text:
What is the true meaning of The Middle Way
All the teachers and people I have read, talked with and listened to, emphazises that Buddhism is the Middle Way.
Is this the right way to see it? If so, what is the most important or central aspect of The Middle Way?

Related: Buddhism and the middle path

It would be very arrogant on my part to assume I can explain exactly the very same true meaning of the Middle Path... but I can share what I think:
Remember what I said about existence and nonexistence. I think most people fall into all kinds of extremes. Taking a simplistic position of any kind, however small, is already a kind of extreme. When you fall into an extreme, you are no longer free. Your choices are now defined by that position, by that extreme. In a way, you are now controlled by a position. When you are controlled by a position, you are not free.
We can identify ourselves with the bodies, made of the physical elements, lacking free-will, governed by the laws of nature... We can assume we are the clusters of memes - using the bodies as our media... We can think we are simply humans - suffering, dying, making wholesome choices or unwholesome choices... Or we could equate ourselves with the Infinite, Eternal, Spontaneously-Existing Absolute Totality of Everything... We can believe in reincarnation, or in annihilation, or in endless transformation... We can see gods and demons around - or we can see latent potentials and informational phenomena...
That's what happens to most people, they give themselves away to mercy of ideas. As a result people are getting dragged around by their ideas, here and there and everywhere until they die. Or they are held hostage by their ideas and waste their lives away with their hands tied. There is no freedom in that.
Instead, if you are wise, if you are analytical - then you can balance the forces against each other. You don't fall into either extreme, into either simplistic position. You get smart. The attachments, positions, ideas - they no longer have power over you. You effectively disappear, you become invisible, ungraspable, impossible to nail.
You are free from raging emotions - because you are free from attachments, you have no triggers, no hot buttons. You are free from hopes and fears. You are free from theories. You can juggle them any way you want. You are free from obsessions, from antipathies... You are free from identity. You have no fixed form.
This could be a real definition of Freedom. In a deterministic universe governed by the laws of cause-and-effect and characterized by the Three Marks of Impermanence, Corelessness, and Dukkha - you can be free in your mind! You can even be free from death, if you can drop the viewpoint in which the concept of death makes sense.
I think this is what's meant by The Middle Way - the way of mastery over ideas. It's not simply mid-way or lukewarm - it is the way of freedom via insight.

I learn more from you every time! Soon it will be time to start re-reading answers. So many different perspectives here.

Someone I know said, "Be position-less with regard to issues." You made this case very well.

How is positionlessness in any way the middle?

It's the middle because it's a balanced, analytical approach, that entails seeing things in all their multifaceted reality, and not from one side (which is "an extreme").

Nice answer. I would only add that the Middle Way is a solution for metaphysics  and explains Kant's antinomies. It is a factual claim about Reality, not just a way of thinking. It claims that distinctions such as existence/non-existence are not fundamental. No distinctions or categories-of-thought would be fundamental. The genuine nature of Reality would outrun the intellect because it is an undifferentiated unity, thus beyond conceptual fabrication. It is only when we believe otherwise that metaphysical dilemmas arise, and this is what Nagarjuna proves.  .   .

In Buddha's time there was hedonistic indulgence and extreme ascetic practices. The ascetic practices was to exhausting bad Karma though inflicting pain.
Seeking pleasure creates fabrication through attachments hence resulting in present and future dukka.
Though through experiencing Karma (Sañcetanika Sutta) karma looses its potent this is cannot be achived through inflicting pain as Karma acts when it ripens (you cannot hasten or force the result) while artificially inflicting pain leads to metal instability and other new fabrications.
The middle path is restrain in morality thus abandoning one source of grave unwholesome Karma (reducing store of fabrications) thus cultivating a conducive environment to develop collected mind (due to non remorse - (Dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta, and Karmic calamities) to finally gain wisdom and release. (See comments [section 1.3] in (Ānanda) Subha Sutta for relationships moral virtue, mastery over the mind and wisdom.) Any experiences that arises should be used to eradicate metal influxes casing future becoming, i.e., not creating new fabrication due to past karmic and other experiaces. (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2) This is systematised as the Noble Eightfold Path initially in Dhamma,cakka Pavattana Sutta which was the Buddha's 1st disclosure. More thought explanation is found in the: Samma,ditthi Sutta

There is also the middle way between eternalism and anihilationism in the Pali Canon. I don't remember the Sutta name but it is addressed like in the Dhammacakka Sutta

Yes. Dhammacakka Sutta

From my study, two extremes could also be false dichotomy.   Buddha was often asked yes or no questions and he would not answer either way.  For example, when asked if suffering was caused by self (internal influence) or by others (external influence), he would not answer that directly (IMO those questions were false dichotomy).  He would further explain that because of sense gates, detection arise, because detection, feelings (suffering/pleasure/neutral) arise, etc..  It goes to show Buddha's wisdom through and through.

Interesting about dichotomies, thanks for bringing that perspectives. I'll bring it to work. As it happens I work with youngsters and they are really dichotomous in their perspectives on life.

It is characteristic of ego to want to know "the right answer" and so to be safe.

The central aspect is to avoid any extreme. So, for instance do not go for extreme ascetic practices or for a life of extreme pleasures; seek the middle path of a balanced life.
The same principle is then applied to any other aspect of life.

Householder, interested,
Bhante Thanissaro generously dedicated effort to make the meaning of the Middle Way more understandable: The Middles of the Middle Way and one point is surely important that the Buddhas Middleway does seldom fits to personal ideas of balanced or even that this was meant to walk a way of compromises in regard of gainings and turning on in the world.

In his very first sermon, the Buddha introduced his path of practice as a middle way that avoids two extremes: a commitment to sensual pleasures related to sensual desires, and a commitment to self-affliction. On the surface, this statement makes the path sound like a middling way, at a bland halfway point on the continuum between pleasure and pain. But if you read further in the Canon on the middle way, you realize that its middleness is much more complex than that....

It's also that many advocate equanimity as the highest virtue but actually the Buddha gives clear black and whites whereas the whites describe the middle and not something in between them or gray.
So much pleasure and much pain, both can be the middle path as well, depending on the individual.
Since the middle path, the Ariyamagga, is actually one of leaving home and stand, the world and not meant, not for samsaring around, possible good to count the main aspects of the middle path for those, out of duties or valid hindrances, living the path in white, as householder:
Generosity:

There is the case of a disciple of the noble ones, his awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess, living at home, freely generous, openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the distribution of alms.
So when the world is on fire
  with aging and death,
  one should salvage [one's wealth] by giving:
      what's given is well salvaged.
What's given bears fruit as pleasure.
  What isn't given does not:
      thieves take it away, or kings;
      it gets burnt by fire or lost.

Virtue:
The Eight Precepts, as often as possible.
Meditation
Recollections (anussati), to possible access borderlands to/and the Noble Domain (homelessness).

Recollection of the Buddha (buddhanussati)
Recollection of the Dhamma (dhammanussati)
Recollection of the Sangha (sanghanussati)
Recollection of one's own virtues (silanussati)
Recollection of one's own generosity (caganussati)
Recollection on the devas qualities (devatanussati)
Mindfulness of death (maranassati) (see also Satipatthana).
Mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati)

At least such inclinations and practice, even if still "left and right" Kamma may lead toward the middle path, right view and purification of virtue and arrival on the Path of no return into this world.
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)

I have recently published a book addressing this question (with academic publishers Equinox):
The Buddha’s Middle Way
Experiential Judgement in his Life and Teaching.
In brief summary, a good case can be made for the interpretation of the Buddha's Middle Way as a principle of judgement (not a metaphysical claim), navigating between opposing absolutes of any kind and thus bringing us back to experiential and provisional judgement. The Pali Canon contains contextual applications of this approach rather than universal definitions of it.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

There are several possible connections to the middle. The most obvious is that it was emphasized in the school called the Madhyamika (Middle Path school), whose instruction is that the Dharma occupies a middle position between realism and idealism.
The usual instruction otherwise is that Buddhism endorses a middle ground between extremes, particularly in the practical sphere of mysticism between asceticism and libertinism, but sometimes more generalized as a type of uber-moderation.
All of these instructions are correct in a sense, in that there is a paradigmatic theme which the Dharma embraces that may be applied as one orients to the world of objects and value.
The Path or Marga is a formula which orients to the condition of the aspirant, and as one begins to identify and put into practice the proper keys of its 8-spoke wheel (generally referred to as view, aspiration, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration), one expediently settles into a proper relation to the whole.
An essential element of that process is dedicated moderation in all things, even including moderation. Thus, whatever one's station or condition, solving this formula entails finding one's proper route in the world of anguish (dukkha, samsara), such that one adopts a Dharmic lifestyle with ethical choices.
This in turn affects desires, and what had been the parameters of seeming extremity change through time, such that one moves toward greater and greater clarity, and shifts subtlely more and more toward the precepts embraced by those whose dedicated beacon and encapsulated specialty is supported by the sangha system built in traditions.
Thus, the most important reason that Buddhism is called The Middle Path is that by employing its principles and disciplines with sustained and dedicated effort this leads to the insight sufficient to identify and discern a set of personal actions which, if chosen, gradually reducing one's footprint, harm, and anguish through dwelling in the Middle of All Things.
By embracing the Dharma, one becomes able to see the Golden Road of the Middle, and open the Parachute into Nirvana.

The Middle Way teachings endorse a neutral metaphysical theory. This is the theory associated with non-dualism and a doctrine of Unity.
All extreme or positive theories would be false such that in no case would it be correct to say Reality is this or that or has this as opposed to that property or quality. This places the Ultimate beyond the categories-of-thought and thus beyond conceptual fabrication.
I recommend Khenpo Tsutlrim Gyamptso's very accessible introduction The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way.
The phrase 'Middle Way' has countless meanings and applications so its 'true' meaning may be variously stated. Gyamptso summarises its claim as 'nothing really exists or ever really happens'. This underlying metaphysical claim (or fact) is the philosophical foundation for Middle Way teachings on ascetism, absolutism and do forth.
Because all extreme views would be false the phrase 'Middle Way may be misleading. Once we reject all false views there can be no 'middle' between them. The doctrine states that for every metaphysical dilemma or antinomy there is a third option. It is a refusal to consider this third option that distinguishes scholasticism and modern university philosophy from the Perennial philosophy and 'mysticism'.
Here's an old teaching story indicating the difference between dualistic thinking and the non-dualistic thinking required for the Middle Way and making fun of the former.
“A certain caliph, wanting to test an idea on an unsophisticated person, asked his guards to range into the desert and bring him a bedouin Arab. They surrounded the first one whom they met, who happened to be a Sufi.
‘The Commander of the Faithful requires your presence,’ said the captain of the guard.
‘Who are the faithful, and how do they come to have a Commander?’ he asked.
The soldiers concluded that this was indeed an unsophisticated man, and they brought him before the Caliph.
'I have been told,’ said the ruler, ‘that bedouins are so ignorant that they do not know the simplest things.’
‘Who has told you?’
‘It was during a discussion with my intellectual advisers’.
‘If it is intellect you want, the problem is easy enough. Ask me anything.’
The Caliph ordered a dish of porridge to be brought. The Arab sniffed it and began to eat. ‘What is that?’ asked the Caliph.
‘Something that can be safely eaten,’ said the bedouin.
‘Yes, but what is its name?’
‘Adopting the methods of formal logic, applied to the knowledge available to me, I say that this is pomegranates.’
There was a laugh from the assembled scholastics who had told the Caliph that the bedouins were fools.
‘And how, pray, do you come to that conclusion?’
‘By the same methods that your scholastics use. I have heard the phrase
"Dates and pomegranates” used to describe tasty foods. Now I know what dates are, as I live on them. This is not dates. Therefore it must be pomegranates.’
From ‘Esoteric Research’ (Tahqiq-I-Batini).
Reputedly written by Sir-Dan (Knower of Secrets) Daud Waraqi.
 In Idries Shah, ‘Caravan of Dreams’,
1968, The Octagon Press, London.


text:
What is the object of Faith in Buddhism
I am quite new to Buddhism. One of the reasons for starting practice was that I don't believe in God. But I belive in the four Noble Truths. I believe it because the more I think about it, the more I see it is true. And practicing accordingly strenghtens my faith.
My question is, is the four Noble Truths the "correct object of faith" in Buddhism?

See What are the differences/similarities in the concept of faith as used in Buddhism and Christianity for a related discussion on faith in Buddhism

Yes: the "four noble truths" is arguably the first doctrine.
And sayings like like Simsapa Sutta suggest that it's maybe the most essential. And some other suttas end with a phrase like,

Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress.

However see also:

Answers to Is Anatman the most important concept in Buddhism? suggest that different people have slightly different ideas about what's "most important"
Answers to How to explain what Buddhism is? suggest that not every school of Buddhism has exactly the same doctrine, and not everyone will relate to the four noble truths
Answers to What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share? list some other doctrines which all schools of Buddhism might (inasmuch as they are common to all schools) consider essential.

More generally, I suppose that an object of faith is "the Dhamma" in general.
More broadly, not only the Dhamma but the Three Jewels i.e. Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha.
Some canonical justification for the "three jewels" as the "correct object of faith" can be found in for example SN 55 which talks about "stream entry", summarized in Wikipedia as:

The sotāpanna ... has unshakable confidence in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. The Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, sometimes taken to be the triple refuge, and other times listed as being objects of recollection. In general though, confirmed confidence in the Buddha', Dharma and Sangha, respectively, is considered to be one of the four limbs of stream-winning (sotāpannassa angāni).

That's assuming that "confidence" and "faith" are sufficiently similar; I think that "confidence" implies verified not blind faith -- maybe slightly different Pali words i.e. pasāda as opposed to saddhā.
See also Refuge (Buddhism)

Faith in Buddhism has many function. Also faith in upon which wisdon is built.

Firstly you listen to the Dhamma and see that this sounds right
Secondly you see this is logical when you think and analyse it
Lastly you should practice and see for your self then you know that in fact it is right by direct experience hence faith becomes unshakable

You might have past 1 and 2. Now is the time to put some serious effort into meditation to realise 3.

And practising accordingly strengthens my faith.

At a more mundane level you can increase your faith by recollection of the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.

Noble Truths the "correct object of faith" in Buddhism?

This is what you should realise at the experiential level to cement your faith.
You should have:

you have to have faith the teacher knows what he is teaching
some faith to lean the teaching and training properly and put it to practice according to instruction
you have to have faith in your ability practice accordingly and gain results
you have to have faith that the time is always right to practice (it worked in the past, it works not and it will work in the future) if practice properly

Faith and Shraddha are two concepts people often get confused.
Faith is more of a blind belief that encourage following without question.

Shraddha is the concept given in Buddhism.

Shraddha
is having unshakable trust in Lord Buddha, In Lord Buddha's teachings and the monks.
But this trust should come from realization not from blindly following.

This realization should come with learning and practicing Lord Buddha's words.More you realize more you believe.
Lord Buddha encouraged a Shraddha that is formed through realization rather than just believing.
Shraddha without reason (Blind following) is called "Amulika Shraddha" (Rootless Shraddha)

What is the object of faith/shraddha?
The object of Shraddha are - Triple gems
Buddha (Lord Buddha)
Dharma (Lord Buddha's teachings)
Sanga  (Monks)

Once you reach the first step in the path "Sovan / Sothapanna" your Faith / Shraddha can't be shaken by anything.

So what about Four Noble Truths?
There are some things in Buddhism to believe,some to remember,some to practice and some to realize.
The Four Noble Truths come in the category - "To be realized"
So Four Noble Truths must be realized through practice of meditation and Dharma.It is not an object of worship or faith.It is simply the realization of holy Buddhas.
So you too must learn and practice in order to reach understanding and realization.

It seems to me the central object of faith in Buddhism is The Goal: Enlightenment or Nirvana.
In my own experience, would I be interested in Buddhism if I did not have faith in Enlightenment? Probably not...
If there was no Goal, nothing in Buddhism would make sense, right? There would be no escape from suffering...  So the Path would lead nowhere. There would be no knowing The Nature of The Mind... There would be no Directly Seeing it For Yourself... There would be no Ultimate Result of Wholesome Action...
If we did not have Goal, all we would have is good behavior for the sake of better living - before you die. How fun would that be?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can someone provide online resources to learn Vipassana and Metta?
Anything like a PDF or a website link or a podcast audio is OK for me :)

Here I am listing some useful resources for an introduction to Vipassana as taught by S. N. Goenka in the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin:

An Introduction to Vipassana
S. N. Goenka's Inspiring Speech at United Nations
Eilona Ariel's (A documentary filmmaker and Vipassana meditator) TedX Talk
Doing Time, Doing Vipassana - a documentary on use of Vipassana in Tihar Jail
Dhamma.org - link for 10 day course registration at one of many centres in the world
Introduction to the technique of Vipassana and Code of Discipline for the meditation courses

Here are some links......
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/28_Meththaa.MP3
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/49_Asuba_Aanaapaana_sathi.mp3
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/75_Anapanasathi_Bhavana.mp3
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/77_Meditation_of_Foulness.mp3
http://mahamevnawa.com/Amadahara_FrnDw/Mp3_JeewanandaThero/79_Meditation_on_Nine_Cemetery_Contemplations.mp3

Please identify which specific posts/links within your blog are an answer to this question.

The Wildmind website provides instructions on several types of meditation practiced in the Triratna Buddhist Community. The techniques include, among others, the lovingkindness meditation (mettā bhāvāna).

Ven. Yuttadhammo has a book : http://static.sirimangalo.org/howto/HTM.pdf

This book describes (a form of) Vipassana, doesn't it.

it does :) should i edit my answer to reflect that ?

This answer has details and references to resources on the Mahasi Sayadaw method of vipassanā.

I also recommend Allan Wallace's podcasts, he has 40 years of experience and is a very good meditation teacher.
For example this course, Fall 2012 Shamatha, Vipashyana and the Four Applications of Mindfulness, is on vipassana.
Also, check out his books. He has written many, so I won't be specific. But try browsing him by subject and see what you like.
For me personally I've gotten a lot of direct help from people on this forum too. There are many very experienced,  helpful and competent guys here.

Do you know, which of the podcasts on the page you linked to are resources for Metta and/or Vipasanna meditation?

I can ask the guy who gave me the link, I'm meeting him tomorrow.

Hi ChrisW, I think  this one from fall 2012 is on vipassana, http://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/fall2012/

Thank you (I edited the answer because for answers to a [tag:reference-request] it's probably more helpful to give a specific reference to the thing requested -- instead of a link to a web site which might contain the thing requested somewhere, leaving the OP still to search for it).

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


text:
Does Buddhism accept Existence?
Does Buddhism accept Existence ?
If it does what is Existence?

I think this question is answered by this answer.

What does "accept" mean in this context, can you explain a little what you mean by "accept"?

Hi Theravada. Could you elaborate on Question title and content, to increase clarity? Thank you.

Existence is commonly held to be that which objectively persists independent of one's presence.

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence)
When you light a flame based on certain chemical reactions there is a flame. Likewise based on Dependent Origination (DO) there is a being (Satta). This being neither exists in the sense that it is a static everlasting entity, nor a completely materialistic entity. What exists is - like the chemical reaction in the flame - a being as combusting collection of fabrication conditioned by DO. Hence, on the view that one persists as existence, we do not exist and in the sense of materialism after breakup the being is no more, then as the process of DO is at work, thus we cannot say we do or don't exist.
Another angle to look at it is that a being is purely mental construction or something we perceive. What every attributed with associated with this concept in reality what exists will differ. Hence there is not existance of a being as we would think or expect it to be, but what is there is a dancing collection aggregates, just like a fire in the wind. As our sense doors contact with their respective object fabrication are created different direction like a flame dancing when in contact with the wind.

Thank you Suminda, Can you elaborate your answer?

Added some more descriptions.


text:
Why do beings, even in lower/hell realms, like their lives?
As to Lord Buddha beings suffer because they were born:

Jaathi pachchaya jara marana soka paridewa dukka domanassa upayasa sambhawanthi
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.

It is understandable why beings in the higher realms like their lives; but is there an explanation for why beings in very lower realms (like hell) like their lives?

Yayam tanha ponobbhavika nandiragasahagata tatratatrabhinandini, seyyathidam, kamatanha bhavatanha vibhavatanha

It is this craving(tanha) which produces re-existence and re-becoming (Punobbhava) and which is bound up with passionate greed’ (Nandi raga sahagatha) and which finds fresh desire now here and there (tatratatrabhinandini) namely (1) thirst for sense-pleasures (kama tanha) (2) craving for existence and becoming (bhava-tanha) and (3) craving for nonexistence, self annihilation (Vibhava tanha)

Due to past fabrication - in order for consciousness to arise relevant faculties and body and mind gets created, or in other words to house consciousness the body and mind is created with relevant faculties tied to the particular consciousness. Your faculties will be such that you sense and perceive things differently than being in other realms. (A Deva may look down upon humans but are we disgusted of ourselves, perhaps this can be generalised to realms below as as well.) Regardless of what level of life form you are if you perceive a threat to your existance through external stimuli you react to preserve your self. The pain of losing life or death is above all else as even in these realms the notion of "I am", "myself", "my life", etc. exist.
Interesting in Asannasatta Brahma-loka, which is actually a higher plane, you do not cling to life or have love for life. 1st act of Karam performed in new being reborn is cling to the plane. (Bhavanikanthika lobha-javanas) In the Asannasatta Brahma-loka this does not happen. Any other place you love life because you cling to the plane regardless it is low or high. More on this is covered in: Abhidhamma for the Beginner by Egerton C Baptist, page 103.

It may be that they have a sense of karmic justice in a lower or hell realm.

Hi Stephen and welcome to Buddhism SE:) Could you elaborate a bit on your answer? Thank you.

Is this refuring to Buddha teachings or just a thought concieved by you,for anyone to reply?
Life on Earth is a lower realm and can be a hell to some.Evil beings do not like being stuck in lower realms.The only beings who enjoy the lower realms are beings like Buddah and many others who enjoy helping all beings good and bad advance spiritual and on to a higher realm.

Brother, Lord Buddha never enjoyed hell at any given time, In fact Lord Buddha asked to keep away from it.And this question is not my version of anything i have mentioned text from Pali canon.

I did not say Buddha enjoyed hell,I refered to his time on Earth.


text:
Investing in Dharma?
In the Diamond Sutra Buddha said:

Subhuti, if a person collected treasures as high as 3,000 of the highest mountains, and gave them all to others, their merit would be less than what would accrue to another person who simply observed and studied this Sutra and, out of kindness, explained it to others. The latter person would accumulate hundreds of times the merit, hundreds of thousands of millions of times the merit. There is no conceivable comparison.

I do not believe in charity because it doesn't cease suffering in a long term and it doesn't solve any fundamental problems in the human world.
So I'd like to follow Buddha's words but of course I'm not skillful enough to do it myself.
What do you think will be the best way to help the Dharma reach more people if you have spare $100 a month?
Or $1,000?
Or $100,000 at once?

If you can spare some money, by all mean please continue to donate to charity. Imagine you were a starving child in some war-torn country, getting a hot meal won't help you attaining enlightenment but it does help relieving a horrible kind of suffering: starvation!
Then one can always start with him/herself. Observing the Five Precepts whole-heartedly itself would generate tremendous amount of merits according to AN 8.39:

..."Now, there are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?
"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. And this is the fourth reward of merit...

Finally, one can share the Dhamma to others if the conditions are appropriate according to MN 58:

...In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them...

That reminds me of this story: Publishing the Sutras

Thank you, I understand it and I'm not living in the first world, so I see poverty quite often and try to donate a little. But the reason why I want to help spreading the Teaching instead of breads is because there are so many people who are doing it already and it's simply not working that well in the world that lacks compassion. I'm not a millionaire, I have a limited resource but imagine if Buddha's words could reach more rich people. Or the people who're opposing refugees from Syria at this very moment.

I recommend looking at GiveWell, an organisation that tries to find out the most effective way of spending money to help others.

Above all, the intention!
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/dana/

Many motives, many fruits
  "Sariputta, there is the case where a person gives a gift seeking his own profit, with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this gift seeking his own profit — with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death' — on the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
"Then there is the case of a person who gives a gift not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death.' Instead, he gives a gift with the thought, 'Giving is good.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this gift with the thought, 'Giving is good,' on the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in the company of the Devas of the Thirty-three. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
... (excerpt available on source page)
"This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears great fruit and great benefit."
— AN 7.49

From the same page:

A gift of Dhamma conquers all gifts
— Dhp 354

With this basic understanding:

"Even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned five factors and is endowed with five.

Think to benefit all sentient beings with your gift, that the benefits may echo out into the cosmos and into all planes of existence.  Set that mind when you give, and lose yourself in the action.

I do not believe in charity because it doesn't cease suffering in a long term.

This is wrong. Even basic charity has the same exact spirit of compassion as the compassion of Buddha turning the wheel of Dharma. In Jataka stories they say that Buddha did a lot of charity in previous lives before he could become Buddha.
The most fundamental form of charity is giving security, refuge, protection from fear to someone scared. Then they can finally stop running, look around, and think about life.
But even with regular charity, it's not just the money or food that you give, it is care! Care can soften even a very hardened heart. You don't even need money to give care! You can give someone abandoned and outcasted that human recognition and respect they long have forgotten.
Giving security and/or care is like ploughing and watering the soil. And then when they ask, how can I be grateful to you for making me feel like a human being worthy of existence in this world: then even one word about Dharma will be like a seed falling into the best soil!
In Tibetan tradition they say: start small, even giving gifts from your right hand to your left hand already sows the good seeds! Not to mention that it improves your own karma: your meditation will go a lot better.
But yes, until your faith grows very strong and you can help without expecting to see any result of your action - it is better to help the human beings directly. That will make you feel good, and when you feel good you have more energy to do more.

Maybe I've chosen wrong words. It's not like I do not care or I think poor people do not deserve it or I want more merit for my actions. It's just an idea that if some percentage of charitable people support the teaching itself – it will be more effective in the long run. Like if there's an earthquake and I don't go out to volunteer but work for more hours and then give earned money to a recovery fund. It will not relieve suffering immediately but it will help much more later because I'm effective at bringing foreign funds to the country and a bad fit for rescue works or first aid. :(

But probably I'm overthinking it. I will start with regular charities but continue to search for ways to support the Dharma.

Sure, I understand - you want to optimize. But the problem is when some grand idea "over there" gets in the way of real goodness "right here". Someone right next to us could use our care, but we stay blind because it is too small comparing to our big idea. Optimizing is good when you already doing something, not when you are choosing between doing and not doing. I talk more about the difference between real help and abstract idea of help here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12593/43

This is a truly wonderful answer and echoes to me the spirit of a life well lived: Mother Theresa once said "We can do no great deeds, just small deeds with great love."

Atma doubts that one could accumulate much merits by reading and spreading the Diamond Sutra, but in relation to Dhamma, yes: Iti §100
But! Such is not possible for whom how is certain to stingy to give material things and to say "I do not believe in charity because it doesn't cease suffering in a long term and it doesn't solve any fundamental problems in the human world." is fatal wrong. Giving in the meaning of merits means to give and not to do things that it might become as one likes it to have. Grasping for the hole world and even thinking its one own, how could one even make the first step into Dhamma?
Such is the benefit of reading and teaching the Diamond Sutra, a plenty good way to cut one self and others from the path...

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


text:
Buddhism and addiction treatment
I have a lot of experience with addiction, both personal and professionally.
In my job, I am in contact with many drug and alcohol addiction treatment workers. And I've been thinking about recommending integrating buddhist ideas and, perhaps more importantly, buddhist practice in drug and alcohol treatment programs. I think that introducing buddhism, both on a philosophical level and as practice could be a great  help for a lot of addicts. This has to be done properly, with competent teachers and it has to be voluntary.
Compare buddhism to AA/NA ideology (just a few examples):
AA/NA etc: externalized power...
Buddhism: internalized power
AA/NA etc: dogmatic...
Buddhism: non dogmatic
AA/NA etc: "you can get sober, but you won't get rid of the disease"...
Buddhism: "you can be free/get rid of the disease of suffering"
Does anybody heard of addiction treatment facilities trying to incorporate buddhism in their treatment?

https://www.valeriemason-john.com/mindfulness-based-addiction-recovery/

There's http://5th-precept.org/ (I don't know of them; but their web site has some literature).

Yes, there are addiction treatment facilities incorporating mindfulness meditation into thereapy. Judson Brewer at Mass General in Boston incorporated various aspects of Buddhism into his research on addiction thereapy. The main idea involves self-regulation of attention. He uses the acronym RAIN to describe the process:
Recognize
Accept/Allow
Investigate
Note

NIH has one of his presentations about RAIN and smoking cessation available on their website. It is a little technical.
Also, UC Berkeley's Greater Good Institute has a detailed page about mindfulness and addictions which is more consumer oriented.
Mindfulness is becoming more mainstream in many countries. Psychology Today's therapist search page can help one find a local psychologists who is trained in the art of mindfulness.
Insurance companies also provide a list of their providers who specialize in particular fields. They may list health care professionals who specialize in Mindfulness/Addictions.


text:
Karma of Birth?
I've heard even though two people do the same good Karma their returns can be different on what they were thinking.
And when coming to effect these different Karmas can give different births ("Trihethuka pratisandhi") to the beings who did those Karma Unlocking or Locking the ability to realize Nirvana in that life itself.
Can someone explain how Birth Karma effect a being?

Is there a specific question?

Difference in Karma's power?

Kamma is a peculiar thing. Only a fully enlightened Buddha can understand the workings of Kamma. Also the workings of Kamma is one of the Four Imponderables (acinteyyas).
We have lived countless of lives and all beings therefore have different kamma. Two beings can perform the same act, motivated by the same root, e.g. Greed or Anger, but receive a very different result.
That is based on past kamma. Some beings might have practiced a lot of meditation and done a lot of wholesome deeds in the past, while others may not have done that. That will issue different kammic results to the same volitional action.
Throughout the Sutta Pitaka, there are many examples of the Buddha giving a special meditation course or technique to a being, while another being gets a totally different course or technique.
That is because the Buddha knew the past kamma of a being and thereby which technique would be suitable for exactly that being.
There is an example from the Dhammapada verse 25; The Story of Cūlapanthaka.
Cūlapanthaka was not able to progress in meditation and was very sad about this. He was about to give up his life as a monk and become a lay person again. Then he met the Buddha who comforted him and gave him a piece of white cloth. The Buddha explained to him, that he had to sit in the sun and rub the cloth with his hands, while saying "taking off impurity". He rubbed the cloth which became dirty and Cūlapanthaka realized the impermanence of conditioned phenomena and attained arahantship.
The Buddha gave him this technique because he knew that in the past Cūlapanthaka was a king moving around in the sun and often wiped his head with a piece of cloth and in this former existence of his, he also thought about the impermanence of conditioned phenomena, while seeing the cloth getting dirty.
This time it lead to him becomming and arahant, gaining mastery of analytical knowledge and gaining knowledge of all three Pitakas.

Thanks Lanka, Can you add an explanation to "Trihethuka pratisandhi"

Unfortunately I cannot, since I do not have the knowledge to do so.

I've heard even though two people do the same good Karma their returns can be different on what they were thinking.

I am not sure if you meant:

the same action
action giving same level nature of fabrication
actions giving the same results

With regards to 1, if two people to the same action. E.g. Cutting open someone's stomach. Then a surgeon maybe motivated to cure the patient while a robber to kill. This volition decides the result through the actions are the same.
With regard to 2, though you may gain Karma which are bound to give the same results there a many other interaction from other Karma which hinder the effects of certain Karma. In addition, Niyama Dhamma also may play some role on the effects of Karma. If 2 people have the same set of fabrication with the same potent, how they came to being through volition and who they give results will be different.
With regard to 3, there may be times that 2 people may experience the same circumstances. Though the circumstances are the same, the initial actions, interfering Karma and Niyama Dhammas interacting would mean the action and volitions leading to this will be different through the final circumstances are affectively the same.

And when coming to effect these different Karmas can give different births to the beings who did those Karma Unlocking or Locking the ability to realize Nirvana in that life itself.

Though Nirvana is un fabricated the path to Nirvana is fabricated. Karma cannot make you realise nirvana but will give the supporting conditions to help your towards it like coming in contact with the Dhamma, proper places to practice, etc. Again the diversity of volition, diversity of other fabrication, diversity or Niyamas in effect, randomness all play a role in the final outcome or aligning of all condition to even support your path towards Nirvana.

I agree what i meant was "Trihethuka pratisandhi", Can you add some of it to your answer : )

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


text:
Meditation - hot and expectant in the morning
I have been doing regular shamata meditation for three months now. By regular I mean at least two sessions of 24 minutes every day and sessions in between, f.ex ten minute sessions at work whenever it's quiet.
Two questions
1 When I sit, after about 3 or 4 for minutes, I get real warm. It's not really that bothering but interestingly this seems to happen in many sessions. After about 12-15 minutes the heat cools off again. Does anyone recognise this?
2 I am a "lucky" man and try to respect my fortunate karma. Not only do I have a stable familiy life, after many years of drugs and drink. I also have a job that I really like. I look forward to work every single day of the year. And my family supports meditation practice and Buddhism.
But my contentment with work actually makes meditation more difficult in the morning, because I'm so expectant. I am getting better at not "looking forward to work", but it's so much easier for me to keep focus in afternoon/evening. Any tips?

Be expectant in life as a house holder but not when meditating. When meditating focus on the task at hand.
With regards to ideal time for meditation, it depends, from person to person and time to time. For some people morning sessions may work well while evenings may not, but for the same people evenings may work well in some periods. Hence it is best to practice at least 2 times a day.
The heating up and cooling experience you mentioned is normal. People experience certain persisting parters of experience like burning sensation, acute pains, vibrations, etc., but these also will change after some time. Do not dwell of give too much importance to the experience but use it to eradicate your past store of Sankara as in the Pahana Suttas (Pahāna Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2). Be equanimous to the experience knowing it is impermanent (arising and passing).


text:
Recommendation - Book for beginner
I am interested in knowing more about Buddhism especially the pursuit of happiness.
Which book would you recommend me for introducing me to Buddhism philosophy on this subject?

A lot of Dalai Lama's books are translated, even to Norwegian, so probably also French. If you are Frech, that is.

I was surprised to find that "Zen" has entered everyday French, for example in advertisements: 'rester zen'.

Language is not a problem since I like reading in English in order to improve my language skills.

You are right, "rester zen" is part of everyday language.

Approach a serious monk personally, SwissFr, such people and teachings which are not available on demand. Simply this deed would give a big amount of good gained joy.

I higly reccomend H. H. The Dalai Lama's "How to See Yourself as You Really Are". A wonderful and easy to read introducion to Buddhist philosophy and practice. His Holiness is mahayana, but this book gives a very general introduction.
I also reccomend his "The Art of Happiness", for a book more specifically on happiness.

I would recommend:

In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi (alternate download link)
Art of Living by William Hart

For a classic introduction to the Buddha's teachings, I recommend the book "What the Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula. You can find the PDF version here. There is also a very short collection of the suttas at the back of the book.
The ebook "Without and Within" by Ajahn Jayasaro, available in PDF and epub formats, is 127-pages long and is meant to be a collection of questions and answers on Buddhism for beginners.

This book can't be beat for beginners: Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness: Walking the Buddha's Path (by  Bhante Henepola Gunaratana).

I would recommend "Introducing Buddhism" by Charles S. Prebish and Damien Keown.
@2005 Journal of Buddhist Ethics Online Books

Why do you recommend that in particular? Did you select/recommend it because of the OP's writing, "especially the pursuit of happiness"?

If you want to grow a flower/fruit, you don't water the flower/fruit, but you water the root.

Fair enough. I asked because a bare link or reference isn't as informative as an answer which also explains why you recommend it (information which could help the OP to decide whether to select your recommendation among others, as the recommendation which might best suit their needs).

Books by Tibetan Buddhist Master Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse can help raise the right questions early on, and help avoid forming mistaken views:
"What Makes You Not a Buddhist?"
"Not For Happiness"

Books by Pema Chodron are warmly well received and recommended by teachers of many Tibetan Buddhist branches.
They adddress many practical aspects of life, yet are deeply rooted in traditional Tibetan Buddhism.

I first read 'The Way of Zen' by Alan Watts (maybe a bit technical for a beginner), then 'Zen Flesh, Zen Bones' by Paul Reps (a collection of anecdites). I'd also reccommend anything by Ajahn Chah, who talks about Buddhism in a very down-to-earth way.

Also books by Thay (Thich Nhat Hanh), specifically the "Miracle of Mindfulness" are wonderful so many different ways.


text:
Are Buddhists happier people?
The First Noble Truth says that cyclic existence is Dukkha. I'm not in a position to expound on the meaning of the word Dukkha, but I think everyone can agree it does not mean "happines".
Still, I think many Buddhists would say they are more happy in their lives than non Buddhists.
Would it be fair to claim that Buddhists, if they practice well,  can expect to be more content and generally more happy in their lives? And if so, is this because of Buddhism or is it more generally because they have a spiritual outlook on life?

Ajahn Brahm gave an excellent explanation in his talk: "Joy at Last to Know There is No Happiness in the World" (ref: http://www.dhammaloka.org.au/articles/item/1189-joy-at-last-to-know-there-is-no-happiness-in-the-world.html )

@santa100 Please repost that comment as an answer; and maybe add (at least) one sentence of your own, e.g. to summarize the article or (if it isn't obvious) to explain how the article helps to answer the question.

The word Dukkha is often translated as "unsatisfactory". If you start to use it that way, it makes a lot of sense. It covers more circumstances than "suffering". It would indeed be ironic if the study of ending Dukkha resulted in people feeling less happy! I would say that Buddhists are happier because the teaching is truthful and effective.

If I can try to generalize, I would venture to guess that people who come to Buddhism on their own (as opposed to being born into the religion) -- are probably less happy than average, which is what pushes them to seek the way out to begin with.
The reference to suffering in the First Noble Truth is not meant as the final conclusion the Buddhists are supposed to live with, but rather as a starting point for one's spiritual journey. We are seeking an end to the painful wrongness: issues, troubles, hopeless social situation, messed up personal world etc. However, we don't believe in solving it by doing more of the same. We are tired of Samsara, tired of the rat race, we had enough of it. Buddhism promises an alternative to the rat race, this is why we like it, this is what we believe in.
That said, it's not that happiness simply comes as a passive side-effect of being a good Buddhist. Rather, deliberately cultivating happiness that does not depend on external circumstances is one of the core practices in Buddhism!
In Theravada, happiness is cultivated at the end of samatha stage, as the First/Second Jhana. In Vajrayana, this is practiced as Generation-Stage Meditation. In Mahayana, we achieve happiness by forgetting about our own problems as we take care of others.
All this is to say that happiness is not a second-class concept in Buddhism, far from it. In fact, in (Tibetan) Mahayana, one's capacity for lighthearted humor, affirming joyfulness and authentic warmth; one's capacity to be happy and to make others happy -- in the face of the most adverse circumstances -- is considered the most reliable indicator of one's spiritual progress.
So yah, it should absolutely be a fair claim to make, that Buddhists who practice well are happier than average, not because Buddhism is so awesome but because being happy is one of the main things we practice!

Are Buddhists happier people?

The Buddha taught that doing wholesome and meritourious deeds will bring wholesome results.
Only wholesome actions can bring wholesome future resultants. That is a universal law, that can be verified by practicing insight meditation.
The Noble Eightfold Path teaches both morality and wisdom, e.g. Right Intention (Samma Sankappa), which is the opposite of the 3 unwholesome roots, namely Renunciation, Good-will and Harmlessness.
When a person does good deeds, observes ethical conduct (the precepts) and practices meditation in order to become free from suffering, then naturally that person will also become more happy, peaceful and less burdened by conditioned existence.
Why is that? Because ignorance (avijja) is what keeps a being chained to conditioned existence. Ignorance makes  one believe that conditioned existence is happy, pleasant, controllable and enjoyable. Ignorance conceals the underlying impermanent, unsatisfactory and ungovernable nature of conditioned phenomena. When ignorance is present, one is increasing suffering for oneself1.
When one observes good ethical conduct and practices insight meditation correctly and consistently, then one will naturally develop wisdom, thereby slowly doing away with ignorance. The less ignorance the more happiness, roughly speaking.
Its also important to mention that one does not have to be a Buddhist to do wholesome deeds or to be happy. The word "Buddhism" is just conventional language meaning nothing in ultimate reality. We could call it any other word and it would not change anything.

Would it be fair to claim that Buddhists, if they practice well, can expect to be more content and generally more happy in their lives?

If one practices correctly and consistently, then one will not expect anything, because one has seen for oneself how expectation creates suffering and bondage.
Expectation is a hindrance and produces suffering. Expectation should be observed and noted, with mindfulness in the present moment, thereby using the hindrance to cultivate insight.

1For a detailed exposition on the process, see the doctrine of Dependent Origination (paticcasammupada).

What allows Buddhists to be more happy than other people is the act of non-clinging. We learn how to let go and we get better at it and the more we let go, the more happy we are.
We can let go of fears, insecurities, arrogance, feelings of superiority, inferiority, equality.
We can let go of the 8 worldly conditions and see them as equal: praise, blame, happiness, suffering, gain, loss, good fortune, misfortune.
We can allow what is to be. We can accept what is.
All this is done in the here & now.
We can share our happy and peaceful moments with everyone, doing metta. May all beings share my happiness! In sharing them we are not afraid to lose them and we don't cling to the fleeting happy moments. We share them and feel happy twice! (once for sharing) :)
We can welcome misery! Ohh misery, welcome! I can learn from you. Thus there is not much depression going on :)
I could go on but I'm pretty happy with this much :)
Have a beautiful day!

The Buddha taught about and the way out of it.
The 1st Noble Truth or the Noble Truth of Suffering is called Noble because if you look at suffering objectively you eventually become a noble one. A noble one is a person who has transcended the state of mind which he can suffer, thus is always happy. One such path stating from suffering and extending to liberation through joy and happiness is given in the Upanisa Sutta.
The Buddhist path of practice or training can be rendered in 2 forms:

Morality, mastery over the mind, wisdom and release - threefold training (ti,sikkhā)
Learning (pariyatti), participating (patipatti) and experiencing (pativedha)
Listen / learn, memorise, pratice

If you follow the 3 fold training, (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta does mention that your effortlessly progress through joy, happiness, tranquillity to liberation starting from morality.
With regard to the mode of leaning and putting it into practice, as in item 2 & 3 above, Vimutt’āyatana Sutta makes the same assertion, but stating from learning activities.
Hence, a properly practising Buddhist would probably be more happier than the rest. The main qualification is "properly practising Buddhist". To be one why don't you find a teacher near you and take a course with a view to practice the right way: http://dhamma.org/, http://www.internationalmeditationcentre.org/, http://www.buddhanet.info/wbd/

There was an article published in 2004, The Pursuit of Happiness. A quote from it,

They want to know how his brain may differ from ordinary people, and
  whether that change is related to the inner contentment the monks
  report.
So they test how subjects react to unpleasant sounds and images
  flashed into the goggles they wear in the MRI.
Normally when we're threatened one part of the brain is tremendously
  active, but in the monks, "the responsivity of this area is
  specifically decreased during this meditation in response to these
  very intense auditory simuli that convey strong emotions," Davidson
  says.
It's very preliminary work, but the implication may be that the lamas
  are able to move right through distressing events that overwhelm the
  rest of us – in other words, one of the keys to their happiness.

I read that quote as being about being immune to or unaffected by emotionally distressing stimuli.
Based on that I wonder if it's not entirely/exactly/only about "Happiness", but rather "Equanimity".

The "Pursuit of Happiness" is a North American
phrase.
The corresponding canonical phrase from French history (for example) isn't, "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", but, "liberty, equality, brotherhood".
Whereas the corresponding Buddhist emotions or emotional ideals might be the four brahmavihāras or 'immeasurables', one of which is Equanimity.

And if so, is this because of Buddhism or is it more generally because they have a spiritual outlook on life?

Yes I'm not sure what "spiritual" means -- does it imply a mind/body or matter/spirit duality that's common in Christian tradition (heaven/earth, God/man, etc.)? Etymologically the word is

... from Latin spiritus ‘breath, spirit’, from spirare ‘breathe’

and there is some of that in Buddhism (breathing, breath meditation).
If you're forgive a negative answer it might be because liberation -- liberation from dukkha, for example -- by not clinging to what's impermanent, not seeking satisfaction (nor dissatisfaction) in dissatisfactory phenomena, not building a house on sand and so on.
Buddhists should also avoid doing things which cause people (themselves and other people) to suffer.
Teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama have written popular books about Buddhism. It seems to me that Thay for example doesn't so much "pursue" happiness but rather allows happiness to find him ... so he might see it in the garden or in a glass of water etc. A Google search for 'thay happiness' for example comes up with this article Love and Happiness (which mentions the Four Unlimited Minds again).

"Yes", Mr. Concept (if Buddhist means one who actually does the training as given). Its actually because of the right training, that one is more content training.
In regard of being this or that, as the cause of contentment or discontentment, such is actually the reason for dukkha: bhava-tanha (craving for becoming/being) vi-bhava-tanha (craving for not-becoming/being).
So actually there is much dukkha, especially for those very attached to such as Buddhism and identification with it and there are also the 16 Buddhism papancas (objectivications, just replace "I" with "Buddhism")
The path is how ever no shopping and consuming tour and its merely seldom that "a life" is general more joyful, if walking on the path. There are no fruits without a good hardship first. So there are actually not a general answer how the line of practice will be for the particular person. As the Buddha told, there are people who have to go through a lot of suffering and there are others who will not have much burden on the way. How ever, the result and the fruit is finally ending of any kind of suffering and one would fail form the beginning if one is content with simply bliss and joy.
Maybe its worthy to add, that the Buddha actually just taught Dukkha and the cessation of Dukkha. That is a very important fact, since most people who are simply seeking for joy and sukkha, not understanding that those are Dukkha as well, have a lot of reasons to suffer unnecessary. Buddhas teachings are not designed to give you known desired, but release of the fundamental cause.

I agree with the top reply that you need to differentiate between the meaning of happiness as something that depends on external circumstances i.e the world of rapture, or the "true happiness" you gain as someone who surpasses obstacles and manifests their buddhahood or buddha nature in their lives in doing so.
Also I agree with their mention of the tibetan mahayana tradition that we see the ability to be warm, generous, calm & steadfast in stormy times is an indicator of your practice. If on the other hand you seek Rapture, one of the six lower worlds, and synonymous with externally induced, short term happiness, you're likely to be pushed in the direction of good things happening to you so you can stay in that happy comfort zone, and "go with the flow" instead of sticking to what your actual dreams or objectives were. The happiness you get from this is just the knowledge and confidence that you did the right thing, surprised yourself with your capabilities, helped out when it was needed, etc, and that if it all happened again you'd know just what to do.
I guess it's like if you have 2 brothers, one rich and one poor, but the rich one, although he has lots of gold, has no friends or confidence and feels trapped in his isolation, whereas the poor one knows and is loved by everyone in his village and never has a worry. Which is really richest?

Both will get old, sick and die, and both will continue this circle, if they fail to abound delight in this very live. Merits are not for sure as well. What ever kind day are. So its good to add more hardship if currently on a  mound. Jhana without insight and investigation is "just" waste of merits.

Yes, several scientists seem to think that Buddhists are happier than others

Scientists say they have evidence to show that Buddhists really are happier and calmer than other people. ...experienced Buddhists, who meditate regularly, were less likely to be shocked, flustered, surprised or as angry compared to other people (source BBC news article 2003).

and

Along with enhancing cognitive performance, meditation seems to have an effect on emotional well-being (source New Scientist article 2012)

However, both articles mention that it's regular meditation that is the cause of being more happy, so I guess you don't really have to be a Buddhist.

Thanks for the links, and I think a lot of scientists would say it's not buddhism per ce, but I really don't know how they separate the one from the other.

@Mr.Concept Separate Buddhism from meditation you mean? Most research seems to have been conducted on experienced Buddhist monks, but the articles I've read are not very clear on what exactly it is that makes people more happy (just meditation or the combination of being a Buddhist and meditating). However, I've also read about school teachers being able to handle emotions and their class better after meditation practice, so I suspect that meditating regularly without following a specific Buddhist tradition can lead to increased happiness.

Your question needs to delineate - happier than who? Happier than all people, even the Himalayan yogis or the masters of Vedanta? I dare you to try and compare the happiness of such Vedic yoga masters to the masters of Tibetan Buddhism. You will see such comparisons are merely rooted in pride of sectarianism. It is very dangerous to cultivate this attitude of my religion is happier, my religion is better. These are ideas rooted in the ego. Better root them out. Be happy with your Buddhism, but keep your mind open to all forms of happiness. If you do not see them, you will.
The system of philosophy of a religion is what compels people to live a certain way. It is the lifestyle they choose to live that cultivates their happiness. Whether you do good because you believe God wants you to do good, or that the whole world is God, or that people are suffering in illusion, if the heart possesses the same qualities there is almost no difference. The philosophy of Buddhism without practice is just empty. You see too many book-Buddhists who know the philosophy but do not embody the qualities.
Was Jesus Christ a Buddhist? Was Krishna a Buddhist? There are so many saints from different religions. The importance is the practice, in ones conduct. Non-violence, love, truthfulness these are qualities every religion teaches. The reason why you see Buddhism being a stream of power is because of its tradition of meditation that is very strong and developed. It is a powerful method of attaining truth and peace for many people. But it does not appeal to everyone. Adapting such attitudes that universally Buddhists are happier is ignorant.
Buddhism may be good for you, and keep it at that. But just remember that what defines in actual lifestyle a buddhist is common to a giant of religion, hinduism - vegetarianism, ahimsa, prayer, meditation, puja, sanskrit, guru, temple, mantra, tantra. You see many saints and happy people in hinduism. So it is the practice that really gives the life and happiness of the religion. It is following the dharma. The dharma is not dependent on whether you attribute phenomena to God or illusion, that is just a label. It is dependent upon how you act.

Edit: Added line-spacing to increase readability.


text:
Why is only intentional action considered as Karma, which gives rise to corresponding consequences?
Consider a situation (just a silly example) like this:
Suppose I'm walking on a road or grass field, and I know there are living beings like ants and other insects lying down on the surface, but I don't have any intention to kill any being while I walk there to reach my destination.
But, as I'm walking, consequently, many little beings are killed by me by stomping on them, though I don't have intention to do so.
Buddhism says that only an action done with intention will account as a Karma that will affect us accordingly..
Referring to this and the situation I gave for example, does it mean that the killing of insects without intention (though I know I'm going to kill them) isn't a bad Karma?
Will I not face any effect due to that action I did unintentionally, but KNOWINGLY?
If that's the case, why can't I rob a house and say that I just did it to quench my starving stomach, not to hurt anyone?
Isn't the consequence of doing an unintentional action considered as a seed that can affect oneself? Why?
If you say I'm wrong, then how is Karma in Buddhism different from that of Jainism, where every action is a Karma?

I'd be glad if the down-voter could be able to leave a comment :)

I agree it is a very bad practice to misuse votes.

Another similar question I just ran through: Karma: Intention vs knowing result of an action

When your state of knowledge, awareness and ability to act reach the point where you could do differently (have choice in a matter) then there is karma. So ignorance is not perfect protection because we have the responsibility to become informed.

@nocomprende So, what do you conclude? When we have a choice to make no harm, then why don't we choose it? Don't we have the appropriate knowledge & awareness to choose to do what is right (if your comment is true) ? :) That being the case, isn't it a bad karma doing the example that I've written?

I conclude that becoming over-focused on thinking about such questions tends to lead one down a blind alley. Do the best you can, and you will keep improving, and everything will resolve itself in time. Your are making yourself and your role too large to have a proper view. You are one of many.

What you say or justify do not count. What counts is your volition.
For volition to give result the volition should have any of the 6 roots (3 wholesome - alob, adosa & amoha + 3 un wholesome - lob, dosa & moha ). When you accidentally step on an insect you do not know of its existance non of these roots arise in your mind, as you do not have any intention to kill. You know you are steeping on insects but as iterated before you do not have the intention to step on them, hence there is no un wholesome roots in your mind to create the Karma.
When you do rob someone what ever the justification you are motivated by one of the roots (loba). Even satisfying your hunger is due to loba. What ever the justification there you know and have the intention. Hence there are Karmic results. Every wilful action need intention, even an action which might not generate any karma like lifting your hand. Your body will not sleep walk you into robbing without any intention or thoughts.
Also I asked this related question which might complement the above question: Where in the Tripitaka completion of the formation of Karmic result is mentioned?

"When you accidentally step on an insect you do not know of its existance so you cannot experience any of the roots" But obviously, you know that there are insects in the way you go.. You know you're going to do harm, but without intention, ie, without any lobha, dhosha and moha veiling your mind. My question is "Why will I not face any effect due to that action I did unintentionally, but KNOWINGLY?"

Updated. See if it is more clear now?

"You know you are steeping on insects but you do not have the intention to step on them, hence there is not un wholesome root." Then, doesn't that mean we have forgotten about compassion?? I'm sorry that I'm asking too many questions.

Compassion creates good mental Karma but absence of this does not necessarily create bad Karma unless to you intentionally do bad acts.

lifting the hand generates karma unless you are an Arahant

Since there are no roots it is unlikely to give any result though Karmic fabrications are created.

No roots? Why would one lift a hand? :)

Say to habitually close a window before you go out. What kind of Karmic result can this have?

habitual(acinna) karma. It may not be a strong Karma, but Karma nonetheless. It's not Karma if performed by Kiriya citta. Only Arahaths have Kiriya citta.

@Sankha That's what I'm asking.. So do you mean every action (with or without intention) is a karma?

Acinna is only on habitual wilful action not on habitual "knee jerk" action. We are all used to walking so in this rationalisation each step we take during walk in a acinna karma!

@GokulNC Karma is intention. There's no Karma without intention.

@SumindaSirinathSalpitikorala Walking is a willful action. ex: If you practice walking like a dog or a cow like those ascetics did during the time of the Buddha, you could endup being born as a dog or a cow.

The Buddha and an important disciple of Mahavira, the leader of the Jains, had a debate on just this topic. Mahavira held that the body is the essential karmic factor, but the Buddha showed that intention or will is the karmic principle, because it underlies words and actions and because even in the absence of negative words and actions, karma due to wrong intention or will is effective. The classical Indian view is expressed by Jainism, but if karma operates on the level of actions, no emancipation is possible because abstinence from action is not possible. It is this view that leads to the excesses of asceticism, whcih the Buddha derided as mere mechanical practices that anyone can do and that cause harm.

Here is the answer given by Lord Buddha to a similar matter...
There were many religious groups and cults in India at Lord Buddha's time and almost each had their own signature practices, Some were naked,Some were living like animals (Cows,Dogs) and many more.All of them had one purpose, Finding the end.
There was a group who said to their followers
"You must boil the water you drink because if you drink it any other way those very small beings in water would die"
 (An amazing early reference to Micro organisms).
When people asked for Lord Buddha's take on this Lord Buddha's reply was....
Yes there are beings in water and yes there is a chance they might die, but if you boil the water you are obviously going to kill them as an effect of boiling. But what can you do? you must drink water.As you have no intention to kill those beings you are not responsible for the deaths that might occur from consuming water.

Here's the answer to your last analogy....
What kinds of circumstances come in this category an what does not?

What is an accident and what is compassion?

An accident is the correct set of circumstances.And you are correct with your first example.Here you see the ants after the action really happen.
If we add another element....

What if you knew about ants before running on the grass?

Now you know there are ants and you are in a hurry.You have stepped on the grass and suddenly you remember about the ants.You see some dead because of your running.
Here it does not generate bad karma because even though you knew about the ants you still did not had any idea or a plan to kill the ants by stepping on them.

What if you saw the ants and still went on anyway?

Here you have lost Compassion and you show no regard to the lives of these ants, now this is bad. This kind of action will generate bad karma.
But there's a catch....
Say you knew about the ants and walked on the grass thinking "Hopefully there won't be any now". And you did not saw any for a moment and suddenly you see that you have stepped on some.Now you panic and try to walk away from the ants but you are surrounded.So you quickly step away trying your best to not to harm any ants.
Here when you try to walk away you might increase the amount of dead ants but you still have no idea of a killing or hurting.Strangely even after many dead ants you are still clean.

So where does the compassion comes to play?
Say you are hungry and you can hunt.
If you go hunting it is bad Karma.
If you let an animal die so you can eat later it is bad Karma.

Say you are poor
If you steal that is bad karma. But if you take someone's pen thinking it is yours (given that both pens look alike) you do not gain bad karma because you had no idea.

Thank you, but that didn't answer my question "Why?". Why is only intentional action considered Karma? Is it just because one is not intentionally responsible for an intention-less action? Any theory behind it? Or can only an Enlightened one answer this?

Karma arises from the ability to know that things could be different. You must have the choice to do differently, the knowledge of what is happening, and the awareness to form a thought about what is happening. This is why animals (and lower) do not have karma. Similar with children and others who cannot govern their actions. Opposite with Arahants, who are wise enough to only do what is needed. Spock's father said, "What is necessary is never unwise." The Buddha was concerned with us modifying our thoughts, not with what happens as we carry out bodily functions (like drinking water).

@nocomprende , The drinking water part of my answer was a true story. the reason i added that part was that it was somewhat similar to the example in the question.

@GokulNC , yes you are not responsible for anything that you may have done unintentionally. But whatever you choose to do is action and therefore you are responsible.

So, the best course of action is to not choose to do anything. This sounds like a paradox, i.e.: do not drink, just sit there and die. But if you are doing what is needed it is not a choice. Drinking water is not an intention then. Arahants are beyond intention, they do not act on it. "Spontaneous Appropriate Action". The tough part is to know what is needed. Which means learning and determining one's responsibility. Which is why it is almost impossible to escape from creating karma: it wraps around and reinsinuates itself into the process of getting free.

@nocomprende , OK here is the thing. Just drop the debate and listen. You drink water to overcome thirst,so it does not create any karma. You boil water to drink Coffee,This does not generate Karma either.   But if you intentionally Boil water thinking "I should kill whatever's in the water" then you gain bad karma because you had the "Motive". It is not a dilemma, Even a kid can understand.

I don't think I was disagreeing with you... I wrote in support of your Answer. The thought "I should kill whatever is in the water" could be a problem, or not. It is not a problem if it is the only water available, and you need to drink it. It has been said that a human life is more important than lower forms, as only a human can become realized, so killing some bacteria in order to remain in the body can't really be an error. If you felt fear about the bacteria, that would be karmic. Yes? I think that a kid could understand, and adults make things needlessly complex, because they are afraid.

@Theravada So, suppose you're boiling water to drink it.. Someone comes to you and asks "Why do you boil it? Why not drink it without boiling?" What answer could you say? The only reason you could say is to kill bacteria. So, with regard to the comment you've given (above previous comment), the only intention one could have to boil water is to kill whatever is present in it. I guess we won't say something like "I'm trying to warm the shivering bacteria". Without intention of killing bacteria, one would not boil water. So, why don't you say it's intentional? How can it be done unintentionally?

@GokulNC It can be done Unintentionally, let me explain. When you boil water to have a cup of tea you are doing it because that's how tea is made, By boiling water. But if you are in a camp,you will get your water from a tank/river nearby and you will boil it.Here the story changes, you are intentionally killing beings.

@GokulNC , There is another version too. Me for example i like my water warm. So the reason i boil water is because i like it warm.Here in Asia we prepare warm water for elders, This is actually a good Karma because we are helping elderly.And there is no killing motive involved. You see,killing germs is not the only reason people boil water. And you can still do it and anything similar. What matters is not the effect but the ideology and motive behind a task or a thought.

@nocomprende , sorry i got you wrong. But here is the thing about this little discussion we had here, It is only a metaphor what we are actually discussing is much complex. And by the way the value of a life as to Buddhism is from the first person viewpoint, In other words "Your life your value". It is wrong to categorize the value of a life because Lord Buddha said "every being, no matter what their condition is likes to live". And it is wrong to think we have the right to use beings in lower realms for our survival.

@nocomprende , This will look a bit different but please read this.   http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/12237/trolley-problem-and-its-variants-in-buddhist-ethics/12254#12254


text:
instant meditation - Imagining things and people in their decayed/old form?
When I see something or someone beautiful, would it be good to imagine that thing or that person in decayed/old form? This idea came to me when I was reading about "Dasa sanya" (i.e. dasasaññā or "ten perceptions").
Will it be bad practice to take "Vipassana meditation" in a mental image form, like focusing on the decayed/old form of the particular object or person, instead of focusing on what I see?

Thanks to @ChisW I found it my self here's the answer
This teaching is called "Girimananda Sutta" and here's the translation.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. And on that
  occasion Ven. Girimananda was diseased, in pain, severely ill. Then
  Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down
  to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the
  Blessed One, "Lord, Ven. Girimananda is diseased, in pain, severely
  ill. It would be good if the Blessed One would visit Ven. Girimananda,
  out of sympathy for him."
"Ananda, if you go to the monk Girimananda and tell him ten
  perceptions, it's possible that when he hears the ten perceptions his
  disease may be allayed. Which ten? The perception of inconstancy, the
  perception of not-self, the perception of unattractiveness, the
  perception of drawbacks, the perception of abandoning, the perception
  of dispassion, the perception of cessation, the perception of distaste
  for every world, the perception of the undesirability of all
  fabrications, mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.
[1] "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case
  where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree,
  or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling
  is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant,
  consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy
  with regard to the five clinging-aggregates. This, Ananda, is called
  the perception of inconstancy.
[2] "And what is the perception of not-self? There is the case where a
  monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an
  empty building — reflects thus: 'The eye is not-self, forms are
  not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is
  not-self, aromas are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are
  not-self; the body is not-self, tactile sensations are not-self; the
  intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self.' Thus he remains focused on
  not-selfness with regard to the six inner & outer sense media. This is
  called the perception of not-self.
[3] "And what is the perception of unattractiveness? There is the case
  where a monk ponders this very body — from the soles of the feet on
  up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin, filled
  with all sorts of unclean things: 'There is in this body: hair of the
  head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, muscle, tendons, bones,
  bone marrow, spleen, heart, liver, membranes, kidneys, lungs, large
  intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, gall, phlegm, lymph,
  blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil in the joints,
  urine.' Thus he remains focused on unattractiveness with regard to
  this very body. This is called the perception of unattractiveness.
[4] "And what is the perception of drawbacks? There is the case where
  a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the foot of a tree, or to
  an empty dwelling — reflects thus: 'This body has many pains, many
  drawbacks. In this body many kinds of disease arise, such as:
  seeing-diseases, hearing-diseases, nose-diseases, tongue-diseases,
  body-diseases, head-diseases, ear-diseases, mouth-diseases,
  teeth-diseases, cough, asthma, catarrh, fever, aging, stomach-ache,
  fainting, dysentery, grippe, cholera, leprosy, boils, ringworm,
  tuberculosis, epilepsy, skin-disease, itch, scab, psoriasis, scabies,
  jaundice, diabetes, hemorrhoids, fistulas, ulcers; diseases arising
  from bile, from phlegm, from the wind-property, from combinations of
  bodily humors, from changes in the weather, from uneven care of the
  body, from attacks, from the result of kamma; cold, heat, hunger,
  thirst, defecation, urination.' Thus he remains focused on drawbacks
  with regard to this body. This is called the perception of drawbacks.
[5] "And what is the perception of abandoning? There is the case where
  a monk doesn't acquiesce to an arisen thought of sensuality. He
  abandons it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesn't
  acquiesce to an arisen thought of ill-will. He abandons it, dispels
  it, & wipes it out of existence. He doesn't acquiesce to an arisen
  thought of harmfulness. He abandons it, dispels it, & wipes it out of
  existence. He doesn't acquiesce to arisen evil, unskillful mental
  qualities. He abandons them, dispels them, & wipes them out of
  existence. This is called the perception of abandoning.
[6] "And what is the perception of dispassion? There is the case where
  a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to
  an empty building — reflects thus: 'This is peace, this is exquisite —
  the stilling of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving, dispassion, Unbinding.' This is
  called the perception of dispassion.
[7] "And what is the perception of cessation? There is the case where
  a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to
  an empty building — reflects thus: 'This is peace, this is exquisite —
  the stilling of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving, cessation, Unbinding.' This is
  called the perception of cessation.
[8] "And what is the perception of distaste for every world? There is
  the case where a monk abandoning any attachments, clingings, fixations
  of awareness, biases, or obsessions with regard to any world, refrains
  from them and does not get involved. This is called the perception of
  distaste for every world.
[9] "And what is the perception of the undesirability of all
  fabrications? There is the case where a monk feels horrified,
  humiliated, & disgusted with all fabrications. This is called the
  perception of the undesirability of all fabrications.
[10] "And what is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing? There is the case
  where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree,
  or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise,
  holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always
  mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.
"[i] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or
  breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [ii] Or
  breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or
  breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [iii] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.'
  [iv] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily
  fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily
  fabrication.'
"[v] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to
  breathe out sensitive to rapture. [vi] He trains himself to breathe in
  sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [vii]
  He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental processes, and to
  breathe out sensitive to mental processes. [viii] He trains himself to
  breathe in calming mental processes, and to breathe out calming mental
  processes.
"[ix] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the mind, and to
  breathe out sensitive to the mind. [x] He trains himself to breathe in
  satisfying the mind, and to breathe out satisfying the mind. [xi] He
  trains himself to breathe in steadying the mind, and to breathe out
  steadying the mind. [xii] He trains himself to breathe in releasing
  the mind, and to breathe out releasing the mind.
"[xiii] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on inconstancy, and
  to breathe out focusing on inconstancy. [xiv] He trains himself to
  breathe in focusing on dispassion,[1] and to breathe out focusing on
  dispassion. [xv] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on
  cessation, and to breathe out focusing on cessation. [xvi] He trains
  himself to breathe in focusing on relinquishment, and to breathe out
  focusing on relinquishment.
"This, Ananda, is called mindfulness of in-&-out breathing.
"Now, Ananda, if you go to the monk Girimananda and tell him these ten
  perceptions, it's possible that when he hears these ten perceptions
  his disease may be allayed."
Then Ven. Ananda, having learned these ten perceptions in the Blessed
  One's presence, went to Ven. Girimananda and told them to him. As Ven.
  Girimananda heard these ten perceptions, his disease was allayed. And
  Ven. Girimananda recovered from his disease. That was how Ven.
  Girimananda's disease was abandoned.
Notes

Lit., fading.

My general opinion is that this would be one way of reflecting on the drawbacks/dangers of the object--namely, the sense-object perceived as beautiful is subject to aging and decay. This would be one way of attending to the sense-object that is producing lust as 'unattractive' and as not being ultimately satisfying. That can't be wrong.
Also, I assume that you would do this in order to counteract lust; so, the question is: is it effective? If it actually reduces lust for that object then it is the right thing to do.
It may be that it is not in line with some specific practices that are called 'vipassana', but I don't see why this would matter.

I found the original teaching (Sutta/Sutra) and it is below your answer. This is a counteraction taught by Lord Buddha. Now i know what i thought was right. Thank you for your answer!

Imagine something beautiful in decay old form is good but that is only one part of mind training.
The other part of mind training is to tell oneself not to be so naive to believe that it is beautiful to begin with.
Both mind training above should be practiced simultaneously for instant liberation.


text:
The path of jhana vs the path of dry insight
From everywhere I've read and heard in the suttas they talk about the jhanas being needed for insight, but as I understand it the Visuddhimagga gives the option of dry insight not requiring the jhanas. Does anyone know what canonical source Buddhagosa was basing this on?

This notion has arisen by the commentarial re interpretation of the (Yuga,naddha) Paṭipadā Sutta. More details are given in the following easy: Samatha and Vipassanā by Piya Tan. Also the modern Vipassana Movement has some effects in spreading this nortion. Some discussion about the Vipassana Movement can be found in How Buddhist traditions are transforming – and being transformed – through their relation with Western psychology by Ven. Sujato
Also see: The Experience of Samadhi: An In-depth Exploration of Buddhist Meditation by  Richard Shankman

It's interesting, that the sutta states that individuals can gain arahantship by insight then calm, so then that calm (Samatha?) wouldn't be the same as concentration (samadhi)and it's also given by Annanda. I can't recall the Buddha ever making this claim.

Please limit yourself to reading only canonical texts (Sutta Pitaka) until you are fully established in the Path. Do not go into the Visuddhimagga – it is only a thesis that Buddhagosha Thera wrote to show his qualifications. When there are nearly 18,000 suttas that are found in the canonical texts why would one want to check the commentaries and others first? Even Abhidhamma came only after the 3rd Buddhist Council. If one starts with Abhi-dhamma first, it will confuse things further.
At the time of Ven. Mahinda arrived in Sri Lanka the native language of the island was not called Sinhala, but known as “dipa bhasa”, the language of the island, and this was closely related to the Brahmi language of Asokan inscriptions. Ven. Mahinda used the Pali language to preach to the people, but used the native language for the purpose of commenting on suttas and it is these that became known as Sinhala-atthakatha. Only a learned individual can identify errors found in these atthakatha. So it is advisable to limit yourself to reading only canonical texts (Sutta Pitaka) until you are fully established in the Path.
Venerable Buddhagosa came to Sri Lanka in the 5th century AC and translated these Sinhala-atthakatha or Sinhala commentaries on the texts into Pali. He was not translating the canonical texts. So as I mentioned earlier, his Visuddhimagga is a text written to show his proficiency to convince the Mahavihara monks that he was capable of undertaking such a daunting task of translating the Sinhala-commentaries into Pali.

Jhana is only required for arahantship. The noble eighthold path is the path to Nibbana or arahantship but not necessarily a path that must be fully completed for insight (vipassana).
At this link, Bhikkhu Bodhi gives an excellent account of how, in the suttas, stream-entry does not require jhana.
Yet to be a stream-enterer there must be some clear insight of anatta (not-self) since a stream-enterer is defined by breaking the fetter of 'self-view' ('sakkaya ditthi').
In the Nakhasikha Sutta, it is stated the stream-enterer has "not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth" of their former suffering. To extinguish so much suffering cannot occur without insight (vipassana). Yet such a stream-enterer has not yet reached the 'world' of jhana.

Ajahn Brahm wrote an excellent book called Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond.
His central thesis is that without Jhana there is no enlightenment, and that it was jhana that led to the Buddha's awakening. I have to agree with him. I would add that Jhana, Zazen and absolute samadhi meditation are the same thing based on focused concentration/absorption. Seventeen years ago I started Vipassana (mindfulness) meditation and although it's a good foundation, it never led me to deeper stages of awakening. When I started studying and practicing Zen especially absolute samadhi meditation as taught by Katsuki Sekida this is when I began to
truly understand the Buddha's teachings.
Katsuki Sekida wrote a book called Zen training (methods and philosophy) I would get it, along with Ajahn Brahm book it definately will help you. I guarantee it will deepen your understanding of meditation and Buddhism. I know in my own practice learning to let go of all conceptual understanding, thinking, and just let things happen, is when the magic appears in meditation, or I should say drops off. Waste of time talking about Buddhism. Buddhism is a very personal practice...absolutely no one can help you. All that really matters is the meditation.
All the best
M

You can reach Stream Entry just with Vipassana Directly (Mahasi Tradition).
But from our experience in Myanmar , with AungThuKha method , which is Hybrid of Samatha and Vipassana.
There we are practiced till samahta meditation and reaches 1st Jhana within 3 -5 days. After it is is fulfilled , we are moved to vipassana , the retreat last 15 days and it is fastest way to reach Stream Entry.