Attention Everybody

Last one - what action can be taken - and who should start the ball rolling - in order to counter the publicity that the self-flagellating “ajahn” amaro and his tribal cohorts are garnering for their cause - they have the upper hand because they are organized and taking action meanwhile there is little to present an alternate or correct view. How and with whom can we become “engaged” Buddhists? (I looked for his email address but couldn’t find it.)

Here's a few others - they seem to pop up best when walking the dog!

Could you please give a brief summary (bullet points) of the main points of the Buddhas teaching from those texts that can be ascribed to him
Twenty years ago I used to visit a monastery in the Ajahn Chah Forest Tradition in UK where the head Ajahn was a stickler for following the Vinaya. During this time I visited Thailand and was somewhat shocked to find several monks embroiled in sex scandals (they were visiting Bangkok whore houses). The scandals hit the newspapers and tv because it wasn’t only the monks but also the heads of monasteries – I was told there was a big scandal every couple of years and then it would blow over until the next one. On the way back on the plane I read a book called “Not what the Buddha Taught” in which the gay practices of some Thai monks were described. All this was in clear contrast to my experience in the West where my Ajahn at that time was a stickler for the Vinaya. So, my question is - are Western monastics more “moral”, or “Vinayic(?)” than their eastern counterparts – if so, is this still the case or have standards fallen? Is ‘spreading the Dhamma” to whore houses still a common occurrence in Asia? Do western monks visit whore houses (in the west), and what about Asian monks in the west?
Various branches of cognitive science have demonstrated that we can be profoundly misled in our subjective interpretation of an experience. For example, when you look around it appears as though you’re seeing things the whole time – but this isn’t the case because the visual stream is effectively blanked during a saccade where your eyes jump from one local target to another. Cognitive Science suggests almost every report of introspection is likely to be misleading. Meditation is a first-person experience, but given the scale of error regarding our own subjective interpretations of our experience(s) and those of others
a) Cognitive Science suggests almost every report of introspection is likely to be misleading – what is the Buddhist response to this?
b) Cognitive Science suggests almost every report of introspection is likely to be misleading - so what value is there in laying out “stages on the path” (for example the jhanas)
c) Given the above what value should we give to our own experience(s) of meditation and what value should we give to someone else’s report of their meditation experiences from the Buddhist perspective?

Thank you! And I apologize for being so awkward putting in questions on subscribestar, keep hitting the return button :( - will have to use e mail next time

Hello Ven Pannobhasa - me again! Just wanted to apologize in case my comments yesterday came across as being somewhat 'caustic' - I suffer from Insomnia and when I start getting down to 3-5 hours on a regular basis I start getting a little "pissy". So, leave out any of the questions I asked if you don't think they're appropriate or feel free to re-word them, whatever. That said, I do still want to punch "ajahn" amaro! Better try getting some sleep.......

If there's still time for questions here's one regarding metta. What does metta mean? Is metta meditation described in the pali canon? Is metta meditation contained within those texts that can be attributed to Sidhartha Gautama Buddha? What are the earliest instructions for metta meditation, where are they found, and what are they? Thank you.