text:
How to deal with bad past karma that makes my current life miserable?
Before I practice Buddhism,I've made mistakes and hurt other. Sometimes I thought what happen to me now is the effect of what I did.
I try to  keep doing positive things but sometimes I could not stand this hard situation. Could anyone tell me please how to solve this situation in Buddhism way?

Not sure if it's any consolation, but every time I've said "I can't stand this", the moment passed regardless.

An understanding of what causes have contributed to the way we are right now is out of the realm of ordinary people; practically speaking, you are more likely to project a false impression of why you are the way you are that is wholly disproportionate in terms of cause and actual effect.
Much of what we are today has already been predetermined from the moment of our conception, including the nature of our body and our brain, our social status and community, and even our life choices and experiences to a certain extent.
That being said, karma performed in this life will certainly have an affect on our minds and influence our choices as well as our mental and physical well-being. Much of this is also out of our control, at least in terms of direct intervention.
What we can do is two things:

We can, as the Buddha taught Angulimala, "bear with" the unpleasant experiences. This has the effect of both neutralizing the mental suffering that comes from unpleasant experiences as well as nullifying any further bad karma we might create in reaction to the experience (thus potentially ending the cycle that caused the experience in the first place).
We can perform wholesome deeds like giving charity or help to others, abstaining from unethical deeds and speech, and practising meditation to calm and clarify our minds. This has the effect of acting as a buffer to our unwholesome deeds, in effect (potentially) counteracting them. As the Buddha taught to Angulimala:

He, who by good deeds covers the evil he has done,
  illuminates this world like the moon freed
  from clouds.
-- Dhp. 173 (Buddharakkhita,trans)

Regretting about your past is only going to make your Karma worse. Best way to deal with past bad memories is to do Vipassana on them. When a past memory comes to your mind, simply note it as a thought about the past. Don't react to it or take it as something that belongs to you. If that memory truly belongs to you, you should be able to stop it from appearing in the mind. But you can't! Because it appears due to causes. So wishing for such thoughts to go away will only create a need in the mind for it to not be present. But that's only going to make you suffer, which is what you are going through right now. The need for such thoughts to go away doesn't stop them from appearing in the mind again. But if you are able to note it as it is, i.e. just a past thought, and not react to it, you can notice that it fades away immediately.
If you want peace of mind, you must train your mind to note 3 natures of everything that troubles you:

Anicca (impermanence)
Dukka (unsatisfactoriness)
Anatta (non-self)

According to the "Lonaphala Sutta: The Salt Crystal", the Buddha said:

"Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma,
  that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life,
  there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress.
"There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain
  individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same
  sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the
  here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
  to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
  in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
  mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
  with suffering. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual
  takes him to hell.
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
  experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
  for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
  developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
  in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
  dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort
  of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
  barely appears for a moment.
"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
  water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in
  the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit
  to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
  Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
  salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River
  Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit
  to drink."

The amount of water corresponds to the degree that the mind is developed. From this sutta we can understand that the fruits of kamma can be minimized through the right development of the mind. A developed mind is like the river Ganges, and an unskilful action, like a salt crystal in the river, will only produce a fruit which will be barely felt.

You must've already possessed great wholesome kamma to be able to know about Buddhism, to learn and practice it. All the other bad kammas would be trivial compared to what you already had. Learn more about Buddhism and practice diligently and you will transcend them. See the inspiring story of Venerable Angulimala ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html ):

"Then Ven. Angulimala, early in the morning, having put on his robes and carrying his outer robe & bowl, went into Savatthi for alms. Now at that time a clod thrown by one person hit Ven. Angulimala on the body, a stone thrown by another person hit him on the body, and a potsherd thrown by still another person hit him on the body. So Ven. Angulimala — his head broken open and dripping with blood, his bowl broken, and his outer robe ripped to shreds — went to the Blessed One. The Blessed One saw him coming from afar and on seeing him said to him: "Bear with it, brahman! Bear with it! The fruit of the kamma that would have burned you in hell for many years, many hundreds of years, many thousands of years, you are now experiencing in the here-&-now!"

You can't do anything with past karma. You can only change future. Future depends on how you act now. Do your best, and eventually you will be alright.

Your past fabrication / conditioning manifests as sensations in your body. But looking at the arising and passing away of sensations equanimously realising their impermanence you are effectively reducing the potency of the past Karma to take effect. More you do this, the past Karma gets weaker and weaker.
My being equanimous  and aware of the 3 marks of existence of sensations you stop adding fuel to the process of conditioning or the wheel of dependent origination turning. By adding not fue the existing fuel will burn and the fire will die out.
Also keep in mind that large portion of the result of Karma is our reaction to the effects and sensation of it which, creates a lot more problems and misery, and further fabrication which prolongs the suffering. The result of new fabrication and knock on problems we create for ourselves, (snowballing / avalanche effect) are much more than the effects coming from the past.

The Wheel of Knives is a lojung text in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.
The pdf contains other content. The Wheel of Knives begins on Page 45
 you will have to scroll down.
An audio class on it can be found here.
Typed notes of this audio lecture can be found here Ctrl + F Wheel of Knives to jump to the specific section
A useful chart can be found here. It is in the reading as well, but in a less readable format.
The Tibetans believed that the purification of karma was possible.
The  Karmic Purification process has 4 steps. There is a class on that too on the same site. (acidharma.org)
I will provide a brief summary of the process.
The first step is to take refuge in the 3 jewels, in your knowledge of karma and emptiness. I will not go to into depth on this step.
The second step is called "Destruction Force"

To rip out the roots of something (with power). This is regret, not guilt. It is an intelligent, educated understanding that you just screwed up, based upon knowledge
  of karma and emptiness and how bakchaks work and are
  reaped. You know that you will suffer from what you did and
  why, karmically. You know you just caused yourself future
  suffering and regret it. You feel ill/bad.

You take the cause of the karma you are working with, remember all the times you did it, realize that it is going to cause you suffering. Regret that you commited the deeds in question.
The 3rd step is called "Restraint force"
Here you take the cause of the karma you are working with, and you restrain yourself from doing it again. The longer you can restrain yourself the better.

Restraint force. You don't do it again. Since we can't just stop
   cold for the rest of our lives, we need a plan. So we set a time
   restraint force limit to stop for awhile - not to do the deed for an hour, a day,
  a week, etc. and build up the time length to get used to the new
  habit of not doing the deed. For chronic habits, set a short time
  limit, say five minutes, and concentrate hard on not doing it. The
  mind can't concentrate tightly for longer periods to avoid the
  habit. If you break a vow of restraint, you are lying, and collect
  more bad karma, so keep the time realistic.

The last step is called "Applying the Antidote"
Using the chart, or in some cases logical reasoning, you determine the antidote to the karma you are working with. Stealing would have an antidote of generosity for example.
In this step you will have to think about your individual conditions.
If you think of karma like seeds, the idea is this, you stop watering the "bad" karmic seeds. You plant "good" seeds that are related to the "bad" seeds you wish to uproot.
In the case of killing, the antidote of protecting life should be applied. Getting and taking care of pets. Donating to disaster relief charities. Get creative, anything that prevents sickness and harm. Apply plenty of antidote, and try to keep the application up until the period you decided on in step 3 has passed.
Go through these steps multiple times if necessary.
One important thing to note:
Karma does not simply disappear, this purification process just speeds up the queue.

The karmic seeds you have are in a queue to ripen. The most powerful ones go to the
  front of the queue and are experienced first. They delay the other seeds from ripening
  until the powerful ones are done. ...  ...The result of purification is that the intention part of the karmic path is ripped out and
  dramatically lessens the ripening impact. Karma ripens into a lesser result.
  It's very important after purification to believe that you're clean - you're pure.

While working with these energies you will experience a period where the karma you are working with ripens quickly, the purification process is not easy, and you will experience suffering directly related to the karma you are working with.
To wrap this up a quick quote from the Diamond Cutter Sutra and one from Tai Situ Rinpoche.

O Subhuti, any son or daughter of noble family who takes up a sutra like this, or who holds it, or reads it, or comprehends it, will suffer. They will suffer
  intensely.
  Why is it so? Because, o Subhuti, such beings are purifying non-virtuous karma from the entire string of their previous lives, karma that would have
  taken them to the three lower realms. As they purify this karma, it causes them to suffer here in this life. As such they will succeed in cleaning away the
  karma of these non-virtuous deeds of their previous lifetimes, and they will as well achieve the enlightenment of a Buddha.
Tai Situ Rinpoche : Sometimes we do suffer intensely, when we are sick and so on. When we are sick we should resort to medicines and when we get into trouble with people we should try to get out of that trouble. Definitely. However, our attitude to the suffering and the trouble should not be one that defines them as solely negative. Suffering is like a broom that sweeps away the causes of suffering and when we understand this then the suffering is reduced to its true stature. Without the understanding it tends to become amplified to twice, ten or a hundred times its true size. The way we develop our understanding is to think, “The suffering that I am now experiencing is the result of previous karmic causes. Just as I do not want to suffer, neither does any being. Thus may this present suffering be of true benefit in removing the sufferings of all beings.”

This is an exact duplicate of this answer.

@ChrisW yes, I was not sure if cross posting was allowed. This question was linked in the other question and I thought that the answer worked well for both questions. If I need to remove it let me know.

The way to deal with past bad karma is doing the opposite, that is, doing good deed as many as you can. In Buddhism we can do good karma through body, speech and mind. If, for example, in the past you talk harshly to other, now you can talk kindly to other. Don't look at a deed and say it's just a small deed, just like a water drop by drop it will eventually fill a jug.
In your situation, what you need are patience and perseverance. You can do any good deed (fresh water) and refrain from bad deed (salty water). By continuing doing good deed all the time and refrain from doing bad deed, the salty water will eventually become pure.


text:
connection between fear and anger(dwesha)
I need to know if "Dwesha" anger and fear are connected according to the Buddhist teachings?
Also how to overcome fear or phobias with the practices of Buddhism?

See http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1989/18 for the connection in Theravada Buddhism

Anger, Fear, Jealousy are all instances of the 2nd root of evil, 'Dosa', which translates to English as 'aversion'. They basically represent a disliking towards someone or something. Usually if it's someone more powerful than you, the disliking turns into fear. If not, it becomes anger.
Anger is mostly caused when you expect things to behave according to your liking. Fear is caused when you cling to things, taking them as I, me or mine. To overcome fear, you can recollect the virtues of the Triple gem and feel confident that you have taken refuge under them. But the permanent solution is to do Vipassana meditation and get rid of your clinging and the notion of self.
When one attains the state of Anagami, neither anger nor fear can ever enter one's mind again.

Here is what Buddhism says about how fear and anger are related.
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/anger.htm

Buddhism teaches us that anger is created by mind. However, when you
  are dealing with your own anger, you should be more specific. Anger
  challenges us to look deeply into ourselves. Most of the time, anger
  is self-defensive. It arises from unresolved fears or when our
  ego-buttons are pushed.
As Buddhists we recognize that ego, fear and anger are insubstantial
  and ephemeral, not “real.” They’re ghosts, in a sense. Allowing anger
  to control our actions amounts to being bossed around by ghosts.
Anger Is Self-Indulgent
Anger is unpleasant but seductive. In this interview with Bill Moyer,
  Pema Chodron says that anger has a hook. “There's something delicious
  about finding fault with something,” she said. Especially when our
  egos are involved (which is nearly always the case), we may protect
  our anger. We justify it and even feed it.
Buddhism teaches that anger is never justified, however. Our practice
  is to cultivate metta, a loving kindness toward all beings that is
  free of selfish attachment. “All beings” includes the guy who just cut
  you off at the exit ramp, the co-worker who takes credit for your
  ideas, and even someone close and trusted who betrays you.
For this reason, when we become angry we must take great care not to
  act on our anger to hurt others. We must also take care not to hang on
  to our anger and give it a place to live and grow.

Fear can lead to anger and can also lead to lashing out at others in order to "protect" our self, as though it is vulnerable to another.
And here are some of the precepts to deal with and overcome anger
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/anger.htm

How to Let It Go
You have acknowledged your anger, and you have examined yourself to
  understand what caused the anger to arise. Yet you are still angry.
  What’s next?
Pema Chodron counsels patience. Patience means waiting to act or speak
  until you can do so without causing harm. “Patience has a quality of
  enormous honesty in it,” she said. “It also has a quality of not
  escalating things, allowing a lot of space for the other person to
  speak, for the other person to express themselves, while you don’t
  react, even though inside you are reacting.”
If you have a meditation practice, this is the time to put it to work.
  Sit still with the heat and tension of anger. Quiet the internal
  chatter of other-blame and self-blame. Acknowledge the anger and enter
  into it entirely. Embrace your anger with patience and compassion for
  all beings, including yourself.
Don’t Feed Anger
It’s hard not to act, to remain still and silent while our emotions
  are screaming at us. Anger fills us with edgy energy and makes us want
  to do something. Pop psychology tells us to pound our fists into
  pillows or to scream at the walls to “work out” our anger. Thich Nhat
  Hanh disagrees.
“When you express your anger you think that you are getting anger out
  of your system, but that's not true,” he said. “When you express your
  anger, either verbally or with physical violence, you are feeding the
  seed of anger, and it becomes stronger in you.” Only understanding and
  compassion can neutralize anger.
Compassion Takes Courage
Sometimes we confuse aggression with strength and non-action with
  weakness. Buddhism teaches that just the opposite is true.
Giving in to the impulses of anger, allowing anger to hook us and jerk
  us around, is weakness. On the other hand, it takes strength to
  acknowledge the fear and selfishness in which our anger usually is
  rooted. It also takes discipline to meditate in the flames of anger.
The Buddha said, “Conquer anger by non-anger. Conquer evil by good.
  Conquer miserliness by liberality. Conquer a liar by truthfulness.”
  (Dhammapada, v. 233)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to overcome Depression with Buddhist teachings
There are several scientific methods to treat the psychiatric condition depression. Is there a method to overcome depression by Lord Buddha's teachings?

Also TED Mental Health contains a lot of interesting and inspiring talks.

Also see: What makes you happy?, Talks to watch when every conceivable bad thing has just happened to you, A better you, What makes you happy?

TED Happiness Topic

Depression is not just a state of mind, it is also a chemical imbalance.
And for various reasons (maybe genetical or other) this chemical imbalance will affect some peoples more than others. Therefore we should be careful not to respond by simply pointing logical and scholar facts and reasons that one "should not" be depressive.
Having said that, there is some events or thoughts that will trigger the depressive mind, and I think that because meditation teach you to monitor your feelings and be able to stop being trap in a train of thoughts it might be helpful to avoid the development of depression triggering thoughts when it is still time.
On top of that there is more and more scientific studies claiming that the practice of meditation might increase your serotonin levels and immune system. There is also a good possibility that a long term practice of meditation might change you brain chemical balance and reduce your risk of depression.
Scientific papers here
So yes, I think practicing buddhist meditation (samatha-vipassana, or zazen) can be considered as a very serious asset in a therapy.

My answer is quite opposite of the others.
The practice of meditation can improve people's minds. But if someone has severe mental illnesses, such as a deep depression, I would tell that meditation and reflection upon Buddhist teachings should be done carefully.
It is possible that dharma can worsen the clinical picture, if it is done unskillfully.
I'm not telling to not meditate at all. But always have proper medical, psychological or psychiatric monitoring. And don't meditate or study it alone, always receive teaching from a trustful master, and meditate with his/her guide in person.
More in this QA.

This should be the most voted answer. To add to this answer: strong depression is not treated with meditation.
Build a healthy lifestyle of learning and positive activities free of (all) drugs, porn, unnecessary media (all TV), and negative social people.
Doing that for 21 days will cure your depression and one can use meditation to acheive full unconditional happiness as I have achieved (I used to be in a very addicted state half a year ago).

Indeed. If someone was skilled at meditation and the teaching, would they even get severely depressed? Suggesting to a depressed person not skilled in the teaching to meditate is a bit like saying to a poor person that wealth is the cure of poverty. Let them eat dhyana!

Lord Buddha or Sakyamuni Buddha refers to the condition of depression in the context of the obstacles that people face in realizing their awakened nature.
They are called the Five Hindrances, and note depression is specifically mentioned:

In the
  Buddhist tradition, the five hindrances (Sanskrit: pañca nivāraṇa;
  Pali: pañca nīvaraṇāni) are identified as mental factors that hinder
  progress in meditation and in our daily lives.[1] In the Theravada
  tradition, these factors are identified specifically as obstacles to
  the jhānas (stages of concentration) within meditation practice.
  Within the Mahayana tradition, the five hindrances are identified as
  obstacles to samatha (tranquility) meditation. Contemporary Insight
  Meditation teachers identify the five hindrances as obstacles to
  mindfulness meditation.
The five hindrances are:[1][2][3][web 1][web 2]

Sensory desire (kāmacchanda): the particular type of wanting that
  seeks for happiness through the five senses of sight, sound, smell,
  taste and physical feeling.
Ill-will (vyāpāda; also spelled byāpāda):
  all kinds of thought related to wanting to reject, feelings of
  hostility, resentment, hatred and bitterness.
Sloth-torpor
  (thīna-middha): heaviness of body and dullness of mind which drag one
  down into disabling inertia and thick depression.
Restlessness-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca): the inability to calm the
  mind.
Doubt (vicikicchā): lack of conviction or trust.

Overcoming the 5 hindrances could be the work of a lifetime, but here are some hints of directions to take, in this Wikipedia section about Sloth-torpor (thina-middha)

Sloth-torpor is a dull, morbid state that is characterized by
  unwieldiness, lack of energy, and opposition to wholesome activity.

Traleg Kyabgon states: "When this hindrance is present, we lose our
  focus in meditation. We may not be agitated in any perceptible way,
  but there is no mental clarity. We gradually become more and more
  drowsy, and then eventually go to sleep."[5]
Ajahn Brahmavamso states:
  "Sloth and torpor refers to that heaviness of body and dullness of
  mind which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression.
  [...] In meditation, it causes weak and intermittent mindfulness which
  can even lead to falling asleep in meditation without even realising
  it!"[web 2]
Ajahn Brahmavamso states: "The mind has two main
  functions, 'doing' and 'knowing'. The way of meditation is to calm the
  'doing' to complete tranquility while maintaining the 'knowing'. Sloth
  and torpor occur when one carelessly calms both the 'doing' and the
  'knowing', unable to distinguish between them."[web 2]
Ajahn
  Brahmavamso states: "Sloth and torpor is an unpleasant state of body
  and mind, too stiff to leap into the bliss of Jhana and too blinded to
  spot any insights. In short, it is a complete waste of precious
  time."[web 2]

Analogy
The hindrance of sloth-torpor is compared to
  being imprisoned in a cramped, dark cell, unable to move freely in the
  bright sunshine outside.[web 2]
Antidote
Ajahn Brahmavamso states:[web 2]

"Sloth and torpor is overcome by rousing energy. Energy is always
    available but few know how to turn on the switch, as it were. Setting
    a goal, a reasonable goal, is a wise and effective way to generate
    energy, as is deliberately developing interest in the task at hand. A
    young child has a natural interest, and consequent energy, because its
    world is so new. Thus, if one can learn to look at one's life, or
    one's meditation, with a 'beginner's mind' one can see ever new angles
    and fresh possibilities which keep one distant from sloth and torpor,
    alive and energetic. Similarly, one can develop delight in whatever
    one is doing by training one's perception to see the beautiful in the
    ordinary, thereby generating the interest which avoids the half-death
    that is sloth and torpor. [...] Sloth and torpor is a common problem
    which can creep up and smother one slowly. A skilful meditator keeps a
    sharp look-out for the first signs of sloth and torpor and is thus
    able to spot its approach and take evasive action before it's too
    late. Like coming to a fork in a road, one can take that mental path
    leading away from sloth and torpor."

Traleg Kyabgon states: "When this
  happens, instead of persisting with the meditation, it is better to
  try to refresh ourselves by getting up and going for a walk or washing
  our face, after which we return to our meditation."[2]

Seeing depression as part of the 5 hindrances eliminates the tendency to elevate it into a position of power that must be overcome and deposed. It is simply part of the path we must walk to awakening. Different people have strengths and weaknesses, inclining them to one hindrance over another so different people may experience depression or other maladies to different degrees.

Depression is also a form of fabrication / conditioning. This manifests itself as sensations. (as an irresistible tingling sensation or some painful sensation around the head or forehead) But objectively looking at the sensation without reaction this will pass away.
The source of the depression is clinging and aversion combined with the lack of knowledge of the 3 marks of existence.

Yes, Lord Buddha did teach a method to overcome depression. It's called meditation. Depression is usually caused by low self esteem or excessive worrying. Both are caused because of one's clinging to a self or clinging to conditioned phenomena as things belonging to oneself. If you do Samatha meditation and attain the Jhanas, depression can't trouble you as long as you are in them. If you do Vipassana and eliminate craving, there won't be any clinging. Thus no depression ever again.

There are some people in the world that their minds are relatively more corrupted than others. So they can enter to depression regularly or experience the life under constant bombardment of their mind 95 percent of the time. At first this seems a dreadful thing but these people are more interested to meditation and Buddhism than others. Venerable Yuttadhamo said (in the interview with truthloader) that the people who really think that sensual pleasure will satisfy them aren't interested to meditation but the people who are suffering are more interested to Buddhism.(Maybe he used different words but this is what I remember now) Eckhart Tolle said that "If you have a heavy pain body you are lucky. If you have a light pain body there is still hope for you too". So having a relatively peaceful mind(this peacefulness is only a relative description because these people still experience stress, unhappiness and even depression) can prolong the illusion for that person and lead to an ego and sensuality based life style that corrupts their minds fastly.
The people who experience the life under the pressure of negative minds must seek time and place to start an intensive practise. This intensity can start with getting rid of the addictions with constant practise of mindfulness and then when the person is ready, he/she can start intensive meditation. The best place is ofcourse Buddhist meditation centers/monasteries. But the person can do that at their homes too, but searching information about intensive meditation or having a contact with a qualified meditation teacher before starting to practise is necessary I think. I don't say that you must keep the intensive practise all of your life, but especially the people with negative minds must push their limits(with having guidance ofcourse) and continue the intensive practise until they really start to see change in their mind.
But ofcourse, meditaton/mindfulness and morality is not limited to a time-period it must be always the priority of a Buddhist meditator's life.

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

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


text:
A question about sitting, movement and mindfulness
I have had bad posture for most of my life. I find that if I do not sit quite straight during sitting meditation, my body leans forward putting weight on my legs which becomes quite painful. However, when I sit straight, my "sitting bones" become painful. So, I tend to rock from side to side while sitting. It may or may not be visible to others, but I am aware of it. Perhaps "shifting my weight" might be a better way to describe it. My question is regarding mindfulness meditation. Do you think it is OK to rock side to side? Should I just note something like "rocking, rocking"? Should I wait until the pain is nearly "unbearable", and note "pain, pain", "disliking, disliking" before shifting my weight, or is it OK to do so pre-emptively?

First of all I think it is important to remember that in the Mahasi Sayadaw system of meditation, you don't necessarily have to note distractions. When distractions arise you have a choice between staying with the primary object (e.g. the movement of the abdomen) or you can take up the distraction itself as an object. Both of these are equally valid. If the rocking motion is coming up a lot, you might decide to ignore it and stay with the abdomen. If it only happens sometimes it might make more sense to note it, but it makes less sense if it is happening continuously.
Also, if it is painful for your body to sit on the floor or on a cushion, I would recommend that you try meditating while seated in a chair and see if that is less painful. As long as your position is relatively stable and able to be maintained, there is no problem, and sitting in a chair fulfills these principles, so there is nothing wrong with sitting in a chair to meditate.

This sort of rocking is most likely a defence mechanism; if you are consciously instigating it, then it is simply a reaction to the unpleasant stimuli. Unfortunately, it will therefore be a cause for increased aversion to the stimuli in question; you'll become more and more averse to pain as a result of your practice, which is really the opposite of the goal of meditation. Most likely your best course of action is to:

Begin to let go of your aversion to the pain, by noting it as "pain, pain"
If there is disliking, note it as "disliking, disliking"
If you the pain is overwhelming and you want to move, you should acknowledge "wanting, wanting" and then "moving, moving", etc. and move your legs, back, etc.

In some cases, this sort of aversion can transform into rapture (pīti), where it becomes a looped, unconscious behaviour that can actually feel quite pleasant, in which case it is likely to become addictive or at least distracting. In this case:

Acknowledge the rocking as "rocking, rocking"
If there is pleasure or liking, acknowledge it as well, as "happy" or "feeling" and "liking"
If the rocking doesn't stop, tell it to stop, by saying to yourself "stop!".

There can be two explanations for the rocking:

Reaction to pain
Conditioning / fabrications

Both of these create sensation in your body. By looking and the sensations without reaction and objectively (equanimous with the understanding of it's impermanence) this will stop if the is reaction based. Also keep in mind you might not be able to stop all reactions at once due to the conditioning your mind. But this will gradually dampen and die off. If it is conditioning based then but not putting new fuel to the process (reaction to sensation creating new fabrications / conditioning as per dependent origination) by reacting it again will die off.


text:
Solving the oxymoron of nibbāna?
How does one remain dedicated to the pursuit of nibbāna, when one has seen clearly that ultimately there is no separate nibbāna. What does one aspire towards now?
Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya sūtra: «There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow»

Where beauty is, then there is ugliness; where right is, also there is wrong.
  Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent; delusion and enlightenment condition each other.
  Since olden times it has been so. How could it be otherwise now?
  Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.
  Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,
  how do you deal with each thing changing?
................................................................................................~Ryokan

What do you mean that "ultimately there is no separate nibbāna?" Nibbana as the unconditioned reality is clearly distinct in its attributes from conditioned experience. Are you talking more specifically about Nibbana as the cessation of the defilements?

Prajñāpāramitā Hṛdaya sūtra: « There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow »
Where beauty is, then there is ugliness;
where right is, also there is wrong.
Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent;
delusion and enlightenment condition each other.
Since olden times it has been so.
How could it be otherwise now?
Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other
is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.
Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,
how do you deal with each thing changing?
-Ryokan

it feels as if the question is mixing the incompatible parts of Mahayana and Theravada. Pursuit of nibbāna is a Theravadin idea, and prajñāpāramitā is a Mahayana idea. One or the other, as far as I understand.

no incompatible paths. slightly different in the beginning, but merging further down the way.

@qweilun life doesn't break down so easily into buckets does it. I had much the same realization as Ryokan while performing Vipassana, almost word for word, and I'd never read Ryokan before then. Any scripture I quote is based in post facto discovery.

it's not obvious that you are quoting Ryokan. Perhaps edit the question using the SE markdown for quotations?

I've changed one of my comments into a full answer now.

@qweilun I can honestly say as a committed practitioner of Theravada Buddhism who has also studied Madhyamaka that in my opinion the differences between the two are almost entirely terminological.

@AndreiVolkov Thanks for reformatting the question, I was finding it hard to do on the mobile.

When the Heart Sutra says "There is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no end to suffering, no path to follow" it isn't saying that none of these things exist. What it means is that none of these things exist in terms of 'Svabhava' which means something like 'intrinsic existence' or 'self nature' or 'essence'. In terms of 'Svabhava' none of these things exist, but in terms of the experience of these things and in terms of their actual features and characteristics, they do exist.
And I think that the quote by Ryokan means that opposites are concepts which are relative and exist as abstract concepts which are imputed onto experience. It is absolutely true that the abstracted concept of Nibbana and the abstracted concept of conditioned existence relatively depend on each other as part of a dualistic pair, but that doesn't mean that the experiences and properties to which these concepts refer are themselves interdependent.

I interpret the question [before it was edited 10-2-14  to mean that how does one build and maintain an individual practice whose goal is nibbana or nirvana (same term different language) which some interpret to mean enlightenment. This then poses a problem because what is going to experience nibbana or nirvana, the individual?
Here is one interpretation of nibbana or nirvana "to be blown out" or "to be extinguished."[quoted text below this paragraph] Here is where the goal of nibbana could be in conflict if one conceived of attaining nibbana. Nibbana is rather an erasure or elimination or disappearance of an appearance of a self that is now seen to be a phantom or dream.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)

Nirvana (Sanskrit, also nirvāṇa; Pali: nibbana, nibbāna ) is the
  earliest and most common term used to describe the goal of the
  Buddhist path.[1] The literal meaning of the term in Sanskrit is "to
  be blown out" or "to be extinguished". Within the Buddhist tradition,
  this term is typically glossed as the extinction of craving (tanha),
  or more broadly, the extinction of the fires of attachment (raga),
  aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidyā).[1] In the Buddhist
  view, when these fires are extinguished, suffering (dukkha) comes to
  an end, and one is released from the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra).
Buddhist tradition distinguishes between the experience of someone who
  reaches nirvana during their lifetime (sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa) and the
  experience of nirvana after one passes away (nir-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa).
  The experience of nirvana-in-this-lifetime is described as a
  transformed state of mind that is free from negative mental states,
  peaceful, happy, and non-reactive. The experience of
  nirvana-after-death (commonly referred to as paranirvana) is said to
  be beyond words or description.
The two main traditions of Buddhism, the Theravada and Mahayana,
  differ in their presentations of nirvana. The Theravada tradition
  emphasizes the cessation of suffering and liberation from samsara. The
  Mahayana tradition emphasizes two stages of nirvana: the first stage
  is described (using similar language to the Theravada tradition) as
  the cessation of suffering and liberation from samsara; the next and
  final stage is referred to as the nonabiding (apratiṣṭhita) nirvana,
  or buddhahood, that transcends both samsara and the limited nirvana of
  the first stage.

There really is no conflict with nibbana and the path to it. The problem is imagined by those who believe they have to get somewhere they are not already. Extinguish the movie that is covering the screen of consciousness and what is always present is visible, not because it appeared, but because the illusory dreams of selfhood become invisible once the falsehoods that feed this false sense of self are extinguished or drop away in awakening.

Good question. A couple of thoughts:

Do you still have ups and downs? One day you understand everything, and one day you are angry, helpless and miserable? If so, that's a good reason to keep working.
There is a difference between intellectual understanding and full realization. When you attain realization, you don't ask questions like "How does one remain dedicated to the pursuit" or "what does one aspire towards now?" Keep meditating.
Why so much focus on "one"? Go help many!

Thank you. I'll use an analogy of video games to be brief. I feel like all levels of the game have been unlocked, but what level I choose to play at on any day is quite random. There was a period of constancy of experience at the boss level that lasted for months, as if I had become an expert at the game, I needed to spend no time at all on myself, all my time and energy belonged to the world, I had no ills, but then I must have hit a bug in the code, now each day I respawn at a different level, from amateur to pro. Makes sense? I'll send you more information in private if interested.

@Srini'cheeni'Ramakrishnan Are you practicing meditation under a specific tradition? Also, Stackexchange doesn't have a private message system. The only real way to exchange information in private is to give out your email address. I don't know if Andrei will give you his, but if you like you can email me at ************** (email address deleted by moderator).


text:
Am I condemned for an extramarital affair?
A long time ago I had a romantic relationship with a married woman, and later I regretted. How is this seen in Buddhism?

This might be of some interest: Why we love, why we cheat

It is classified as sexual misconduct. According to the Cunda Kammaraputa Sutta:

And how is one made impure in three ways by bodily action? There is
  the case where a certain person takes life, is a hunter,
  bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to
  living beings. He takes what is not given. He takes, in the manner of
  a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and
  have not been given by them. He engages in sensual misconduct. He
  gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers,
  their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or
  their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments,
  or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is
  made impure in three ways by bodily action.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.176.than.html

However, that doesn't mean that you are "condemned." You did something that wasn't right, but if you recognize that you did something wrong and strive to do better in the future, that's all you should do. In the Samaññaphala Sutta King Ajatasattu confessed to the Buddha that he had murdered his own father, which in Buddhism is one of 5 Garu Kammas, the 5 most heinous acts a person could possibly commit:

"...King Ajatasattu said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, lord! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place upright what was overturned,
  to reveal what was hidden, to show the way to one who was lost, or to
  carry a lamp into the dark so that those with eyes could see forms, in
  the same way has the Blessed One — through many lines of reasoning —
  made the Dhamma clear. I go to the Blessed One for refuge, to the
  Dhamma, and to the community of monks. May the Blessed One remember me
  as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge, from this day
  forward, for life.
"A transgression has overcome me, lord, in that I was so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill my father — a righteous
  man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership. May the
  Blessed One please accept this confession of my transgression as such,
  so that I may restrain myself in the future."
"Yes, great king, a transgression overcame you in that you were so foolish, so muddle-headed, and so unskilled as to kill your father — a
  righteous man, a righteous king — for the sake of sovereign rulership.
  But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in
  accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a
  cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when,
  seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with
  the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future."
       http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

The Buddha did not condemn King Ajatasattu for his evil act, but encouraged him to have a change of heart and live an ammended life. He did the same for Angulimala the Serial Killer (Angulimala, his nickname, means garland of fingers because he kept his victim's fingers on a string as a garland) having him become a Monk and when Angulimala saw a woman in childbirth and wanted to help, the Buddha said this to ease Angulimala's feelings of guilt over killing so many people:

"In that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to her,
  'Sister, since I was born I do not recall intentionally killing a
  living being. Through this truth may there be wellbeing for you,
  wellbeing for your fetus.'"
"But, lord, wouldn't that be a lie for me? For I have intentionally
  killed many living beings."
"Then in that case, Angulimala, go to that woman and on arrival say to
  her, 'Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall
  intentionally killing a living being. Through this truth may there be
  wellbeing for you, wellbeing for your fetus.'"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.086.than.html

The Buddha taught people guilty of the most heinous things to change their ways but to move on and not dwell on their previous errors. If the Buddha encouraged a man guilty of killing his father and a serial killer not to dwell on guilt, how much more would he encourage someone who committed adultery to simply have a change of heart and not dwell on guilt.

good balance of sources and reasoning. And this answer could be given for any act that a person cannot forgive themselves for.

"and later I regretted" -- remorse is a klesha, an obscuring emotion. Have you learned your lesson and decided what you will do differently now -- that's what matters for your growth, the constructive part, not the feeling of guilt which only weighs you down.

Am I condemned for being romantically involved with another man's wife?

Condemned by...

the community you live in? If this is unaccepted behavior, yes.

by the law? If that was unlawful, yes.

by Buddha? He is not here, so I highly doubt it.

How is this seen in Buddhism?

Short answer: it is seen as a "don't do it". If you did, it is seen as "well, don't do it again".
long answer: the Saleyaka Sutta (MN 41) reads:

[...] When [the brahman householders of Sala] were seated, they said to the Blessed One: "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell; and what is the reason, what is the condition, why some beings here, on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world?"
"Householders, it is by reason of conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of unrighteous conduct, that beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. It is by reason of conduct in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of righteous conduct, that some beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, even in the heavenly world."

and then he says:

"And how are there three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone [...] is given over to misconduct in sexual desires: he has intercourse with such (women) as are protected by the mother, father, (mother and father), brother, sister, relatives, as have a husband, as entail a penalty, and also with those that are garlanded in token of betrothal. That is how there are three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct.

The above, however, does not denote a condemnation as an external invisible force that will seek to punish you. But there are consequences to actions, according to the nature of the actions themselves. In this sense, one could consider these as the condemnation.
In the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta, the Buddha (MN 136) says:

"Ananda, there are four kinds of persons existing in the world. What four?
(i) "Here some person kills living beings, takes what is not given, misconducts himself in sexual desires, speaks falsehood, speaks maliciously, speaks harshly, gossips, is covetous, is ill-willed, and has wrong view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.
(ii) "But here some person kills living beings... and has wrong view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.
(iii) "Here some person abstains from killing living beings, from taking what is not given, from misconduct in sexual desires, from false speech, from malicious speech, from harsh speech, from gossip, he is not covetous, is not ill-willed, and has right view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.
(iv) "But here some person abstains from killing living beings... and has right view. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in the states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

His explanation for a person who has performed misconducts to reappear in a good destination is given:

[...] "Now there is the person who has killed living beings here ... has had wrong view. And on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But (perhaps) the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him earlier, or the good kamma producing his happiness was done by him later, or right view was undertaken and completed by him at the time of his death. And that was why, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappeared in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. But since he has killed living beings here... has had wrong view, he will feel the result of that here and now, or in his next rebirth, or in some subsequent existence.

Beings are, as he says, heirs of their karma, and under certain conditions, karma  manifests its effects, sooner or later. That is, until one strives for and finally reaches nirvana.

I would like to touch an important point: It is not because there was no explicit harm (being caught or maybe a divorce) that no harm was made at all, this is not how karma works, at least in most traditions, for sure in Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism.
Of course you are not condemned in a sense that you will necessarily go to hell, however the bad karma was created with or without explicit harm or being caught, the seed is now there, you created the cause for future suffering, you broke the 4th precept (assuming you knew she was married).
Ok, what is done is done, what can you do know? The Buddha gave a great simile that can help us here, the simile of water and salt.
The Blessed one said: Imagine if you drop salt in a cup of water, how will the water taste? Very bad of course. Now imagine if you drop the same amount of salt in a river, how will the river water taste? Probably good! The salt represents bad karma and water the good karma, so try to make as much good karma as you can, take the precepts, live a moral life etc.
The story of Angulimala proves us that nothing is impossible to revert. Looks like coming here and making this question can be a promissing start!

By harm I meant that somebody experienced pain as a result of the action or could have -- the husband became angry or distraught and perhaps lashed out emotionally or physically; the wife suffered the loss of her husband's affection or perhaps violence; a child became confused or unhinged at what was happening to their family; etc. I believe that if we analyze the traditional sexual misconduct criteria, at root it is their capacity for such harm that motivates them. I am not speaking of homosexuality or other victimless "transgressions" -- these are culturally bound and the mores have changed.

The key thing is that you've stopped and regretted the unwholesome action. Practice diligently, do lots of wholesome actions and move on. It's those who keep making the same mistake that will place themselves one step closer to the bad destination:

"Bhikkhus, the bhikkhuni, ... re ... the novice in training, ... re ... the novice for higher ordination, ... re ... the female novice for higher ordination, ... re ... the lay disciple male, ... re ... the lay disciple female endowed with five things, is in hell as though led and lain there. What five?
Destroying living things, taking the not given, misbehaving in sexual desires, telling lies and taking intoxicating and brewed drinks. Bhikkhus, the bhikkhu endowed with these five things, is in hell as though led and lain there." ~~ ( AN 5.291/292: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara3/5-pancakanipata/026-upasampadavaggo-e.html )

The bottom line is whether anybody was harmed -- the husband, the wife, children, anyone else. (To depend solely on the literal sexual conduct code from ancient times is to risk mixing in cultural factors that have changed, often significantly; the harm criterion is universal.)
If there was harm, then the Mahayana doctrine of the Four Powers (often called the Four Opponent Powers) can be used to purify the negative karma. (I don't know the citations, but I'm quite sure this doctrine is derived from early sutras.) The Four Powers are:

The power of regret for having done the negative action.
The power of reliance: taking refuge, which restores our relationship with holy objects, and generating the altruistic intention, which restores our relationship with other sentient beings.
The power of the remedial action, e.g. prostration, offering, reciting the names of the Buddha, reading or contemplating the Dharma, etc.
The power of the promise not to repeat the action.

This is from http://archive.thubtenchodron.org/PrayersAndPractices/purification_practices.html, but there are many sites and references.
Most discussions of the Four Powers are in a Mahayana or even Vajrayana context, but I see no reason they cannot be used by Theravada, Zen or Pure Land practitioners. Refuge is common to all Buddhist traditions; metta meditation could be used in place of the Mahayana "altruistic intention"; and a wide variety of practices or actions can be used for remedial action if done in the context of the other powers.
With regard to #1, regret, note that this is not heavy guilt or a sense of permanent, unpurifiable "sin", but a simple recognition that the action was wrong and needs remediation. In fact, the very possibility of purification opposes a sense of heavy guilt. Regret, in this sense, is the first power because it is clearly a prerequisite to any meaningful purification.
It sounds like you already have healthy regret and are resolved not to repeat such actions, and so are already well started on the full purification practice!

You have done something that that completely rails against the eightfold path, which was designed to end greed, ignorance, aversion, delusion. An affair waters all of these roots, however, you realized you have done something wrong.
Fix yourself, continue the path.

Well, if you were a monk, you'd get kicked out of the sangha. As a layperson, it's one of the five precepts. For laity, imho, the five precepts come down to respecting the existing social order-- very socially conservative and not especially deeply connected with the philosophy of Buddhism (what's annata got to do with being an obedient citizen?).  So was it against the rules, yup.  Should we throw the rules out the window? Different topic, but many people in modern Buddhism would like to throw the rules out the window. But lets imagine we didn't.
Next step is to repent, which in Buddhist terms essentially means you plan to knock it off. Which probably isn't very helpful because this isn't the sort of thing one would do habitually.
Buddhism, as a by product of being a religion of celibate monastics, imho, is not an especially good source of relationship advice, at least nothing that is specific to relationships.  In terms of how this relates to desires and the dysfunctional behaviors our desires lead us into, Buddhism has high level advice.
Departing from Buddhism, my favorite relationship doctor is Dr. Gottman, and the way he describes it, a lot of infidelity cases are relationships that have fallen apart/are at the end stages and infidelity is one of the symptoms of this (as opposed to being a cause of a failed relationship). Dr Gottman by no means is condoning infidelity or making excuses for it-- his goal is to help people mend their relationships despite infidelity.
So a modern relationship counselor would say, a rule that says "don't do adultery" is missing the point. Adultery can only be prevented by investing the time and effort in to creating a healthy relationship. Once people are miserable, they will begin to do all sorts of things, like drinking, adultery, lying about it. (Probably not necessarily robbing and killing, that is an entirely different sort of bad behavior)  So following the precepts is matter of creating a life where the precepts can be followed. And when you find yourself in a situation where you can't follow precepts, see if it is something that gets in the way of practicing Buddhism.

Sadhu! Sergio.
If having done something not right it gives, if possible to make, release when confessing direct to the "victim".
Even it is hard and will have possible consequences it would be the best to walk on. Making mistakes is "human".
General good advices are found in the talk to Buddhas Son.
Moral shame, before, at or after a deed is a very skillful act, so thats why wise whould always say: Sadhu! If one confesses a wrong deed.
For more general in this matter see also: Reconciliation, Right & Wrong

"These two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his/her transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully pardon another who has confessed his/her transgression. These two are fools.
"These two are wise. Which two? The one who sees his/her transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons another who has confessed his/her transgression. These two are wise."
— AN 2.21
"It's a cause of growth in the Dhamma and Vinaya of the noble ones when, seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future."
— DN 2

Once confession is made proper, one walk on clean and without need of remorse, sure kamma will have it's fruits anyway but no new is maintained on this matter.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gain by means of trade and exchange]

The problem right now is not what happened ,the problem right now is that there is suffering,the suffering comes in darkness in darkness resides the ego and sense of condemnation and regret upon itself.
So just shine the light .. unto what happened. Simply there was unawareness while dealing with that woman ,maybe she was too attractive ,maybe the mind had an attitude towards outside of marriage relationship as a sin and by repression it became even more desirable thus craving rose then indulgence then the suffering. thats all what happened.
Now in knowing what happened you can work on raising the awareness next time ,to shine the light.,,Please don't look at it as sin just see it for what it is everything has its causes ,it happened due to certain parameters there is no you to condemn ,There was just a set of parameters that lead to what happened.Any attitude towards what happened will lead to more suffering and darkness.

First, if you want to live according to the five precepts which are :

I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking what is not given.
I undertake the training rule to avoid sexual misconduct.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

In my understanding sexual misconduct would be to abuse or molest someone, going against his or her will, putting you body in danger etc...
I don't think you broke any of those. Now I think personally that if nobody was hurted there is no reason for you to feel remorse.
There is no "moral" properly speaking in Buddhism, so there is no "guilt", it is more about whether you want to follow a practice leading toward liberation of suffering and if you want so, Buddhism ask you to follow a set of comportemental rules that are necessary to walk this path.

I'm pretty sure this constitutes sexual misconduct according to Buddhism... Theravada Buddhism anyway. See here http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/1371/18

Indeed yuttadhammo. As I said it is only my own understanding. I'm not sure regarding the zen tradition in which some monks doesn't refrain from sexual relationship with prostitute etc (the monk Ikkyū Sōjun is one famous example). But it is quite possible that it is only a japanese specificity that has to do with the quite liberal view concerning sex in this country.
I think that, at least for the layman, those rules should be understood within a social and cultural context as well.


text:
Why are the 16 Unwise Reflections ("shall I exist in future" etc.) considered unwise?
In a quest to find the Buddhist meaning of life, I stumbled upon The Unanswered Questions and the Unwise Reflections (Sabbasava-Sutta), and I am surprised that The Buddha actually advised against thinking about these questions:

Am I?
  Am I not?
  Did I exist in the past?
  Did I not exist in the past?
  What was I in the past?
  How was I in the past?
  Having been what, did I become what in the past?
  Shall I exist in future?
  Shall I not exist in future?
  What shall I be in future?
  How shall I be in future?

The reason given is that it causes attachment to self, and some others say because they are founded on false premises.
Firstly, this is the Wikipedia, so I am not 100% sure of its accuracy, but as per my interpretation, this means that, for example, "Self" is only a concept or theory that may be false and incompatible with reality, and a question like "Who Am I" is then founded on the false premise of the "Self" concept. In short, it preoccupies us with confusion. All good so far.
Even though what I gather generally is that Science and Buddhism are consistent in approach, is Science's relentless search for answers bad for people as well? Does The Buddha (1) recognise the possibility of finding the truth for these questions, or (2) is it impossible to find the truth, or (3) is it detrimental for us to know the truth?
Is there a better (than Wikipedia) explanation why we should not reflect on these questions?
P.S. this question was partly inspired by the 14 questions left unanswered question, which I think does not answer my question. In the quoted text, it does not state what Buddha thinks of the "findability" of the answers to those questions. It only states that Buddha thinks the answer will confuse us, therefore choose to be silent. However, we are 2000 years later now and we may have better science to explain certain phenomenon. Are Buddhist scientist advised or permitted to delve into such questions?
Furthermore, I am specifically asking about the "Unwise Reflections" in Wikipedia in the bottom section, rather than the 14 questions.

"Does The Buddha (1) recognize the possibility of finding the truth for these questions, or (2) is it impossible to find the truth, or (3) is it detrimental for us to know the truth?"
To be sure, we are talking about questions like "Did I exist in the past? Shall I exist in future? How shall I be in future?" etc.
In context of Sabbasava-Sutta, these are not questions, these are unwise reflections. They are thoughts that don't lead to liberation-by-wisdom. Why? Because like you yourself indicated in the question, they are founded on false premise. What false premise?
That "I" is an entity.
Because "I" is not an entity, the notion of "existing" or "not existing" does not apply. Therefore the questions are invalid. Normally, contemplating questions that are based on a premise, assume validity of the premise. Since in this case the premise is not just false (which it is), but is also considered harmful (because it is a major part of fundamental confusion that is the basis of suffering), assuming its validity is considered counterproductive.
Instead, one is advised to research into the premise itself. What is this notion of "I"? Is body I? Is emotions I? Is thoughts I? Is memories/experiences/imprints I? What makes an entity, entity? When we watch the mind in meditation, what is it that does the watching? Or if there is no "what", then how does the watching work?
Because you seem to be very new to Buddhism, it is totally normal for you to not know the basics, so instead of trying to cover all that ground, let me give you a pair of shoes. Check out "anatta" in Theravada, and also the notion of "emptiness" in Madhyamika.

I think ChrisW did a good interpretation/explanation, but your answer has a more logical flow. Too bad I can only check one as answer, thanks to all. I think this answer also summed up the other 2 questions I posted so far.

Is there a better (than Wikipedia) explanation why we should not reflect on these questions?
Perhaps a better explanation is the Sabbasava Sutta itself.
The 'unwise reflections' are diverse (16 if you count them) opinions about the 'self':

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

This causes views or opinions about the self:

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or [etc.]

These views aren't helpful:

This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

The are other views to be attended to instead:

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.

(i.e. the 'four noble truths').
And the rest of the sutta describes dwelling with restraint; using things moderately; tolerating various things; abandoning various things; destroying (not tolerating) various evil thoughts; developing various virtues.
When the practitioner is successful, then he or she will have abandoned 'fermentations' by the various things above (restraint, use, tolerating, abandoning, destroying, and developing), and will have achieved the goal:

He has severed craving, thrown off the fetters, and — through the right penetration of conceit — has made an end of suffering & stress."

Even though what I gather generally is that Science and Buddhism are consistent in approach, is Science's relentless search for answers bad for people as well?
Buddhism doesn't try to answer everything.
Science tries to explain why the gravity on the moon isn't as strong as here; why chemicals react with some chemicals but not others; how photosynthesis produces oxygen; how the universe began and whether it will end; etc.
Buddhism is more like a single scientific procedure, a (repeatable) experiment, or a recipe: i.e. Buddhism is a way, teaches a way, to end suffering.
Within that context, and assuming that you want to end suffering, questions or view which don't lead to the end of suffering (which includes 'attending to' those views about the self) are called "unwise".

I don't mean to say that Science itself, or the pursuit of science, is wrong: it may be in the category of Right Livelihood.

"Within that context..." - understood.

@Jake The parable of the arrow gives essentially the same reason: The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. and it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is the living of the holy life.

@ChrisW I don't think the parable is sufficient as an answer itself. "In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared... does not therefore mean the man should live the holy life. This argument can be applied to any religion similarly e.g. "I will not worship XXX as long as XXX does not reveal himself to me; the man will still suffer under the rules of XXX and would die without knowing".

But when you said "Within that context [of the objective]", then it makes sense.

I think the problem I had in the question was that I don't see suffering as result of our actions, but rather as a by-product/side-effect that does not play a big role in life. Therefore, I didn't immediately see the objective of reducing suffering. (I'm not explaining it perfectly, but hope you get the idea)

...does not therefore mean the man should live the holy life. That reminds of Plato's argument in The Symposium: that people should "lead a good life" because they would want to "have a good life." When I was given that to read as a teen I found the logical argument weak (does "good" mean the same thing in both sentences). Nevertheless (notwithstanding being unconvinced by the argument), the argument's statement of a matter of fact might be true (i.e. maybe it is better to lead a good life). Anyway IMO the author's intent when making that argument is clear.

@Jake Therefore, I didn't immediately see the objective of reducing suffering. I find it difficult to imagine what "Buddhism" is, if not the Four Noble Truths; every one of which truths is related to dukkha (suffering). IOW when I think of Buddhist doctrine I immediately see as being intended, having the objective, to reduce suffering.

I admit that I am new to all of this, so even if I have read them, I failed to see the whole context. Just needed a little reminder here. Thanks!

In regards to the unanswerable questions, here is the original Sutta that lays them out:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
  about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
  about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not
  to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone
  who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
  about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
  about them."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html

By saying that they lead only to "madness & vexation" I think it is clear that this text is saying that these questions don't really have any answers.
Now let's move on to the part from the Sabbasava Sutta:

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he attends to?
  Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen
  fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation
  of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises
  in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen
  fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation
  of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that
  he attends to.
...
This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not
  in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having
  been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I
  not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in
  the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else
  he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not?
  What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it
  bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
  arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
  established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is
  precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as
  true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
  mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of
  good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
  everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
  is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
  views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
  Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
  not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
  stress.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html

From context I think it's quite clear that the Sabbasava Sutta is talking specifically about focusing on views about a self, which according to Buddhism is just a concept.
You ask the question:

Does The Buddha (1) recognise the possibility of finding the truth for
  these questions, or (2) is it impossible to find the truth, or (3) is
  it detrimental for us to know the truth?

I think that the right answer is that none of these questions actually have answers because they presuppose things that aren't true or a general formulation might not be possible (for example, the results of Karma are unanswerable because in order to give an answer for a specific case you would need to be able to see all of that person's Karma, which goes back infinitely far into the past. Only a fully enlightened Buddha is able to do that, and even then, that is for a single specific case. Because even a single case is infinitely complex, it is impossible to come up with a "unified theory of Karma" that can give a complete explanation.)

"none of these questions actually have answers" -- Is the buddhist view in this statement considered a universal truth for all eternity, or just the truth at that time it was conceived? Is there a possibility that we can calculate results closer and closer to eventually get the answer?

@Jake I think it's for all time. I don't see how you could ever calculate anything about the 'self' for instance. Or are you thinking more specifically about the question of the origin of the world?

while science and Buddhism share some similar methodology, their ultimate goals aren't the same. Science aims to increase knowledge and understanding of how the natural world works while Buddhism aims to eradicate all defilements of the body, speech, and mind and to put an end to suffering. Further details are available from Ven. Thanissaro's great essay called "Questions of Skill" ( http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/questions.html )

Science and Buddhism are similar when inquiring. But  science is materialistic and Buddhism is "experientialist". While for science reality relies on matter, for Buddhism reality relies on experience.


text:
How to handle rude language?
How to speak or act with a pure thought when people tell joke and use rude language towards you, trying to upset you according to Buddhist teachings?And how to change the unwholesome thought to wholesome when the mind is full of hatred and aversion and  cultivate loving kindness?I hope this make sense.

Similar question: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3834/how-to-deal-with-people

Hmm... looks like a duplicate, from the same person even, thanks for pointing that out Thiago, I will merge the questions.


text:
Is going for refuge central to all Buddhist traditions?
In the Triratna community, who I practice with, we see going for refuge to the three jewels as our central practice - the three jewels being the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha. In fact the name Triratna means the three jewels. However the founder of the movement (Sangharakshita) makes the stronger claim that this is the central act of all Buddhist traditions. The Triratna movement is an explicit attempt to return to that core teaching.
However I'd really be interested in the perspectives of the different Buddhist traditions on that. Does that ring true to people in their own practices. Is going for refuge the central act of Buddhist practice?

also see Following the Dhamma without taking refuge

In every single branch of Buddhism I have looked into, going for refuge is seen as the defining feature of what makes you a Buddhist. The Theravada school holds to this position, every form of East Asian Mahayana Buddhism I've read about holds this position, and Tibetan Buddhism also puts great stress on going for refuge to the point where reciting the refuge formula with Bodhichitta 100,000 times (usually combined with prostration and visualizing the refuge tree) is a central part of Tibetan Ngöndro, or foundational practice.
I think that Sangharakshita really was correct in identifying the central role of refuge in all Buddhist traditions.

I'd say some forms of Zen show no interest in going for refuge.

@Traditional Zen (e.g. Soto, Rinzai, Obaku, Chan, Thien, Seon,) does see refuge as the entryway into the path. There are probably groups somewhere that don't but I think even the more secular forms of these traditions still have refuge (although they might understand it differently).

The Buddha and the Dharma are not very controversial, although there is some disagreement among the sects about how awesome the Buddha was (was he god-like or just a really great guy)
SGI has dispensed with the ordained, monastic sangha. This probably was a result of history-- the split between the SGI organization and the Nichiren Shu sangha, probably not so much because SGI didn't like the sangha.
For a secular Buddhist, there isn't anything special about ordaining-- it's another institution to be judged on its own merits and results. As for joining, it depends on if you see any particular benefit to that particular institution. As for supporting the sangha, it depends on if you see any particular benefit in supporting it.
As far as institutional Buddhism goes, I think Japan got the closes to laicizing the sangha with the Meiji reformations.
Once, or if you dispense with the institutionalized monastic order, then the sangha is just the "congregation", the community of other Buddhists.  Finding refuge in just the community of Buddhist though seems a little insular. I'd rather feel responsible for all humanity and expect all humanity to be responsible for me in return. (As an ideal, in practice it's dog eat dog and few people give a hoot)

I think going for refuge works like a commitment and also as a devotion act, it is a way to reinforce what you believe in and what you are going to pursuit, but it is not like the Christian Baptism where you do it and the gates of heaven will open up for you.
Karma works in the same way either you took refuge or not, so it is pointless to go for refuge and keep your old bad habits, following this logic I think it is more important to keep the precepts, meditate and live a positive life than going for refuge, I'm not suggesting refuge isnt important, I'm only emphasizing that your practice is more important than anything.
Of course, listen to your teacher or guru and analyze his points, in the SE you will probably get lots of different point of views!

I think Christianity varies in whether faith alone leads to salvation -- the famous and ancient: justification by faith vs works controversy -- for example -- http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/a/Faith-And-Works.htm


text:
How to keep balance in the thin line between non attachment to reputation and "not caring about anything"
One of the main problems I had to deal with, when I started to meditate and study the Dhamma, was the consequence of giving up attachment to reputation and pride.
Of course this is an extremelly positive thing to do, you simply become stronger when you stop caring about how other people see you, you just care about your actions, about karma, about your thoughts.
The problem is that people think you just don't care about anything else, they think you are not commited to your job anymore, to your appearance, to other people feelings... for instance: If they give you a bad feedback and you don't suffer and don't react to it, they think you are ignoring them.
It looks like we need small portions of drama to live in this society, non attachment to reputation makes you look like an alien or a brain washed person. I don't know how to balance that sometimes, any advise?

I don't exactly have an answer or advice to this, as I have a similar experience to a certain extent, but I understand that even though others might see the external us and base an opinion on it, the mind development that's going on for Buddhists may always be misunderstood by those not familiar with it and thus, dukkha arises for the one making the judgement. Maybe it also arises in us too, if we react to it even just a little bit. It's hard to be unaffected, I find. I guess that depends on where each one of is in the practice.  As the Buddha describes, it is 'Patisothagami' or "it is a path that goes against the stream", so we're bound to hit resistance both from the stream and the other fish...to use a popular analogy.
Maybe here equanimity is needed with compassion in order to keep us within the sphere of 'normal' worldliness whilst striving for something beyond it.
I hope the reflection is useful and thank you for bringing it up.
Best wishes
Paul

Hello friend, thanks for your points, it is always nice to see people that relate to our questions

I too have felt some resistance, although it did eventually resolve. For one, try being more compassionate. For a long while I simply desired wisdom, and did so in a way that was neither mindful of the consequences of my actions(and how people felt about them) and had a sense of pride. Now I am practising more compassion, and its harder for negativity to phase me. Consequently, I am not trying to shield my ego from the negativity, instead I embrace it. Through companions sharing this, they provide insight into how I could help them better. It was only through realising how my actions were harmful(atleast from the perspective of my friends) to the relationships, that I was able to eliminate the misunderstanding.
If you confront the ignorance, rather than purely ignore it, and practise compassion, you may find a more harmoneuous relationship. Of course there are people who will resist changing their attitude, such as someone who may be biased against Buddhism or any religious practise! In this case, try and see it from their perspective, and act in such a way to minimise their suffering. If they have no reason to suffer, your suffering should too reduce.
I used to try and impose my attitude towards vulgar language upon others, but only through accepting the present nature of some people, and their use of such language, was I able to eliminate my suffering. I let go of my attitude, and it no longer bothers me.
Good luck, hope you manage to find the trickly balance between practising yourself and being understood by others.

In buddhism, what is referred as attachment is the type of attachment which keeps wheel of dependent origination.
In each case when a through arrives in your mind you get a sensation. When you react to this sensation with liking then it is attachement. If you do it with dislike it is aversion. All this because you do not understand the true nature of things.
If you experience any sensation with respect to thoughts of responsibility to which you react then there is attachment to reputation. If you do not react to  the self awareness and reputation then there is no attachment. You can have applied through without attachment. This is more emotionally balanced than you doing things for stimulus from thoughts on reputation. This is more like a carrot and stick approach at a subtler level.

Maybe don't try to balance anything, just experience. Wanting things to be a certain way is always dukkha.
 Ideally, we should do what is appropriate to the situation(this is easy for Arahants, hard for beginners). So if they think they are being ignored, maybe use the misunderstanding as an opportunity to tell them about what your practicing. Say something like: "I'm not ignoring you, I'm practicing the Dharma and to stay in line with the Dharma I keep my words few but just right, it's called Right Speech. All Dharma practices aim at making the practitioner quit ignoring what makes themselves and everyone suffer, in order to transcend  suffering and be happy. So, now can you start to see that I'm very far from ignoring you?"

The right fix, in my personal opinion, would be to respond as best as you can when people tell you such things. Try to see what it is about your reaction that gets on these people's nerves. It's not the case that you have to suffer when making use of social norms and conventions in order to maintain a dignified conversation. Try to see if you can find a way to appear right and normal to these people, without sacrificing your stability.
May I also suggest that, so long as you're not a monk, you don't want to sacrifice your job and relationships for the sake of not wanting to engage in things you don't like just right now. It's the long term well being that you're better off working on - and getting fired or thought lowly of by your friends & relatives isn't going to be part of that. Surely you can find a way to balance things out rightly.
Best of luck.


text:
Observing eight precepts in regular life
I've seen some people do this. But how practical is this with the modern lifestyle? As an example the place where I sit in the office is a bit too comfortable. Sometimes there's music in public transport.  If that person shares a place with others or visits other people, they may have to change their lifestyles as well. e.g: eating before noon.
How can one deal with such situations without being a nuisance to others, if someone decides to observe them in day-to-day life?

How is that observing one of the precepts could be a nuisance for others?

@ThiagoSilva If that person shares a place with others or visits other people, they may have to change their lifestyles as well. e.g: eating before noon. That's what I meant by this.

Simply being in the presence of music or entertainment or sitting in a comfortable chair doesn't break the 8 precepts. Here are the relavent descriptions from the Uposatha Sutta in which the Buddha describes the 8 precepts:

All of you have given up singing and dancing, the playing of musical
  instruments and the watching of entertainments, which are stumbling
  blocks to that which is wholesome. You do not bedeck yourselves with
  ornaments, flowers or perfume. For all of this day and night, in this
  manner, you will be known as having followed the arahants, and the
  Uposatha will have been observed by you. This is the seventh factor of
  the Uposatha.
...
All of you have given up lying on large or high beds. You are content
  with low beds or beds made of grass. For all of this day and night, in
  this manner, you will be known as having followed the arahants, and
  the Uposatha will have been observed by you. This is the eighth factor
  of the Uposatha.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.041.vaka.html

With entertainment it is talking about intentionally seeking out or producing entertainment, not about overhearing or seeing someone else doing it, and the giving up of high beds I think is specifically refering to the use of such beds to sleep. I don't think sitting in a chair counts.
Furthermore whenever we interpret the precepts as laypeople (i.e., not interpreting the rules of Vinaya) we have to focus on the underlying principle and purpose of the precepts to decide between different understandings. The purpose of the eight precepts is to live with the renunciation of sensuality and luxury. As a layperson I think it makes sense to say that as long as you are not actively seeking these things out but merely coming across them, you are still acting in accordance with renunciation.

But overhearing may weaken the precept right? Either you may get attached to it or get aversed and arahants have neither of them.

I suppose you could become attached or averse to it, but that's true of absolutely everything we see, hear, smell, taste, feel, and think. If we are keeping the 8 precepts to renounce sensuality then we should try to avoid intentionally coming across such things, but if we establish ourselves in mindfulness and sense restraint when such things come up, we are developing the training and have nothing to fear.

if you are offered a seat that seems luxurious, and simply using the seat available, as opposed to seeking out "the best seat" your intention is appropriate.
if you hear music someone else is playing, its very different from intentionally seeking out music to listen to.
these are very useful opportunities to meditate on the nature of such phenomina and your reaction to them. like, if your mind tries to attach to the other persons music, or if you experience gladness about being stuck with a nice seat.
others conforming to your lifestyle is not necessary (and may be inappropriate, especially if you impose your beliefs on them) no one else can violate your precepts for you.
understanding things in this way may be helpful.
one example... if someone has to go out of their way to accommodate a low seat (a specific preference) then that seat becomes (in a way) a phenomenon of luxury.

I like this answer, it speaks to what Chogyam Trungpa called Spiritual Materialism. +1

Lay people used to do that once a week in the time of the Buddha, as you are not a monk, you can keep only the 5 precepts on week days and select one day of the weekend to keep the 8 precepts.
One of the teachers I like (Banthe Dhammavudo Thero) from theravada tradition recommends that practice.
If you try to live a monk's life as a lay person, having to work etc... you will be in a hard position, unfortunately!

from my limited understanding... it would seem that if one wants to live as a lay renunciate continuing to work a "job" and pay bills (have a "home") isnt the most conducive way to practice that. Its quite easy to keep the eight precepts in a tent in the woods, for example.

Dmps, and those interested,
Upasaka Akila once asked similar question and did that at least with success: here as introducing encouragement (incl. those of the Buddha, in the links of the answer).
Kepping the eight percepts, even if not everyday, is for sure one of the clear signs that one is a serious and discerning follower of the Buddha, one with possible success and upwards (not only even) walking.
It's not so that it is a matter of "modern" or "earlier" life but timeless a matter of unskillful and skillful lifestyle. In all times there have been people just used to "modern" (e.g. beloved by many) life.
Practicing the Dhamma means to give, give up and withdraw (from unskilful deeds and way of life) and the eight precepts help where the defilements would be strong in arguing, like here an now.
Like with precets and virtue generally, it requires faith at first place and just following, because the tesults are unknown, can not be seen for now.
Best is possible to make it step by step. To start with one precept, add another, make one better, and so on.
How ever, it's good and useful to request them also formal from a monk/s or nun/s and to take/ask refuge before. Such does not only provide good sphere for questions but gives also a subtile and powerful drive.
In regard of precepts-training generally, this topic might be useful: Obsering the (5) precepts (it work for all similar.
Some "technical" explainings, althought my person is no friend of them, since taken from the Vinaya and not from the Suttas, with Commentary additions (good for wise, bad for not so wise), here:
Ñanavara Thera's Questions-and-answers concerning the Uposatha. and more infos and links here.
Generally suggest: it's good and needed to have, if no Community of monks, or a monk, is near, good friends who do and who are able to help. So to seek for like-minded or better companions would be the main task. Obiviously merely seldom to be found on common places.
Just short to you particular questions:

It's possible to chose modest sears anyway.
It's good to reduce the amount of meals, take no snakes an eat at fix time, also if maybe another timeframe. How ever, changing ones lifestyle and livelihood is natural and will be done.
Being confronted with entertainment is something out of ones controll, but to pay it attention, go after it, sing in mind... not. Giving up all foolish entertainments is very useful, at least also for ones wealth. Avoiding the entertainment by news and politic brings bliss.

Things get known when doing, so don't wast time. Tomorrow is not for sure to be and even one day observed is of great fruits, not to speak about sticking with it.
Mudita.
If questions or need of advices, always welcome, having lived a live of 5, 8, 9, 10 precepts serious still a lay person, there is knowing that it is possible and of benefit.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Observing eight precepts in regular life is not a common practice in traditional Buddhist countries. In Sri Lanka, for example, eight precepts are observed on Poya days (full moon days, at the temple).
There are many variants of the practice. Usually Upasakas (those who observe the eight precepts) begin the practice in the morning and finish it at in the evening.
At the temple, Upasakas take part in various Pujas and listen to sermons by Buddhist monks.