or nibbana)

Lady Patacara,an arahat in Buddha's time, she was suffered a great deal when her  family was killed.  This is a classic example of suffering is the supporting condition for Nirodha  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patacara IMO human has just enough suffering (compare to none in heaven and tons in hell) to have faith (or Saddhaa)

+1 good point, forgot about this!

How does your "support condition" comapre to Theravada's "connection"? BTW: By "dependent" you're referring to the quality of the dharma, right?

I just want to say that I'm no expert in Pali.. pretty much self taught.   nice catch on "supporting condition"! In pali cannon, Buddha used the word "upanisā" in upanisaa sutta but he used "paccayā" in dependent origination.  If you look up in pali-english dictionary, they both have the same meaning "cause, means, support, likeness..  but they are not the same.  Tan Thanissaro did a fantastic job using "supporting condition" for "upanisaa" .  or i may say, suffering is not always create faith.  compare to "paccayā", it has "aways" tone to it.  Like, because of birth, death follows, always.

this demonstrates Buddha's wisdom in using words.  He told Ven Anandha that he would meditate, focus on every single world before he said it.  He said in all his teachings 40+ years, they match and support each other.

Suffering (un-satisfactoriness) is the result of impermanence of Sensations / what is felt and Fabrication in general when Perceived through Mental Distortions when there is a gap between reality and Perception. (In many Suttas, inclusive of the latter, it is mentioned "in short 5 aggregates of clinging is suffering" but in Titth’ayatana Sutta it is mentioned "Now, it is for one who feels that I make known: This is suffering ...")
Nirodha is not creating more un-satisfactoriness through Becoming or creating Fabrications by Distortion through Perception as well as Craving and Clinging.
Nirvana is unconditioned hence non dependent on anything. If it was conditioned it will be unsatisfactory as condition or its existance ceases it also ceases. This leads to a Paradox in the line of thinking in the question as when suffering ceases so does end of suffering.

There is a connection,
If there was no suffering there is no nirodha.
Let me give an explain from a famous teaching from Lord Buddha (The Four Noble Truths)....

Suffering exist because of not understanding
If the person understood the reality there wouldn't be a suffering in
the first place
To end the suffering one must first understand
If understanding happens in a person's mind he will not suffer
anymore!

Lord Buddha said...

Everything is born because of reasons
Everything exist because of reasons
Things will exist only till the reasons exist
if you take them away it will not exist anymore

What are the Four Noble Truths - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths
This is the answer to your question and any such questions about connections between things.

"3. To end the suffering one must first understand", but you write that "2. If the person understood". What's the difference in "understanding"?

If the person understood that there is only a functioning mind and a functioning body not a person then it would be the end of suffering but if it was understood the moment he was born he would not know what suffering is.   So suffering exist because it was never understood by the person,if he understand it he will suffer no more. i hope i answered  your question. please ask any question you have of my answer i am happy to help  : )

Did anyone understood [it] the moment he was born? Even for Buddha it took a while...

@draks... Exactly,there is no one who has understood it in their first moment.That is why Lord Buddha said birth is suffering because when you are born you start your suffering because you think everything that is picked up by your senses are "You" instead of trying to understand it.


text:
Is it important to be vegetarian when meditating "Metta meditation"?
Is it essential or somehow profitable to be vegetarian when doing "Metta/Maithree" meditation?
Or Is it essential or somehow profitable to any other form of meditation?
If not why a lot of people seems to be becoming vegetarian some time after they start their path?

Each of the relevant sects have a well defined answer for vegetarianism. I'd recommend indicating which sect/tradition's answer you want to hear. And diet is got to be the top 1 or 2 most controversial questions for Buddhist sites.

@MatthewMartin how about theravada?

You would tag your question as Theravada, which indicates you want an answer from the Theravada viewpoint.

Why,do you believe we are wrong? I must say even if your logic make sense it has no backing from the religion itself.If your answer is yes it does then it is only Mahayana,isn't it? @MatthewMartin

We don't do discussion in the comments, ref: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/95937/why-must-we-avoid-discussions-in-comments Website do exist for extended discussions. I'm sorry I can't help you further.

The comments to this question suggested that the OP isn't only interested in Theravada-specific answers.

@ChrisW please see comments in deleted answer

@MatthewMartin Yes I saw them (and deleted some of them). IMO your answer was fine. If you don't want to answer comments, you could flag the comments and I'd delete them. Of course you can, alternatively, delete your answer if you think that answering is pointless.

Why adherents of one sect believe the adherents of another sect are wrong or right is topic for another question and even then it would likely bring more heat than light. Mahayana Buddhists and Theravada Buddhists draw on a different set of sutras & a different set of teachers. Each camp has some rather unpleasant things to say about the other & the implications follow from doctrine, not just random prejudice. There is a good reason why elsewhere on the web, there is DhammaWheel and DharmaWheel. From day 1 of this site, I've always bit a bit worried about how a multi-sect site would evolve.

@Theravada When different schools of Buddhism (or different cultures) have different views on a subject (which they do e.g. about vegetarianism) then it's permitted or welcome on this site to say that the schools have "different" views ... but it is not permitted to say that one school is "right" and another is "wrong".

Matthew has (in the past and on other Buddhist forums) seen questions about vegetarianism become arguments. When he posted an answer to your question (an answer which he labelled as "Mahayana") you replied with a comment which started with, "you make valid points in you answer but i would like to point out an event etc.", and he replied "yes that's Theravada doctrine." I don't think Matthew is hostile to Theravada doctrine, and he didn't say you were lying. The story of Devadatta is well-known.

I understand, i am sorry if i offended anyone. thank you for the explanation  : )

Based on Theravada, which is what I'm most familiar with, vegetarianism is not essential for any meditation that I know of. Even so, I've chosen to be a vegetarian. As I understand it, the Mahayana tradition tends to strongly encourage vegetarianism, but even then I'm not certain if they do it specifically to aid meditation practice.
As to it being profitable, it depends on what effects adopting vegetarianism has on that person's state of mind. If being a vegetarian helps your compassion towards beings, then you might consider it profitable. For some people, choosing vegetarianism might result in no improved state of mind, in which case it doesn't matter.
This also answers your third question as to why a lot of people become vegetarian after they start their path. They might have noticed that becoming a vegetarian, for them, improves their personal state of mind. Of course this won't be the only reason, but for some it might be.
Try it, and see what works for you.

When my SO became vegetarian she said she liked animals (e.g. horses and cows and so on) and other living creatures; and said it would be hypocritical to cause them (e.g. to pay a butcher for them) to be killed for her to eat.
I think she felt that being non-vegetarian (i.e. that being a carnivore or predator) would interfere with or cloud her perception of her love for living animals.

I think there's some justification for that in a text like the Dhammapada, for example in the whole chapter on violence, which starts for example with,

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

I think that, logically, that justification depends on three assumptions:

That the "all" (who tremble at violence) includes annimals, i.e. sentient beings
That lay people who buy their food encourage or cause killing if they pay for meat (that argument is slightly different or doesn't apply to monks who take alms and who eat whatever they are given)
That vegetarianism is feasible (practicable) and is not contrary to the doctrine of the middle way

Vegetarianism is sila or part of the training in virtue.  According to Buddhaghosa, such moral discipline serves two functions - to compose the mind and to aid in the cultivation of non-regret.  I'd say it's fairly obvious that if you are on the cushion and worrying about what you take to be a contradiction between your actions and the lovingkindness meditation you are practicing, then yes, you might benefit from vegetarianism.
It's important to understand, however, that eating meat isn't going to "short circuit" your metta meditation.  If that were the case, than the whole of Tibetan Buddhism would be marked by deficiencies in lovingkindness!  I will say, however, that eating a vegetarian diet does amazing things for your concentration and that these benefits extend well beyond the absence of regret.  Like anything else, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, right?  Just not a meat pudding in this case.  ;-)

One part of your bodily sensations are due to food we take. Light vegetarian food can help concentration and meditation including Metta. This is beneficial but not necessary.
Buddhism is not an extreme ideology and centres around intention. If you do not have the intention of killing and also the situation is not such what you would be tainted by the guilt that an animal was killed on by behalf, then there is nothing wrong to eat non Veg. food. The main thing is keeping your mind pure and conducive to meditate hence if you find yourself uneasy or guilty about eating non Veg. food then it will be beneficial to give up.
But if you are a monk you have no choice but accept what has been offered.

The Buddha clearly and explicitly prohibited vegetarianism for the monastics. This was part of the controversy that culminated in the heretic Devadatta's failed attempt to foment a schism and to murder the Buddha.
There are various possible reasons for this, all speculative: the obligation of monastics to accept alms to enable ordinary people (puthujjana) to acquire merit, many of whom would not have been able to offer non-meat items to the monastics, seems to be the most likely reason; the scarcity of non-meat food items in many areas, which would cause monastics to leave those areas or starve (starvation was a constant problem for the monastics); religious pride and self-righteousness; and the law of karma, which only holds an individual responsible for actions of which he or she is the direct cause.
The Buddha did forbid that any animal should be killed specifically for a monastic, and monastics were not allowed to accept such offerings. Some Mahayana sutras prescribe vegetarianism, however.


text:
Is watching the heart beat (instead of watching the breath) a known form of meditation?

In Anapana there is no regulation of the breath.

As I understood it, it's meant not to control your breath while meditating, but just let flow. Sometimes it's difficult for me not to control it, so I thought about watching my heart beat. Something I have less control of than my breath.
Is this kind of meditation known?

The book mentioned in this answer i.e. Mindfulness with Breathing talks quite a lot about regulation of the breath -- so the premise of this question (that there is no regulation) might be mistaken or unclear.

Not Buddhist, but it is used in forms of neigong.  You see this a lot especially in martial arts like tai chi where you "pulse" the points you are trying to relax.

see interoceptive awareness - "...structure and function of the right frontal insula are correlated with the ability to feel one's own heartbeat...these neurons are involved in cognitive-emotional processes...such as empathy and self-aware emotional feelings..."
Everyone (i.e. all bhikkhus) can follow instructions for breathing.

The only time I've seen the heart-beat mentioned in a similar context, is when Trungpa Rinpoche discussed beginner-level practice:

...Usually hinayana-level student works with reality using exclusively phenomenological methods. He pays attention to his heart-beat, he watches his breathing, controls his posture and gait, how he eats, how drinks water etc...

The reason the breath is watched (as was explained by Trungpa Rinpoche) is because breath is the window onto the state of mind, or rather, the state of the entire mind-emotions-body continuum:

If there is an out-breath conditioned by the mind, he is aware that the out-breath was conditioned by the mind. If there is an in-breath conditioned by the mind, he is aware that the in-breath was conditioned by the mind.
--from Ānāpānasmṛti Sutra (EA 17.1)

One you get access to your state of mind by seeing how your breath is "conditioned by the mind", you use the feedback of the breath to work on calming and gladdening the entire body-mind:

’Breathing in, I am aware of my whole body. Breathing out, I am aware of my whole body.’ He or she practices like this.
  ‘...calm my whole body...
  ‘...feel joyful...
  ‘...feel happy...
  ‘...aware of my mental formations...
  ‘...calm my mental formations...
  ‘...aware of my mind...
  ‘...make my mind happy...
  ‘...concentrate my mind...
  ‘...liberate my mind...
--from Anapanasati Sutta (MN 118), as translated by Thich Nhat Hanh

I'm not sure heart-beat alone provides the same level of insight into the state of body-mind as the breathing, even though it is related. If you think about the two from signal theory perspective, breathing is amplitude-modulated while heart-beat is (low) frequency modulated, so necessarily heart-beat is a lower-resolution signal. Although as Trungpa Rinpoche says, there is no reason it cannot be used as a secondary indicator, along with stomach and chest tension, face mimics, gait / body language etc.
More importantly, regarding your comment about it being difficult for you not to control breath. As per the above quotes, I don't think the point of (anapana) meditation is to watch breath without controlling anything, nor to regulate the breathing directly. The point is to use breath as a feedback for working with body-mind.

The Wings to Awakening by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, on page 83 says,

There is the case where a monk—having gone to the wilderness, to the foot
  of a tree, or to an empty building—sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding
  his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [parimukham: in the
  Abhidhamma, this is translated literally as “around the mouth”; in the Vinaya,
  the same term is used to mean the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he
  breathes in; mindful he breathes out.

See also What is the Interpretation of Parimukham in the context of Buddhist Meditation?.
According to the above the heart area seams to be a valid focal point. Thanissaro Bhikkhu / Achan Lee also mentions about other focal points. (See: With Each & Every Breath and Keeping the Breath in Mind.)

Having said this I would advocate how S.N.Goenka advices to keep the focus.

For a beginner - the triangular area from top of your nose to the base. This includes the  inner walls of the nostrils where some feel the breath.
As you advance in concentration - the triangular area from the  tip of the nose to the base (the upper lip). This includes the tip of the nose and the sides, the nasal bridge and the base or simply around the nostrils and upper lip.
As you advance further - the base of the nose (upper lip)
As you advance even further - the centre of the upper lip (Philtrum). This point is referred as the spot in the chapter "Keep Your Mind on the Spot" (p 72 as per table of content in the original book but p 54 in the linked PDF as it looks like and extract) in The Way of Ultimate Calm by Webu Sayadaw.

And in terms of what you should perceive as the breath (Anapana Sanna):

Beginner - Flow of perspiration
Intermediate -  Touch or brushing of the flow of perspiration
Advance - the 4 elements associated with the breath (gaseous nature of the flowing air, heat or difference in heat of the in and out breath, solidity of the the point of focus, and moisture in the out breath and nose. [gross level] Also the same properties in every sensation you experience. [Subtle level] Further you can look at the Space Element initially bodily cavities like the nostrils [gross] and much later the gaps between the arising and passing of the Kalapas [subtle] and also Consciousness Element which in short is the recognising of arising and passing of contact and sensations again initially at a gross level where you recognise the start of a pain or sensation and the end of it in terms of time and also the location in the body where you start from boundary of the pain to the centre where it is the most intense [gross] and more subtle level when you start seeing the Kalapas which make the sensation. For further details see: Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’Ayatana Sutta, Maha Rahul’ovada Sutta, Maha Hatthi,padapama Sutta, etc.)
In preparation to switching to Sathipattana - sensations associated with the focal point and the perspiration process

When ever you find some combination difficult you can switch combinations like say the pure sensation at a focal point than the flow of respiration. If you feel dull and your mind is less sensitive you can increase the areas.
It is both right and wrong to say either you should regulate the breath and / or you should not regulate the breath! You should direct your sustained attention to the breath with the intention (but not necessary the direct action or direct manipulation of the respiratory process - if you manipulate the breath this becomes like Pranayama, hence I would generally say do not regulate the breath as this advice is less prone to mistakes by the novice) to clam your breath. Traditionally 4 steps are recommended:

Concern - Abhoga
Reaction - Samnnahara
Attention - Manasikara
Reviewing - Paccavekkhana

(See Knowing and Seeing - Revised Edition by Ven. Pa Auk Sayadaw p 45 for further explanation)
In simple terms this is keeping the though in the back of your mind that the breath should calm where you focus actively to keep your mind on the breath and whether it is long or short, smooth or not, etc.

Thanks! Your explanations are clearer than Goenka's explanations during the course. But what are the 4 elements associated with the breath?

Updated. See if this explains it.


text:
What advice should i give for a person with self destructive thoughts?
If someone is really depressed and having self destructive thoughts and behavior what can i do to help such a person?
Is there a good meditation for such a one?
What kind of advice will it be best for a such a one?

Are you asking about [tag:suicide]?

Well,Alcoholism,Driven by unnecessary  physical risks,  @ChrisW

See also Compassion to friends: stepping in vs. letting them learn on their own

Examples of available positive people and things, around all over. Balance of bad and good in life. Pour unconditional unintentional love, even when its only you to do it to him. Try to be social. When found alone that time try meditation to relax restless mind/thoughts, try take a step for own good and positive because otherwise/eventually everybody have to die. Rule of life and death are same for everything. Way of living (a small/simple try to be positive/good) creates the actual (one & only) difference.

@Jitin. Could you post your comment as an answer instead? Thank you:)

Metta meditation can help as it subdues hatred which is a major cause for suicide.
Other Samatha meditations like Anapanasati can help to attain extremely pleasant states of the mind like the Jhanas where there's no depression.
Vipassana can be practiced to make one not react to unpleasant feelings or thoughts and eventually achieve lasting peace.

I would try to advise the following:

Do some volunteering work, so they will see how valuable they can be in changing the lives of the people in need. Depression can be something people go through when they feel life is not worth living. Helping others should actually bring meaning to life.
Meditate on whatever arises in the mind and know that emotions are just transient and they don't really define anyone. If it is depressed mental state, accept it and meditate on it. Whatever you resist will persist.
Be mindful in everyday life and be thankful for all the things one has and may be for the things one doesn't have as well. Enjoy the small little things you encounter, e.g. nice warm sunshine, clean air, clean running water in one's own home.

Ending one's life prematurely or self-mutilating behavior does not change one's karma for the better, that is to say, if they are in a situation with extreme suffering in the present life, they will continue their suffering in their next lifetime as well. So, one can not escape their  suffering. Reverend Kusala Bhikshu is fond of saying, "Karma has no eyes, karma has no ears."  No matter how much one tries to escape their suffering they will not be able to escape their past deeds.
Suicidal behavior goes against the first precept which is to avoid killing.
A loving kindness (metta) meditation may be useful. This can be done by first wishing happiness for people that are hostile to the meditator. Then wishing happiness for people that are neutral to the meditator, and then finally wishing happiness for those that are close to the meditator(oneself). This is usually done with eyes closed while sitting on the floor or a chair with some kind of timer.

Let him know that by forfeiting early by self disqualification he will reincarnate again in this realm but have a even harder life.To end his suffering he must endure to the end by helping others get through their trials by being a positive force not a negative force, if we all stay positive the ride will go smooth and the next life and realm will be a precious experience.
I myself choose to stay back in the lower harder realms where much suffering and hardship is experienced,helping the weak get through is worth reliving the agony over and over again.

Mr. Cruz your answer has a second part which is not parallel with Buddhism,we as Buddhists do not admire lower realms and no such teachings exist in Buddhism to support a life in lower realms.  You say and i quote                                                                                "I myself choose to stay back in the lower harder realms where much suffering and hardship is experienced,helping the weak get through is worth reliving the agony over and over again"  This is not Buddhism this kind of thoughts will definitely give you,your next life in such a realm

you seem to have a very wrong idea about realms,this could get you in to trouble.Please refer these links to advance your knowledge in Buddhism    http://mahamevnawa.lk/inenglish/  and                      http://mahamevnawa.lk/inenglish/dhamma-talks/

Theravada-Staying back to help others is the ultimate sacrifice and the truest act of love for others.Very few are not willing to walk right back out of a heaven when they finally entered.Ill rest when my job is done.Thank you for the link i'll be glad to absorb it.

How many do you think there are? I would like to remind you the last words of lord Buddha "Do not be late,come to the path".The dangerous path you have chosen leads to no end. If you think you can see an end to it go see an ant's nest and see if you can count how many are there.And How could you help anyone if you get a bad birth yourself? Then who is there to help you? You are lucky to be Buddhist this life maybe you will be a human in  the next life but is there anyone who can make you a Buddhist next time?What if you are born in Afghanistan then you will be an Islamic running for your life!


text:
Life's issues as a meditation subject?
Are life's issues and other practical problems appropriate as a meditation subject?
Any buddhist school, that focus on this type of meditation?

Vipassana is training to handle such life situation.
Associated with each life interaction and though is a sensation. You can look at the arising and passing away of the sensations with full equanimity.
In generally what happens is when you come in contact with vicissitudes of life you react with clinging and craving on how you Perceive the sensation hence creating fabrication.
You can think and ponder on the matter in hand. This is in fact verbal fabrications. Thinking and pondering will create other sensation. Most prominent even in no mediators are like happiness, depression, anxiety, anger, hate, etc. which also has feelings associated. In general thinking things these can also be neutral or very subtle. In the process of Thinking and Pondering again look at the associated sensations arising and passing away.

I highly appreciated your response. From your explanation I understand that my emotions around a given issue could be a subject for meditation.  Allow me to ask something else. The act of calmly pondering different options and making decisions can be a form of meditation?

@artificer Updated above. See if it answers whether this answers your question to satisfaction?

Yes it does. Thank a lot.

There is a meditation technique I got from Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche called "touch-and-go". This is when you sit and let your mind expand naturally making no effort, and then when a thought about life issues comes up, you "touch" it (just to get a glimpse of its flavor) and then let it "go". This way you get to laundry a lot of your samskaras in a short period of time without getting bogged down in any one of them.
You don't go with the thoughts, you don't go against the thoughts. You do disidentify from the thoughts. You are not your thoughts. (You are not the observer of your thoughts either, but that's a separate story).
If the thought causes emotional pain, use the vajrayana transmutation technique: see the pain as pure somatic sensation until it melts under your stare. You are not your emotions.
Sometimes it maybe useful to trace your life issues, or rather the painful emotions associated with them, to preconceptions or attachments that come from overgeneralization of previous experiences. Once you learn to see your own experience-based biases and disidentify from them, you can be free of those as well. You are not your experiences.

To throw a monkey wrench into things as I'm wont to do, I'm going to say no.  It's not appropriate to use life issues as an object of meditation.  That's a lie, of course, but there's actually a different way of exploring the relationship between sitting and life issues that might give you a different perspective on your question.
There is a strong relationship between samatha meditation and insight in the Pali canon (and really the whole of Buddhism) that doesn't get much air play in the West anymore.  Not to discount vipassana at all - it is an exceptionally effective method of liberation - but tranquility meditation has a different emphasis.  It approaches our life issues, our obstacles, and our ignorance in a rather unique way.
The way samatha meditation works is that you sit with some sort of object be it your breath, a sign (e.g. kasina), or any one of a couple dozen other meditation devices.  It wouldn't be appropriate to use a life issue for this sort of meditation.  What you are trying to do is calm your mind and enter into successive states of concentrated absorption called jhana.  Good luck trying doing that with anger, right?  These states of deep concentration purify the mind, temporarily release you from the five hindrances, and loosen the fetters that ignorance uses to bind your consciousness.
But this sort of concentration is no good unless you use it for something.  These absorption are nothing more than spiritual masturbation unless you take advantage of the perspective they provide.  This is where samatha practice asks us to turn our minds back to our life issues and obstacles.  In fact, this is exactly what the Buddha did.  In the Bhayabherava Sutta (MN 4), you'll find the Buddha ascending through the jhanas.  Upon reaching the fourth, he says -

When my concentrated mind was thus purified, bright, unblemished, rid
  of imperfection, malleable, wieldy, steady, and attained to
  imperturbability, I directed it to knowledge of the destruction of the taints. (MN 4.31)

With the purified mind afforded to him by the jhanas, the Buddha was able to directly penetrate into the very things binding him to samsara.  Had he not entered into so deep an absorption, the knowledge he was able to discover would likewise not have been so complete.
Think of it like Street Fighter.  You've got your light, fast hits that given enough time will eventually fell your opponent.  That's vipassana.  And it works.  What the Buddha did, however, was use one big ol' haymaker of an attack and knocked delusion out with one blow.  That's the power of samatha.  This is an approach that doesn't use life issues as the object of meditation, but uses those issues as grist for insight once a state of absorption has been attained.
(Side note - some people will even tell you that jhana or at least access concentration is necessary for vipassana to be effective.)
(Bonus side note - this is also exactly how koan practice works.  The answer to koans are discovered when you turn a concentrated mind back onto them.)

There is a highly recommended form of meditation in Buddhism called "Vipasana"
that is the solution for the question because it concentrate on the events in lie in a Buddhist perspective.
But you are not sitting down in peace every second,You play,work,talk and etc.
so how do you cope with events as they occur?
The solution is Mindfulness
Here are some teachings on meditation that might help with your issue.
Just a body with movement (Meditation of posturest full awarness)
 Slaughtered cow (Meditation on elements)

Sure, the Buddhas school takes it as primary object, and one should do such very often for long term happiness and to walk a path upwardly. Lifes issues, decay of all kind, breaking appart, ageing, sickness, death. Not possible to either train for liberation, get encouraged and not heedless, nor to get any insight without often taking lives issues, inwardly, outwardly, as an object of meditation.
At least it's also a main object of the 4. base for mindfullness:

“And further, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the four noble truths. And how does a monk remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the four noble truths? There is the case where he discerns, as it has come to be, that ‘This is stress…This is the origination of stress…This is the cessation of stress…This is the way leading to the cessation of stress.’[19]
[a] “Now what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
“And what is birth? ... mn 10

Meditator who do not do meditate and reflect on lifes real issues, don't develope samvega and see urgency, are just wellness-meditators and sure to gain not much aside of short time escape. Never would leave home and strive for liberation.
Beware of those practicing householder-equanimity and ignoranz for eatings and being eatens sake.
(Note: this is not given for any trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment, but as an exit out of this wheel here and now)

In Theravada Buddhism, it's called Sila. There are 2 kinds of Sila:  Sila to avoid and Sila to do. See MangalaSuta, Siṅgālakasuttaṃ and 1st chapter of Path of Purification.
I think, Sila is common for the educated people around the world, especially the strict temples such as Pa-Auk, Ajarn Cha, etc.

The practitioner should practice Sila but Sila is not meditation because...

Sila is the basis of the meditation because the ruthless person can't succeed the meditation in long term.
Sila focuses to physical actions, bodily and verbal, of mind but the meditation focuses on  mind process directly.


text:
Why does killing produce bad karma?
Is it because we cause a being to suffer and experience pain while it's/he's being killed?
Or, is it because we put an end to its/his relationships and desires?
Or what reason can it be?

It is our Perception of the Sensation / Feeling experienced when result bears fruit is what distinguished the Karma as bad and not. I.e., Bad Karma is what you Perceive the results as undesirable and Good Karma is what we would perceive the results as favourable when the doer experiences the result, as well as skill full when this is conducive to reach the Buddhist Goal of Nirvana and un skilful when it is un conducive in reaching the final goal.
Say you kill you will experience the same when your actions catcher upto you. Hence what is needed is to treat other like you would be treated, or treatments you would evaluate positively if you experience it.
Also there is skilfulness of your action towards the goal of liberation. In this light any action which creates fabrication which hamper concentration and insight or the opportunity to practice can be considered unwholesome. Killing has aversion and / or craving as base. This creates fabrication which give painful sensation when meditating which will hamper concentration, insight as well as the needed longevity and conducive human birth to practice Vipassana hence such actions are un skilful.
For a worldly person (or someone not very deep and intensive in Vipassana) it is helpful to build-up Perception (Sanna) what these are good action and bad action so he is steered away from un skilful / un wholesome action towards skilful / wholesome action. As Perception clouds your sense of reality such mental maps ultimately have to be dissolved away too.

Added further explanation.

Karma is generated by intention, according to the Buddha, in contradistinction to Jainism, which identifies the cause of karma with action. Although all karma represents bondage to samsara, some karma generates more positive results and some karma generates more negative results, including the karma of liberation itself.
All experiences reflect the quality of the karma that one engenders. Killing originates in states of desire, passion, agitation, anger, and unhappiness, and thus those states return to one who has the intention to kill.

The proximate cause of killing is always hatred accompanied by delusion. But acts of killing can originate from all three evil roots.  Greed accompanied by delusion can be the motivating factor in cases of killing to gain material benefits.  Killing motivated by delusion is seen in cases of animal sacrifices done out
of wrong views and killing the followers of other religions thinking
it is a religious duty.
So intentional killing is bad karma as any thought or a thought process tainted by greed, hatred and delusion is bad Karma by definition.

Killing causes bad karma because of these reasons....
According to lord Buddha there must be Dvesha (a state of mind that feeds emotions like anger, confusion, hate) in a being's mind, to kill another or to harm another.
So killing or hurting someone crates bad karma because of internal reasons, not external reasons.
For example imagine you kill a baby who is yet to be born and who is yet to mature a proper body.
This baby has no relatives or relationships yet, it's not even a proper baby yet, and we are not sure if it can feel anything yet. But  if you kill this baby it will cause bad karma to you: but why?
Here is the reason....
The "Dvesha" I mentioned above is one of the three sources of bad karma.
These are the three sources of bad karma:

Loba - Lusting for things and people
Dvesha - State of mental collision (anger, hate, vendetta)
Moha - Mental confusion

So any verbal, mental or physical action that could cause these three states of mind is going to create bad karma.
These three can completely divert one's path towards nirvana and make him or her wrong do things. They pollute the mind of a person and diminish the potential they have to reach nirvana and to do anything in their lives.

I don't know what the word "collition" means

the word is collision. Sorry for my mistake. Thank you for pointing it out : )


text:
Are there rules that prevent chaos in our world?
Is it right to say that, if there is no supreme god, there must be a power or set of rules that prevents chaos in our world?
Isn't it natural that if the world is not ruled by god it must be exposed to some set of predetermined rules that prevent total chaos. I mean that the laws of physics are not enough power to keep the world (particularly our earth life) from running into total disorder.
For example according to Aggañña Sutta, the universe shrink and then expand in repeated cycles. I see here one of these predetermined rules - cycles.

My scientific education tells me that:

The world is as it is and behaves as it does (and is observed by people).
People (scientists) observe that behaviour and then invent rules which describe (or define) the behaviour.

Note that:

Those rules are not necessarily "pre-determined" (instead they're invented by people to describe the behaviour-of-the-world which they observe)
The world doesn't obey the rules, instead the rules are chosen to describe the world.

A Buddhist word for those rules is Dharma or Dhamma.
The Buddha is praised for his Dhamma, i.e. the Buddha discovered and explained a useful set of "rules" which we use to understand the world.

So you say that the universe doesn't follow the rules scientists invent. Fine, does leave the possibility for the universe to behave different from the rules? I mean not just the set rules/laws we currently have. And would this mean that we will never have a grand unifying theory that describes anything?

They are called the Five Niyamas. Simply put, they are all processes of causes and effect. If the causes are present, there's an appropriate effect.  If the causes are not present, there's no effect. That's the order of anything in the universe.

You should look into "Five Niyamas".
What are "Five niyamas" - http://www.theravada.dk/?pageid=389
These were introduced by Lord Buddha to explain every event in our reality.
If you can see in many things in nature there is no actual pattern or law it is simply chaos.
For example
Imagine the very unusual run that sperm has to take to meet with the female egg.It is complete chaos, but in it only the strongest will win. So what we see is not complete chaos producing more chaos it is simply sanctioned chaos
creating things less chaotic.
for example your brains neurotic activities are complete chaos but that is the thing that creates completely organized thoughts and functions.
In fact the truth is what we see as chaos is only our understanding being incompetent to explain what is happening, Soon as we understand complete chaos turn into very systematic behavior.


text:
Is there a legendary biography of Avalokitesvara/Kwan-Yin/Chenrezig?
I've googled this, but can't find it. I know there is a tradition of writing legendary/mythological/fictional biographies (hagiographies) of monks in the Chinese tradition.
Just a few days ago was the celebration of Kwan Yin's going forth day, but for the life of me, I can't find any other accounts of Kwan Yin's life as a monk or nun.

Also known as Chenrezig in the Tibetan tradition, Avalokiteśvara is widely known through most Buddhist traditions.

According to legend, Chenrezig made a a vow that he would not rest
until he had liberated all the beings in all the realms of suffering.
After working diligently at this task for a very long time, he looked
out and  realized the immense number of miserable beings yet to be
saved. Seeing this, he became despondent and his head split into
thousands of pieces. Amitabha Buddha put the pieces back together as a
body with very many arms and many heads, so that Chenrezig could work
with myriad beings all at the same time. Sometimes Chenrezig is
visualized with eleven heads, and a thousand arms fanned out around
him.

He has a total of 33 forms, including the wrathful form of Mahakala
He is also considered to be the "parent" of Tara

In Tibetan Buddhism, Tara came into existence from a single tear shed
by Avalokiteśvara. When the tear fell to the ground it created a lake,
and a lotus opening in the lake revealed Tara. In another version of
this story, Tara emerges from the heart of Avalokiteśvara. In either
version, it is Avalokiteśvara's outpouring of compassion which
manifests Tara as a being

He is mentioned in the following sutras :

Lotus Sutra
Kāraṇḍavyūhasūtra
Heart Sutra
Nīlakaṇṭha Dhāraṇī Sutra
Eleven-Faced Avalokitesvara Heart Dharani Sutra
Cundī Dhāraṇī Sūtra

Pictured below Avalokitesvara in his 1000 armed form and as Mahakala, and Tara


text:
Accurate translation of "Satipatthana Sutta"
I'm looking for an accurate translation of "Satipatthana Sutta". Could someone let me know what is the best available accurate translation? I don't want to be confused by just reading all available versions.
Thank you

you asked for one most accurate translation, here, now you have ten most accurate translations! ;)

In my opinion, one of the best translations is the one in Analayo Bhikhu's "Satipatthana: The Direct Path to Realization".
see https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/direct-path.pdf or
https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/satipatthana_direct-path_analayo_free-distribution-copy2.pdf

If you are looking to most accurate and reliable the best translations are by Piya Tan:

Mahasatipatthana
Mahasatipatthana Trilinear Edition
An Introduction to the Satipatthana Suttas
Satipatthana Mula by Ven. Sujato Edited By Piya Tan

After which the next best is from VRI:

Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta
Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - which carries a more detail explanation and companion the the above.

This slants towards the interpretations of certain Pali phases as done by Ven. Ledi Sawadaw, Ven. Webu Sayadaw and U Ba Kin. Piya Tan's translation is more balanced.
Ven Analayo's books are also very good but in my opinion not as a 1st read or for a novice as it misses out on certain angles and detailed explanation in certain interpretations. (Much of this is best covered in Piya Tan's translations in a more balanced manner.) You can try this after reading the above two as some of the omissions will not effect your understanding.
Ven. Soma Thera translation covers only the angle of interpreting the Suttas in the light of the Commentaries. Some of these interpretations are abstract and cannot be put to direct practice in certain interpretations as explained in the Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta by the VRI. From my point of view this is the least recommended as a meditation manual, nevertheless useful if you are doing research into commentarial interpretation of the Sutta.
There are other translations (mentioned in the other answers) which are from the purely from the stand point of the commentaries, even when there potential inconsistencies, though discussed in other works are left out of the translations to keep them concise. If you are familiar with these issues these would be great benefit due to the conciseness. Again only if you are familiar with the certain phases where these issues pop up. (E.g. when the translation say "... establish mindfulness in front ..." it does not carry the same literal meaning.)

There is also the book "The Way of Mindfulness - The Satipatthana Sutta and Its Commentary" by Soma Thera. Highly recommended book.

The Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) and the Mahasatipatthana Sutta (DN 22) are essentially the same. Fortunately for you, there are two excellent scholarly translations of these texts, the former in Nanamoli and Bodhi's Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha and the latter in Maurice Walshe's Long Discourses of the Buddha. Both are published by Wisdom Publications and may also be available online in PDF format. The Pali Tipitaka is also available online (www.tipitaka.org) for looking up particular words and phrases.


text:
What does the Abhidhamma say about impermanence?
I understand the state of changing (impermanence) mentioned in Buddhism, but I have also heard that another more complex version (of the doctrine of impermanence) exists in the Abhidhamma.
I would also like to know about how impermanence work when it comes to the physical body?
I would be thankful if someone could point to a few sources to learn about it, and maybe summarize it in an answer.
Please mention if I can use this knowledge to my personal practice, and if it is possible then how to do that.

I tried to clarify what you're asking: so please say if the question is still unclear, or if that's not what you're trying to ask. I think that what you called "temporariness" and "change" are usually referred to as "impermanence" in English, i.e. anicca. Also, you're welcome to use Pali words (technical vocabulary) within English-language sentences; people often use words like dukkha and so on.

@ChrisW i meant the change that happens in milliseconds,How your own body is appearing and disappearing (I have heard something like this a long time ago in Theravada but i don't remember now, But ia am sure it is in the "Abhidhamma") please answer if you are aware of this teaching. Thank you.

i meant the change that happens in milliseconds

I guess the following is what you heard?
Theravada abiddhamma formalizes "an experience" (thought process) in 17 discrete moments ("thought moments", cittakkhanas), or 17 cittas. An example from Abhidhammatha Sangaha ( Chap. IV - Compendium of the cognitive process):

While this is not a presentation on impermanence per se (nor it's about physical body) it's is an abbhidhamma topic that attempts to discriminate something in its detail.
It's not clear how long such a process or any of it's steps last; some say it's much much less than a millisecond.

The Sattiptana Sutta says to look at Arising and Passing away of Phenomena pertaining to the 5 aggregates and 6 sense faculties. You have to experience this through what is felt, hence sensation arising and passing away pertaining to the the 4 Foundation of Mindfulness.
In the Sankhata Sutta it is mentioned that Fabrication Arise and Passes away and there appears change what exists. The change is what arises after passing away has slightly decayed from the previous cycle. Through Insight Knowledges you can get a idea of Arising and Passing away and even perhaps the decay, but generally in meditation related Suttas only mention Arising and Passing Away of Phenomena (Uppadavayadhammino) hence perhaps this level of understanding is sufficient for meditation.
Theravada Abhidhamma subdivides this atomic moment to 3 parts: uppada, thiti, vaya or uppada, thiti, banga. Other schools of Buddhism hold different version of the subdivisions that are possible for an atomic moment.
Notes From Buddhist and Pāli University for the 2nd year page 44 onwards contains more information about this as well as the interpretation in different Schools of Buddhism.

This is expanded upon in SN 22.102 Aniccasaññā Sutta:

And how, monks, is the recognition of impermanence developed and
  cultivated so that it exhausts all passion for sensual pleasure,
  exhausts all passion for existence, exhausts all ignorance, exhausts
  and uproots all conceit of ‘I am’? ‘Such is form, such its origin,
  such its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origin, such its
  passing away. Such is recognition, such its origin, such its passing
  away. Such are fabrications, such their origin, such their passing
  away. Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its passing away.’

This is from the Samyutta Nikaya, not the Abhidhamma.