text:
How does one develop right view in the space of multiple views?
There is the story of the blind men and the elephant and each of the men had varying views of the elephant. Since none of them had the ability to have a complete view, they had differing right views.

How does one develop right view in the context of many views?
How does one determine right views?
What are examples of right view?

How does one develop right view in the context of many views?

By asking yourself what is your goal? When you know what is your goal, what do you want, a view will be formed that will help you achieve that goal.

How does one determine right views?

There are right views as many as there are beings in the universe. Each has it's own right view. Which view is right? It depends what your goal is.
If your goal is to experience the truth and become liberated from future deaths and births, there is only one right view to accomplish this.

What are examples of right view?

If your goal is liberation from future deaths and births, right view would be: to know the origin of suffering, to know the cessation to suffering and to know how to completely cease suffering within you. By having this right view ignorance would be removed, suffering would cease and you would be liberated.

How does this work with everyday life?

You have a goal. You think what would be the best path to achieve your goal. When you choose a path to achieve your goal, that is your right view for achieving your goal. This is called 'choosing a right view'.

By walking down the path, you'll learn new things and gain knowledge about your path. By gaining new knowledge, your chosen right view can become wrong view. Again, you think and with the new knowledge you replace your wrong view with right view, and continue on your path. This is called 'developing right view in the space of multiple views'.
By coming to the end of the path, your goal will be reached. 'You have developed right view in the space of multiple views'.

Ballanced skepticism.
You cannot force yourself to believe in rebirth. You can only educate your mind not to grasp firmly to the view that there isn't. If you adopt a ballanced attitude, that considers the several options without being partial to any option, then I think it's close to the best possible attitude. The true right view, of believing in rebirth, non material worlds, the existence of arahats, and so on, can only arise when you verify it yourself, beyond doubt. Until then, it's all provisional. So don't grasp views, especially those that might become an obstacle to liberation. Because I believe this is actualy the main point.

How does this work with everyday life?

I'm not sure. I think you should put one hour aside to sort your head out to reframe your life in terms of a ballanced skeptical attitude. Besides, you could do a retreat where you can safely learn meditation techniques and test for yourself the positive effects meditation can have. This will probably reinforce your inspiration, because you will extrapolate those effects to the full effects of total liberation. But hopefully someone will give you a better answer.

For the point reffering to examples of right view
I recommend you fully reading the sutta Apannaka Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
this is just a piece of it as an example of right view.

Action & non-action
A. "There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view: 'In acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture, in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given, breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary, ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does no evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of flesh, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no merit from that cause, no coming of merit. Through generosity, self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from that cause, no coming of merit.'[3]
B. "Some contemplatives & brahmans, speaking in direct opposition to those contemplatives & brahmans, say this: 'In acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture, in inflicting sorrow or in getting others to inflict sorrow, in tormenting or getting others to torment, in intimidating or getting others to intimidate, in taking life, taking what is not given, breaking into houses, plundering wealth, committing burglary, ambushing highways, committing adultery, speaking falsehood — one does evil. If with a razor-edged disk one were to turn all the living beings on this earth to a single heap of flesh, a single pile of flesh, there would be evil from that cause, there would be a coming of evil. If one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there would be evil from that cause, there would be a coming of evil. If one were to go along the left bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be merit from that cause, there would be a coming of merit. Through generosity, self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is merit from that cause, there is a coming of merit.'
"What do you think, householders? Don't these contemplatives & brahmans speak in direct opposition to each other?"
"Yes, lord."
A1. "Now, householders, of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold this view — 'In acting or getting others to act, in mutilating or getting others to mutilate, in torturing or getting others to torture... one does no evil... Through generosity, self-control, restraint, and truthful speech there is no merit from that cause, no coming of merit' — it can be expected that, shunning these three skillful activities — good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, good mental conduct — they will adopt & practice these three unskillful activities: bad bodily conduct, bad verbal conduct, bad mental conduct. Why is that? Because those venerable contemplatives & brahmans do not see, in unskillful activities, the drawbacks, the degradation, and the defilement; nor in skillful activities the rewards of renunciation, resembling cleansing.
A2. "Because there actually is action, the view of one who thinks, 'There is no action' is his wrong view. Because there actually is action, when he is resolved that 'There is no action,' that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is action, when he speaks the statement, 'There is no action,' that is his wrong speech. Because there actually is action, when he says that 'There is no action,' he makes himself an opponent to those arahants who teach action. Because there actually is action, when he persuades another that 'There is no action,' that is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others. Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong view.
A3. "With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no action, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is action, then this venerable person — on the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of action, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-action.' If there really is action, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now; and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him, covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful.

Unfortunately I do not think that a view can be completely right. Although some views can be more right than others. You can explain this in terms of strength, with some views possessing greater degrees of strength and others possessing lesser degrees of strength.
So the obvious question is, what makes a view more right? Well the first part of your question already answers this "How does one develop right view in the context of many views?" For the very fact that human beings communicate to develop their skills in language and intellectual understanding suggests that views are created through the mergence of two views. This is especially interesting when people exercise their views against each other (otherwise known as an 'argument') where people can sometimes literally not stop going at each other until an appropriate view has been reached. Fortunately the view that is created will be stronger, as it transcends the two initially opposing views. To answer your question, one develops right view through the mergence of many views.
To answer the second part of your question: right view is only a notion. Right view should really be called better view or greater view as it is only understood by more people. To illustrate this, one can examine history where people thought that the world was flat. This view was 'right' because most people thought that this was the truth, until of course Columbus proved that world was actually round. Ironically, even though this is true, right view for the time back then claimed that it was not true, that the world was flat. This would therefore show that 'right view' is only produced because most people think that it is 'right' even though it might not be. So how does one determine right view? Well it depends on whether you rely on your own judgement of what is right or the judgement of others. In the case of Columbus, sometimes its better to explore right view for yourself :)
To answer the third part of your question, would be to say that the best examples of right view come from the acceptance of many views mixed with your own. To develop this right view, you need only to communicate with as many people about their views while also putting in an effort to create your own right view. The end product should be a view that can stand the test of time and is accepted as 'right' in the eyes of many.
Hope this helps :)


text:
Does the Buddha speak of the nature of time, vis-à-vis "past," "future," and "present?"
Physics shows that what we percieve to be the unidirectional arrow of time is an illusion; that time doesn't necessary "flow" in any direction, and that the concepts of past and present are ultimately meaningless. Is there any discussion of the nature of time as a concept in  Buddhist teachings?

I don't understand what you're saying about physics: Arrow of time suggests several (macroscopic) perspectives in which the unidirectional arrow of time is obvious, just not at the microscopic level.

Lord Buddha definitely does talk about Past, Present and Future; but I guess your questions is mainly about, "Do we have something called time?" or "What is time?"
With regards to Abidhamma, there is no "Paramartha" dhamma which we can relate to time: i.e. there is Citta, Cetasika and Rupa and Nirvana, but no reference to time. One of the best explanations I've heard is that the impermanence (Anicca) that we see is what we comprehend as time: i.e. the change that we see, is what we associate with time.
Sorry if it's not very helpful.

Not the Buddha, but these dictionary entries define akalika and kalika, and include these notes:

Ñánavíra on Citta, see footnote: "The notion of two successive 'moments', A and B, as akálika or non-temporal is a confusion. Either A and B are simultaneous (as e.g. viññána and námarúpa), in which case they are indeed akálika; or B follows A and they are successive (as e.g. the in-&-out-breaths), in which case they are kálika."
I think this is sometimes the intended meaning in the Pali, sometimes not. When one speaks of the simultaneous arising of nama/rupa+consciousness the meaning is simultaneity; when one speaks of consciousness depending on nama/rupa or other cases of 'fruition' the use is without interval, immediately successive.
It is probably most useful here to go to the ultimate roots: a = no; ka = shit; li = line; ka = shit. The track of scat left by an animal. The hunter sees: This is the track a week old, this is only two days old, this is from yesterday, and here it is now, eating. That would point to the original meaning of the term to be closer to successive than to simultaneity.

So it's describing two, or three, cases:

Immediate:

Two events happen at the same time, or,
One event depends on (happens immediately after) the other

Slow or delayed:

One event succeeds (happens later, after) the other

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Buddhism view regarding happiness and contentment
The original teachings of the Buddha as expressed in the satipatthana sutta, centres mainly in the development of an equanimity state of mind. Not driven by desire, greed or delusion. My question is what is the view of Buddhism (referring to the original teachings of the Buddha in particular) in terms of happiness and contentment not driven by the hindrances?

The end of the Pañcakanga Sutta (which Thiago's answer quoted) appears to fit what the question is asking about (i.e., "happiness and contentment referring to the original teachings of the Buddha"):

"It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'
"Those who say so, should be told: 'The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.'"

The word which was translated as "pleasure" there, is Sukha.
So maybe we can investigate a "Buddhist view of happiness", by investigating Sukha.
There are several sources where there are descriptions, definitions, and references for this word:

Here in Wikipedia:

Sukha is a Sanskrit and Pāli word that is often translated as "happiness" or "ease" or "pleasure" or "bliss."[1] From the time of Hinduism's early scriptures, sukha' is set up as a contrast to preya (pleasure), where happiness (sukha) is a deep and authentic positive, fulfilling state of being that is lasting and not merely transient and ultimately unsatisfying, requiring constant modification, like preya.

So apparently it's translated as "pleasure" but can be set up as a contrast to "pleasure". :-)
Here in the dictionary:

agreeable, pleasant, blest; pleasant path, easy progress; wellbeing, happiness, ease; ideal, success

I think these are out-of-context definitions of a pre-Buddhist word, but gives an idea of how broad (or how vague) the definition/scope of the word is.
According to here it's often used as part of a compound word, e.g. atthi-sukha, bhoga-sukha, anaṇa-sukha, anavajja-sukha.
There are 100 search results if you search for "sukha" on accesstoinsight.org
The first one I read agreed with yuttadhammo's answer:

Sukha Sutta: Happiness
"There are, O monks, these three feelings: pleasant feelings, painful feelings, and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings."
Be it a pleasant feeling, be it a painful feeling, be it neutral,
  one's own or others', feelings of all kinds[1] —
  he knows them all as ill, deceitful, evanescent.
  Seeing how they impinge again, again, and disappear,[2]
  he wins detachment from the feelings, passion-free.

I also want to reference this book, because so far as I know it's unusual in mining extracts from the Pali to present as advice to lay society.
The last chapter of The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, In the World, which is titled "Lasting Happiness", starts by quoting the Dhammapada,

Indeed we live happily. In the midst of
  worried people, we live free from worry...
  Happiness is the greatest wealth.
  -The Buddha, Dhammapada

I'm not sure that's a good/close translation; maybe it's a paraphrase/summary. See also this translation of the whole chapter: Sukhavagga: Happiness
The contents of (i.e. section titles in) that chapter are,

The greatest wealth
Taking responsibility for happiness
Beginning now
Seven steps to freedom from worry

Avoid mind-created reactions to everyday experiences (e.g. thinking "he didn't smile because he doesn't like me" would be adding a minded-created reaction to a visual observation")
Let go of greed and malice
Pursue a goal and enjoy achieving it (atthi sukha)
Look at others' unpleasant actions with compassion
Work for others' benefit (bhavana and dana)
Live a principled life (anavajja sukha: blameless; and punna, kusala, and dhamma: skillful)
Accept the inevitability of change as natural law (interpreting Dhammapada verse 277 as "One who realizes the impermanence of all natural phenomena finds inner peace").

The final paragraph,

Thoughts and actions of compassion, generosity, dutifulness, and upright conduct are outstanding practices to soothe our minds. And the wisdom to accept inevitable change makes our inner peace and happiness lasting and complete. This truly is a teaching that "is excellent at the beginning, excellent in the middle, excellent in the end."

This sort of happiness is certainly recognized by the Buddha; it is encouraged in many places as being conducive to concentration, e.g.:

2.“I thought: ‘Why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states?’ I thought: ‘I am not afraid of that pleasure since it has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states.’
-- MN 36 (Bodhi, trans)

In final analysis, however, it must be discarded as useless - unstable, unsatisfying and uncontrollable:

(i) “And what, bhikkhus, is the gratification in the case of feelings? Here, bhikkhus, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. On such an occasion he does not choose for his own affliction, or for another’s affliction, or for the affliction of both. On that occasion he feels only feeling that is free from affliction. The highest gratification in the case of feelings is freedom from affliction, I say.
33–35.“Again, with the stilling of applied and sustained thought, a bhikkhu enters upon and abides in the second jhāna…With the fading away as well of rapture…he enters upon and abides in the third jhāna…With the abandoning of pleasure and pain he enters upon and abides in the fourth jhāna…On such an occasion he does not choose for his own affliction, or for another’s affliction, or for the affliction of both. On that occasion he feels only feeling that is free from affliction. The highest gratification in the case of feelings is freedom from affliction, I say.
36.(ii) “And what, bhikkhus, is the danger in the case of feelings? Feelings are impermanent, suffering, and subject to change. This is the danger in the case of feelings.
37.(iii) “And what, bhikkhus, is the escape in the case of feelings? It is the removal of desire and lust, the abandonment of desire and lust for feelings. This is the escape in the case of feelings.
-- MN 13 (Bodhi, trans)

A comparison of sensual pleasures with other forms of happiness:

[...] The pleasure and joy arising dependent on these five strands of sense desire, that is called sensual pleasure.
"Now, if someone were to say: 'This is the highest pleasure and joy that can be experienced,' I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is this pleasure? Here, quite secluded from sensual desires, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, a monk enters upon and abides in the first meditative absorption (jhana), which is accompanied by thought conception and discursive thinking and has in it joy and pleasure born of seclusion. This is the other kind of pleasure which surpasses that (sense) pleasure and is more sublime.
"If someone were to say: 'This is the highest pleasure that can be experienced,' I would not concede that. And why not? Because there is another kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime. And what is that pleasure? Here, with the stilling of thought conception and discursive thinking... a monk enters upon and abides in the second meditative absorption... in the sphere of the infinity of space... of the infinity of consciousness... of no-thingness... of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. [...] the cessation of perception and feeling. [...] This is the other kind of pleasure which surpasses that pleasure and is more sublime.
"It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'
"Those who say so, should be told: 'The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.'"
-- Pañcakanga Sutta, SN 36.19

In another exposition, the Buddha distinguishes between worldly joys and unworldly joys. For example:

"Now, O monks, what is worldly joy? There are these five cords of sense desire [...]. It is the joy that arises dependent on these five cords of sense desire which is called 'worldly joy.
"Now what is unworldly joy? Quite secluded from sense desires, secluded from unwholesome states of mind, a monk enters upon and abides in the first meditative absorption [...]. This is called 'unworldly joy.
-- Niramisa Sutta: Unworldly, SN 36.31

It can be seen in the suttas that, in general, happiness, joy, contentment (or, specifically, the wholesome kinds) are at the very heart of the teachings, where nibbāna is declared to be the foremost happiness. On that note:

Bhikkhus, it is impossible that a bhikkhu who considers nibbāna to be suffering will possess a conviction in conformity [with the teaching]. [...] [But] it is possible that a bhikkhu who considers nibbāna to be hapiness will possess a conviction in conformity [with the teaching].
-- Nibbāna [Bodhi Trans.], AN 6:101

Also, as @yuttadhammo explained in his answer, in the context of samatha:

When the mind is directed to some satisfactory image, happiness is born. From this happiness, joy is then born. With a joyful mind, the body relaxes. A relaxed body feels content, and the mind of one content becomes concentrated.
-- SN 47.10

We also see qualities like rapture (piti) in the seven factors of enlightenment. Finally, in a dependent arising formulation of the path (see Ven. Bodhi's exposition on this particular sutta):

Emancipation <- Dispassion <- Disenchantment <- Knowledge-and-vision-of-things-as-they-are <- Concentration <- Happiness (Sukha) <- Tranquillity <- Rapture (Pīti) <- Joy (Pāmujja) <- Faith <- Suffering <- Birth <- Existence <- Clinging <- Craving <- Feeling <- Contact <- the Six Sense-Bases <- Name-and-Form <- Consciousness <- (kamma-) formations <- Ignorance
-- Upanisa Sutta, SN 12.23

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


text:
'Metta' versus 'passive acceptance for the wicked'?
I've often seen the question asked: "How can we have metta for murderers, terrorists, criminals, etc.?"
Though there are many good answers to these questions, I've noticed that few of them tend to highlight the difference between 'having metta for something or someone', versus 'condoning, endorsing, or even simply tolerating their actions'. Most answers stress that the wicked be viewed as individuals, who -- if they were truly happy -- would not do such terrible things. Therefore, we should wish that they attain that very true happiness. But that doesn't seem to change the fact that by generating metta towards these people, I often feel as though I am passively accepting their terrible deeds, which caused tremendous suffering to others. Do not the wicked "deserve" suffering for the suffering they've caused?
When we generate metta for the "wicked", how do we thus distance ourselves from the horrible actions of our metta-recipients? How do we have unconditional loving-kindness for them without taking on their negative qualities and actions that make the metta so difficult to generate in the first-place?

I think your question contains an implication that one practicing metta will be inclined to do nothing for the person they feel friendly towards. This is not the case at all. A person with metta is inclined towards the benefit of others:

For among these, loving-kindness is the way to purity for one who has
  much ill will, compassion is that for one who has much cruelty, gladness is that
  for one who has much aversion (boredom), and equanimity is that for one who
  has much greed. Also attention given to beings is only fourfold, that is to say, as
  bringing welfare, as removing suffering, as being glad at their success, and as
  unconcern, [that is to say, impartial neutrality]. And one abiding in the
  measureless states should practice loving-kindness and the rest like a mother
  with four sons, namely, a child, an invalid, one in the flush of youth, and one
  busy with his own affairs; for she wants the child to grow up, wants the invalid
  to get well, wants the one in the flush of youth to enjoy for long the benefits of
  youth, and is not at all bothered about the one who is busy with his own affairs.
  That is why the measureless states are only four as “due to paths to purity and
  other sets of four.”
One who wants to develop these four should practice them towards beings
  first as the promotion of the aspect of welfare—and loving-kindness has the
  promotion of the aspect of welfare as its characteristic; and next, on seeing or
  hearing or judging that beings whose welfare has been thus wished for are at
  the mercy of suffering, they should be practiced as the promotion of the aspect of
  the removal of suffering—and compassion has the promotion of the aspect of
  the removal of suffering as its characteristic; and then, on seeing the success of
  those whose welfare has been wished for and the removal of whose suffering
  has been wished for, they should be practiced as being glad—and gladness has
  the act of gladdening as its characteristic; but after that there is nothing to be
  done and so they should be practiced as the neutral aspect, in other words, the
  state of an onlooker—and equanimity has the promotion of the aspect of
  neutrality as its characteristic; therefore, since their respective aims are the aspect
  of welfare, etc., their order should be understood to correspond, with loving-
  kindness stated first, then compassion, gladness and equanimity.
-- Vism IX.108-9 (Nyanamoli, trans)

Clearly a person with a mind of metta is more likely to work to help those most in need; not just to end the suffering of victims, but to end the evil of perpetrators that is the cause of suffering for both.
Do not the wicked "deserve" suffering for the suffering they've caused?
Certainly, this seems reasonable, but does not relate to one's own state of mind. Anger is still evil even when it is based on true assessment of the situation; two wrongs don't make a right.
When we generate metta for the "wicked", how do we thus distance ourselves from the horrible actions of our metta-recipients?
We do it by beginning with lovable beings, then slowly working our way up to neutral, then finally hostile individuals. Any time we find our state of friendliness slipping, we revert back to an easier object.

If resentment arises in him when he applies his mind to a hostile person
  because he remembers wrongs done by that person, he should get rid of the
  resentment by entering repeatedly into loving-kindness [jhāna] towards any of
  the first-mentioned persons and then, after he has emerged each time, directing
  loving-kindness towards that person.
-- Vism IX.14 (Nyanamoli, trans)

There is much more detailed info on dealing with anger in chapter nine of the Visuddhimagga, along with quotes from the Buddha.
Is there any concept of "condemnation with metta"?
I think you are under the impression that metta is a mind state to be dwelt in constantly. Buddhism doesn't espouse such a view; constant attention to metta will lead to rebirth in the brahma realms, not enlightenment. No, it is not possible to condemn someone while absorbed in the practice of metta meditation, but it is possible for a person free from anger, who often practices metta, to do so. Metta may in fact lead someone to condemn others, thinking that the condemnation will help them overcome their evil deeds, or help keep others from falling prey to their evil deeds (which would probably be karuna).

‘Then Sunakkhatta came to me, saluted me, and sat down to one side. I said to him: “You foolish man, do you claim to be a follower of the Sakyan?” “Lord, what do you mean by this question?” “Sunakkhatta, did you not go to see Kaḷāramuṭṭhaka and ask him a question he could not answer, and did he not thereupon show signs of anger, rage and petulance? And did you not think: ‘I might cause this real Arahant ascetic offence. I don’t want anything to happen that would be to my lasting harm and misfortune’?” “I did, Lord. Does the Blessed Lord begrudge others their Arahantship?” “I do not begrudge others their Arahantship, you foolish man. It is only in you that this evil view has arisen. Cast it aside lest it should be to your harm and sorrow for a long time! This naked ascetic Kaḷāramuṭṭhaka, whom you regard as a true Arahant, will before long be living clothed and married, subsisting on boiled rice and sour milk. He will go beyond all the shrines of Vesālī, and will die having entirely lost his reputation.” And indeed all this came about.
-- DN 24 (Walshe, trans)

appreciate this answer. clarification request: though anger towards evil may be something to be unconditionally avoided, is there any concept of "condemnation with metta"? my problem is that metta seems "naive" in that it appears to ignore things which are bad.

@IanTaylor answer updated.

@IanTaylor In case the distinction matters, imo that DN 24 is another example of condemning behaviour (in this case, a wrong or evil view) and not condemning the person who has that behaviour (unless you think that reproving someone by calling them "foolish" is a condemnation).

Hatred feelings spoils your mind, results in bad Karma, and this is despite it's being towards someone who has done something bad. Metta is for your mind and for your benifit. Fellings you get justifying being Hatred towards someone who has done something bad is refefferd as "Wanchaka Dhamma", basically meaning deceiving thoughts. Makes your belive your are doing the right thing. It's quite subtle.

I believe if knowledge advances totally we will come to see that negative mind states like anger, fear, envy, jealousy are all signs of ill health. Just as a perfectly bodily healthy human doesn't fall ill often because of a strong immune system; similarly a perfectly emotionally healthy human doesn't fall ill often to negative emotions because of a well developed immune system of mindfulness.
The modern legal system does not punish murders committed under insanity; the Geneva convention states prisoners of war should be treated fairly; the modern hospital does not blame the ill, or consign those with infectious diseases to leper colonies. These are a few examples of how our relatively unenlightened society has already come to change its views and habits superficially.
To not punish a murder committed in a fit of insanity is pretty new in human history: it required two things: one, an advancement in science that led to a better understanding of insanity that allayed our fear of the insane, and two, wealth to build safe places to house the insane humanely.
With leper colonies of the past the case is the same, even if society felt sorry for the affected, it couldn't afford to care for them without the money and the knowledge to not fear the disease. Likewise, in the past, a country at war could ill afford to feed prisoners of war. Obviously, today  we have the wealth to care for prisoners of war, but we are still struggling with our anger resulting from fear, so we hear of cases of prisoner abuse.
In order to be compassionate while operating within a conventional view of the self, we need affordability (time, money, natural resources, physical strength) and absence of fear.
With the case of holy men and women, who have gone beyond a sense of self and the resulting fears, they must nevertheless still deal with scarce resources.
The Buddha is often seen prioritising among his flock. Even if he has total lack of fear or care for his safety, he is constrained by time, because he wants to help as many people as possible before his death. So there are suttas where he says he doesn't waste time on people of lesser capacities. Whereas, if he sees a deserving person, he is ready to walk for several days to reach that deserving person and rescue him or her from samsara. This is purely a tactical problem - despite being enlightened he must chop wood and carry water, as the Zen saying goes.
It is thus possible to develop compassion for all when we see our anger results from fear, which results from a broken emotional immune system. However, being able to do something about it practically, other than sending metta energy is a different thing.

I think the OP is afraid that unconditional loving-kindness for a criminal is "passively accepting" their criminal actions. Don't the wicked "deserve" to suffer? How can we generate "metta" for the criminal while "distancing" ourselves from their actions?

+1 for the "well developed immune system of mindfulness" analogy.

@ChrisW I point out that that line of thinking is flawed. Being wicked is no more evil than catching a cold. Wickedness comes from a weak emotional body, just as falling ill comes from a weak physical body. Before cigarettes were well understood, many thought they were harmless. Likewise many today think greed, anger, and a whole host of negative emotions are harmless. We readily help someone with a broken leg to cross the road, but we blame an angry person for his actions.

If you think beyond this very lifetime, to the endless rounds of lifetimes, with the endless rounds of suffering through samsara amidst our greed, hatred, and delusions, it becomes a little easier to view everyone with one of the other brahmavihāras, Karuṇā.
I've heard it said that when someone kills another, the person they killed had killed them in a previous life. It's hard to imagine how many times we've lived and all the effects of our kamma we are burning off and will continue to burn off.
This is not to sympathize with evil actions. Evil actions continue this cycle of suffering. Those who continue to do evil actions just add to their own kammic burden; while those who are on the receiving end of evil actions may have finally burned off some of their own kammic burden.
Evil is to be avoided. When people don't understand this and they engage in evil, they should be viewed with pity. It's very sad really.
Viewing everyone involved in a tragic incident with both Karuṇā and with Mettā can help your own mind state to recover from the shock of evil (and the greed, hatred, and delusion behind it) that we experience in samsara.

When practicing metta on anyone we can focus on what is good in the person. If nothing good can be found then maybe compassion would work. When we cause suffering, we suffer ourselves and we can be compassionate to those that suffer by causing suffering. Compassion is a good replacement for any anger we might have for "the wicked". Ultimately we practice metta for ourselves and not so much for the other person because when we help others, we help ourselves.


text:
Are theravada monks allowed to stay in lay people's house?
A theravada monk would like to stay in my house for one night. I live with my parents, but  we don't have special room for guest. Should I suggest him to stay in monastery near my house?

If there is a monastery near your house, he should be easily welcomed there as a brother monk

I do not know if this rule applies but in the the Pācittiya Pāli in the Vinaya Piṭaka there is this rule: "A bhikkhu who sleeps under the same roof and within the walls along with a woman commits a Pācittiya offence."

@Lanka See my answer - that isn't a literal translation, though it seems accurate from the POV of the commentary.

@Bhante. Thanks for the elaboration on the rule. I understand "sahaseyya" in two ways, i.e. a strict and mild way. Strict as in sharing a place to sleep inside the same dwelling and the entire dwelling being off-limit if there is a woman in it. Mild as in sharing a place to sleep in the same room where only the room is off limit but not the rest of the dwelling.

Sankha's answer is technically right from an orthodox point of view, but may not be a correct interpretation of the texts. The word the Buddha used is "sahaseyya", which means "sharing a place to sleep", so the rules quoted about roofs and walls are not literal translations, they are extrapolations based on the commentary.
The origin story is what makes me think this rule should be considered less strict; in it, Anuruddha goes to stay in a rest house (āvasathāgāra) and is invited by the owner to sleep in a "bed that is within" (mañcakaṃ abbhantaraṃ). Now, I understand that the commentary gets into an explanation of how even a seven-story palace is considered "sahaseyya", but following the story, it seems likely that the point is not to stay in the same bedroom as the woman. The room where Anuruddha stayed, by the language used, seems to have been an inner room in the rest house that belonged to the owner herself; when he spent the night with her there (teaching her the dhamma, no less), he caused controversy, and instigated the rule - though it seems clear he never laid down, which would be necessary to break the rule.
If Anuruddha had stayed in the outer room, he ostensibly would not have instigated the rule (provided there were no women staying there).
There are other reasons, however, for not staying in a lay person's house, especially that of a person of the opposite gender, and the strict interpretation of the rule is probably for the best - to keep monks in line and to keep lay people from becoming too intimate with the monks, leading to problems on both sides.
My reason for giving this answer is to reassure you about the monk's intentions - many Theravada monks have no problem with staying in the same building as a lay woman, as long as they are not in the same room. I don't personally think it is a good idea, but I'm not convinced that it is breaking any rule, especially in modern times, where our lives are lived inside single buildings that can even house multiple families.

The reference which Sankha quoted says, "There are complications concerning how this rule should be applied to modern conditions etc."

Anumodana Bhante :)

He would be committing an offence, if he spends the night under the same roof.

"If a bhikkhu sleeps in a place where there is a surrounding wall and
under the same roof with a woman, even for one night, it is [an
offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 6; Nv p.14)
"A monk who lies down with a female in the same building under the
same roof and within walls, which are complete or almost complete,
commits [a Confession Offence.]" (Paac. 6; BBC p.120)
"Lying down at the same time in the same lodging with a woman is [an
offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 6; BMC p.280)

I've encountered this situation last year when venerable Yuttadhammo visited Sri Lanka. A wealthy lay family asked me through a mutual friend to arrange his accommodation at their house. But I had to refuse as it wasn't proper.

You are welcome, but I agree with venerable Yuththadhammo's answer


text:
What effects do Buddhist chants have?
Does listening to Buddhist chants such the Wisdom Sutra bring any benefit when working, meditating or other activities?

Here is a quote on Buddhist Chanting. In here it's told why Buddhists chant and the benefits of it. The quote is from an article named "The Practice of Chanting in Buddhism" by Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammasami:

"Chanting is very common to any religion. Buddhism is no exception in this regard. However, the aim and purpose of chanting is different from one religion to another. Buddhism is unique in that it does not consider chanting to be prayer.
The Buddha in many ways has shown us to have confidence in our own action and its results, and thereby encouraged us to depend on no one but ourselves. This in fact is the sum and substance of His last message in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. One of the passages in this discourse reads: "Ananda, be dependent on yourself, take refuge in yourself and not in others, by this mean be dependent on the Dhamma, go for refuge to the Dhamma -- the righteous principles".
When a Buddhist does chanting, he is not asking some one to save him from evil nor is he hoping to be given a place in heaven as a result after he dies. Instead, through chanting he may be learning, teaching, philosophising or re-memorising the discourse.
Actually, in the Anguttara Nikaya there are some discourses dealing with chanting like Dhammavihari Sutta. It mentions five categories of people who make use of the discourses.
The first one studies it just for the sake of study without putting it into practice or explaining it to others. He even does not reflect deeply on what he has studied. He is known as 'Pariyatti-bahulo' who is keen on studying it alone.
The second one preaches or teaches what he has learnt from the discourses but does not follow it himself. He is 'Pannyatti-bahulo' who is keen only on teaching.
The third one does chanting. He philosophises about the discourses, trying all the time to satisfy his philosophical thirst. He forgets to make use of as mode or life. He is called 'Vitakka-bahulo' who is eager only to indulge in philosophical aspects of the Suttas (Discourses).
The fourth one is the one who chants the discourses to make them last for a long time in his memory. He memorises and re-memorises. Nevertheless, he does not go further to follow it in daily life. He is 'Sajjhayaka-bahulo' who is enthusiastic only in memorising or chanting the teachings of the Buddha, He may even expect some magical power from chanting.
The fifth and last one is who studies the discourses, teaches them to others, reflects on their philosophical points, chants them regularly and above all actually practices it in daily life. He is the one the Buddha praises to be 'Dhammavihari' -- a practitioner of the Dhamma, which he has learnt from the discourses.
Having reflected on this Sutta, it is left to us to judge ourselves to which category we belong and why we study or chant the discourses.
I would like to dwell a bit more on chanting in general. This is, after all, an All-night Chanting ceremony. It is nothing but right for us to be fully convinced of what we are doing. Initially I did mention that Buddhism is unique because it does not consider chanting to be a form of prayer.
Then why do we, Buddhists, chant?
In the olden days, before there were sufficient support materials for study like books, translations and computers we had to memorise to learn a discourse. After we had learnt it, we still had to chant regularly to protect it and hand it down to future generations. If we did not recite it daily we might forget it and omit some part of it. The Anguttara Nikaya says that if the discourses are poorly maintained this will lead to the disappearance of the Sasana. It was so important those days to memorise and chant it regularly. This must have definitely contributed in developing chanting practice. Chanting meant almost for the survival of the Dhamma itself.
Now we have sufficient support materials, why we should then be still chanting? Is there any more reason to do this?
There are some reasons sufficient to continue chanting practice. Regular chanting gives us confidence, joy and satisfaction, and increases devotion within us. This devotion is really a power. It is called the Power of Devotion (Saddhabala). It energises our life in general. I do not know about the others. For me I often have a joyous feeling when the chanting goes right. I become more confident of myself. I see it as a part of developing devotion.
In Buddhist monastic education tradition, chanting and learning by heart still forms a part of it. We study some of the Theravada Abhidhamma texts -- the highest teachings of the Buddha which deal with the ultimate nature of things -- in that way in Burma. We are explained the meaning and how the logic develops in the Abhidhamma. In the night we try to chant without having learnt it by heart. We could do it because of the technique. It is known as evening-class (nya-war) over there. It means a certain technique of studying the Abhidhamma and some of the Suttas. It is very helpful as it helps you to reflect very quickly".

Lastly, here is a website where you can listen to different Buddhist chantings e.g. Chinese Pureland and Pali Devotional Chanting.

@Lanka answered from the perspective of the Theravada tradition.
From the Mahayana and Vajrayana perspective, you can find the answer here from Lama Zopa Rinpoche:

Even if you don’t have much intellectual understanding of Dharma, even
  if the only thing you know is om mani padme hum, still the happiest
  life is one lived with an attitude free of the eight worldly concerns.
  If you live your life with the pure attitude free of attachment
  clinging to this life and simply spend your life chanting om mani
  padme hum—this six-syllable mantra that is the essence of all
  Dharma—that’s the purest Dharma.
It looks very simple, very easy to recite. But if you think of the
  benefits, it’s not at all simple. Here, I’d to mention just the
  essence of its infinite benefits.
Reciting the Compassion Buddha mantra just once completely purifies
  the four defeats of breaking the four root vows of self-liberation and
  the five uninterrupted negative karmas1.
It is also mentioned in the tantras that by reciting this mantra you
  achieve the four qualities of being born in the Amitabha Buddha pure
  land and other pure lands; at the time of death, seeing Buddha and
  lights appearing in the sky; the devas making you offerings; and never
  being reborn in the hell, hungry ghost or animals realms. You will be
  reborn in the pure land of Buddha or as a happy transmigratory being.
When one who recites ten malas a day goes swimming, whether in a
  river, an ocean or some other body of water, the water that touches
  that person’s body gets blessed.
It is said that up to seven generations of that person’s descendents
  won’t get reborn in the lower realms. The reason for this is that due
  to the power of mantra, the body is blessed by the person reciting the
  mantra and visualizing their body in form of the holy body of
  Chenrezig. Therefore, the body becomes so powerful, so blessed that
  this affects the consciousness up to seven generations and has the
  effect that if one dies with a non-virtuous thought, one is not reborn
  in a lower realm.
Thus, when a person who has recited ten malas of om mani padme hum a
  day goes into a river or an ocean, the water that touches the person’s
  body gets blessed, and this blessed water then purifies all the
  billions and billions of sentient beings in the water. So it’s
  unbelievably beneficial; this person saves the animals in that water
  from the most unbelievable suffering of the lower realms.


text:
How does the practice of Buddhism look at preconceived ideas, assumptions or notions?
Often in conversation or interaction, one may have preconceived ideas, assumptions or notions.
For example, since humans are creatures of habit and over time, one may have recognized a pattern of behaviour with a particular group of people or person, how does the practice of Buddhism approach this?

How does the practice of Buddhism look at preconceived ideas, assumptions or notions?

Preconceived ideas, assumptions, notions and habits are what we try to understand and do away with in Buddhism.
Through the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path we come to understand the Four Noble Truths. We gain Samma Ditthi - Right View, i.e. the understanding of the four noble truths and the true nature of reality.
When practicing insight meditation one is observing ones mind with detachment, objectivity, non-judgement and non-interfering. That allows the mental and physical phenomena to show themselves, to reveal there true nature. They are allowed to "speak" for themselves without us extrapolating on them.
When not being mindful and not guarding the sense doors, the third and fifth aggregate, i.e. Sanna and Vinyana creates misconceptions and extrapolates on phenomena.
Paticca Sammupada - The doctrine of dependent origination shows how our misconceptions of reality arise. How we begin to like or dislike phenomena because we have wrong view. We think phenomena are permanent, satisfying and controllable and therefore we want them, we cling to them or we dont want them and try to get away from them.
When guarding the sense doors one is not falling into delusion. Instead one is seeing reality for what it is, i.e. the 3 signs of existence: Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta.
When one is practicing insight meditation one sees for oneself how conditioned habits, ideas and notions arise. Things that have been build up over a long period of time. In a way we learn to "unlearn". When practicing this path we shed our delusional shell. We do away with illusions about reality. Things go from complex to very simple.
When practice gets more advanced one begins to see non-self, i.e. that phenomena are uncontrollable, ungovernable and thereby oppressing. One sees that there is no substantiality, no inner-core, no permanent self, no experiencing entity. Instead one sees that there is only phenomena arising and ceasing and mind arising to these phenomena. Thats all there is.
Preconceived ideas, assumptions and notions are conditioned and a product of having wrong view. It's like a scientist having a theory about gravity. When he is only intellectually interacting with the theory he will have no real point of reference and therefore he does not know whether or not his theory is correct.
He then decides to test his theory on reality and then finds out that his theory was not correct. He then got a point of reference. He has done away with wrong view and have now seen reality.
This is example is not the best one but i hope it gives an idea of what we are talking about here. Before practicing insight meditation one might believe that conditioned phenomena will make one happy. After having practiced insight meditation and gotten some insight into how reality functions and one has seen that phenomena are impermanent one come to the conclusion that conditioned phenomena are not lasting and therefore not satisfying. One has then achieved a greater deal of Right View.
So to sum up. Preconceived ideas, habits, notions and assumptions cannot help us if they are blocking us from seeing the true nature of reality. The true nature of reality will reveal itself when practicing insight meditation and being mindful of phenomena. Then we come to develop right view and naturally wrong views fall away.

Buddhism would approach these or solve these preconceived ideas, assumptions and notions through the concept of a beginners mind. Thich Nhat Hanh, a meditation master explains a beginners mind in terms of experiencing (stimulation through the senses, tasting, touching, smelling, hearing, seeing, feeling, thinking) everything as if it was experienced for the first time. This can also be explained in terms of mindfulness, choosing to immerse yourself in the present moment by discarding thoughts of the passed or future. So how does this help with preconceived ideas, assumptions or notions? Well overtime, ones understanding will deepen and preconceived ideas will have no grounding, assumptions will have no expectations to rely on and notions will have no concepts of creation. This is the practice, the removal of all concepts so that one is only left with direct experience and best reaction to this experience.
Hope this helps :)


text:
Do Buddhists put any stock in feng shui, particularly crystals?
My question relates to the view of and position on feng shui harmony by Buddhist traditions in general, and specifically in gemstones (which some believe have physical/metaphysical properties). How do Buddhists regard feng shui; at any rate, practically speaking, would a belief in the Chinese philosophical system by the meditator  potentially enhance his or her meditation practice? My understanding is that Buddhism is not a belief system but rather an education, and I lean towards an integral philosophy which integrates in a pragmatic way the best each culture and tradition has to offer, so I would appreciate answers without a binary, dualistic perspective, unless of course Buddhists are wholly antagonistic towards feng shui, then I can accept that as accurate.

No. This is wrong view and will not lead one to cessation. Wrong view, attachment to philosophical and religious ideas will keep one bound to samsara. The Buddha taught the four noble truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, the first part of which is Right View. This is what leads one to liberation.

Thanks, it has been some time since I studied the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble 8-fold Path, I will revisit those teachings with a mind on other Eastern philosophies. I will say, my intuition leads me to be skeptical of any philosophy or religion that teaches it is the only right philosophy or religion based on my experiences with Christianity in my adolescence.

I can appreciate that coming from the same background. But as you actually start to PRACTICE, you begin to see that what Buddhism claims is confirmed by what you experience. So there is only need to be skeptical insofar as your personal practice has yet to develop.

in essence... practice vipassana !!

My question relates to the view of and position on feng shui harmony by Buddhist traditions in general

On a first impression of feng shui (which I know almost nothing), they seem unrelated.
As far as it concern disposition of things in space through some kind of theory and not with ethical and religious doctrines, there is no relation. In that respect, feng shui is unrelate to Buddhism as much as architecture is unrelated to it.
In other words, the metaphysical aspects of feng shui and its theory being correct or not will only provide one with a correct or incorrect understanding of its domain (as much as a physics theory will only provide one with a correct or incorrect understanding of its domain).

and specifically in gemstones (which some believe have physical/metaphysical properties).

That might be more controversial, as might be seen as lucky charm or similar.
The problem with lucky amulets, I think, is that they add to the explanation of why something -- otherwise unrelated -- good or bad happened: say, because one was wearing (or not) such amulet. Therefore, wearing an amulet start to become a religious practice, something one does for his or her good fortune and spiritual well being. Then, it slowly obscures the ethical nature of the mind (specifically, of intention), and the laws of kamma, ultimately substituting real practices (meditation, study, striving for good/virtuous behavior) for mere usage of amulets -- it is so much easier after all.
As a religious practice, then, it might figure as Wrong View, specifically "attachment to rites and rituals". In Buddhism, the rituals, carry its own usefulness and practical purposes, but have no spiritual value by themselves. However, attachment to them is considered very harmful to oneself, likely because rituals may end up substituting the real practice  (by looking like it's something important), and because clinging to it opens the door to all sorts of bad mental qualities.
Now, reading about that feng shui energy, Qi, I found the following:

The retention or dissipation of qi is believed to affect the health, wealth, energy level, luck and many other aspects of the occupants of the space.

The claim to affect physical health might be OK (and we are all too familiar with invisible things to the eye that actually exist and causes harm) but luck, as I discussed above, might be problematic.

How do Buddhists regard feng shui;

I imagine chinese buddhists probably dig it.

at any rate, practically speaking, would a belief in the Chinese philosophical system by the meditator potentially enhance his or her meditation practice?

"enhance meditation practice", in Buddhism, is understood as something that is effective in bringing one closer to permanent destruction of suffering, to nirvana. This may involve, for instance, attaining absorption concentration (jhana), but ultimately is concerned with:

understanding and seeing the rising and cessation of body/materiality, feeling, mind and dhammas.
penetrating the three marks
eradicating the ten fetters (belief in a self, doubt or uncertainty, especially about the teachings, attachment to rites and rituals, sensual desire, ill will, lust for material existence, lust for material rebirth,
lust for immaterial existence, lust for rebirth in a formless realm,
conceit, restlessness, ignorance [of the four noble truths])

My understanding is that Buddhism is not a belief system but rather an education, and I lean towards an integral philosophy which integrates in a pragmatic way the best each culture and tradition has to offer, so I would appreciate answers without a binary, dualistic perspective, unless of course Buddhists are wholly antagonistic towards feng shui, then I can accept that as accurate

While Buddhism doesn't fit well as a "belief" (in general, it does not promote faith and the act of believing to any distinguished role as in other religions, though some schools assign more importance to it), there are beliefs, however provisional. Its virtue lies not in absence or presence of beliefs, but in instrumenting one with skills to investigate and see clearly beyond deceitful appearances. Thus, the full responsibility to not be fooled by one's mind and the world rests entirely in oneself.

Summary Culture does not go out of the window upon joining a religion. The religion invariably adapts to the culture, provided it does not prove too conflicting. Humans are a product of their environment - they are not born, raised or allowed to live in a vacuum. They have to make their beliefs fit into the existing world to some degree. Intention and effort trumps tradition every time.
I've seen crystals as well as the practice of acupuncture, ancestor worship and feng shui in Vietnamese Buddhist monasteries.
Culture like language is a vehicle, and people can sometimes get attached to their favorite views. There are some who believe the Dharma cannot be practiced in any language other than Pali or Sanskrit. Likewise some believe one can only get enlightened by living in the forest and walking barefoot. In both cases, learning to read Pali or to managing to walk barefoot in the forest will take a few years, but isn't directly related to understanding dharma. It may help, but it is obviously not a precondition for enlightenment.
There is a story in the Dhammapada (I can't remember the verse) where an old man ordains as a monk after hearing the Buddha and decides given his advancing age he doesn't have the time or mental faculty to memorize the suttas, so he chooses to solely practice meditation and nothing else despite the pessimism of other scholarly monks. He too becomes an Arahat.
Breaking from all culture and adopting an ancient or foreign tradition may help some, and hinder others, who may give up Buddhism as too difficult.
The Buddha broke from Indian monastic tradition of his time - he didn't sport a long flowing beard, or dread locks or clutch prayer beads. I believe he was sending a message that dress code and other superficial things don't make one a monk. However, he warned his followers away from rites and rituals, luxuries, alcohol and other intoxicants.
Yet, Sake is an allowed drink for Zen monks in several Japanese monasteries, as is the propitiation of forest kamis (demi gods). Tibetan Buddhism too uses alcohol in certain ceremonies, as well as the worship of the Bon gods with rituals. Plus, the post of a Dalai Lama traditionally came with a palace with lots of luxuries and guards.
We must cross the river by building a raft with whatever materials we have at hand - as long as it doesn't sink, it doesn't matter. One design may build a raft that never leaks, another design may include a bucket to bail out the bilge. As long as the raft crosses the river, it's okay. Some may choose to never stray from the original design, no matter what the trouble, and others may try to improvise.
Enlightenment is a very personal responsibility - a great teacher or monastery or tradition or country maybe excellent to practice Buddhism, but even then there is no  enlightenment if we don't put in the effort.
Modern technology is bringing different traditions with their cultural quirks together, and making us ask such questions. This is the time for Buddhism to evolve to the digital age. Perhaps if the Buddha was alive today, "don't post selfies or photos of your food on facebook" would have been one of the minor precepts.


text:
Can binaural recordings enhance my meditative experiences?
I read about binaural tones and am about to experiment with them in my meditation sessions. I read that studies show mixed results, with 7Hz frequencies improving focus and 15Hz impeding concentration. What have you read? Have you any experiences or anecdotal stories to speak of? Can you recommend for or against?
Some recent research coming out of the neurosciences reveals that brain imaging shows alterations in brainwave patterns typically only induced by meditative states. Therefore, is it logical to conclude that binaural beats can extend the powers of meditation?
Some claim the following frequencies are supposed to promote the following brain wavelengths and mental states and stages of consciousness:

0.1 - 0.4 Hz: Epsilon waves -- high-level inspiration states, spiritual insight
0.5 - 3.5 Hz: Delta waves -- pain relief, relaxation, reduced anxiety, feelings of unity, nerve cell regeneration
4 - 6.5 Hz: Theta waves -- Shamanic state of consciousness, Tibetan Buddhist chants, astral projection, increased problem solving, increased extrasensory perception
8 - 12 Hz: Alpha waves -- awareness of body imbalances, mental stability, faster learning, release of serotonin neural transmitter, centering, transitional point
13 - 29 Hz: Beta waves -- power of visualization, conceptualization, healing, mind-body unity, increased cognitive functions, calculations
30 - 40 Hz: Gamma waves -- awakening of mid-chakras, Christ consciousness

And many, many more; I'm not going to endorse these claims, but I will say this: meditation itself has been shown, now backed by science, with the advent of brain imaging technologies indicate to be connected to changes in brain activity, patterns and states, to produce extraordinary changes in the body and mind, from healing to stress reduction to endorphin release.
Before arbitrarily dismissing the possibilities (which I've observed is common when someone lacks knowledge of the facts and any practical experience with a subject): over the years I've read books by the likes of Pema Chödrön on various meditation techniques -- sound, visualization, transcendental, walking, etc. -- and am open to experimenting with any and all and prefer to diversify my techniques and practices in order to allow more "wiggle room" for the Universal to make inputs, if you will -- if prayer is talking and meditation is listening, then there are many forms of listening.
Perhaps it's not so much a question of whether these wavelengths promote these effects, or whether meditation promotes these wavelengths; rather, does one optional meditation technique combining audio technology enhance meditation?
BTW, I'm not a believer, I'm not a skeptic, I don't even identify as agnostic, I simply seek the truth and want to experience as much as I can in this physical form, if I am indeed a spiritual being just passing through....

FWIW, I've had little success getting binaural sounds to help me even though I've tried off and on, but listening to the sound of a gong or zen bell will almost always get me into a higher state of concentration. A lot of this effect depends on the intention of the prayer bell (sound) inviter. If a monk invites a prayer bell with a strong resolution for mindfulness energy to penetrate the cosmos, the listener will be impacted. Check out the music of Kip Mazuy on youtube for something similar in the Hindu tradition.

You might consider this question about music during meditation: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8228/is-it-considered-against-standard-buddhist-doctrine-to-meditate-with-music. Overall, the body is designed to respond to the senses, and the brain is designed to sort out the input, so it is inevitable that some things will be 'helpful' and others a 'hindrance' and that it will change over time. Do what works.

I think this comes from a a common misapprehension of what meditation is and what it's supposed to do.  Simply sitting down on the cushion in search of a "bliss out" experience or for the purposes of changing one's consciousness is a dead end that even the Buddha wandered down early in his spiritual career (e.g. his time with Uddaka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama).
Just changing brain waves literally disembodies your practice.  It bypasses the our physical form which is perhaps our greatest ally and teacher on the path. The path meditation is a gestalt that incorporates not just changes in brain patterns, but everything from how you cope with the pain in your legs and back, the effort and resolve it takes to sit day in and day out with no immediately perceivable results, the psychological snags we have to work through etc. etc. etc. [x1,000!]
What you described may causes changes in consciousness, but these changes will ultimately prove to be superficial.  They are mere vacations from our suffering and not a complete termination of their causes.

Some sounds can help meditation. The vibrations arising from loudly reciting Bija mantras like Om can put one's mind at rest. Binaural sounds seem to work similarly.

In Vajrayana Buddhism and Hinduism, the term bīja is used for mystical
  "seed syllables" contained within mantras.
  (source)

Likewise pressing one's tongue against the roof of the mouth calms the mind, as does yogic breathing.
They are not essential, but if we know what we are doing they can help. Conversely, by misapplication, they can also hinder.
For example, when our concentration has passed higher than the point of a specific mantra or binaural sound, using them will bring us down in my experience.
Likewise yogic breathing exercises done without expert knowledge can lead to health problems and dullness of mind.
I think given the risks, we must let this binaural audio technology evolve some more before depending on them. Pressing the tongue against the roof of the mouth, and uttering Om or other seed syllables have stood the test of time. The tongue technique is difficult to get wrong, and thus has the endorsement of the Buddha.

If while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of
  those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts
  connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his
  teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth,
  he should beat down, constrain and crush mind with mind() (*).
-- Vitakkasanthāna Sutta, [Bodhi Trans.] (MN 20)

Some sounds can help, but the purpose (the aim or intention) of practice is independence, so you must master the meditation regardless of sound.

Are you suggesting there is virtue in practicing meditation without sound? Sound should supplement but not substitute a sitting practice? On a related note, in the city, it's almost impossible to obtain total silence. I think there is value in practicing meditation in spite of unwanted sound (accepting/adapting--after all, we rarely go through life in complete quiet), which surprises me when meditators complain about outside noise during their sessions, as though they're struggling to be in control of their environment, when so many factors are out of our control, such as street noise.

thats it. I preffer to do my sitting practice in silence, but always have some city noise out there, and that is not a problem, when you strenght your attention, you could do it with or without sound.

Hi el3ctron and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together some guidelines for new users: http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1502/i-am-a-new-user-here-at-buddhism-se-what-should-i-know-before-i-post?cb=1.

Something's not right about the grammar in the last edit. I think "has its scope on independence" should be changed, at most, to "has a focus on independence"--as it stands, the meaning is lost.

I like this answer (so I upvoted it) but I find it ironic that in order to move toward Unity we need to work on Independence! Amusing contradiction.

Agreed. Paradoxes abound.

@nocomprende This answer (to one of your questions) suggested there may be a difference between schools of Buddhism: one school aiming for a unity with the All, a substantial One or a metaphysical Zero; another (earlier) school aiming for some release from the All.

OK, well they should resolve that one. The existence of distinctions like these makes all answers suspect. Release from the All is uncontroversial, to me, but neither a substantial One nor a metaphysical Zero accords with my experience.  "The rose was not searching for the sunrise: almost eternal on its branch, it was searching for something else.
The rose was not searching for darkness or science: borderline of flesh and dream, it was searching for something else.
The rose was not searching for the rose. Motionless in the sky, it was searching for something else." - Lorca


text:
Could a software model of Abidhamma ( human thought Process - citta) help in Psychology?
As of my understanding, Abidhamma explains the initial thinkings (citta -thought process) and models the final thinking patterns. If someone implements this known patterns in software, wouldn't it be helpful to identify possible abnormal mental conditions of people?

Could also be an alternative to AI models?

I am an Abhidhamma teacher and used to be a software programmer. Your suggestion is very noble and innovative. I am not sure that the sensing process / thinking process found in the commentaries is the right starting point for such a software program.
My impression is that the sensing process / thinking process were developed to show how sensing and thinking can be natural processes (without a "self" who senses or thinks). The Abhidhamma focuses on the "micro" scale whereas the problem that you are trying to solve is at the "macro" scale.
As an analogy, the "water cycle" (evaporation - condensation - precipitation) that we learned in primary school shows how rain is a natural phenomena. The "water cycle" is not useful for meteorologists in predicting weather; they use other tools.
As another analogy, the models of how atoms and molecules are constructed are not going to help much if you want to build a house.
There are aspects of Buddhism that can help people with problems such as MBSR (mindfulness meditation) or the application of natural decisive support condition (from the Abhidhamma). My impression is that these do not naturally lend themselves to software programs.
You asked specifically about software model of the thought process, but the more general question "Could Abhidhamma help in Psychology?" is even more intriguing (at least for me). I have a couple of interesting books by Mirko Frýba ("The Art of Happiness" and "The Practice of Happiness") that connect Abhidhamma with modern Psychology.

Welcome to Buddhism SE. We've put together some tips for new users on asking questions on the site. Also we have a page of useful resources that you may also find useful. Best wishes and I hope you have a positive experience on the site.

I work as a software developer and think this is a fascinating project -- not because it will necessarily succeed, but because it will require us to think much more on Abhidhamma and abnormal mental conditions.  This in turn can teach us a lot.  I often found the best way to learn something is to try to write a program to do it.
This project would face many challenges.  Two big ones off the top of my head are...

How would you represent objects?
How would you define abnormality?

I'm a software engineer and I've been playing around with different ideas, very similar to this, about how technology could be combined with Buddhism to create something that could potentially be very useful for many people. If anyone has similar inclinations and would like to brainstorm please feel free to email me (address on profile) as I don't think this is the right context for this discussion.


text:
Reconciling anātman and ancestor worship/veneration
Buddhism teaches the concept of anattā or anātman. In short:

There is no "soul" or "essence", only "processes" within the framework of the five skandhas. This gives the illusion of the individual self/soul.

NOTE: This is just an approximation. I'm sure it can be put more elegantly, but you get the picture.
With this understanding, what is the basis for ancestor worship/veneration? Who/What is being honoured or worshiped? Basically, how do practicing Buddhists reconcile the two world-views?
Is it about remembering shared experiences? Or a way of remembering family traditions and history? Any insights are appreciated!

Could you name an example or two, of a Buddhist culture (or tradition, practice, holiday) which practices "ancestor worship"?

@ChrisW sure, some examples are the Japanese practice of segaki (施餓鬼) or the festival of Obon (お盆).

@ChrisW There are also similar concepts in Chinese Buddhism, such as the Buddhist festival of yú lán jié (盂蘭節).

@Chris. An interesting link on ancestor worship in Buddhism: http://www.rk-world.org/dharmaworld/dw_2007jsplace.aspx

Although a little different than ancestor worship, Cheon-do-jae services also seem to fit into this paradox of noting both belief in "selflessness" but also belief in a permanent entity of a soul of the departed which participants wish to guide to the Pure Land in this ceremony. http://www.koreanbuddhism.net/bbs/board.php?bo_table=0010&wr_id=451&page=3

From above mentioned website: "What is referred to as the spirit (靈驾) which is subjected to Cheondojae, recognizes the permanence of existence (or permanence through karma, a profound concept difficult to understand and accept) and reasonable recognition on spirits being lead to Pure Land, independent to the substantial teachings of ‘selflessness’ of Buddhism. The soul is acknowledged as an entity, and depending on the karma (action and reaction or cause and effect) of each individual, the soul will be transferred from one physical body to another and reincarnate in endless cyclic rebirths."

I'm no Buddhist historian, but I am aware that this particular question, of what exactly is transmitted from lifetime to lifetime if there is no soul has been a philosophical thorn for Buddhism in the ancient past. There are explanations of the five skandhas being like a bundle of spices, and some more sophisticated theories I didn't read. No doubt it must have been elegantly argued, but in the end the distinction was lost on me, and I discarded it as non-essential to my betterment.

@Buddho, I think the question being asked is not that, but instead does ancestor worship reconcile with anattā? Questions asking for clarification on whether practices (which take places in temples) are genuinely connected to the teachings of the Buddha or are simply cultural overlays can be important for general clarification I would think. :)

Perhaps ancestor worship began as a cultural overlay, but it is possible to use this as an important Buddhist tool.
The Buddhist teacher, Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh often points out that he meditates on the cloud in his tea cup whenever he drinks tea. That is, the water in the tea was a cloud at some point, thus all things inter-are. Cognising the interbeing nature of reality is important to develop compassion and respect for all beings, plants, minerals and elements.
Training the mind to see connections that aren't visible to the senses is important to realize the interbeing nature of reality.
Like a cloud makes tea, ancestors make us. Ancestor veneration in this sense develops in us compassion for beings we can't see or normally perceive and reduces our selfish existence.
In the ultimate reality there is anatta, but in conventional reality we do have ancestors. One must not abandon norms of conventional reality merely because one has understood ultimate reality. It is not nice to live in ultimate reality alone, just as it is not nice to live in conventional (materialistic) reality alone.
We must transcend the conventional and the ultimate, not be attached to either end.
Edit:
Growing very strongly attached to emptiness produces a wisdom that is devoid of compassion. Compassion is most certainly a conventional truth. When the Buddha passed away, many Arahats objected to the first Buddhist council for they believed it was impossible to set down the teachings on emptiness in conventional language. Those who were in the presence of the Buddha could feel the boundless affection and compassion with which the words regarding emptiness were delivered. How can a Sutta even hope to convey that compassionate presence of the Buddha, they bemoaned?
Thus the teachings on emptiness were guarded like a secret, and monks and dharma teachers only revealed the truth of emptiness to a select few when they believed the student was ready. I believe teaching emptiness to someone who isn't ready is a valid ground for expulsion from the order.
See also,

The Integrity of Emptiness
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Emptiness in Theravada Buddhism

Wikipedia's Two truths doctrine article gives "relative" as a synonym for "conventional". I didn't know that "relative" is also used to describe a (third) middle way between "conventional" and "absolute" ("absolute" being also known as "ultimate").

Thanks for pointing out, I'll edit it to remove the word relative.

It's not a good (is apparently quite a bad) Wikipedia article. See also the answers to What is the difference between relative and absolute truth in Buddhist philosophy?

The necessary of such is to develop and maintain certain aspects of right view.

"He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There
  is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are
  fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next
  world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn
  beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly &
  practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having
  directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made
  pure in three ways by mental action." AN 10.176

Gratitude, a way of thinking, that there is no such as inherent right of what ever one gains and a way of thinking that accepts cause and effect.
That things have a cause have an origin, do not come by themselves
Putting one self in the right position and with it giving up overestimation of oneself and pride
Being aware that life/existence does not end with death and did not start with birth and so duties and effects are following

So it's all about basic practice of right view and this on a worldly level so that there is proper fulfillment of duties and one, by accepting things like they are and giving everything the right place, would be able to take a more refine step into the matter of understanding Dhamma.
The Buddha noted Ancestor duties as one of the necessary duties. Usually practiced as sharing merits (dedication of ones own good deeds for them and invitation to take part on it) and scarifies as ritual acts, like gifts in a shrine or organizing a ceremony... How it is done, differ much, but the essence of practice is the same.
People who respect their ancestors and are aware of the fact, that there are very less living beings who have not been their father, mother, sister, brother, child... do such ancestor veneration in keeping precepts and abstaining from harm, for example. So such rituals like slayer a pig to scarify if for them or other cults are not part of Buddhas teachings.
The most common way of benefiting the ancestors is the support of the Sangha, with the thought "May my ancestors be able to meet the good teachings in future lifes"
Its a big matter of obligation, duty and gratitude.

authors: สุทธิสาร ปานสัสดี


text:
Lost and in need of guidance
I live in Dickinson, North Dakota USA and I am wanting to follow Buddha but have no one to teach me or to ask questions to. I has wondering if there is anyway to get in to contact with a Theravada Buddhist Monk to help guide me down my path? I have checked my local library and online for books but nothing comes up helpful.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE.

If you are looking for a place to ask questions about Buddhism (or to read through the many questions that have already been answered); this is a good place to do that. Our format is that anyone who believes they have the answer to a question may submit that answer for your consideration. So questions will be answered by both monastic and lay people of various traditions. If you are looking for an answer from a specific tradition, simple tag your question as you've done above.
Among the many questions that have already been answered on this site are community wikis such as this list of introductory books. Another online resource is this video wiki created by a Buddhism.SE moderator and frequent contributor, Venerable Yuttadhammo. Hundreds of questions and answers in video form are included here.
For local resources here is a short list of Theravada centers in your area.
Once you've had a chance to check these resources, if you have additional questions, please feel free to submit them! Our New User Welcome gives some tips on how to best use this site. Best wishes!

The Theravada spirit has always been the emphasis on the "teaching" over a teacher. A common analogy is that the teaching is like the US Constitution while the teachers are like the US presidents. Presidents come and go, and might say different things at different times, but the Constitution is always there, consistent, and timeless. There're many great web sites with detailed info. about the Theravada teaching, the most popular are: accesstoinsight.org, suttacentral.net, budsas.org/ebud/ebidx.htm, palikanon.com. The introductory section of accesstoinsight.org is particularly helpful and I'd strongly recommend you check it out if you haven't. Good luck..

+1 for the constitution-simile. Timelessness in the dhamma.

Unless there's someone who's a very good teacher at a local temple, meeting with a monk regularly may not be the easiest or best way to go about it.
My suggestion is to find one or more good teachers that you can relate to, wherever they are in the world, and take a retreat with them. This will teach you enough to practice on your own. A local practice centre can be found just about anywhere, and if you develop ties with them, they will be a great motivation to practice.
Well known Theravada Retreat Centres in the USA:

Abhayagiri Forest Monastery, California
Bhavana Society, West Virginia
Vipassana Meditation Center, U Bha Khin/Goenka

Other Resources:

Practice groups in North Dakota
Other Dhamma centres and groups in USA
Theravadan Websites to see

Some teachers and books have a study group or practice community that meets regularly online. For example,

Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha
Dharma Overground

"What the Buddha Taught" is one of the best out there to get started. http://www.amazon.com/What-Buddha-Taught-Expanded-Dhammapada/dp/0802130313
Free PDF seems to be available at http://www.dhammaweb.net/books/Dr_Walpola_Rahula_What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf

Bhante Gunaratana's "Mindfulness in Plain English" is a good place to start in getting a meditation practice going and on track. He is abbot at the Bhavana Society forest monastery in West Virginia and at age 88 still leads retreats.

In addition, I would like to recommend you to follow Ven. Ajahn Brahmawamso's YouTube channel and read his publications. It is an easy method for new converts to understand the basic concepts in buddhism in an easy way.
Visit Ven.Ajahn Brahmawamso's YouTube channel!

Books are the way to go. There is simply no substitute.
I recommend Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha to develop a pragmatic Theravadin perspective with an "American" bite to it. It also educates you on how to evaluate other traditions.