text:
Is "Fake it 'til you make it" an acceptable Buddhist behavior?
Does Buddhist psychology view the concept of "fake it 'til you make it" as an acceptable social behavior (eg, cheerful behavior rather than stressed behavior, or calm behavior rather than emotional behavior)?
For example, I recently attended my first meditation retreat (a weekend event). I was overcome with emotion a couple of times during meditation practice and teaching sessions, with quiet tearfulness. Also, during the sharing time, at the end of the retreat on the final day, I wept as I finished my expressions of gratitude to the teacher and group.
Should I have restrained that last public display of emotion? Was that display of emotion an ill-timed expression of ego/self, and, therefore, according to Buddhism, best to be avoided?

IMHO, no. Your reaction was normal. You're human, you can't be logical all the time. It's inconsequential in comparison to your action and achievement. I wouldn't fret over it.

Behavior is a type of mental state, so to a certain extent, you are changing your mental state with behavior, so "fake it 'til you make it" can be valid. Still, there's a difference between "purely external behavior" and "behavior that emerges from a particular state" (even if both are mental states) so care should be exercised. I wonder how/if The 8-Fold Path relates to "fake it 'til you make it"? I also wonder if people who meditate "an expression of enlightenment" aren't using "fake it 'til you make it"?  Pure speculation of course...

I didn't get the connection between "Fake it 'til you make it" with the example of public emotion. What do you want to make restraining your public display of emotions?

The idiom "Fake it until you make it" or the recent turn of phrase "Fake it until you become it" used by Amy Cuddy in a Ted Talk about body posture and how it effects your psychology seems to focus mostly on the concept of confidence: http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are
In that sense in the west there seems to be an interesting idea that confidence is key to success and therefore one should be confident at all times. This is of course not possible and there is where this idiom comes in. The idea is that if one act and behaves as if one is confident, one becomes more confident by way of training. in other words: "embody as best as you can, that which you want to be."
If taken in this way the idea may be applicable to Buddhists, not waiting for confidence, not being paralysed by uncertainty but practising being the person you want to be. Note that this is not the same as ignoring ones feeling or suppressing it. Nor is it a mode you don't allow yourself to fail.
I agree with the other answers that you did not act inappropriately. As long as one does not flinch because of it, or see it as a failure.

Hi. Upvoted, although I disagree that this idiom refers mostly to confidence. Actually I've more often heard this idiom referring to happiness than confidence. For instance, some people say "I don't smile because I'm happy; I'm happy because I smile". Depression tends to lead to isolation which tends to lead to more depression, and "faking happiness" can, sometimes, be a way to happiness.

I'd say NO. Buddhism is, if anything, about practice, practice, and more practice. If you don't do the work, results will never appear. Your expression of emotion was entirely appropriate, even expected. A meditation retreat is a challenging thing, and if it had had no effect on you, I'd have been more surprised.

No it's not acceptable, or no you shouldn't have restrained your display? Or no to both? :-)

Both! I don't know if I'd say OP shouldn't have acted the way they did, merely that the way they did was perfectly understandable and acceptable.

"Fake it till you make it" is one of many views a disciple could endeavor on his way to liberation. It could be a good way to gain some knowledge/wisdom. Once knowledge/wisdom is gained, sooner or later one abandons the view "fake it till you make it".
You have done right by not restraining your last public display of emotion.
Even if that emotion was coming from your ego, it should not be avoided. The reason the emotion came is to learn why it came. The whole universe is here for you to see the path leading to liberation. Even if you probably don't see it this way, your emotion was one of the many experiences that lead you closer to liberation.

I would like to mention the difference between realities. We have conventional reality and ultimate reality.
Conventional reality is based on concepts such as "I, Me, Self, Persons, things, entities, animals etc." Here there is a Self, an experiencing entity, a creator of kamma.
In ultimate reality there is no concepts, meaning that there is no I or Self. In other words there is noone to blame or to restrain.

Regarding the past. What have been done have been done. Pondering about it is not conduceive to ones practice. Reacting to these mental formations only serve to bring one away from the Present moment and into delusion.
Remorse, regret of the past, thinking about what could have been done differently belongs to the 4th hindrance, ie. Restlessness and Worry. The hindrances are what keeps on from developing in meditation. You can read more about them here.

Lastly, in buddhism we try to develop a non-stick mind. A mind that does not cling or have aversion. We practice non-reaction, non-interfering with phenomena. Instead we observe them and learn from them. We observe phenomena and let them show us their true nature. When reacting to them, e.g. reacting to emotions we provide them further fuel to burn. We strengthen them. Its like taking a magnifying glass and concentrating the sun rays. They get stronger. In the same way if we have aversion towards them they also become stronger and grow bigger.
When just observing phenomena without interfering they are not being provided any fuel. Instead we turn them into objects of observation. We make them into the soil that will nurture our spiritual growth. So when these mental formations arise you can observe them and note them (Mahasi Sayadaw Tradition) in order to realize their impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and uncontrollable nature, i.e. the 3 signs of existence.

Right, we cling to concepts that have no inherent existence whatsoever. We think our thought are reality, but they aren't.

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


text:
When did the Buddha get angry?
I wish to know the circumstances where/when Buddha ever got angry and acted upon that anger. Thanks for your time. Love.

As others have said, the Buddha would not have gotten angry. There are however, suttas which show his sternness such as Kucchivikara-vatthu: The Monk with Dysentery In this sutta, the Buddha and Venerable Ananda come across a very sick and neglected monk lying in his own filth in a monastery. The Buddha shows compassion and along with Ananda cleans the sick monk. But then he calls together the rest of the monks and gives them a talking to about taking responsibility for each other. While we can't know the tone the Buddha would have used; given the situation and the apparent lack of compassion shown by the monks; we can imagine it would have been stern.
The Buddha used the term "worthless man" in the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta and others and the term "foolish man" in the Alagaddupama Sutta and others.
Of course, as an enlightened being, none of this was done in anger. The Buddha would have known the best way to speak to each to make them understand and sometimes this would not have been in a gentle tone.
There is another question on the site "Was the Buddha Harsh?" which has many more examples of this type of necessary speech.

Anger is eradicated at the 3rd stage(Anagami) of enlightenment. Lord Buddha is fully enlightened. It is impossible to make him or any other being who has reached or passed the stage of Anagami, angry.

i dont recall in any sutta even before the evening of enlightment that Buddha got angry.  IMO, The strongest/most firm words of his teaching was when Buddha corrected a monk (i dont recall name) who still taught others about existence of permanent soul (or transmigrating Vinnana) even after was told about the impermanent of vinnana.

his name was Sāti. I thought he was pretty harsh myself.

yes!!!!  thanks.  What became of him?  Did he reach higher level of Dhamma later?

just as Robin said, since Buddha knew the level of 5 strengths in all beings, his teaching style and words were perfect and for the benefit of his students.

The Buddha cannot get angry. Thus, he never acts upon it. The Buddha is completely liberated from suffering.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why isn't the S(h)urangama sutra more popular?
I've read that this sutra is one of the most direct routes to enlightenment and one of the most important, yet because future generations cannot handle this sutra, its disappearance  was foretold.
I can find only a few English versions of this on the web and they each vary considerably, as if to indicate the prophecy is coming true. Among Buddhist teachers of certain (esoteric?)  sects this is a favorite, but most teachers largely ignore it.
Can someone shed light on its relevance to the modern aspirant? What are its criticisms?
Why is it not more popular if its dire warnings are true? Are there reliable or canonical versions to follow? What is the history of this sutra?

Within Buddhism, there are very many important sutras. However, the most important sutra is the Shurangama Sutra. If there are places which have the Shurangama Sutra, then the Proper Dharma dwells in the world. If there is no Shurangama Sutra, then the Dharma-ending Age appears. Therefore, we Buddhist disciples, each and every one, must use our strength and our blood, sweat, and toil to protect the Shurangama Sutra. In the Sutra of the Ultimate Extinction of the Dharma, it says very, very clearly that in the Dharma-ending Age, the Shurangama Sutra will be the first to disappear. The rest of the sutras will follow. As long as Shurangama Sutra does not disappear, then the Proper Dharma Age is present.

(Extract from introduction to Sutra)

See also Dharma-ending age in suttas and solution?

Thanks for the link, there are several warning signs that have already come to pass. There is mention of climate change, shortening solar cycles, women outliving men, population explosion, drying up of rivers and several other phenomenon in the sutra. There is also mention of scientists who say all of this including climate change is normal, and there is no cause to worry. However, I am interested in the main of the sutta, which doesn't seem to get as much attention as the warnings.

You mention how different versions of the sutra vary considerably. I think I should mention that there are two sutras with very similar names. There is one that is just called the Shurangama Sutra that is a dialogue between the Buddha and Ananda about the nature of mind, and then there is the Shurangama-Samadhi Sutra composed in China that is about meditation, so maybe you are looking at two totally different sutras.

Thanks that explains why it was that when I went to re-read the meditation on sound section I could only find dialogues between Ananda and the Buddha.

In the introduction to her translation of the Ugraparipṛcchā Jan Nattier notes that texts are more likely to have been translated into English if they have two features: firstly if there is a extant Sanskrit text; and secondly if they have been influential in Japanese Buddhism. And thirdly if they:

portray the Buddhist messages in terms congruent with certain core
  western values such as egalitarianism (e.g. the universal potential
  for Buddhahood according to the Lotus), lay-centred religion (e.g.,
  the ability of the lay Buddhist hero of the Vimalakīrti to confound
  highly educated clerics in debate), the simplicity and individuality
  of religious practice (e.g., the centrality of personal faith in
  Amitābha in the Sukhāvatīvyūha), and even anti-intellectualism (e.g.,
  the apparent rejection of the usefulness of rational thought in the
  Heart Sūtra, the Diamond Sūtra, and other Perfection of Wisdom texts).
  (Nattier. A Few good Men. 2003, p.6)

Many scholars consider the Śūraṅgama Sūtra to have been composed, or compiled from other sources, in China. That the Chinese did this kind of thing is quite common. The well known Heart Sutra is another prominent example. There is no Sanskrit "original". And on the whole the themes do not appeal to Westerners. So the text is unlikely to appeal to a Western Audience. Vast differences in English translations are common because of the range of ability of translators and the very great difficulties of rendering ancient Chinese into English.
The apocalyptic themes of the text are exaggerated versions of such predictions which occur throughout Buddhist literature. Like many millennial predictions of disaster they simply have not come true. The end of the world simply fails to happen, no matter who is predicting it, and there is always someone predicting it.
While the Śūraṅgama itself may be fading out as because it is irrelevant to modern Buddhist practice, there is resurgent interest in other Buddhist texts. Witness the massive project funded by the Numata Foundation to translation the entire Chinese tripiṭaka. Also the there is huge interest in doing comparative work on the Pāli Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas. At the grass roots level Buddhism continues to be moderately popular in the West, but is being revived in China as restrictions on religious observance are relaxed.

Thanks for the answer and welcome. I've been a follower of your blog for a while now and think it is excellent.

I've read parts of the Shurangama-Samadhi Sutra, and I think the main reason it isn't so popular in the West is that it is written in a rather formal and verbose, and it has long passages with long lists. Most Sutras that are popular in the west have a much faster pace to them and are less formal in style, such as the Heart Sutra, Diamond Sutra, Lotus Sutra, etc...

Actually, when you look at the Table of Contents of the Shurangama sutra, you will notice the topics that are covered are all covered in the Theravadin suttas and especially Bill Bodri's book How to measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization which in my opinion is an excellent translation and regurgitation of Shurangama sutra and the entire spiritual path in general. Six Planes, Fifty False states caused by the Five Aggregates, storehouse consciousness... check out the TOC of the sutta and if you are familiar with Buddhism you will see it talks about the same things... except with probably more esoteric definitions than the Theravadin can provide.
Hopefully we see a good official english translation in the next decade but until then we can just refer to the Theravadin sutta for translations on the same subjects.
Surangama sutta will not disappear. The warning was a skillful means to make practitioners uphold this sutta more than others as it is a summary of what it TRULY means to practice Buddhism towards self-enlightenment.

I started in Theravada Buddhism and during meditation, several of the 50 False Skandhas manifested. I was advised by the Theravada monk to ignore what I see ( particularly the 3Dimensional Gold Shining Buddha appeared in front of me knowing my eyes is close but I can see through my eyes. Later, when I was practicing Tibetan Buddhism, several practicing Buddhist inform me that what I was experiencing while meditation are well described under Chapter VIII of the Surangama Sutra when one is near Samadhi
If any scholars say this Sutra is not from Sakyamuni but from a group of Chinese monks that created the Sutras are mistaken

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


text:
What was the 1st Buddhist Council about?
I'm interested in the 1st Buddhist Council, i.e. why was it held, where was it held, who attended it and what were the outcome?
I'm not looking for an in-depth and detailed answer. More like an overview of the 1st council and preferably a text-reference.
Thank you for your time.

The account of the first and second councils is found in the Cūḷavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka (Cv XI and XII). The first council (Cv XI) was held in Rajagaha, at what is known as the monastery of the seven caves, on the mountains above the city. Five hundred bhikkhus were in attendance.
The idea for a council began with Mahakassapa relating to his fellow monks the story found in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta (DN 16) wherein Mahakassapa finds out about the Buddha's passing. He relates how he encouraged the monks to remember that everything we hold dear must pass, so they shouldn't mourn, and how an old monk named Subhadda said they shouldn't mourn because they were now free to ignore the Buddha's words and do what they wanted. He then requests that they rehearse the dhamma and vinaya together, "before what is not the dhamma shines and the dhamma is rejected; before what is not the vinaya shines and the vinaya is rejected; before those who speak what is not the dhamma become strong and those who speak the dhamma become weak; before those who speak what is not the vinaya become strong and those who speak the vinaya become weak."
At this, his fellow monks requested he select monks for the council, which he did - 499 of them, all arahants. The monks suggested he select ananda as the 500th, since he was a sekha, unable to give rise to such defilement as would lead to the states of loss and of course because he had heard much of the dhamma and vinaya in the Buddha's presence.
The elders asked themselves where they should meet, and agreed upon Rajagaha as being a great place to find the support they would need in terms of alms and dwellings. They proposed to stay there for the rains and hold the council there, and to agree that no other monk should stay in Rajagaha for the rains., Mahakassapa proposed it as a sanghakamma - any against should speak, those for it should stay silent - and it passed unanimously.
They spent the first month making repairs to their dwellings, then began the council.
The events of the council itself are, in brief, as follows:

Ananda, an arahant by this time, arrived just as the council was beginning.
Mahakassapa questioned Upali on the vinaya, beginning with "The first parajika, where was it laid down?". He asked about the story behind, the person behind, the issue behind, minor issues related to, what was an offence, and what was not, in relation to each of the precepts from each of the two codes of discipline and Upali responded.
Mahakassapa questioned Ananda on the dhamma, asking about the story behind and the person behind every sutta in the five nikayas, starting with the Brahmajala sutta and Ananda responded.
Ananda related the Buddha's permission to discard the minor and lesser precepts; they asked him if he had gotten specification on what were the minor and lesser rules and he admitted he had not. They couldn't agree, so in the end, Mahakassapa made a formal proposal that they keep the rules as they were, since it was known to lay people what was proper for them and what was not. If they were to change the rules, it would be spread about that they were going against the Buddha while his funeral pyre still smouldered. There was unanimous consent.
The elders questioned Ananda on several points where they felt he was deserving of rebuke, including that he didn't ask about the minor and lesser rules. He replied in defence, but accepted his actions as wrong doings out of faith in the elders.
The venerable Purana arrived and was told they had recited the dhamma and vinaya and that he should recite it with them. He replied by saying that while the dhamma and vinaya was well recited by them, he preferred to hold to the dhamma and vinaya as he had heard it from the Buddha himself.
Ananda related the Buddha's injunction that Channa was to receive the brahmadaṇḍa (God's or highest punishment) - that no one should speak or teach or advise him. They told him to tell Channa himself, and he asked what to do if Channa was harsh and abusive in response. They told him to bring many monks with him. The council seems to have ended there, as the text then follows Ananda to a meeting with King Udena and eventually Channa. Either that, or the council ender before this and Ananda related the injunction regarding Channa to the elders on a later date.

Bhante, the two codes of discipline you mentioned in #2, are those the bhikkhu and bhikkhuni codes? Did the bhikkhuni rules go through this same process? Thank you.

@Bhante. Thank you for a comprehensive answer.

@Robin111 yes, that is what is meant. Upali was questioned on and answered in regards to both sets of rules.

tldr; some old guy thought that because the buddha was now passed into parinirvana, the monks could go crazy and do whatever they wanted, not adhering to the rules. so a council was called consisting of 500 arahants to codify the buddhas teachings and rules for the sangha so that going forth the dharma would not degenerate. Ananda, being foremost in memory and having heard nearly all of the buddhas teachings as he was the buddhas #1 monk, was asked to join but only if he was able to attain arahantship. So Ananda stayed up all night the night prior to the council, and finally on the morning of, attained Arahantship, and was able to attend and recite all the sutas and precepts for the sanga.

The First Buddhist council was convened in the year following the Buddha's parinirvana,1 which is 543–542 BCE according to Theravada tradition, at various earlier dates according to certain Mahayana traditions, and various later dates according to certain Western estimates.[2] According to late commentarial accounts, King Ajatashatru (Sanskrit अजातशत्रु) sponsored the council. Tradition holds that on the full moon day of Shravan lunar month the Council was held in a hall erected by Ajatasattu outside the Sattaparnaguha (Pali: Sattapanniguha) or Saptaparni Cave in Rajgir, three months after the Buddha had attained parinirvana (i.e. died). Detailed accounts of the council can be found in the Khandhaka sections of the canonical Vinayas.
However other sources reveal that the Buddha's parinirvana happened 218 years before the coronation of Emperor Ashoka. Emperor Ashoka was coronated in 269 BCE. So it can also be stated that the Buddha died in 483 BCE. The time matches the reign of King Ajathashatru. Hence it can also be argued that the First Buddhist Council was held in the year 483 BCE.
According to this record the incident which prompted the Elder Mahakassapa to call this meeting was his hearing a disparaging remark about the strict rule of life for monks. The monk Subhadda, who had ordained late in life, upon hearing that the Buddha had expired, voiced his resentment at having to abide by all the rules for monks laid down by the Buddha. Many monks lamented the passing of the Buddha and were deeply grieved but Subhadda spoke up to show happiness and relief that Buddha was gone.
And Subhadda, the late-received one, said to the Bhikkhus: "Enough, Sirs! Weep not, neither lament! We are well rid of the great Samana. We used to be annoyed by being told, 'This beseems you, this beseems you not.' But now we shall be able to do whatever we like; and what we do not like, that we shall not have to do."[3]
Mahakassapa was alarmed by his remark and feared that the Dhamma and the Vinaya might be corrupted and not survive intact if other monks were to behave like Subhadda and interpret the Dhamma and the Vinaya rules as they pleased. To avoid this he decided that the Dhamma must be preserved and protected. To this end after gaining the Sangha's approval he called to council five hundred Arahants.[3] Ananda was to be included in this provided he attained Arahanthood by the time the council convened.
With the Elder Mahakassapa presiding, the five hundred Arahant monks met in council during the rainy season. The first thing Mahakassapa did was to question the foremost expert on the Vinaya of the day, Venerable Upali on particulars of the monastic rule. This monk was well qualified for the task as the Buddha had taught him the whole of the Vinaya himself. The Elder Mahakassapa asked him specifically about the ruling on the first offense parajika, with regard to the subject, the occasion, the individual introduced, the proclamation, the repetition of the proclamation, the offense and the case of non-offense. Upali gave knowledgeable and adequate answers and his remarks met with the unanimous approval of the presiding Sangha. Thus, the Vinaya was formally approved.
The Elder Mahakassapa then turned his attention to Ananda in virtue of his reputable expertise in all matters connected with the Dhamma. Happily, the night before the Council was to meet, Ananda had attained Arahantship and joined the Council.1[4] The Elder Mahakassapa, therefore, was able to question him at length with complete confidence about the Dhamma with specific reference to the Buddha's sermons. This interrogation on the Dhamma sought to verify the place where all the discourses were first preached and the person to whom they had been addressed.
Ananda aided by his word-perfect memory was able to answer accurately and so the Discourses met with the unanimous approval of the Sangha. The First Council also gave its official seal of approval for the closure of the chapter on the minor and lesser rules, and approval for their observance. It took the monks seven months to recite the whole of the Vinaya and the Dhamma and those monks sufficiently endowed with good memories retained all that had been recited. This historic first council came to be known as the Pancasatika because five hundred fully enlightened Arahants had taken part in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Buddhist_council
buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_32lbud.htm

Cleanliness of the common areas... people were drinking, washing their feet in the same water basins, bathing and going to the bathroom in the same place drinking water was being gathered.
To end the nonsense schism and restore peace; Gotama drank the muddied pooped in bathed in water; already sick from a bad food alms round.
In the end? Good enough for Buddha good enough for us... and peace was restored.
Don't forget the avoidance of two extremes; ring a bowl? Just because someone can retrograde on the path to Anagamin in becoming; doesn't meant they really want too or in some cases even should.


text:
What are the benefits of practicing under a teacher vs. practicing alone?
Question is in the title.
I was wondering about the benefits of practicing with a teacher vs. practicing alone.
By alone i mean when one has a great deal of time to practice and no worldly responsibilities such as a marriage, children, being the owner of a car, house, flat etc. meaning that one can then spend a lot of time on studying and practicing the dhamma.

Lanka, this is a dhamma talk Venerable Yuttadhammo gave last evening that discusses four things a meditation teacher does for their students; but which students can also do for themselves if they are sufficiently aware of their mind states. I think it may be interesting to you. http://meditation.sirimangalo.org/live/20150704_0059_livestream.mp3

If one has found a good teacher who is willing to teach, nothing like it. Unfortunately, good teachers are rare, and most wander alone.
It's like climbing a mountain without a guide. Sometimes we get lost, wander around a lot, maybe learn a lot of things in the process, but also get hurt by falling down. Most times the learning is not really essential to climbing the mountain, it can sometimes feel like it is impossible to continue, and other times one can think, "I have come so far, I can't turn back now".
In the modern age with so many dharma books and teachers online, one may not always need a direct teacher. However, one can get confused with a multitude of approaches and schools.
It's a risk, but it also protects from getting locked into a dogma or school. This can happen to anyone who finds a teacher or school at an early age and never encounters other ideas. The Dalai Lama (in his book "Toward a True Kinship of Faiths: How the World's Religions Can Come Together") has said that until he visited the Theosophical society in Chennai and met people of other faiths, he was pretty certain only Buddhism had all the answers, and every other approach was wrong.
Ultimately we make do with what we have. We don't abandon our practice merely because we can't find a good teacher, we do it the best way we can.
If we accumulate merit by helping others it will lead to better guides, books and teachers - dharma will find us.

Thank you for this answer. I like the rock-climbing analogy.

Chogyam Trungpa said that the spiritual path is like swallowing a porcupine: once you start, you have to eat the whole thing. Another advice was: "Better not to begin. Once begun, better to finish."

Practising alone will give you better experience and better overview,
Practising under teacher will be helpful initially I believe, But later on at some point or other you will need to practise alone.

There are different personality types according to Buddhism. Basically three good types and three bad types although each person is a mixture. Different personalities need different meditation techniques. A teacher can find what your personality is and provide you with the relevant method of meditation. Further some types of meditation need the supervision of a teacher. So having a teacher is better. But you can practice Loving Kindness and Buddhanussathi etc. on your own.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here.

Assumed reference for the above mentioned character types at The Visuddhimagga Chapter 3 - The Taking of a Meditation Subject, #74, page 96. (This refers to Samatha meditation though.)

Thank you for the help! I am not sure of the limitations of the analysis, but most of the Samatha Meditation becomes Vipassana when you think using Anithya Dukka Anathma  (Impermanent, Unsatisfying and uncontrollable). I have not done although, they are very advanced states. http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3547/what-exactly-differentiates-vipassana-from-samatha-meditation . A thread on Samatha and Vipassana. Have a look on Yutthadamma Bhikkus answer please!


text:
A question regarding the level of worldly participation for a buddhist monk
I noticed some buddhist monks spend a lot of their time teaching and giving dhamma talks, while other monks spend minimal time on these things.
I was wondering if there are any rules in the monastic code for monks regarding how much time a monk should spent on teaching?

Merely becoming a monk does not make one qualified to teach, just like joining medical school does not make one a surgeon. Some can have valid reasons for not teaching, others can just be lazy or needing encouragement. It is up to their teacher or abbot to enforce. I am not going to actually mark this an answer, since I am not a monk.

Hello @Sri Lanka. Venerable Yuttadhammo gave an interesting dhamma talk tonight regarding teaching. I thought you might like it. http://meditation.sirimangalo.org/live/20150712_0101_livestream.mp3 The passage he is referring to is the one from July 11 of this book: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/words_of_buddha.pdf  Be well.

Thank you Robin both for the dhamma talk and the book. I appreciate it. I will take a look at it. I found a dhamma talk for you regarding one of your question about why anyone would want to go to the Heavenly Realms. I think it were Sankha K. who mentioned the Buddha and Tavatimsa Heaven. Here is a dhamma talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo (teaches the Mahasi-method) called The Buddha in Tavatimsa Heaven. I have not listened to it yet but i think there might be something interesting in it.

Thank you very much! Looking forward to listening to it. :)

Welcome Robin:)

Those who can, do.  Those who cannot, teach.

As a Zen Monk I can answer the question regarding worldly participation in the following way. There is no definitive suggestion or rule within the Monastic Code of a Mahayana Monk. A Monk or Nun has no requirement to teach or not teach. Often the suggestion may come from the Senior Abbot that one should follow the teaching path. This is what happened in my case. Naturally the Abbot has to feel that the particular Monk or Nun has the required personal experience before they can teach others. I teach as often as I can and I am also the Buddhist Chaplain to a number of Hospitals. One should always direct the teaching at a level that would match the understanding of the audience. Thank you. Thay Tam Thien.

The main role of the monastic community is to preserve the Buddha's teaching, but I don't think that the Buddha gave a prescription on how exactly to do that. It's been left to each community to set rules of teaching and the level of community interaction. I don't think you're going to find one magic answer. In my tradition, you're expected to have some mastery over the subject matter before giving Dharma talks. It also helps to practice the Eightfold Path enough to where you are without reproach when you enter the community with instruction.
I don't believe it's wrong to participate and reach out to the community at any time. It just may not be helpful. Maybe like this post ;-) Then again, mastery is hard to see from the outside.
"Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water.  After enlightenment chop wood, carry water."

Thank you for the answer Bhante. Could you elaborate on the enlightenment-quote?

What is your tradition Bhante?

@Lanka The quote is a Zen proverb: you might want to ask about it as a new/separate question. I wonder if it could be relevant to point to the tenth of the "Ten Bulls" as an illustration of it.

@Thanks Chris. I asked a question but only regarding the quote.

No. Of course it can be a heavy attachment and diversion of the main task one has. Older say, sharing about 10-20% of time for lay people teaching is a proper way in training.
Don't forget, that the Buddha and some of his Arahat Disciple spend the rest of the life with teaching. On the other hand, there are other kind of arahats who do not teach at all, some can, some can and do, some do but can not...
There is how ever, not duty to teach at all.
To understand the "jumping point", it's possible good to ask the Buddha in this regard:

"'A person living alone. A person living alone,' thus it is said. To what extent, lord, is one a person living alone, and to what extent is one a person living with a companion?"... Migajala Sutta: To Migajala

[Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stackes... but for release from this wheel by proper use]

In Christianity, priests generally do not meditate. Often, the sole role of a Catholic priest is to preach the religion to devotees.
In Asian Buddhism, the role of many monks is similar, which is why they devote most, if not all, of their time to teaching & conducting ceremonies. There are even Western monks, in Asia, that mostly teach & translate.
While I have never read it myself, I have heard the Buddha stated that monks who primarily meditate should not criticise monks who primarily study & teach. If this is true, then the dichotomy between 'meditation monks' & 'study/teaching monks' goes back to the time of the Buddha. A good example is Venerable Ananda, who often gives the impression in the suttas of not being a particularly adept meditation practitioner.
In my monastic experiences, I have not observed any correlation between teaching & practising the eightfold path. Often it is those that are seriously practising the eightfold path that do not teach.
There are highly reputed monks (eg. Ajahn Jayasaro) that spent many years as a (highly reputed) meditation monk before teaching extensively to the public.

"In Christianity, priests generally do not meditate" -- I'm pretty sure they're expected to "pray", at least, whatever that means. TBH I think it's often better to avoid saying things about non-Buddhist religions on this site.

From AN 5.73 (quoted below), the Buddha advised monks to not just participate in study, description, recitation and thinking of the Dhamma, without meditation. He advised them not to neglect meditation.

Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
  bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
  the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
  Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
  dwells in the Dhamma?"
"Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
  answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
  day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
  himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
  who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
  Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
  internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
  on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
  & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
  his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
  seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
  dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
  narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
  exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
  answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
  neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
  awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
  who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
  who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
  Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
  out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
  the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
  Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
  to you."

In SN 9.5 (quoted below), Ven. Ananda was advised to not spend too much time informing the lay people, neglecting meditation:

Now at that time Ānanda was spending too much time informing the lay
  people. Then the deity haunting that forest had compassion for Ānanda,
  wanting what’s best for him. So they approached him wanting to stir
  him up, and recited these verses:

“You’ve left for the jungle, the root of a tree,
    with quenching in your heart.
    Practice absorption, Gotama, don’t be negligent!
    What is this hullabaloo to you?”

Impelled by that deity, Venerable Ānanda was struck with a sense of
  urgency.

On the other hand, the Buddha did say that teaching others should not be neglected in SN 10.2 (quoted below), as it is a duty of compassion:

Then a spirit named Sakka went up to the Buddha, and addressed him in
  verse:

“You’ve given up all ties,
    and are fully freed.
    It’s not a good idea for you, ascetic,
    to be instructing others.”

Buddha:

“No matter what the apparent reason
    why people are together, Sakka,
    it’s unworthy for a wise person
    to not think of the other with compassion.
If you instruct others
    with a mind clear and confident,
    your compassion and empathy
    don’t create attachments.”


text:
What are the benefits of solitary practice?
I have heard about buddhist monks who undertake strictly solitary practice for 6 months where they practice entirely by themselves. They have no human contact and some of the other monks will come and bring them their food. The other monks will leave the food at the entrance and only when they leave the solitary monk will come out to take the food.
I'm very interested in this way of practicing and would like to know what the benefits of such concentrated practice is and the fact that there is no human contact or contact with the outside world.

If one has the maturity, will and energy, this can be very good. Unfortunately, most lack that kind of will until they have progressed a good distance already. Bodhidharma, the Zen patriarch practiced this way for nine years.
Isolated practice can only cut us off from humans, when concentration deepens, it can often lead to encounters with non-humans :-) It's never possible to cut us off from all sentient existence.
There are dangers and rewards with everything. Reintegration with society can be difficult, if we are not mature and stable enough, some experiences in solitary meditation can be very scary and disturbing, especially if we choose to practice in places with spirits, like graveyards.
It's like free climbing without a rope, not for beginners.
p.s. if you have not already, read the biography of Ajahn Mun Bhuridatto Thera

Thats a good point about the reintegration into society.

The rule of thumb is it takes 3-5 times the time of practice to integrate the learning into life. After a three month silent retreat it can take a year or two to associate with normal society. Of one has particularly deep insights one must also be prepared for a period of depression afterwards.

That is a long time to reintegrate oneself. Also where can one do 3 months silent retreats? I heard only about 10-day retreat. Or you mean 3 months retreats only for monks?

Pa auk monastery, Burma if you're into samatha jhanas and powers, Wat chomtong, Chiang mai has a 21 day retreat in vipassana and there are several retreats in the mahasi tradition - see this for 60 days. There are others for 100 days or more, even for lay people

If you're interested in Zen and Mahayana traditions, check out plumvillage.org (Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh), France and www.bodhizendo.org, South India

Thank you for the the advice but im a theravada buddhist and follow the Mahasi sayadaw tradition.

@Lanka http://www.buddhanet.net/medburma.htm for Mahasi Sayadaw

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Meditation puts the body into a sort of state of hibernation, doesn't it, to some extent? The passage of time becomes very relative, and if the practitioner is accessing a bliss state, then...who needs human company?
Monks in isolation are involved in repeated intense inner-directed mental exercises.
[here]
you might find this useful

I also wonder what benefit would this behavior bring to the world. What is the point of achieving bliss and illumination, if you stay isolated from other humans? Probably it's material for another question....

One can always benefit others using metta.

Isolation helps achieving peace of mind and state where there is no lust for things

Do you have any references to back up the statement about hibernation?

Yes  I do have http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-05/fyi-can-humans-hibernate

Good, thanks. You can put that link into your answer to increase the quality of the answer by having a reference. We have a guide for new user that you might find useful. Also welcome to Buddhism SE. http://meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1502/i-am-a-new-user-here-at-buddhism-se-what-should-i-know-before-i-post?cb=1

If you press the "paper-clip" on the layout panel you can insert a hyper-link.

Such practice is not wished by the Buddha, actually the whole issues of storing food and cooking for themselves are meant also for that purpose. There was a question about livelihood of hermits here, which touches the issue outwardly.
Inwardly the Buddha often "begged" monks to stay with the Sangha, since solitude life (even if still for alms out) is not good for one having not developed Samadhi, e.g. not beyond sensuality at its gross form.
In one case, to Upali, he made the example of cats and rabbits, willing to follow the elephant and jumping into the lake, finding no ground and get lost.
To develop right view, as well to abstain from sensuality for the next step, is good done when having the "controlling" support of admirable friends.
So for a worldling of no benefit, and for someone on the path, it's better to depend on admirable friend, Nissaya, Nyom Lanka.
Practising people are always in solitude (turned inwardly, what ever they do) and if not talking about Dhamma.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

Thank you Bhante. This is very true: "Practising people are always in solitude (turned inwardly, what ever they do) and if not talking about Dhamma.".

There is no special way of practise here, apart from having samadhi. If there is no samadhi, there is no bliss. If there is no bliss, such solitude will be torture. Samadhi is ideally developed in an ordinary retreat.
This said, there are no special benefits of such solitude, if the solitude is physically comfortable. When the Buddha used the word 'solitude' ('viveka'), he was primarily referring to mental solitude from the five hindrances. Thus, for a mind with samadhi, physical solitude makes little difference.
However, living in a forest or cave, where there are animals, snakes & creeping things, this is challenging & has the special benefit of fearlessness.

Thanks Dhammadhatu. I've heard Ajahn Punnadhammo tell stories about monks in Thailand that purposely meditate in jungle areas where there are tigers and other dangerous animals.


text:
What are the core Mahayana and Vajrayana Sutras?
When starting a more in-depth study of the Dharma from a Mahayana and Vajrayana perspective, what are the core (3 most recommended) Sutras (or texts), and the reasons why they are considered important, to have on your reading list in each of those traditions?

A similar question for the Pali canon was Chronological or other sequence for beginners

see also Does Zen Buddhism have canonical texts?

I don't know enough, but I'd guess one can't go wrong with the Prajnaparamida Hrydya Sutra (heart sutra), Diamond sutra and the lotus sutra. Likewise, Kalachakra tantra and Nīlakaṇṭha Dhāraṇī are quite famous, along with the tantra of one's favorite Bodhisattva. Certain sects have clear favorites, like the Shurangama sutra.

Thanks @Buddho. Those are on the list to read. I now understand the connection of lineage preferences to certain sutras and how this complicates my question in the Mahayana tradition!

I think your question is much larger than can be answered with just three texts. Mahāyāna is not one thing, it is many Prajñāpāramitā, Madhyamaka, Pure Land, Yogacāra, Chan/Zen, Huayen etc. Similarly Vajrayāna is not one thing either.
For the Mahāyāna a comprehensive guide would have dozens of texts. At a minimum:

Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra
Mulamadhyamikākārikā śastra
Abhidharmakośabhāsya śāstra
Yogacārabhumi Sāstra
Sukhāvativyūha Sūtra (x2)
Sūtra of Huineng
Saddharmapuṇḍarikā Sūtra
Avataṃsaka Sūtra

For Vajrayāna the situation is different. Tantras cannot be read on their own. For Shingon the two main texts are

Mahāvairocana Sutra (aka Mahāvairocana Abhisaṃbodhi Tantra)
Vajraśekhara Sutra (aka Sarvatathāgata-tattvasaṃgraha)

A good introduction can be found in Kūkai: Major Works by Yoshito Hakeda. Tibetan Tantra includes many more texts, such as:

Guhyasamāja Tantra
Hevajra Tantra
Kālacakra Tantra

But most teaching is done through commentaries. Many of these texts cannot be understood without a commentary. Some of them require specific initiations.

Thanks for this. Great first post! Welcome to the site Jayarava. Look here put together by @Robin111 for some tips and suggestions for using the site.

I remember you :)

Welcome, Jayarava! Hope you stick around!

We'll see how my contributions are received.

They're good contributions. Welcome. And thank you, I see you've been finding and answering previously-unanswered questions. You seem to know how to use StackExchange already even though you're a new user. Perhaps you've noticed that the site is designed less for discussion/dialog and more for simple Q&A. One way in which answers are received is with votes (explained e.g. here and here).

IMO if your answers aren't more highly upvoted than they are, that's because they are expert-level answers which many other users aren't able to confirm (i.e. upvote) using their own knowledge. Nevertheless I hope you're assured that your answering is welcome here. I also note that you have been answering questions about Mahayana texts, which not very many other people on this site have been expert at answering: so twice-welcome. You may (please) post on the meta-site if you have any questions (or suggestions) about how this site functions.

Can I also add a belated welcome to the site. I'm browsing your answers now and they are really helpful and put an academic slant on some of the harder questions which I think we lack. Also personally i notice you are part of Triratna. So am I (mitra in Leeds) so it's especially good to bump into you on the site. Welcome and thanks for your contributions so far.

Thanks for the welcoming comments. My views are not always welcomed by more traditionalist Buddhists, but I do base what I say on years of studying Buddhist texts. I've been a Buddhist for 21 years now.

Personally, I'd ditch Huineng for the Lotus Sutra.  You'd end up hitting more traditions.  I also think you might be a little Yogacara heavy.  The Vasubandhu alone is like four books!  In addition to the tantras, I also think you should mention the koan collections like the Hekiganroku and the Mumokan.  After all, they fill a similar canonical place for Zen as the tantras do for Vajrayana. All in all, though, great list!


text:
What is idle chatter?
In AN 10.176 idle chatter is defined as

He speaks in season, speaks what is factual, what is in accordance
  with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya. He speaks words worth
  treasuring, seasonable, reasonable, circumscribed, connected with the
  goal.

Bearing this in mind - is right speech purely connected with the Dharma? Should one speak of the Dharma and nothing else? From my own perspective some idle chit chat which has the effect of putting someone at ease in a social situation is a kindness. Similarly chatting to the daughter about nothing in particular is building the bonds of caring and again feels like the right thing to do. However would both those actions be classified as idle chatter and would not be right speech?
On a personal note I probably do talk too much so a bit less idle chatter would do me some good i think.

In a short piece called Right Speech by Thanissaro Bhikkhu he defines idle chatter as that "spoken with no purposeful intent at all". and he stresses the important of intention in speaking.

Right speech, explained in negative terms, means avoiding four types of harmful speech: lies (words spoken with the intent of misrepresenting the truth); divisive speech (spoken with the intent of creating rifts between people); harsh speech (spoken with the intent of hurting another person's feelings); and idle chatter (spoken with no purposeful intent at all).
Notice the focus on intent: this is where the practice of right speech intersects with the training of the mind. Before you speak, you focus on why you want to speak. This helps get you in touch with all the machinations taking place in the committee of voices running your mind. If you see any unskillful motives lurking behind the committee's decisions, you veto them. As a result, you become more aware of yourself, more honest with yourself, more firm with yourself. You also save yourself from saying things that you'll later regret. In this way you strengthen qualities of mind that will be helpful in meditation, at the same time avoiding any potentially painful memories that would get in the way of being attentive to the present moment when the time comes to meditate.

So in your examples above, of putting someone at ease socially or bonding with your daughter, you have purposeful intent. With awareness of yourself and your motivations and mindfulness of what you are saying, there are surely many opportunities to engage in casual conversations with family and friends without letting it get out of hand and turn into truly idle and mindless chatter.
In your original quote, the mention of "what is in accordance with the goal, the Dhamma, & the Vinaya" seems like it would be more geared towards monastics, but I lack the knowledge of the background of that sutta and the audience for whom it was intended to say for sure.
In Ajahn Brahm's book The Art of Disappearing: Buddha's Path to Lasting Joy, he makes the statement that we talk to say we are here. It's interesting to pause and think of our intention and if it's really only to create attention and remind people that we exist (verbally or digitally with social media posts) with no other purposeful intent, that's definitely an opportunity to understand ourselves a little bit better.

This book I quote sometimes for guidance on modern-day lay life, The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity, says "avoid senseless talk" (the Pali word for which, whose meaning we should try to understand, is samphappalapa), which it categorizes as follows:

Words spoken at the wrong time (e.g. inappropriate to the occasion)
Words that contain untruth or exaggeration (instead present true information)
Words that bring no benefit (not self-display, long winded, meaningless topics; instead, use profitable words, atthavadi)
Words that lead the listener to unwholesome thoughts and conduct (not words that develop greed, instead words which lead to wholesome thoughts, dhammavadi)
Words that threaten the listener's self-discipline (words that persuade people to break rules and undisciplined actions, instead of vinayavadi)
Words that express trite and shallow ideas (words that lack originality and depth, instead of important views and ideas, ndhanavati vaca)

I hope that still leaves scope for conversation with your daughter. :-)
The above is formatted as a quote but I summarized it heavily: the words in bold are originally subsection titles each with a following paragraph or so; and the words in parentheses are words I extracted from those paragraphs.

I've actually just bought The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity because I saw you quote it on another question, Looking forward to reading it.

To write this answer I looked up "speech" in its Index. The activity of summarizing it (as above) might help me to understand or memorize it too.

Here is a quote on "Idle chatter" from the book "The Noble Eightfold Path" by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi, p. 48-49.
The highlights are made by me as an answer to your question regarding what idle chatter is and conversation with family.

Abstaining from idle chatter (samphappalapa veramani).
He avoids idle chatter and abstains from it. He speaks at the right time, in accordance with facts, speaks what is useful, speaks of the Dhamma and the discipline; his speech is like a treasure, uttered at the right moment, accompanied by reason, moderate and full of sense.
Idle chatter is pointless talk, speech that lacks purpose or depth. Such speech communicates nothing of value, but only stirs up the defilements in one’s own mind and in others. The Buddha advises that idle talk should be curbed and speech restricted as much as possible to matters of genuine importance. In the case of a monk, the typical subject of the passage just quoted, his words should be selective and concerned primarily with the Dhamma. Lay persons will have more need for affectionate small talk with friends and family, polite conversation with acquaintances, and talk in connection with their line of work. But even then they should be mindful not to let the conversation stray into pastures where the restless mind, always eager for something sweet or spicy to feed on, might find the chance to indulge its defiling propensities.
The traditional exegesis of abstaining from idle chatter refers only to avoiding engagement in such talk oneself. But today it might be of value to give this factor a different slant, made imperative by certain developments peculiar to our own time, unknown in the days of the Buddha and the ancient commen- tators. This is avoiding exposure to the idle chatter constantly bombarding us through the new media of communication cre- ated by modern technology. An incredible array of devices — television, radio, newspapers, pulp journals, the cinema — turns out a continuous stream of needless information and distracting entertainment the net effect of which is to leave the mind pas- sive, vacant, and sterile. All these developments, naively accepted as “progress,” threaten to blunt our aesthetic and spiritual sensi- tivities and deafen us to the higher call of the contemplative life. Serious aspirants on the path to liberation have to be extremely discerning in what they allow themselves to be exposed to. They
would greatly serve their aspirations by including these sources of amusement and needless information in the category of idle chatter and making an effort to avoid them.

Right speech is
   1. Speech about Dhamma
   2. Practical speech about matters of living
Everything else is idle chatter. Examples are speech about wealth, women, men, the lottery, politics, religion, sex, people, sport, what was heard here or there, food, clothing, ships, cars, holidays, music, sights and so on.
Time is so precious. A second gone is gone for eternity. Use your time with your daughter well.
Talk to her about Dhamma, ethics, morality, gaining mastery over her mind, discovering wisdom and so on. There is so much.
And talk to her about practical issues of her life. How to deal with the things that bother her. How to distinguish between a good friend and one that's not good. How she should find direction in life. And so on. There's so much.
Of course, you'd have to read extensively in those subjects beforehand. So can you see how beneficial adhering to right speech can be? And what a waste of time idle chatter is?
If you've not already done so read the Buddha's Suttas on accesstoinsight.org

Sadhu, maybe Upasaka @Alan can add a kind of check list, one can ask him/herself before talking out in regard of idle chatter, for pure and low entertainig purpose.

I am a bit disturbed by the suggestion that idle chatter is bad.  Sometimes a person starts out with a long-winded story that seems to be going nowhere, but then suddenly, they tell you something really important about themselves and their history.  It's good to be patient and just listen for the gold that's hidden in all the apparently pointless talk.
Also, some exaggeration for entertainment's sake is ok.  Otherwise there would be no improv. Just making people laugh and entertaining people with "idle chatter" is not just ok; it's good.
Similarly, I think that "gossip" is not always bad.  Sometimes women in particular are shamed about it.  But one of the reasons that bad men get away with bad behavior repeatedly is that women are trained not to talk about bad men:  it's "gossip."  Maybe if we told each other which men were dangerous, we would be victimized less frequently.  The same guys are getting away with the same bad behavior over and over.


text:
Meditation on pain?
I may be able to get into meditation. again. I wondered if it was worth setting oneself the goal of meditating on pain / frustration.
Perhaps a little masochistic, but it really does feel like the ultimate.
Ideally zen, but anything welcome.

ok i'll post here rather than to individual replies... seems like kindness and compassion are really any sort of "ultimate" not at all the pain an individual experiences. thanks for correcting me :)

To let go of the sensations of pain in the body or of memories of pain, we must practice loving kindness, towards our body and towards our mental contents.
Whenever pain affects us, we must be like a loving mother consoling her crying baby by cradling it. We pick up the pain, and love it. We care for it, we acknowledge it, we understand it, and we put it to bed. We say, "Dear painful knee, I am aware of you, I acknowledge your presence in my life, you are a valuable part of me, I love you.". Repeating like this we remain with the anxiety of being in pain, and the pain itself for as long as it takes for us to be calm and relaxed. We must feel deeply loved. Soon the pain becomes an old friend, and we are able to say, "dear pain, welcome, come, sit with me and have a cup of tea. Thank you for your presence in my life, we are good friends now."
We must not be in a hurry to let go of the pain, it is not our enemy, it is a part of us. Just like a loving mother ignores everything else in her life the moment the baby cries, we must be with the pain totally. We offer our complete presence to the pain, we love it unconditionally. A baby that has been ignored will cry harder for the mother's loving attention, and our pain is similar. We need not fear it, it is a part of us, and we must love all parts of ourselves. To offer our complete presence to ourself is the greatest gift we can give.
By bringing up the healing energies of mindfulness and love, we offer a very comfortable condition for our body to recover. The mind becomes a true friend of the body, allowing it to heal quickly.
If there are particularly damaging memories of pain, our mind will bring it up whenever physical conditions of pain are present. There is no need to fear this either. This is the normal and expected function of the mind. The mind is actually trying to help, we must understand this and not blame the mind, it is our dear friend. Practicing similarly, by loving the painful memories, we cradle them to rest.
Pain itself is not life threatening, even if it isn't pleasant. Everything is impermanent. Pondering on the fruitfulness and preciousness of human life, we remain thankful for experiencing it in all its shades. Developing a heart of gratitude, we welcome the difficulties as old friends.
May you heal well soon, and be pain free.
(Much of this is based on the teachings of Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh.)

I am happy to be corrected, if you disagree, please leave a note on why this answer is undesirable. A down vote doesn't help me understand better. Thank you.

The Buddha did not teach masochism.  He tried that path for six years and it ultimately left him no closer to enlightenment than when he was a prince.  Pain and frustration will arise in your practice.  It's inevitable.  Become mindful of these things when they come about on their own.  They will teach you quite a bit about yourself.  To actively seek pain and frustration out, however, is setting yourself up for failure.  No one can continue on a path like that for very long.  To do so is also completely devoid of compassion for yourself.
The Buddha taught a dharma that is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end (Kalama Sutta).  There is nothing good about self-inflicted suffering.

No need to search pain out. Do sitting meditation, develop a practice, and pain and frustration will find you :)
There's no need to go out of your way to fabricate any state. Pain and pleasure have the same intrinsic qualities. When you sit, you will see this. There is no need to condition oneself specifically for any state, since all states are impermanent, suffering, and nonself.

Many times in the Suttas we find how the body should be seen:

And although this body, Māgandiya, is a disease, a tumour, a dart, a
calamity, and an affliction, referring to this body you say: ‘This is that
health, Master Gotama, this is that Nibbāna.’ You do not have that
noble vision, Māgandiya, by means of which you might know health
and see Nibbāna.

Māgandiya Sutta,MN
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.075x.than.html
Compassion should not be directed to the body but to all living beings.
Clinging to the body must be destroyed.
Pain should be seen  be seen as impermanent and what is impermanent should be seen with wisdom as: "This is not mine, this is not me, this is not myself"

"If a painful feeling arises in him, he knows: 'Now a painful feeling has arisen in me. It is conditioned, not unconditioned. Conditioned by what? Even by this body it is conditioned. And this body, indeed, is impermanent, compounded, dependently arisen. But if this painful feeling that has arisen is conditioned by the body which is impermanent, compounded and dependently arisen, how could such a painful feeling be permanent?'
"In regard to both the body and the painful feeling he dwells contemplating impermanence, dwells contemplating evanescence, dwells contemplating detachment, dwells contemplating cessation, dwells contemplating relinquishment. And in him who thus dwells, the underlying tendency to resistance in regard to the body and painful feeling vanishes.

Gelañña Sutta,SN  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.007.nypo.html

"When an untaught worldling is touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. He thus experiences two kinds of feelings, a bodily and a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart and, following the first piercing, he is hit by a second dart. So that person will experience feelings caused by two darts. It is similar with an untaught worldling: when touched by a painful (bodily) feeling, he worries and grieves, he laments, beats his breast, weeps and is distraught. So he experiences two kinds of feeling: a bodily and a mental feeling.
"Having been touched by that painful feeling, he resists (and resents) it. Then in him who so resists (and resents) that painful feeling, an underlying tendency of resistance against that painful feeling comes to underlie (his mind). Under the impact of that painful feeling he then proceeds to enjoy sensual happiness. And why does he do so? An untaught worldling, O monks, does not know of any other escape from painful feelings except the enjoyment of sensual happiness. Then in him who enjoys sensual happiness, an underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feelings comes to underlie (his mind). He does not know, according to facts, the arising and ending of these feelings, nor the gratification, the danger and the escape, connected with these feelings. In him who lacks that knowledge, an underlying tendency to ignorance as to neutral feelings comes to underlie (his mind). When he experiences a pleasant feeling, a painful feeling or a neutral feeling, he feels it as one fettered by it. Such a one, O monks, is called an untaught worldling who is fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is fettered by suffering, this I declare.
"But in the case of a well-taught noble disciple, O monks, when he is touched by a painful feeling, he will not worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. It is one kind of feeling he experiences, a bodily one, but not a mental feeling. It is as if a man were pierced by a dart, but was not hit by a second dart following the first one. So this person experiences feelings caused by a single dart only. It is similar with a well-taught noble disciple: when touched by a painful feeling, he will no worry nor grieve and lament, he will not beat his breast and weep, nor will he be distraught. He experiences one single feeling, a bodily one.

Sallatha Sutta, SN  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.nypo.html

There is one Tibetan meditation designed to reduce the act of clinging to the body. It is not meditation on pain per se, but might be something you would find of interest.
This practice can be done in different ways, and it is recommended you have prior meditation experience before engaging in it.
Sometimes it is done in cemeteries, sometimes with the aid of pictures, and sometimes with the imagination.
The process of the meditation is simple, take posture, visualize your body, then visualize the process of decay, the skin drying and cracking, falling off, the bugs eating your flesh, take it till there is nothing but bone left. Acknowledge the impermanence of your body, of your life, and try to let go of clinging that you may have towards your body, and the bodies of others.
This meditation is not uncontroversial, and not for everyone.
Here is one resource the Satipatthana Sutta with commentary and pictures to aid in the visualization.
The practice described above is related to a more frequently referenced and practiced Death meditation

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE.

There is an organisation call Breathworks (associated with my Sangha - Triratna) whose aim is to help people with chronic pain through meditation. Just to quote Jon Kabat-Zinn from the website

The Breathworks approach to Mindfulness-Based Pain Management (MBPM)
  is the most comprehensive, in-depth, scientifically up-to-date and
  user-friendly approach to learning the how of living with chronic pain
  and reclaiming one’s life that I know of.

I appreciate that it's not exactly what you asked for but part of the courses is to use mindfulness directed at the pain itself to enable people to better live with their conditions and enhance their quality of life. I've know many people who have done these courses and they benefitted enormously and in several cases people moved on from this course to more "traditional" Buddhist practice and became very committed practitioners.
Just a note - I'm not pushing this in any way. I just think it is a good example of an established way that people do meditate on pain and I thought you may find it interesting to check out the website.

I'm not sure what you mean by "meditation on pain", but in this comment Andrei wrote,

Plus, my current mentor has us do pain tolerance exercises every week. Once you switch, pain feels more like heat, not like pain pain. (It's not a damaging pain, just static muscle exercise)

So apparently there is such a thing as self-inflicted (but non-damaging) pain.
This answer is probably a further reference to it.

in my own experience, the same switch in perspective on pain comes about through normal sitting meditation, without having to search it out. that being said, going out of your way to bring about such a state would seem to be desire.

authors: Леха Смирнов


text:
Can one remove the asavas without becoming an arahant?
Can one remove the asavas without becoming an arahant?

Hello and welcome to Buddhism.SE. What you have under the main question is not clear. We've put together some information to help you get started here.

Can you remove the asavas without becoming an arahant?
I think that Wikipedia's article suggests not:

Rhys Davids & Stede (1921–25) state in part that "Freedom from the 'Āsavas' constitutes Arahantship."

And

These points are collected and summarized by Bhikkhu Bodhi thus:

The āsavas or taints are a classification of defilements considered in their role of sustaining the forward movement of the process of birth and death.
The three taints mentioned in the Nikāyas are respectively synonyms for craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and ignorance. [The fourth āsava, attachment to views, appears in the commentaries.] When the disciple's mind is liberated from the taints by the completion of the path of arhantship, he reviews his newly won freedom and roars his lion's roar: "Birth is destroyed, the spiritual life has been lived, what had to be done has been done; there is no more coming back to any state of being."

There's another question about asava here: What is effluent? The answer to that question is I think a good explanation, and it includes two references for further reading.

Arahant is a person who successfully removed the asavas. Thus, you cannot become an arahant without removing the asavas. You cannot remove the asavas by not removing the asavas.


text:
What are the "Five Daily Recollections" and their benefits?
Question is in the title.
What are these daily recollections and how can they be used in ones practice?

The Five Daily Recollections can be found in the "Anguttara Nikaya - V.57 - Upajjhatthana Sutta: Subjects for Contemplation".
They are in brief:

Five Daily Recollections

I am of the nature to grow old; I cannot avoid aging.
I am of the nature to become ill or injured; I cannot avoid illness or injury.
I am of the nature to die; I cannot avoid death.
All that is mine, dear and delightful, will change and vanish.
I am the owner of my actions;
  I am born of my actions;
  I am related to my actions;
  I am supported by my actions;
  Any thoughts, words or deeds I do, good or evil, those I will inherit.

The Buddha advised: "These are the five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained".

Rationale and contemplation

"In this discourse, the Buddha explains that the rationale for contemplating (paccavekkhato) the first three facts is to weaken or overcome conceit (mada) in youth, in good health and in being alive; the fourth contemplation is to weaken or overcome lust (rāga); and, the fifth contemplation is weaken or overcome irresponsibility embodied in improper (duccarita) acts, speech and thoughts.
Thus, by contemplating these facts, the Noble Eightfold Path (anchored in right understanding, conduct and effort) is cultivated and spiritual fetters are abandoned."


text:
Buddha's advice regarding meditation practice
It seems clear to me that the Buddha's only intention throughout his life (after becoming a Buddha) was to help as many people as possible to reach Nibbana. But I think he gives different meditation instructions to different people with regard to the path to reach Nibbana.
I would like to know what kind of meditation practice did the Buddha advise the monks to do, in contrast to lay people. Did he always teach them to practise Samatha first, and then Vipassana? Did he ever teach anyone to practice the 'dry insight' path, without ever doing Samatha meditation? As a general rule, were there any differences in the meditation practice that he advised between monks and lay people?
I am aware that the Buddha prescribed basic morality for all, and that some people would reach Nibbana at the same time as hearing him speak about some aspect of Dhamma without doing any kind of formal meditation practice. But I am only interested in the kind of meditation practices that he taught.
Please add references where the Buddha advises on meditation practice.

Consider the story of the blind weaver's daughter, Verse 174 of the Dhammapada,

Verse 174: Blind are the people of this world: only a few in this
  world see clearly (with Insight). Just as only a few birds escape from
  the net, so also, only a few get to the world of the devas, (and
  Nibbana).

The girl contemplates death and dying for three years having only heard a single sermon of the Buddha and having learned no samatha technique.

The main points the Buddha stressed on that day may be expressed as
  follows:
"My life is impermanent; for me, death only is permanent. I must certainly die; my life ends in death. Life is not permanent; death is
  permanent." (source)

She is ready for stream entry by merely practicing this dry insight. The rest of the story is quite instructive too, but doesn't pertain to dry insight.
As regards the difference between meditation practices of monks and lay people, there are a few traditions today that seem to institute such differences for various reasons - too painful, too difficult, too complicated, however there is no practical barrier to practice per se. Painful ascetic practice of the Dhutanga monks were rarely attempted by lay people for obvious reasons. In the time of the Buddha it wasn't unusual for lay people to take temporary vows of monasticism on retreats lasting even a few years. This was more popular (see caves of lay people where they retreated a few months a year in India) in contemporary religions like Jainism which even included very painful penances.
Meditation is synonymous with Buddhism today, but even in Buddhist countries like Burma meditation almost died out, with most monks eschewing meditation in favor of sutta practice. It was laypeople who sometimes preserved the tradition of meditation.
For example, Sayagyi U Ba Khin (1899-1971) and his disciple S.N. Goenka (1924-2013) are famous lay meditators of Burma who revived and spread a branch of the Vipassana system world wide.
Anapanasati Sutta: Mindfulness of Breathing is the canonical meditation taught by the Buddha. However, the Buddha taught over forty kinds of meditation.

"But I think he gives different meditation instructions to different people with regard to the path to reach Nibbana."
Yes, according to current difficulties of his audience. For example:

"Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned.
-- MN 62

"would like to know what kind of meditation practice did the Buddha advise the monks to do, in contrast to lay people."
I've never seeing this distinction being drawn.
"Did he always teach them to practise Samatha first, and then Vipassana?"
Probably not:

Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever — monk or nun — declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of four paths. Which four?
"There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity. As he develops insight preceded by tranquillity, the path is born. He follows that path, develops it, pursues it. As he follows the path, developing it & pursuing it — his fetters are abandoned, his obsessions destroyed.
"Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. [...] Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight [...] Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. [...] Whoever — monk or nun — declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of these four paths.
-- AN 4.170

"Did he ever teach anyone to practice the 'dry insight' path, without ever doing Samatha meditation?"
Hard to tell. But it's reasonable to think that he would not teach samatha to an accomplished jhana meditator, and instead, would focus on what he or she is missing to attain nibbāna.
"As a general rule, were there any differences in the meditation practice that he advised between monks and lay people?"
Not that I know of. I didn't really keep track of who the Buddha was talking to, to be able to answer this conclusively. But there were lay disciples accomplished in meditation during the Buddha's time. For example, Citta, a householder, declares his ability to attain jhanas (see SN 41.8). Though I can't tell if he learned it from the Buddha's teachings, at least it seems unlikely any practice was kept away from lay disciples -- besides, lay disciples were known to be reciters of entire nikayas.
"I am aware that the Buddha prescribed basic morality for all, and that some people would reach Nibbana at the same time as hearing him speak about some aspect of Dhamma without doing any kind of formal meditation practice."
It's generally believed the people who did not made much practice under the Buddha's guidance where already very accomplished.

The distinction between Vipassana as a practice to Samatha is a relatively modern one, most likely led by the Vipassana Movement. This is most likely due to the fact that cultivating the Jhana is very time consuming and probably require intensive monastic training and was not possible to be taught in a ten days meditation retreat. So the goal becomes to allow the novice meditators to at least recognize some of the three marks of existence within the practice.

But if you look directly at the Pali discourses — the earliest extant
  sources for our knowledge of the Buddha's teachings — you'll find that
  although they do use the word samatha to mean tranquillity, and
  vipassana to mean clear-seeing, they otherwise confirm none of the
  received wisdom about these terms. Only rarely do they make use of the
  word vipassana — a sharp contrast to their frequent use of the word
  jhana. When they depict the Buddha telling his disciples to go
  meditate, they never quote him as saying "go do vipassana," but always
  "go do jhana." And they never equate the word vipassana with any
  mindfulness techniques. In the few instances where they do mention
  vipassana, they almost always pair it with samatha — not as two
  alternative methods, but as two qualities of mind that a person may
  "gain" or "be endowed with," and that should be developed together.
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/onetool.html

This distinction between vipassana and samatha is also not emphasized in Northern Buddhist tradition (i.e. Mahayana Chinese Zen and so forth), but cultivation of Jhana is.
In fact the distinction have led to some criticism:

A group of laypeople who had studied the Abhidhamma together came to
  Ajaan Fuang to try out his version of mental training, but when he
  told them to sit, close their eyes, and focus on the breath, they
  immediately backed off, saying that they didn't want to practice
  concentration, for fear that they'd get stuck on jhana and end up
  being reborn in the Brahma worlds. He responded, "What's there to be
  afraid of? Even non-returners are reborn in the Brahma worlds. At any
  rate, being reborn in the Brahma worlds is better than being reborn as
  a dog."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/fuang/itself.html


text:
What are the three poisons?
You will often hear reference to the three poisons in Buddhism, What are they referring to exactly when they talk about the three poisons?

Three Poisons/Defilements (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind):
Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith
Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom
Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi treats these poisons/kilesas on a deeper level in his book The Noble Eightfold Path, p. 8, 80-81:

The most basic defilements are the triad of greed, aversion, and delusion.
Greed (lobha) is self-centered desire: the desire for pleasure and possessions, the drive for survival, the urge to bolster the sense of ego with power, status, and prestige.
Aversion (dosa) signifies the response of negation, expressed as rejection, irritation, condemnation, hatred, enmity, anger, and violence.
Delusion (moha) means mental darkness: the thick coat of insensitivity which blocks out clear understanding.
From these three roots emerge the various other defilements — conceit, jealousy, ambition, lethargy, arrogance, and the rest — and from all these defilements together, the roots and the branches, comes dukkha in its diverse forms: as pain and sorrow, as fear and discontent, as the aimless drifting through the round of birth and death. To gain freedom from suffering, therefore,
we have to eliminate the defilements. But the work of removing the defilements has to proceed in a methodical way. It cannot be accomplished simply by an act of will, by wanting them to go away. The work must be guided by investigation. We have to find out what the defilements depend upon and then see how it lies within our power to remove their support.

And also very importantly how to deal with the defilements:

"...the root defilements is conditioned by a particular kind of feeling: greed by pleasant feeling, aversion by painful feeling, delusion by neutral feeling.
But the link between feelings and the defilements is not a necessary one. Pleasure does not always have to lead to greed, pain to aversion, neutral feeling to delusion. The tie between them can be snapped, and one essential means for snapping it is mindfulness. Feeling will stir up a defilement only when it is not noticed, when it is indulged rather than observed. By turning it into an object of observation, mindfulness defuses the feeling so that it cannot provoke an unwholesome response..."

The three poisons (Sanskrit: triviṣa; Tibetan: dug gsum) or the three unwholesome roots (Sanskrit: akuśala-mūla; Pāli: akusala-mūla), in Buddhism, refer to the three root kleshas of ignorance, attachment, and aversion. These three poisons are considered to be the cause of suffering (Sanskrit: dukkha).
Source: Three poisons (Buddhism) - Wikipedia
They are commonly circumvented by contemplating on the three characteristics or marks of all existence - anicca, anatta and dukkha. See this talk in the Burmese vipassana tradition.
See also, kleshas

Curiously on page 66 (page 87 of the PDF) of How Buddhism Began – The conditioned genesis of the early teachings, the author suggests that the "three poisons" are the result of people misinterpreting (i.e. taking literally) a metaphor that the Buddha used.
I don't know (maybe didn't understand) but maybe that's reflected in the comments below this answer, where Andrei (whose tradition is I think Tibetan Buddhism, compared with yuttadhammo's Theravada) ascribes more importance to three poisons e.g. by including aversion as one of the causes of suffering in the second noble truth (that's maybe also visible in Buddho's answer to this question).