text:
Does Zen distinguish between concentration and insight meditation?
Both the Theravada and Tibetan systems distinguish between two aspects of meditation -- concentration (aka shamata, serenity, calm abiding, shiney or zhiney (Tib.)) and insight (aka vipashyana, lhatong (Tib.)). (Some call them types of meditation, but I prefer aspects, since you need your concentration skill while doing insight work -- in fact, that is what concentration is for -- but you can at different times be aiming at one or the other.)
The question -- does Zen make a similar distinction?
I realize Zen is not monolithic, so answers for specific schools are fine.

http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=8794 -- seems to say "yes and no" ;-)

I was going to suggest that might be the answer @DavidLewis . Zen /is/ "not making a distinction between"; and of course, not doing so, as not making a distinction between is the same thing as making a distinction between; and also different because there is only one thing... ;-) .

I'm far from an expert and even more far from knowing all the technical words, but I sit in Soto tradition.
As @enenalan already mentioned, Soto has a more shamatha approach, called shinkantaza, or just sitting. (@enealan: there is your answer, even if I just acknowledged to not answer another answer ;-) )
The meditation in Soto, at least in the tradition of my lineage, is an aimless meditation. It is not only aimless in terms of no insight, no solving koans, no tinkering with truth and such stuff, but also in terms of not meditating for any benefit. We are not supposed to sit to become better people, get insight, be calmer or whatsoever.
While you are in (Soto-)Meditation, you are supposed to watch or notice [was: examine, see comment] our mind. Therefore there is a component of insight. But we should do so as a spectator, not as a judge. The insight comes naturally, over time, and is a side-effect and not thought to be the goal of the practice.
On the other hand, to stay focused, not to let your thoughts wandering, not to start daydreaming or become sleepy. To watch and not not judge our thoughts, how they emerge and vanish, requires a huge amount of concentration.
As a Conclusion: Soto knows (as far as I am Soto) only on kind of meditation, and that covers the concentration aspect. Insight grows over time naturally and is not active fostered during meditation.

If you are supposed to be examining your mind in shikantaza, why isn't that a form of insight practice, with the mind as object?

@DavidLewis: Great question! I guess, that's one of the paradox things, Zen-people are so involved with. I edit and rephrase in my post.

In Rinzai, we don't necessarily call what we do insight meditation, but there are some similarities.  A koan is supposed to provide "insight" into existence.  They all relate an essential quality of mind (big "M"!) that is otherwise obscured or veiled in normal consciousness.  Like you mentioned, arriving at those insights requires that we first develop a certain level of samadhi.  Once that is established and stabilized, we begin to look for a koan's answer in mushin - or no mind - the blankness that appears when concentration is established to a certain degree.
What is interesting is that one probes their koan in meditation, one's subconscious obstacles and barriers begin to become more evident.  This is an important part of practice.  I'd go so far as to say that it's even more important than answering your koan.  Some of the barriers one encounters are related to the koan, but others are native to our own karma, ego, hang-ups, habits, mental formation, etc.  These all have to be acknowledged and worked through as one grows in their practice.  From a practical perspective, I suppose this is the aspect of Rinzai training that is most similar to vipassana.  I think it's important to distinguish, however, that in Zen, when those obstacles begin to appear, we don't [usually] explore them according to the three marks of existence as you might in insight meditation.
Personally, I'd love to here a Soto take on this.  My cursory exposure to that tradition indicates to me that they might have a more shamatha approach to their sitting.

David, in answer to your question, you are not supposed to be examining your mind or anything else in Zen meditation. The practice is very simple, yet difficult. The focus is on the breath, and the posture is important. When thoughts arise, as they will on their own accord, the attention is simply brought back to the breath. They are not labeled or judged, they are simply "thoughts". Sometimes we get caught in them in the meditation, and when we notice this, we gently return our focus to the breath.
The first question that naturally comes to mind is, how on earth can something that simple wake people up to enlightenment. Well, it can. You are doing it by not doing it. If you attempt to get any insight or anything else from the practice, it will not work. But if we let go of that concept, or any and all ideas and concepts, then it works. It is a lifetime thing too. Over time, one's understanding of the mind increases. As Dogen said, Buddhism is about understanding ourselves (our true self, not the ego self). If we understand ourselves, then we understand everything. But if we do not understand ourselves, then we do not understand anything. Enlightenment is  experience (not simply insight) to the entire universe, and the experience that all is one, and all is empty, clear, impermanent and in constant change. Yet there is something that is not impermanent and is not change. Zen and some other spiritual practices understand that words will not get you there, it is beyond language, language is a bit of the problem, It is the experience that is the truth.

authors: p̻̻̥r̥̻̥o̻j̤͛ec͔t̞dp


text:
Drop your opinions at work?
When I am supposed to simply observe my thoughts and any opinions that arise from them, and not cling to them, how am I supposed to work? I have a job, and as such you cannot not have opinions. It becomes a loss of self. I could let go, but then why should I go to work and exercise my effort on doing something other than simply meditate
Could someone help out with this conflict?

IMHO, for the laypersons, Vipassana (insight meditation) or Samatha during meditation times, not at other times. At other times, just Sila (virtues).

You don't have to blindly follow buddhism ,you have to think and accept   what is better for common good .                                                                                http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

You don't necessarily have to abandon your opinions. The important thing is to recognize that opinions come from conditions, and those conditions always change. Your work is one of the conditions, and it's appropriate to form an opinion for those conditions... and then be ready to change the opinions if the conditions change, or if the opinion doesn't apply in a new situation.
Like the previous commenter said, this is a 'sila' practice, rather than meditation - examining your everyday behaviour to see if it's skillful. It's probably impossible to do vipassana at work!

Perceptions don't completely disappear until enlightenment.
Sensations is the mind conditioner, hence any volitional formations or mental reaction due to perception will have a sensation associated with it.
What you have to do is to look at the sensations equanimously without craving and clinging. This way you are not creating new fabrications due to perception and volitional formations. You cannot get rid off perception altogether until the final leg of the journey.
Mental activities will have an impact on your bodily fabrications also, hence when possible, while engaging in your normal activities, have a look at your breathing, heartbeat, perspiration (not due to external influences like weather). If there is an irregularity start looking at the full cycle of breathing noting it's speed and length also watching the sensation on the upper lip. As the bodily function calm you will experience better sensation in your body hence better mental state. (Don't crave or long for either.)
Also when you see something look at the sensations around your eyes and your head as you perceive it. Similarly to other sense inputs.
When you are sitting in some posture by sensing the outline of your body though feelings on the body. Similarly when you walk, in which case you can see the sensation when your feet touch the ground maybe clothing touching your body when you move around the moving parts of your body. Then look at your body part by part by moving your attention to the relevant part, without trying to visualize, verbalize, imagine the part (otherwise you are dealing with concepts and / or verbal fabrications)
Also you meet people you will form perceptions about them. If it is not good try to develop compassion. It is is good do not get attached. If it is lustful think if their parts are separated whether you would consider the person beautiful (including you self). Again for food craving imagine excretion. When doing this be mindful of the sensation such actions create. If companion or sense of morality has made you loose the balance of your mind like you do not want to walk fearing that you might step on an insect then your perception has polarised in the opposite direction. The reason to practice antidotes to certain perception should generally be done in a situation when a stimuli causes a sensation which triggers associated memories or thoughts which further trigger sensation snowballing. The antidote is to neutralise the sensation to manageable levels so you mental balance is restored. If you perceive food as repulsive in a office party so you do not become glutton, but in effect loose apatite or feel like throwing up or even worse like become anorexic then you are going overboard in the opposite polarity. In either cause repulsiveness has sensation associated with it which can tell you if your have gone too far.
You have to do all this in such a way that others don't see something odd in you.
Also you should not slack in order to do this or in anyway compromise on your work and responsibilities.
Most of all sensation is the most important thing to pay attention in such a situation and it where all the aggregates meet and the bridge physical fabrication and metal fabrications. Your mind is always in touch with sensations and activities driven by sensations. Things trickle down and up from these ends (Kaya to and from Dhamma).
This is the best you can do while engaging in another activity at work in my opinion.

Short Answer: It isn't about having opinions, it's about clinging to or cherishing them.
Longer Answer:
I find these lines from Verses on the Faith Mind very helpful [emphasis mine]:
Do not search for the truth;
only cease to CHERISH opinions.

Notice the key word here is "cherish", not "have".
People tend to hold opinions very tightly; they define themselves by them, refuse to change them when there is good reason to do so, and even present them when there is no reason to do so. However, there are situations in which (informed) opinions are appropriate, provided you do not cling to them.
For instance, if you are at work and are discussing the best way to proceed on a project, and you have an opinion based on past experience, then it's important to present that opinion.  However, do this without clinging; be open to the possibility that other opinions are better and don't make the mistake of turning a pet theory into an "informed" opinion.
Conversely, if you like a piece of music or think another is bad, there's no reason to present or forward it.  It's simply an opinion.  You can seek the music you want, but you needn't get into arguments over it.
This is the key; understanding the difference between dropping and letting go (not clinging, not cherishing).

There is a simple answer to this:
understsand that "dropping your opinions" means that you drop holding onto them--not having them. You will have them whether you like it or not: you will judge right and wrong instantly and will form categorizations of people--all valuable things... until you cling to them as complete facts!
Through proper Practice in daily life, you will learn to let go of ALL facts. People will see you as extremely flexible and easygoing.
You will become very likeable because you dont disagree with anyone--you only disagree with their version of the facts.
There is never any such thing as a conflict among people--only among ideas--however strongly held they are.
Proper meditative practice frees up tremendous energies (that were used to hold onto and defend ego) and increases flexibility, speed, and efficiency!
When you succeed in coming to the outskirts of this beautiful place of balance and unified consciousness, others will like you a lot but you will see how much further you have to go in figuring out the right way to practice dissolving your ego in myriad subtle but influential, karma-creating ways... and thus, the way of the bodhisattva becomes the way of daily life (to the degree that one can disentangle some of the energy that goes into one's job).

You can use your work as an oppertunity to work on your morality as it is also mentioned in the other comments.
In buddhism there is 2 aspects, one is to work on yourself and develop your mind and morality. The other aspect is to help other beings when you have the oppertunity and think that you are in a position to help.
There might someone who needs your help at your work place.
Regarding your own opinions. When looking at it from a standpoint of ultimate reality then there is no self existing. So the opinions you experience does not really belong to anyone. They are arisen phenomena that will cease again. So you dont really have to pay much attention to them. You can just note them and let them go.
Opinions are mental formations that as all the other aggregates are subject to the 3 signs of existence; impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self meaning that it can create suffering for you if you identify, hold on to or take ownership of these opinions since they change anyway because of being impermanent.
In the the noble eight-fold path you will have the specific guidelines to follow regarding both morality, concentration and wisdom. So you can let that be your guiding light.
To go even further; the conflict you are mentioning here is also just a mental formation that is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not-self. These mental formations can if they are not guarded with mindfulness and noted, manifest themselves in the physical body e.g. as stress or physical pain. But they are also just arisen phenomena that do not belong to anyone and will cease again. So them too you can also just note and let go.
All this is of course much easier said than done. It takes practice and that can be a challenge but that will develop you. So in that sense you are lucky to have a job where such a conflict is now happening. Why?
Because you can use that conflict as an oppertunity to grow and develop and practice your mindfulness. In this way you will realize the truth about reality. You will see that phenomena are suffering because they arise and cease without any control. When you truly see and realize that you can detach from them.
If you are not already doing insight meditation it could be beneficial for you to start doing it outside of work meaning at home or whereever you have a quiet place. In that way you can observe this conflict and the mental formations pertaining to it in a safe and quiet environment.
That way you will also be much better prepared for when you are going to work. Why? Because you then know exactly what mental formations and/or feelings that will come up and because you already have trained at home in noting them and letting them go, you have an advantage when they do arise at your workplace.
I will end my comment with a great qoute from Ajahn Brahm. He says in one of his videos: "Suffering is the fertilizer for our spiritual growth".
Lanka

That 2+2 is 4 is not an opinion. An opinion is based on an assumption of how things should or should not be - and this is usually followed by emotional attachment. If your response is constructive, based on actual data, then that is no opinion. Sometimes creativity is needed which can open for discussion to find a way to constructiveness.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Did the Buddha discover jhana by himself?
I was reading Ajahn Brahmavamso's book 'The Jhanas' (available freely online) in which he says that the Buddha discovered Jhanas by himself, and what Alara Kalama and Uddakha Ramaputta taught, were not related to jhana.
The reason I am requesting your time is that, there are some teachers in Sri Lanka who claim that Jhanas are a later inclusion, citing the same fact that Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta were able to teach up to the highest immaterial Jhanas, and that a Samma Sambuddha couldn't have lent so heavily on the teaching of others for his own Enlightenment. Thus, they discourage samatha meditation. Fortunately such teachers still emphasize Sati.
Would appreciate your thoughts.

It does seem weird that the Bodhisattva leaves home at 29,  has time to master the arupa Jhanas in a very short time, abandon them, perform extreme forms of ascetism for 6 years, realize they were useless, then course corrects, gots back to basics he learnt as a toddler, once again rapidly advances to the level he was with Uddhaka Ramaputta and this time goes beyond to attain superme Buddhahood at the young age of 35.

Not that weird since the Bodhisatta had perfected all the Jhanas countless times in Sansara.

After attaining the highest arupa jhana and thus according to Yuttadhammo Thero, progressing through the 4 rupa jhanas, and then later discarding this the Bodhisatva practices extreme asceticsms for 6 years, and seeing that as futile he considered “I recall that when my father the Sakyan was occupied,...., I entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained thought, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion. Could that be the path to enlightenment?’. How come he didn't recall the more recent arupa Jhanas instead?

He lost his jhanic attainments when he tortured himself for 6 years. You can't directly enter to Arupa Jhanas without going through the 1st four.
Besides, this time he used the Jhanas to focus on reality unlike in the previous occasions. The following section explains it :"Previously, he had dismissed such meditative states as merely leading to transcendental attainments (i.e. arūpa jhānas). Now, he thought, what if I were to use them for the purpose of developing focused contemplation of reality and enlightenment".

Thanks Sankha. I am aware of that. From which text are you quoting from?

From the same blog post of ven.Yuttadhammo. Alara Kalama and Uddakarama Putta taught the Arupa Jhana as the final liberation. He left them rejecting that. So it's not strange not to think back to a teaching you rejected.

See Piya Tan's (long) essay on this subject (which also discusses arguments of scholars for both positions): The Buddha Discovered Dhyana

I quote an excerpt of this answer from Ven. Yuttadhammo. You may read the answer for details.

The orthodox view is that samatha meditation was not discovered by
  the Buddha and vipassana meditation was.
The orthodox view is that the Bodhisatta cultivated samatha meditation
  countless times in his past lives before finally discovering
  vipassana.

In fact, I think the whole section of "On the origins of samatha meditation:" answers this question fully.

Many thanks for the links. I also read Yuttadhammom Thero's critique of the above book here :http://yuttadhammo.sirimangalo.org/2011/02/a-critique-of-brahmavamso-jhanas.html

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/33.1b-Buddha-discovered-dhyana.-piya.pdf

This seems problematic; isn't it the orthodox view that the Buddha studied with numerous other Buddha's prior to his final birth? Therefore, since those buddhas would have taught vipassana, then it seems like the Buddha would certainly have practiced that as well, although, according to the view, not up to the level of liberation (at least not to full enlightenment).

When he was a prince, he did not remember things from his previous births

Alexander Wynne published a book on history of meditation [1]. On the subject of jhana, he points that a description of the first jhana appears in a Mahābhārata passage "where it is said that for the sage who has the first dhyāna, there is vicāra, vitarka and viveka" -- no descriptions of further jhanas seem to appear.
He argues that it is likely that this passage was borrowed from Buddhism -- and overall, that it is likely there was interchange of knowledge of meditation between both traditions.
Maybe the formula and attainment of 1st jhana were known to ascetics in general. Maybe they could attain it, but had not systematize it (with it's factors and hindrances) and later borrowed the formula from the Buddha. Or maybe the Buddha came up with it on his own. If we trust the reading of the suttas where the Buddha remembers an early experience of jhana, and that this meant no contemporary teacher knew how to attain it, the later might be true.
Now, on formless meditation, Alexander concludes that (paraphrasing):

The buddhist list of four formless spheres was inherited from  Alara Kalama and Uddakha Ramaputta.
Formless meditation is related to element meditation
Therefore element meditation was borrowed from the same non-Buddhist source as was formless meditation (eg. from the two teachers)
The doctrinal background of element meditation and formless meditation is provided by a list of six dhatu
The list is based on early Brahminic cosmogonies
Brahminic cosmogonies provide the doctrinal background to meditation in early Brahmanism
Therefore, element meditation and formless meditation  were borrowed from a brahmanic source
The brahmanic source is probably these former teachers (Alara Kalama and Uddakha Ramaputta, Alara Kalama and Rāma, or perhaps the three?).

It might be worth to mention that the first ascetics the Buddha considered teaching after attaining nibbāna were Alara and Uddakha, for they had "little dust in their eyes" [2].

[1] The Origin of Buddhist Meditation, 2007
[2] Ariyapariyesana Sutta

Well-researched question but I find it silly nonetheless.
Something like concentration attainment is the cause of everything holistic we have today: acupuncture, chi gong, kundalini activation, etc.
"Jhana practice" = centering oneself on blissful state

ther are myriad, infinite ways to achieve this. My teacher said even scratching your ear is a type of jhana!
i've read many accounts of the Buddha leaving home and learning from many yogis, many of whom manifested the blisses and powers of dhyana.
the buddha also spontaneously entered dhyana on his own as a child

vipassana = practicing pure, naked awareness

a crucial practice for self-awakening but is learning to be pure and nakedly aware really a buddhist invention? can buddhism or anything own being purely aware of the present moment?

These are fundamental practices for not just humans but any being.

Prior to the Buddha there were practitioners who practiced higher absolutions. Buddha's contribution was the practice of the right concentration. The right concentration is the concentration while being aware of the reality, i.e., arising and passing of phenomena and characteristics of the phenomena. (Different people and lineages may interpret right concentration differently.)
If Jhana is taken or interpreted in the context of the right type of concentration then it will exclude any other form of absorptions based concentration.

There are many kinds of samadhi.Jhana is Right Samadhi.The one taught by Siddharta's teachers were not what The Buddha called Right Samadhi. Right Samadhi which is Jhana can only be achieved if one has Right View.Different kind of samadhi can produce rapture bliss calm.But are not Jhana without Right View.Samatha meditation shouldn't be discouraged as it is a part of the Eight Noble Path.Siddharta remembered The First Jhana when he was meditating under extreme conditions.So he could not have been practicing Right Samadhi Jhana at that point.But he was definitely practicing deep  samadhi as an astetic.

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


text:
The cognitive process: the stage of investigating consciousness
When practicing insight meditation and when observing mental formations arising  then sometimes shortly after another mental formation arises caused by the first mental formation.
An example could be a memory that arises then shortly after another memory arises that is closely related to the first one. The second memory is clearly caused by the first one since its similar in appearance and "acts" like a continuation of the first memory.
This picture is from Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. The picture can be found in the chapter "Compendium of the cognitive process", at p. 155. It shows the different stages in the process of cognition.

I was wondering about at what stage in the cognitive process it happens that an object is compared/coupled to previous experiences?
My best guess is that it might be in the stage of "investigating consciousness".
Lanka

It has happens in 7th and 8th steps as "investigating" and "Determining".
Shown as Madhupiṇḍika Sutta (MN 18),
 "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. (Step 5).
  The meeting of the three is contact.("Passa").
  With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling.(Step 6 "Vedana").
 What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind)(Step 7 "Sanna").
 What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies.(Step 8 "Chethana").
 Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye."(Step 9-15 "Manasikara").
The place we can break this process at step 7. We can change "the Sanna" by learning or understanding. permannet to Unpermanent Etc..by worldly concepts from Transcendental.

Many people try to read too much into the "17 thought moment sensing process". Please see page 164 of Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" which gives Ledi Sayadaw's explanation.
Basically, in the case of eye-door, the "17 thought moment sensing process" captures a small patch of colour. This is followed by gazillions of mind-door processes that glue the entire field of vision together, grasp shapes, recognize shapes, grasp the name, recognize the name, etc. The comparing the object to past experiences comes much later after lots of thinking has been done. In other words, in the case of the eye-door, the "17 thought moment sensing process" brings a small patch of colour into the mind. That's it. All the subsequent analysis is done by gazillions of mind-door processes.
If you want the "bigger picture", the best place to start is the Madhupiṇḍika Sutta (MN 18), "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one objectifies. Based on what a person objectifies, the perceptions & categories of objectification assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye."
In this sutta, the "compared / coupled to past experiences" that you are asking about happens at the final stage.

My simple advice is don't think about it but see it for your self through your practice, maybe if not right not at a later stage. (I don't know whether you see things at the same clarity as in the Abhidamma even when your are fully liberated, but what you see would bee clear enough.)
Being still a worldly person, my basic understanding is that with every thought a sensation arises. Then other thoughts / memories arise which are associated with the particular sensation that arose. E.g. you smell a rose, with the sensation of smell, the next through can be a memory associated with the smell, and next thought is something associated with the previous thought.


text:
Can Buddhist practice make you more emotionally volatile?
When I spend an extend period with Buddhist practice I become emotionally more volatile or at least my emotions seem stronger and  more likely to come to the surface. I've often had reactions that are uncharacteristically emotional though the emotion feels authentic. The period of practice doesn't even have to be that long - sometimes a day retreat will have this effect. It could be linked with meditation however it could be study or the experience of sangha that does it.
Is this something that people recognise? Is it written about anywhere by any teacher? I want to know if it's a common outcome and advice around working with it.
Many Thanks

What type of meditation you practice and by emotion do you mean anger?

@SankhaKulathantille I practice metta bhavana and mindfulness of breathing. The emotion isn't anger - it's more of an emotional rawness. I can get more easily upset by things that wouldn't normally bother me too much.

If your sitting isn't bringing up anything, you aren't really sitting!  ;-) For me, sesshin is often a roller coaster of cheers and tears.

Yes, I often get a bit brittle after sittings. Things can feel a little more raw and noisy for a while.
Also, longer sittings (like retreats) can have hangovers days or weeks later, sometimes euphoric rather than painful. Extended meditation has a momentum that keeps working on you after you stop the formal practice, and it's related to the speed at which you are unconsciously perceiving the arising and passing away of your momentary experience. That is an alternately blissful and painful process. There are various models to describe this, such as the "progress of insight" in the classical commentaries like 'Visuddhimagga' and a lot of Mahasi literature; also look up Daniel Ingram, Ron Crouch, and Kenneth Folk for some contemporary views on it.

I was going to say something like this, referencing especially Daniel Ingram's controversial social commentary. I would like to add one very important concept: time spent away from people + time spent in the depths of meditation (retreat) = deterioration of skillful social habits and understanding. After a year+ retreat some people lose their social stuff entirely. What to do? After a retreat is done, especially when you notice a lot of those positive, energies... HOLD back and refer to Right Speech's guidelines before going out into the world--even if that is just your family living room.

@Ahmed Making one socially awkward is an expected outcome is it not? The Buddha can be seen chiding small talk and social pleasures in several suttas. Once one has spent a lot of time on inner organization the world outside is going to look superficial, chaotic and dull by comparison. There are zen koans like chop wood, carry water, which recommend going about one's life after enlightenment, but we live in very socially engaged times that don't offer the inner fulfillment of chopping wood. Modern society is built on a lot of busy, shallow relations, reintegrating into which can be a bad idea.

@Buddho. I could not agree more. Especially this sentence is very true "Once one has spent a lot of time on inner organization the world outside is going to look superficial, chaotic and dull by comparison".

I agree, but would add that the practice continues to evolve past the phase of disillusionment with the "outside world". Eventually, we go back into the "busy-ness" and recongnize that nothing is truly shallow. The best example (as always) is Buddha, who came back from his enlightenment to become the guide and CEO of an organization with thousands of unruly members spread across many cities.

From my own experience i can say that this has happend to me before. I think its due to the fact that when one sits in insight meditation one does not have a "filter". One wants all phenomena to come up in order to observe them, learn from them and understand them.
So when one practices a lot and thereby having extended periods in ones life where there is no filter then when one returns to everyday life and is not being mindful about what phenomena arises (e.g. emotions) one can easily react to them.
So it seems that if one practice a lot and is used to things comming up in meditation then one should make an even greater effort to guard oneself with mindfulness in everyday life. Because the filter is still not there. The suppression is not there.
That might be one of the reasons why these emotions can seem to have a greater intensity because there is no suppression or filter to affect them or "cloud" them. They are experienced "clean and bare". While non-meditators may have layers of filters and concepts limiting the intensity of the emotions that is not the case for insight-meditators.
This is my own experience and view on it. I do not know if information about your question can be found anywhere in the texts.

I like the description involving 'filters'. I think this is a good image for understanding. But the point is not to build super-strong filters, but to have less and less 'inside' to get triggered. "Let the wind breeze through, may it leave no trace in you of that bilious fever." (Rumi)

Emotions are there always. You're not more emotionally sensitive. You have more emotional clarity. The emotions should be understood. Anger for example, exist as a mechanism of self-defense. It's response to a hostile environment, which could save your life in some situations. That makes anger constructive, when applied in the right situations. What you have is an opportunity to analyze and reflect on the emotions, and through the understanding you get, you can use emotions as tools and apply them where needed.

I like that you said "You have more emotional clarity." Yes. But at some stage, a coalesced state can become nearly overwhelming. One clearly experiences the hurricane through the now open windows. Analysis will not help then, something else is needed. I liked the answer about filters. Life with no filters is untenable, until something else happens.

Here are some advice given by Ajaan Fuang, and recorded by his student, Thanissaro Bhikku. These should be relevant to your case. Basically, don't get attached to any experiences caused by meditation. Just observe them, learn from them, then let go and go beyond.

§ "The mind is like a king. Its moods are like his ministers. Don't be
  a king who's easily swayed by his court."
§ A young nurse practiced meditation with Ajaan Fuang several days
  running, and finally asked him one day, "Why wasn't today's session as
  good as yesterday's?"
He answered: "Meditating is like wearing clothes. Today you wear
  white, tomorrow red, yellow, blue, whatever. You have to keep
  changing. You can't wear the same set of clothes all the time. So
  whatever color you're wearing, just be aware of it. Don't get
  depressed or excited about it."
§ A student came to complain to Ajaan Fuang that she had been
  meditating for years, and still hadn't gotten anything out of it. His
  immediate response: "You don't meditate to 'get' anything. You
  meditate to let go."
§ "When the meditation goes well, don't get excited. When it doesn't
  go well, don't get depressed. Simply be observant to see why it's
  good, why it's bad. If you can be observant like this, it won't be
  long before your meditation becomes a skill."
§ The seamstress, after practicing meditation with Ajaan Fuang for
  several months, told him that her mind seemed more of a mess than it
  was before she began meditating. "Of course it does," he told her.
  "It's like your house. If you polish the floor every day, you won't be
  able to stand the least little bit of dust on it. The cleaner the
  house, the more easily you'll see the dirt. If you don't keep
  polishing the mind, you can let it go out and sleep in the mud without
  any qualms at all. But once you get it to sleep on a polished floor,
  then if there's even a speck of dust, you'll have to sweep it away.
  You won't be able to stand the mess."

If someone is a health nut who goes to the gym daily, and only eats organic food, they can't really hang out at burger joints with their friends, the smell of deep frying will be revolting. Does this make their body volatile? We all know it isn't possible to stay as healthy by eating burgers and fries, so we allow them their salads, there is social acceptance for that. Hanging out at the gym or park instead of at the bar after work becomes their routine.
Sugary or deep fried junk food tastes bad to one who has been on a healthy diet of natural fruits and vegetables. Persist with eating junk, and the body adapts. Same with altitude sickness, dust, noise and other kinds of pollution.
The emotional body is the same - it doesn't like difficult emotions of the outside world. Since a few years now I find even regular family TV soaps featuring some manipulative characters very violent - just the idea of deceit and lies is revolting. This is not volatility, it is the emotional body protesting at toxins.
Our physical and emotional bodies are trained to recognize good health, and they guide us towards it by protesting harsh environments. They are keeping us safe. Ignore the warning for long enough, and they will lose the ability to warn.
Unfortunately, there is a school of thought among a few modern teachers that one must remain emotionally healthy despite operating in toxic emotional environments.  Most modern successful work places are very toxic with lots of busy but shallow relationships where everyone is looking out for themselves. Showing an interest in the emotional affairs of another at the workplace is threatening, because everyone is trained to view the others as opponents. We are at war in such work places that emphasize "professionalism".
Ambition and competition are violence, and there is violence in just about any modern activity. For example fashion that makes us regret our bodies is violence, food that is tasty by contains no nutrients is violence, entertainment is by definition violence because it takes us away from our inner self.
Meditation is going to make us intolerant to violence at work, at home - and anywhere else.
This may mean giving up some things we previously loved - a job, a neighborhood, a city, a partner. Or it may mean giving up on a life of peace.
When I moved to urban India I began coughing blood. I visited a doctor who pointed out that I simply wasn't used to high levels of pollution. I could either stay in the city and get used to it in a few months, or live in air conditioned environments and never mix with crowds or leave the city.
It's a choice we all have to make with emotional environments.

Initially you may feel that you are volatile as you get to experience sensations and formations that trigger different emotions.
The key is you should practice equanimity. With this firmly established, then your volatility of emotions will subsided as your are nor reacting to sensations or formations.

Can't personally relate to this as Metta always made me happy and mindfulness of breathing only brought calmness. But you might want to try Satipatthana meditation as it focuses on senses at their basic form, rather than perceived entities.  I believe being emotional is always connected with people and the notion of self.
But if you can note seeing as just seeing, hearing as just hearing, sadness as just sadness etc. and watch them arising and passing away, you should become less emotional.

Attachment to something can cause of dukka ,so if you feel something is not good for you ,better avoid it, avoid the extremes ,practice moderation.
Meditation is not recommended for people with certain conditions, I read it somewhere long ago (not on the Internet) . Meditation relaxes your mind and body ,if somebody is having nervous or emotional problems,after meditation their nerves may get further dilated(Not good).
Since you have asked for advice ,I suggest you regularly exercise(skipping rope ,running, walking and possibly some mild weight lifting at the gym also). Take care to balance your breath and try to bring a rhythm, It can also have the same effect of meditation,bringing mind and body together by controlling the breath.
also some info here
http://www.wildmind.org/applied/depression/when-not-to-meditate

"I read it somewhere long ago (not on the Internet)" - ha ha. Here we are on the Internet, trying to gather up the shards of truth! But good advice on the exercise thing. Walking walking walking until tired saved my sanity.

It depends on what kind of practice your doing.I only do Samatha meditation and I don't experience volatile emotions as long as the momentums still going. Even if bad things happen I feel blissful.Almost like its creating some kind of karma that would stop volatility from arising. But if I stop meditating even for a day it starts coming back and sometimes with more force.And then I get irritated easily and just bad news.This is my experience.

I went through a period of about 4 years of increasingly "over the top" feelings, sensations, reactions, bliss, etc. It was a wild ride. At times it burst upwards in to what I call a "Neo State" where verbal thought stopped and ego was not operating (temporarily). It was a bit like a drug trip for hours or a day or so. Former wife thought I was going insane. Eventually reached an experience of nonduality, which persisted and is usually hanging around somewhere nearby, or can be reached in about 2 seconds. This is a choice, but you have to be organized enough to get there, first comes the 'housecleaning'.
I see it as - you could say - larger and larger portions of mind activity coalescing into a growing Unitive state. At first you do not know how to handle it. Then it is confusing, but OK. Then... it does get better. Daily practice, hold to your teaching, try not to say wild things (the hardest thing for me, especially on web sites and e-mail, which has gotten me in trouble). The people around you have no idea what you are experiencing, but it is normal. Just 'growth' or development.
I have searched and searched for any scriptures, research or other things that describe this in the same way (ego >>> Neo / no ego >>> Nonduality / no-self) but there is not much. The current research in to Persistent Non-Symbolic Experience (PNSE) is very promising. Most descriptions do not segregate out the "self without ego operating" situation. Chogyam Trungpa describes it in "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism", if you are willing to receive his point of view on it. I think that it is related to the developmental stages from Concrete Operations to Formal Operations to Post-Formal, but I am researching that at the moment. Good Luck!


text:
Was the Buddha Humanist?
Humanism is defined as,

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).

Would you say that the teachings (the Dhamma) of the Buddha are 'humanistic' in character, and if so - why?
I have heard many people using "humanist" in connection with the teachings. To me the teachings look more introvert with a guidance in social navigation in human society - a form of adaptive camouflage to avoid conflicts - but certainly not for humanistic purpose. To me it is seems more like the Buddha was teaching at a universal level including all mass.
But I might be mistaken, hence the question.

Do you want to define "humanist" in your question or do want an answer to define it?

That I know of, Fo Guang Shan defines themselves as humanistic buddhism.

Edited your question to point to the wikipedia definition of humanism. If you have a different idea of humanism, include it in the question body.

These are (european) "age of enlightenment" ideas. Just like with ancient greek thinkers, every once in a while you come across a rather modern sounding idea (e.g. atomism), but this doesn't mean that these people were crypto-2015 modern thinkers. For my style of Buddhism, it is enough that many parts of Buddhism are compatible with my modern 2015 sensibilities.

Buddha favored and wished happiness for all living beings, not just humans. He taught monks to develop a loving heart for all living beings, including human beings. His teachings springs beyond humanism.

Whether or not Buddhism is Humanist depends on your interpretation of Buddhism.
First, Buddhism is a program for humans to find happiness, and as such seems humanistic.  However, it does this by a thoroughgoing program of deconstructionism, which includes the self itself, and this may seem anti-Humanistic.
Second, while Buddhism is individualistic in a sense, there is the Bodhisattva ideal, which aims at the benefit of all sentient beings, and some of the attempts at transcending ego can involve serving others, so some types of Buddhism can be seen as benefiting people collectively.  However, there is a movement for Engaged Buddhism, which would seem to imply that this view of Buddhism is not universal (otherwise, why make an effort to stress this)?
Third, although the Four Noble Truths talks of the futility of trying to find happiness through our typical pursuits (and paints what some say is a grim picture of life), it also teaches that we have the power to transcend our situation.  In this sense, it seems to value human agency.  On the other hand, we're taught that we're not independent selves and (some interpretations?) even try to transcend the sense of doership as the handmaiden of the self, and as such, human agency may be devalued.
Finally, some Buddhist teachings value critical thinking and/or evidence over faith (Kalama Sutra), but there's also a critique of rationality (see Madhyamaka deconstructionism, especially Nagarjuna's).
In short, YMMV

My personal 2 cents: no, Buddhism isn't humanist, because it doesn't place human agency or fulfillment at the center of its teaching. It describes a universe governed by an inexorable law of dependent origination, which embraces humans, animals, and gods, and renders them equal and interchangeable.
That said, it holds out the promise of a certain kind of fulfillment that humans are especially well-equipped to reach. So it's compatible (at least at first!) with a humanist outlook. But if you approach Buddhism as a humanist, I believe that it will eventually force you to shed either some of your humanism (in a philosophical sense), or some of Buddhism.

Gautama Buddha was asked shortly after his enlightenment: "are you human"?  He answered: "no, I'm awake." (Paraphrase from a more extended passage in a sutra from the Pali Canon.) So I consider Buddhas as trans-human, beyond being labeled as any kind of sentient being. That said, the great physician Buddha sure has given us humans some wonderful medicine, exactly tailored to our human condition!


text:
Buddhism as a political party?
Would it be advisable to form a political party based on the Dhamma?
This would, of course, not mean that all people would have to become Buddhist, but just let their nation be governed by Buddhist principles.
The current ideologies seems to be either highly confused and clueless, intentionally abusive or just greedy. To benefit the people over the politicians, I was thinking that a Buddhist party could help the world to become more peace and make more sense to peoples lives.

Great idea. I don't know where the story is on the internet but the late Master Nan says in one of his lectures that some Buddha and his disciples, samadhi powers and all, tried to change India.
They failed. People are just too lazy and their karma way too thick to cut through mere skillful means. You help a person, and you enable their laziness and create a karmic debt for them! You jerk. You ignore them and let them suffer, they become motivated and help a million people.
Every action has an opposite reaction.
Other people can't save you without un-saving you later.
Buddha just can't save you, otherwise he'd have done it. There's something big going on!!
Buddha just can't kill your bad karma or anyone's bad karma.
He can only act as a intermediary and help purify that karma because of positive states of mind: shame, renunciation, faith, wisdom, concentration, meditation on the Buddha's positive qualities, etc. Buddha actually does little but act as a meditation object. The true power of mantras, according to Master Nan, can't even be accessed except by those in a deep state of dhyana/jhana/samadhi.
This is the same for confessions in Catholicism. Mother Mary can't do anything!
It was just a skillful means as mentioned in the previous paragraph.
If the Buddhas could effectively help people through political leadership--it would have already happened. It's because of some sort of karmic binding where people are self-responsible and must change their own fate, that they have not/cannot do it.
Politics is dirty, people are greedy, corrupt, and self-rationalizing! Even if Buddhism could become a political party--I doubt it stay for long. It would eventually become hijacked, derail, or decay.
The Three Poisons are stacking, moment by moment, millions of times in a day unawares until they cause people to behave in surprisingly evil ways. Countries have their own karma and everyone is contributing to it, it is hard for a small amount of people to purify the whole country's bad karma, especially when they are working against so many suave, manipulative, and cold-blooded murdering politicians.
The only salvation is self-awareness whilst not attaching to anything, not taking anything for self. Who cares about others anyway? Everyone will save themselves, give it a few million eons. All the while you enjoy yourself as a Buddha in Perfect Enlightenment, manifesting a million nirmanakaya bodies helping-beings-throughout-the-universe-through-causes-and-conditions.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Buddhism is more known now and has gained respect throughout the world. Sure there would be people trying to sabotage such a project, but maybe then a form of "peoples quality control"-system could be applied to avoid corruption...
It is not about making people meditate or turn them to be Buddhist. It is only to use the principles and logic of Buddhism to run a nation, so that people may be content. As it is now - we have a corporation controlled Democracy killing people everywhere in the world.
Maybe now, the world is ready for a new political initiative?

Well put Peter.
Making people meditate IS the solution though, starting with a mandatory zazen session in all schools. It is the easiest way to enable emotional self-management for our children who are in a hell of propaganda.
As for running a nation, Buddhism doesn't teach how to rule a nation, right?
It teaches how to rule oneself and quiet one's heart.

We should never force anything. That is what happens now with democracy. A few people deciding how everybody should live life. We can offer meditation as an option, then people choose for themselves. It's like the UN decided to "force peace" which can never lead to peace. We can give the environment, which can lead to peace and hope people would be inspired by it.
To rule a nation, you have to see the people as a person. This body of the person has many parts and each part need to function. It also means that each group has to work with one or more groups to survive.
Keyword : Freedom

The Buddha DID advise ruler of Nations on different matters. It is not such a far out idea. It just has to be formulated correctly.
Meditation is also just a tool - not a complete solution to everything. Practice has to be applied as well.

And... Of all the silly things we do during the day, I think it is worth spending time on pursuing this idea. Better than playing Xbox all day. hahaha

haha well anything compared to ultimate social Buddhist evolution is going to look pretty irrelevant.
As for "we should never force anything", I think i mis-explained it. I don't mean we should hold a gun to someone's head and tell them to meditate, but that we should integrate meditation into the learning curriculum and into a point-system so that our ADD and sex-obsessed kids learn to focus and hear their own thoughts..
Anyway, as much as I am with you bro, I don't think that these kind of things can happen... have you ever read the book "The Biggest Secret"? It seems like you might have.

It could be worth the effort. Nothing ventured, nothing gained... I currently reside in Thailand - I am sure I can find people to support in vote, backup  and financial support from all over SE Asia... If it doesn't work out - at least I will have a cool story to tell the Grandchildren before I eat them...


text:
Buddhist views on leadership
During some meditation I need to say several sentences. One of them is I take refuge in the liberated Sangha. I noticed that I often forget to say that sentence and virtually never forget the other four.
I started to think whether it's a coincidence and came to the conclusion that I have problems with effectively co-operating with people. Up to now, I've been most effective, when I worked alone.
Are there any Buddhist teachings on how one can overcome mental obstacles, which prevent a person from being a good leader (using other people's talents to achieve goals, which benefit some beings and don't harm anyone) ?
Note: By "mental obstacles" I don't mean lack of skills (e. g. inability to estimate the effort of tasks) or obvisous personality defects (e. g. the wish to look better than the others in front of people). It's something much more subtle, which makes me do all the work alone, even though I'm pretty sure that there are people out there, who would gladly help me.

The Buddha ministered to all levels of society including Kings. On the occasion when King Pasenadi of Kosala lost in the battle and had to retreat to his capital at Savatthi the Buddha said

"Victory breeds hatred.
The defeated live in pain.
Happily the peaceful live,
Giving up victory and defeat."

I take this to be advise around ones attitude to winning and losing. If you live with an adversarial attitude then you will never be happy. If you believe that my win is your loss then whether you win or lose you will be in a painful mental state. Happiness lies with moving away from this false binary point of view.

Good comment. Again we see how the Buddha chooses the middle way stearing away from the extremes.

"The four immeasurables":
Metta - friendship to all beings
Karuna - compassion to all beings
Mudita - taking joy in the well-being of others
Upekkha - equanimity toward all beings
... from this point of view, you're already part of an ongoing "team effort" to create the conditions for a safer and happier environment, wherever you go.
I really relate to that compulsive need to go do things myself. I often remind myself: "sometimes people really need to help you, and to refuse them the chance to help can be unkind."
I also often "check in" with myself to see whether what I'm doing right now helps to create conditions for myself and others to be safer and happier. Not to "make" myself or others safe and happy- that's out of our control- but to set up the conditions that support that.
Even though the idea of the "immeasurables" is to reduce selfishness, I think it's also a great definition of leadership. You can take that energy that makes you want to step out on your own, and use it to create a better atmosphere for collaboration. There's no situation where you can't find something to do that will lighten the load, either for yourself, or for someone else.


text:
Is there a Connection between Sila and Fear?
Is there a connection between Sila and fear? I find fear to be the main reason I practice sila. I would like to practice Sila out of loving kindness and a compassionate heart but I'm more worried about the consequences of my actions then being compassionate.And i don't know if this is selfish reason to practice sila but I'm really not keeping the precepts because I care very deeply about others or want to be Mother Theresa but  because for some reason I never seem to get away with anything.And I always seem to get the results of my actions right away that I feel like I don't have a choice but lead some kind of moral life.Basically i feel like someone on parole.My question is:

Is it selfish to practice sila because you want to save your own skin? Or should it only be practiced out of compassion for others?
Is there a connection between fear and sila?

Thanks

May i ask if you are doing vipassana meditation?  A lot of our problems tend to be caused by attachment to a "self". Attachment to self creates division like in "me" and "others". By working on realizing the 3 signs of existence one can approach these problems by going to the root. Regarding your question about practicing sila. When helping others one must do it without expecting anything for oneself. In that way the act of helping is "pure". If one does it out of selfish desires then the act can become tainted/polluted.

@Lanka Yes I have an attachment to the self I'm not enlightened yet.

@Lanka Also Lanka I don't practice vippassana I'm working on my sila and  I do samatha everyday but I'm mostly just getting my Sila in order.might take a lifetime by the looks of it...hopefully once I get my Sila in order I can progress in meditation and not get attached to the self.

I think that sounds great. You should also remember to give yourself some credit and not be too hard on yourself. You know i once read a tibetan saying that goes something like this: "what one does not reach in this life, one will reach in the next life or the one after that" - in order words No stress. For how long have you been practicing samatha meditation? And why no vipassana if i may ask?

@Lanka Thank you Lanka.I have been practicing only samatha for a few years.The reason I don't practice vipassanna though I've attempted it a few times is because I don't feel ready.I need to work on my sila.Im not like a bad person or anything.But i need to work on sila if it takes me my whole life.Also I started doing samadhi  because its feels so goood!

I understand. You must have a sharp concentration because of all that samatha meditation. I practice samatha too. Not as much as vipassana though. I agree with you that samatha meditation feels good. One can reach some very deep, beautiful and tranquil states. For me i found out that if one is not careful, its easy to develop attachment towards these states because they are so blissful. So i remind myself that these states are also impermanent. May you be happy, peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.

Fear is considered an unwholesome state, containing as it does aversion (patigha):

paṭighacittuppādavasena hi bhāyanaṃ
Indeed, fear [arises] due to the arising of a mind accompanied by aversion.
-- Vism-T 21.3 (751)

So no, there should be no connection between morality and fear. ottapa, often translated as "fear of wrongdoing", is a mind state that recoils from doing evil; it is a quality of mind that involves the disinclination to perform evil, not necessarily related to aversion or fear. It is wholesome.
As to practicing morality for selfish reasons, every part of the Buddha's teaching should be practiced to benefit oneself. Helping others can only come through one's own self-improvement. Of course, disregard for the suffering of others can be a sign of cruelty, which is unwholesome, but the two states are mutually independent; you can be focussed on helping yourself without disregarding the suffering of others, or you can be focussed on helping yourself and meanwhile disregarding the suffering of others.

One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached.
...
Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good.
-- Dhp. 158 & 166 (Buddharakkhita, trans)

Something wholesome and beneficial to oneself and others can also be considered as moral actions.
I also think fear or aversion is not a wholesome state but sutta suggests otherwise. Is aversion toward something unwholesome actually wholesome? Or aversion is still aversion no matter whether they are wholesome or unwholesome actions?
..."Having done a mental action, you should reflect on it: 'This mental action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?'

If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html

I think there is a very valid way to see that we practice sila to help get rid of fear! It's as if sila is the instruction, "don't stick your hand in fire," we don't have to follow it because we are fearful of getting burned, but because we are wise in understanding how to properly handle fire without getting burned. What is there to be afraid of? We know how to avoid trouble?
If we practice right speech, action, and livelihood, we never have to worry about our karma, about the internal experience of the sour grapes that arise as a result of treating others unkindly. This is an action of kindness to ourselves, to save ourselves the trouble, both internal and external, of the result of a negative intention.
The Dalai Lama has said that there are two kinds of selfishness, wise and foolish. Foolish selfishness just hustles and steals, greedily extorts and manipulates until there is nothing left. This is like biting the hand that feeds you. Wise selfishness understands interconnectedness and interdependency, the ecology of being. It understands that if I follow these standards, I will receive more, for a longer period of time. It understands that you treat others how you want to be treated. So, we practice sila because it is wise, and the kindness of our actions will reflect back on us, will be training in becoming a "better" person.
So what if there is still self clinging? You only need to keep in mind that the degree to which you feed into self clinging, that is the degree to which you are feeding into your own suffering and turmoil.
Sila is doing yourself a favor if you do it to save your own skin, or if you are truly acting out of total selfless compassion. Ultimately we do it so as not to be distracted on the path, it helps to clear the mind so that we can directly experience the ultimate truth of phenomena. So long as we have to worry and wade through our negative (clinging and grasping) actions and their consequences, we will be hindering our ability to see correctly.
I wouldn't beat yourself up, it's called practice for a reason ;)

You practice sila because it helps your mental state and it just happens to help others also

In AN 2.9, shame(hiri) and fear of wrongdoing(ottappa) are 2 very important qualities which the Buddha described as "the guardians of the world":

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens, pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of other honored persons."

Regarding the question of "saving one's own skin" versus compassion for others, the 2 are actually quite closely related. SN 47.19 gave great advice on the proper way of practice:

Monks, the establishing of mindfulness is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after myself.' The establishing of mindfulness is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after others.' When watching after yourself, you watch after others. When watching after others, you watch after yourself."

Initially morality can be based on:

Fear (social or Karmic consequences), shame (going against social norms) and adhering to rules (precepts as a rite or ritual) or value system (does not fit my status), etc.

At an intermediate stage this can be through compassion:

Do no harm to others and
Do no harm to oneself

But as you progress your morality should become more based on wisdom:

Wisdom you see by looking at the formations due to volitions. When you see something you get a sensation around the eyes followed by a sensation around your head when your perception kicks in followed by other thoughts which create more sensations around your head. If your volition is bad the sensations are not pleasant if it is good then they are pleasant. This should be your moral compass at later stages.


text:
What's the karmic cause for loneliness
I'm wondering why some people have many friends (lasting friendship like friends since kindergarten to college)while some has almost none.
I understand that it would depend on situations in present. But if there's effect from past, what would these be? From buddhism point of view.

Well you'll never know. From a Buddhism point of view, it could very well be a blessing in disguise:

On one occasion a certain monk, a Vajjian princeling, was dwelling near Vesali in a forest thicket. And on that occasion an all-night festival was being held in Vesali. The monk — lamenting as he heard the resounding din of wind music, string music, & gongs coming from Vesali, on that occasion recited this verse:
I live in the wilderness
      all alone
  like a log cast away in the forest.
  On a night like this,
      who could there be
      more miserable
              than me?
Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses, approached him and addressed him with this verse:
As you live in the wilderness all alone
  like a log cast away in the forest,
  many are those who envy you,
      as hell-beings do,
      those headed for heaven.
The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.
  ~~ SN 9.9 ~~

To have many friends, one needs to get others involved in good deeds. But being alone isn't always a bad thing. Especially if you can't find good friends.

Should a seeker not find a companion who is better or equal, let him
  resolutely pursue a solitary course; there is no fellowship with the
  fool. - Dhammapada(Balavagga) -61

If you do good deeds and dedicate them to attaining Nibbana, you will be born in places where you can hear the Dhamma and get to meet enlightened beings or at least those who teach the Dhamma. What better association than that?

Kamma is just one cause of happenings ,not the only cause of everything bad or good happened.
You didn't have friends the day you were born. By your good/bad actions you gain/lose friends.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm

Jealousy and envy are a cause for having few friends.Forgive me i forgot where I read this though...but I'm very certain this is the cause.

Yes this would make sense. Envying anything would create a lack of whatever is being envied in order to teach oneself the life lesson that one doesn't really need whatever that is (friends).
Envy anything and it will be driven further away.
What is better is to understand that everything is based on causes and conditions and cultivate those causes and conditions, without attachment or envy. Effortlessly, the goal will come to oneself.

Im sure I read it somewhere but the suttas are too many to remember where..

It's a mistranslation I believe. Jealousy and Envy lead to being born as insignificant. - cula-kamma vibhanga sutta

From my own personal perspective, I think that not having any or few friends generate from many different factors. I have been betrayed by both male and female friends in the past. While i can be outgoing, i choose not to get close to anyone and thus i have one or two "friends" as im not very trusting and these friends i have had for over 15 years. I subconsciously put up walls so that noone is able to get close to me. While this might not be the case for all, i think it depends on the individual and their experiences growing up.
From a Karmic perspective, i think perhaps i either lived a solitary life in the past and just continued it or i had too many people around me that in this life i chose solitude aka 2 friends. Perhaps i was a bad friend to others and this is my karma. One can only speculate on why this happens but i think you can find the answer if you examine your life and the context in which friends play an importance.
Hope this helps.

From a Karmic viewpoint, many people believe that vows made in previous lives are carried into the current life.  If someone vowed to be a monk/medicant in a previous life, to abandon the world, and spend lifetimes in seclusion, then one could find the energy of that vow carried into the current lifetime.  Everyone should reject all prior vows, of any and all lifetimes, that no longer serve in the current lifetime.  This is clearing the decks, cleaning house.
Other Karmic causes from past lives could be:
- Isolating or imprisoning others
- Having lived as a solitary/non-social animal in a very recent lifetime
- Having cursed people in general in the past
- Lack of forgiveness in previous or current life
Keep up with your practices.  Do what you can to be a friend and to share kindness with others.  Kindness, forgiveness, and spiritual service burn karma faster than many other methods.

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


text:
Can Metta Make you Beautiful?
Omg.Is this true.But what do you
mean like inner beauty? Or outer beauty? I'm more interested in outer beauty.Is there any reference in the suttas about being physically beautiful if you practice metta?
Thank you

Metta does make you physicaly beautiful. You don't go from being super ugly, to super gorgeous. But it can improve a lot more than you might think.
Using an analogy, have you ever noticed that when you are in a realy good mood, people are more enthusiastic with you? And have you ever noticed how when you're in a bad mood, the opposite happens? We all react instinctively to other people's moods, because these moods are "written" in the facial expression, even if we're not consciously aware of "reading" these facial expressions. It's just how the human animal reacts through instinct.
Metta cultivates such high spirits of kindness, happiness and love that your facial expression becomes pleasant, loving and happy. The bitterness, anger, frustration, depression, etc, all melt, day by day, with he practice of metta. Through continued practice, that makes you more and more beautiful.
But if you don't believe me, check these photos taken before and after a meditation retreat:
http://www.shambhalamountain.org/dathun-before-and-after-photos/

Yeah your right! Somethings changed in the photos.

Apparently, metta also gives you access to a better photographer.

The photographer was the same. The practice in a Dhatun is about mindfulness, and not metta. And what you say would not invalidate in the least the fact that metta makes you happier and more loving. And that the facial expressions assossiated with these qualities are also assossiated with beauty.

Yes, the Mettanisamsa Sutta lists eleven benefits of Metta meditation, out of which ten can be experienced in this life. The ninth one is the one related to this question: "His/her countenance is serene"
Also read the Culla-kamma vibhanga sutta

"But here some woman or man is not angry or much given to rage; even
  when much is said, he is not furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful,
  nor does he show ill-temper, hate or surliness. Due to having
  performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body,
  after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he
  comes to the human state, he is beautiful wherever he is reborn. This
  is the way that leads to beauty, that is to say, not to be angry or
  given to much rage; even when much is said, not to be furious, angry,
  ill-disposed or resentful, or to show ill-temper, hate or surliness.

Hmm.." his her countenance is serene"..but that just means calm looking tho.

The alternate translation say one's complexion is bright. Also look into the merits of giving alms food. One of the 5 benefits is having nice skin color. Also, there's a story about a girl offering flowers to the Ruwanwelisaya and wishing for beauty. As a result she was born so beautiful that even the kings fought for her. But later she got killed because of it.

HOW TO OBTAIN WEALTH, BEAUTY, AND SOCIAL POSITION.

Translated from the Anguttara-Nikâya (iv.1971).
On a certain occasion The Blessed One was dwelling at Sâvatthi, in
  Jetavana monastery in Anâthapindika's Park. Then drew near Mallikâ the
  queen to where the Blessed One was; and having drawn near and greeted
  The Blessed One, she sat down respectfully at one side. And seated
  respectfully at one side, Mallikâ the queen spoke to The Blessed One
  as follows:
"Reverend Sir, what is the reason, and what is the cause, when a
  woman is ugly, of a bad figure, and horrible to look at, and indigent,
  poor, needy, and low in the social scale?
"Reverend Sir, what is the reason, and what is the cause, when a
  woman is ugly, of a bad figure, and horrible to look at, and rich,
  wealthy, affluent, and high in the social scale?
"Reverend Sir, what is the reason, and what is the cause,
p. 229    [A.iv.1971 when a woman is beautiful, attractive, pleasing, and
  possessed of surpassing loveliness, and indigent, poor, needy, and low
  in the social scale?
"Reverend Sir, what is the reason, and what is the cause, when a
  woman is beautiful, attractive, pleasing, and possessed of surpassing
  loveliness, and rich, wealthy, affluent, and high in the social
  scale?"
"Mallikâ, when a woman has been irascible and violent, and at every
  little thing said against her has felt spiteful, angry, enraged, and
  sulky, and manifested anger, hatred, and heart-burning; when she has
  given no alms to monk or Brahman, of food, drink, building-sites,
  carriages, garlands, scents, ointments, bedding, dwelling-houses, and
  lamps, but has been of an envious disposition, and felt envy at the
  gains, honor, reverence, respect, homage, and worship that came to
  others, and been furious and envious thereat; then, when she leaves
  that existence and comes to this one, wherever she may be born, she is
  ugly, of a bad figure, and horrible to look at, and indigent, poor,
  needy, and low in the social scale.
"And, again, Mallikâ, when a woman has been irascible and violent,
  and at every little thing said against her has felt spiteful, angry,
  enraged, and sulky, and manifested anger, hatred, and heart-burning;
  but has given alms to monks and Brahmans, of food, drink,
  building-sites, carriages, garlands, scents, ointments, bedding,
  dwelling-houses, and lamps, and has not been of an envious
  disposition, nor felt envy at the gains, honor, reverence, respect,
  homage, and worship that came to others, nor been furious and envious
  thereat; then, when she leaves that existence and comes to this one,
  wherever she may be born, she is ugly, of a bad figure, and horrible
  to look at, and rich, wealthy, affluent, and high in the social scale.
"And, again, Mallikâ, when a woman has not been irascible or
  violent, and though much had been said against her, has not felt
  spiteful, angry, enraged, or sulky, nor manifested anger, hatred, and
  heart-burning; when she has given no alms to monk or Brahman, of food,
  drink, building-sites, carriages, garlands, scents, ointments,
  bedding, dwelling-houses,
p. 230    [A.iv.1974 and lamps, but has been of an envious disposition,
  and felt envy at the gains, honor, reverence, respect, homage, and
  worship that came to others, and been furious and envious thereat;
  then, when she leaves that existence and comes to this one wherever
  she may be born, she is beautiful, attractive, pleasing, and possessed
  of surpassing loveliness, and indigent, poor, needy, and low in the
  social scale.
"And, again, Mallikâ., when a woman has not been irascible or
  violent, and though much had been said against her, has not felt
  spiteful, angry, enraged, or sulky, nor manifested anger, hatred, and
  heart-burning; when she has given alms to monks and Brahmans, of food,
  drink, building-sites, carriages, garlands, scents, ointments,
  bedding, dwelling-houses, and lamps, and has not been of an envious
  disposition, nor felt envy at the gains, honor, reverence, respect,
  homage, and worship that came to others, nor been furious and envious
  thereat; then, when she leaves that existence and comes to this one,
  wherever she may be born, she is beautiful, attractive, pleasing, and
  possessed of surpassing loveliness, and rich, wealthy, affluent, and
  high in the social scale.
"This, Mallikâ, is the reason, this is the cause, when a woman is
  ugly, of a bad figure, and horrible to look at, and indigent, poor,
  needy, and low in the social scale.
"This, Mallikâ, is the reason, this is the cause, when a woman is
  ugly, of a bad figure, and horrible to look at, and rich, wealthy,
  affluent, and high in the social scale.
"This, Mallikâ, is the reason, this is the cause, when a woman is
  beautiful, attractive, pleasing, and possessed of surpassing
  loveliness, and indigent, poor, needy, and low in the social scale.
"This, Mallikâ, is the reason, this is the cause, when a woman is
  beautiful, attractive, pleasing, and possessed of surpassing
  loveliness, and rich, wealthy, affluent, and high in the social
  scale."
When he had thus spoken, Mallikâ the queen replied to The Blessed
  One as follows:
"Since, now, Reverend Sir, in a former existence I was irascible
  and violent, and at every little thing said against
p. 231    [A.iv.1977 me felt spiteful, angry, enraged, and sulky, and
  manifested anger, hatred, and heart-burning, therefore am I now ugly,
  of a bad figure, and horrible to look at. Since, now, Reverend Sir, in
  a former existence I gave alms to monks and Brahmans, of food, drink,
  building-sites, carriages, garlands, scents, ointments, bedding,
  dwelling-houses, and lamps, therefore am I now rich, wealthy, and
  affluent. Since, now, Reverend Sir, in a former existence I was not of
  an envious disposition, nor felt envy at the gains, honor, reverence,
  respect, homage, and worship that came to others, nor was furious and
  envious thereat, therefore am I now high in the social scale.
"Now, in this royal family, Reverend Sir, there are maidens of the
  warrior caste, maidens of the Brahman caste, and maidens of the
  householder caste, and I bear rule over them. From this day forth I
  will not be irascible nor violent, and, though much be said against
  me, I will not feel spiteful, angry, enraged, or sulky, nor manifest
  anger, hatred, and heart-burning; I will give alms to monks and
  Brahmans, of food, drink, building-sites, carriages, garlands, scents,
  ointments, bedding, dwelling-houses, and lamps; and I will not be of
  an envious disposition, nor feel envy at the gains, honor, reverence,
  respect, homage, and worship that shall come to others, nor be furious
  and envious thereat.
"O wonderful is it, Reverend Sir! O wonderful is it, Reverend Sir!
  It is as if, Reverend Sir, one were to set up that which was
  overturned; or were to disclose that which was hidden; or were to
  point out the way to a lost traveller; or were to carry a lamp into a
  dark place that they who had eyes might see forms. Even so has The
  Blessed One expounded the Doctrine in many different ways. I betake
  myself to The Blessed One for refuge, to the Doctrine, and to the
  Congregation of the priests. Let The Blessed One receive me, who have
  come to him for refuge, and accept me as a disciple from this day
  forth as long as life shall last."

There's a few other sutras that mention this idea that when one is angry (emanating UGLY energy outwards) one will receive an ugly countenance (reflective UGLY energy back to one's persona).
Metta produces the opposite effect.
I know that my pictures tend to be the best when I am mentally doing metta (genuinely, not "trying").
Lastly, the benefits go far beyond improving one's physical countenance.

May I know how do u do Metta mentally? I'm not following, mind to enlighten me?

There are many guides, but the gist remains the same: start with yourself.
Once you feel very loved and full of love, you can share this quality with others (mentally).
Bless others with metta starting with close friends and companions and moving towards complete strangers and those who have done you harm.
When completed, rest in this love and move on to vipassana, the core practice of Buddhism.
Sometimes I rush and do this entire exercise in about 30 seconds, sometimes I take an hour, combining this with yoga at the beach, imagining myself as all-being as an all-thing..

Was just wondering, can one just skip all and go straight to the neutral party? Wouldn't the coverage be much more wider? It will probably goes like this, may all beings be happy, may all beings be peaceful.......Instead of starting with May I be happy, may I be peaceful...I suppose the "All" includes yourself too. Would it work?

Yes that is fine.
Feel free to start wherever you please but do try it the way the Buddha recommended once, setting aside a period of time to dwell on the love, making it as unconditional as possible.

authors: Костя Дряхлов


text:
What is forgetting an experience?
During my day to day life experience, i imagine myself with wisdom. That imagination make me take a turn to some other scene where i exist as an ultimate supreme seer and i feel touch of realisation i.e, i can even touch (or hug) that scene, things, people, everything there. I enjoy that alot.
But i forget what was the most satisfactory imagination and i keep remembering that.
I want to know :

What is forgetting an experience ! It is science or spirituality at the basic ?
is it like if i can control my imagination, i can get the understanding of the state of nirvana and Nirvana is already in me ?

Imagination is what a mind think, limitless thoughts and things. When i meditate, most of the time i get lost in something, that time i do not experience anything, its like deep in sleep (no seer exist). i do not keep a alarm clock with me to close the meditation session. When i come out of the pause (which is not actually sleep) , i start experience the world but i try to stay empty (no-perception or emotion/feelings). Now a days I think that i am missing the purpose for what i have started practicing the meditation.

i can think that i am sitting in temple on floor and drinking hard drinks.

Nirvana isn't an experience, or a state. Nirvana is just stopping. Can you see, directly, now, that everything stops? That everything is always stopping?
When you do see that directly, that is, when your mindstream turns for one moment towards the stopping that's always happening, and you get a glimpse of Nirvana, "you" won't be there. But there will be an aftershock in your body.
That aftershock may be pleasant, and feel like wisdom- it may even feel like being a "supreme seer". But it's an experience in your body, in time, and is not itself "being in Nirvana".
Nirvana is in you because your mindstream, your experience, is always stopping. It's always going over the edge of a waterfall.
All of that might not make much sense :)

Awesome answer.

frustrating answer ;)

I don't know how but i know that every question in me starts with a gut feeling of mine that the best answer is in me and i am just a bit doubtful about giving that my consent. That doubt or circumstances which keep me away from clearing it is the distance which i have to travel/pass on my own. Thanks.


text:
Is there a commentary for the Dhammapada?
I read somewhere that there was a traditional commentary for the Dhammapada that gave the stories that inspired the Buddha to write the various verses of the text. Does anyone know what that commentary is and is it available on the internet perhaps on something like accesstoinsight or maybe as a printed book?

Yes, there is indeed. The commentarial text includes both these stories and word-by-word commentary on the verses themselves.
The story parts were translated into English long ago by Burlingame as "Buddhist Legends". The PDF version is available here:
http://static.sirimangalo.org/pdf/
in three volumes. (Search the page for "Buddhist Legends", there's eight pdf files)
The commentary on the verses has never been fully translated, AFAIK. Here, as an example, is the commentary on the first verse (not found in Burlingame's translation):

Realities have mind as forerunner, have mind as chief, are formed of mind.  If, with a mind corrupted, one speaks or acts, because of that, suffering follows him, just as a wheel the foot of the one pulling the burden.
Therein, each and every mind of the four realms, categorized as sensual-sphere wholesome, etc. is called “mind”. But, in this passage, being fixed, determined and defined by the power of the doctor's arisen mind, just a mind associated with aversion and accompanied by displeasure was obtained. In reference to “having as forerunner”: having become because of it going first, they are associated with it.  in reference to “realities”, there are actually four types of reality, under the headings of virtue, dissemination, study, and non-being/non-soul.  In regards to these, in “dhamma and non-dhamma do not indeed both have the same result.  Non-dhamma leads to hell, dhamma causes to reach a happy destination.”,  this is called “dhamma as virtue”. In “I will disseminate the dhamma to you monks, beautiful in the beginning...”, this is called “dhamma as dissemination”.  In “So here, monks, some young men of a good families bring the dhamma to complete fulfilment: the sutta the geyya...” this is called “dhamma as study”.  In “But indeed, at that time dhammas exist, aggregates exist.” this is called “non-being dhamma”.  This indeed is also called “non-soul dhamma”. Of those, in this instance non-being/non-soul dhamma is intended. The meaning of that is the three formless aggregates - the aggregate of sensation the aggregate of perception and the aggregate of mental formation.  Because, these are spoken of as “mind is the forerunner of them”, they are called that which has mind as forerunner.
But why is mind, arising in a single instant together with these, of a single base, with a single object, not before nor after, called “forerunner”? By the meaning of being condition for arising. Just as where many villains are doing evil deeds together like pillaging, etc., when it is asked, “Who is the forerunner of these villains?” whoever is the condition for them, having depended on whom they do that deed, he, whether Datta or Mitta, is called “the forerunner” of them. Thus should the completion of this matter be understood. Since, by the meaning of being condition for arising, mind is the forerunner of them, so they have mind as forerunner; whereas they are not able to arise with mind not arising, mind, however, does indeed arise with some mental concomitants not arising. Further, by virtue of being ruler over, mind is foremost in regards to them, so they have mind as chief. For, just as senior villains, etc., are chiefs of villains, etc., by ruling over them, so, as the mind is ruler of those mental concomitants, they indeed have mind as chief. Further, just as whatever is fashioned with wood, etc., all of those wares are called made of wood, etc., so, as those mental concomitants are themselves fashioned from the mind, they are called mind-made.
In reference to “with a mind corrupted”, the meaning is with a mind corrupted by incoming faults beginning with covetousness.  For the bhavaṅgacitta is an normal mind that is uncorrupted.  But  just as clear water tainted by incoming blue colour, etc. is thus categorized as blue water, etc., and not new water, nor either the former same clear water, even so is that mind corrupted by incoming faults beginning with covetousness, and not a new mind, nor indeed the former same bhavaṅgacitta.  Thus the Blessed One said, “Radiant, monks, is this mind; yet indeed, it is defiled by incoming defilements (AN 1.49).” So, if with a mind corrupted a man speaks or acts, speaking, he speaks only the fourfold verbal misconduct; acting, performs only the threefold bodily misconduct; not speaking, not acting, while there exists that mind corrupted with covetousness, etc., he fulfils the threefold mental misconduct.  Thus he fulfils the ten means of unwholesome action.
In regards to, “because of that, suffering follows him,” the meaning is, because of that threefold misconduct, suffering goes after that individual; by the power of misconduct, in the four states of loss or in the realm of humans, going both as a body-entity and otherwise, thus by this explanation bodily and mental suffering as a result follows that state of being.
Just like what? In regards to “just as a wheel the foot of the one pulling the burden”, the meaning is, like a wheel the foot of the ox harnessed in the yoke, pulling the yoke. For, just as that ox pulling even for one day, even for two, even for five, even for ten, even for half-a-month, even for a month, is not able to leave behind, to abandon the wheel; then indeed, when he is advancing to the front, the yoke presses on his neck; when retreating to the back, the wheel strikes against the flesh of his legs.  Oppressing by these two means, the wheel is in-step with the feet of that ox.  Just so, with a mind defiled, having fulfilled the three types of misconduct, an individual  is set in hell, etc..  Gone into such and such places, both bodily and mental suffering rooted in misconduct follows after him.  This is the meaning.

This has some background story for each verse:
The Dhammapada: Verses and Stories
Translated by Daw Mya Tin, M.A.

Venerable U Nandisena published a Spanish translation of the Dhammapada with Budagosha's commentary. He made it freely available here:
http://www.buddhismohispano.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Dhammapada.pdf


text:
Respect, attachment to position and aversion to disrespect. (In Buddhism)
One thing that is very easy to see in Buddhism is how respect is important. Respect for books, statues of Buddha and monks.
At the same time we learn that attachment and aversion are bad things.
Can't this respect for monks and traditions (sitting in a lower place, not pointing, etc) become an attachment to rules and reputation? At the same time, can't the disrespect for such rules become aversion?

Instead of "be seen as", which is not really consequential to a Buddhist, replace with "become" and I think you already have the answer.

Respect should first be given to the truth of suffering, to the truth of the cause of suffering, and the capacity of the dhamma to free you from that. Why? Because if you have no respect for the capacity of the fire to burn you, or the balm to sooth you, then you will only continue to burn.
Respect should be given to the Buddha, as a practitioner who accomplished something very profound and difficult, something noble and worthwhile, and then chose to share the wisdom of how he accomplished that with us all. He should be respected as someone who can teach us valuable lessons. When we see a statue or an image of the Buddha, we respect what it represents, the accomplishment and nobility of what was conquered.
Respect should be given to those serious practitioners who have set themselves out to follow the path laid out by the Buddha, to take it upon themselves to accomplish what amount of that great work that they can. It is hard work, arduous work that requires diligence, and is worthy of respect.
If we respect these good qualities, we will be likely to emanate them. If we do that, we may become free of our suffering. It is good to do so.
This is why.

Great! I do respect the triple gem, very very much, I was asking just to know how other people see it :)

Actually, the Buddha comes first, then the Dhamma and the Sangha.

@SankhaKulathantille I would argue that before it is possible to even know why respect for the Buddha is appropriate, understanding the truth of what he taught is necessary. Even then you have to respect yourself enough to apply the teaching, to learn the truth of what it is that is respectable. There are ways to approach respect, and obviously the truth of the Enlightened One is paramount, but to even understand what that means, you start with the truths themselves. Regardless, this is not the refuge vow, so there is no "traditional" or canonical order.

Without the Buddha, we wouldn't have any Dhamma to learn in the first place. Also, learning is one thing and respecting is another.

I can see what you mean, but it is also noteworthy that the truth is the truth weather or not someone points it out. But that is besides the point, like I mentioned, because this topic is not concerning the refuge vow, so there is no "proper" order as such. If you feel strongly about your view, that's great. For me, gaining deep respect for the Buddha meant, specifically, learning and therefore having the ability to understand and respect the Dhamma, to understand and respect what he accomplished, within my capacity to do so. Without that, what is there to respect? Just a name.

There is a proper order. Even before the refuge vow, we say "Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa" -  Homage to the Blessed One, the Exalted One, the fully Enlightened One! That's the 1st statement of respect.  Even though the truth is the truth even when there's no Buddha, you wouldn't know what is the truth unless the Buddha preaches it to you first.

What tradition are you? Clearly this is an important issue for you, and one that apparently touches on your tradition's prescription for what is considered proper. Like I said, for me, the value of respect came in a very straightforward way, as I experienced it, to learn to respect the Dhamma, and thereby realize the respect appropriate to the Buddha, as he is described to us via the various traditions.

Regardless, this is not about placing one above the other, not in the least. From the perspective that I am writing from, it is more about an order of realization. Anyway. Be well.

When you learn the Dhamma and understand it, your respect for the Buddha grows. But that doesn't define the order. The Maha Brahma himself paid homage to the Buddha before the Buddha even preached a single sutta. I'm just stating the order of the common practice. Whether it's important or not is s a different matter.

@SankhaKulathantille The Buddha himself revered the Dhamma as his superior...

Yes, Bhante @yuttadhammo , as I've heard, the Buddha placed the Dhamma as his teacher since he thought it's not good to be without a teacher. But are you familiar with any tradition where they pay homage to the Dhamma first and then the Buddha and the Sangha?

@SankhaKulathantille this topic is better suited for chat, but I am not aware of any teaching that puts the Buddha higher than the Dhamma. Just coming first is not evidence to that end; Sila comes before Samadhi, impermanence before suffering, etc.

I agree Bhante! I was mostly arguing about the correct order. Even with the refuge, it would be weird if someone started with "Dhammam Saranam Gachchami"

Any difference between Bhante and Banthe? I have read both... are both correct?

Aversion and attachment is due to polarity of perception. (Ignorance is clouding due to perception, unskilled and scattered nature of our mind.)
By reducing perception or riding itself through meditation will help you avoid such dilemmas either way you choose to do.
Since the world runs on perception and all worldly people are polarized by perception, as an inspiration to others it would be wise to slant yourself to what is generally accepted as pious and good. (But not driven by attachments or perception. )