text:
Is non-emptiness empty?
The term "non-emptiness" appears in the literature. For example from Chi-tsang (madhyamaka):

When the sutras speak of "the emptiness of visible form" this refers to its emptiness and lack of a true substantive nature; therefore it is called empty. It does not mean that conventional visible reality is empty (nothingness?). Since the substantive nature is an empty nothingness, therefore it is called empty. This is the real truth. The non-emptiness of conventional reality is called the worldly truth.

I just mean the opposite of emptiness.
Is non-emptiness empty, and in what way?

The substance is in the experience of seeing. The substance is in the experience of hearing.

Since Mahayana Agama contains parallels in the Pali Cannon I am answering using the Suttas in the Pali Canon which I am more familiar with.
Abiding or contemplating the 3 characteristics [impermanence (anicca),
suffering (dukkha) and not-self (anatta)] is called abiding in emptiness. [Cula Sunnata Sutta, Maha Sunnata Sutta] The opposite of the 3 characteristics is perversions (vipallasa) [what is impermanent is taken to be permanent; what is painful is taken to be pleasurable; what is not self is taken to be a (or the) self; and what is impure is taken to be pure]. [Vipallasa Sutta] Hence non empty might mean something is deluded, i.e., conceptual constructions are empty since they breakdown under further scrutiny. Attachment to concepts, review and throughts or being subjected to the perversion is non empty.
Also:

Verse 11:
They take untruth for truth; they take truth for untruth; such persons can never arrive at the truth, for they hold wrong views.
Verse 12:
They take truth for truth; they take untruth for untruth; such persons arrive at the truth, for they hold right views. At the end of the discourse, many people came to be established in Sotapatti Fruition.

Source: Dhammapada Verses 11 and 12 Sariputtatthera Vatthu
Contrary to the usage on perversion described above someone taking untrue and truth, wrong view as right view, something of low value as valuable can be considered empty in this context and some one taking truth as the truth, ... can be considered non empty in this context.

If non-emptiness means what it sounds like then it is indeed empty. All is empty within the reality of our individual experience. Everything that can be experienced is empty of self, complexity, and substance.

From a Madhyamika viewpoint, while emptiness [of true existence] is an existent, non-emptiness [of true existence] is a non-existent.

There is no fault in predicating a negation to a non-existent subject. For instance, you can say "Taking the subject 'a unicorn', it follows it is not white." Or "the horns of a rabbit lack this or that."
There is a fault in predicating a positive phenomena to a non-existent subject. This is because a valid knower can not realize a non-existent reason. For instance, you can not say "unicorns are white; rabbit's horns are made of ivory; non-emptiness is realized by way of this or that".

All in all, you can assert that non-emptiness is empty, because it amounts to associate a non-existent (i.e. non-emptiness) with a negative predicate (the lack of something).

There is a meditation that you can try to do to see this for yourself. If you are able to hold something in your mind like mental image of a teapot, or if you are able to chant a word or hold its spelling as a mental image in your mind, in this exercise it should have a meaning that you know and understand very well, you may be able to find your answer.
Focusing on mental images, even rotating them and manipulating them as your generated image becomes well defined and clearly visible in the mind with eyes-closed. Is just a trick to require your attention.
Same with chanting, there is actually a lot that goes into doing human language over and over again. Not just making the sounds but knowing what the mean and knowing that you have committed to repeating them, perhaps while also giving attention to your breathing, or sensations of energy occupying your physical senses.
There is a possible outcome in these types of exercising that is desired and rather shocking: your attention may or may not go away and then it will return causing the shock.
I believe the task continues to be held by some part of my brain controlling attention, but even though this is the same critical thinking type of consciousness it may eventually get automated out of your field of attention, like your heart controlling blood pressure or breathing.
Where we go during this moment, which may be as short a second or as long as minutes, I don't know.
But it is a place without time or thought, and you don't sense that you're there until you are abrubtly brought back to find this teapot or sound so well defined yet devoid of meaning. If you chanted, you will return to yourself making a sound for a word devoid of meaning and will be shocked by this.
Instantly your normal mode of consciousness will assign all meaning to the image or the sound, or the word. And this moment too, may be a fraction of a second or a few seconds, but it is a moment of bliss as you return from nothing to everything.
The bliss quick fades as your mind scrambles to reintegrate letters, sounds, words, meanings back into well defined and understood to be a certain thing.
I apologize for not know the vocabulary of these states, but I find they are the easier for me to access, and were once very easily repeatable. Also, leaving me with a certain buzz of invigoration and with a number of pleasing adjectives that seemed to indicate that I should move on from this.
I want you to see this because I believe it is a demonstration of the text you quoted, showing:

your departure from your senses and the arrow of time
your return from nothingness to your brain generating attention, only to find that it lacks any truth about your pre-departure definitions, as it hold no meaning and then instantly holds all meaning in a moment as bliss that guides you back to the construct of knowing meanings for things that we create, while understanding both nothing and everything one in the same.

Note: returning to find your self in the middle of vocalizing for me was a bit disturbing. However, I relied on it for a while just as it seemed to be easier to depart and more quickly. I started with oum, and eventually would play around with various words. Always the same effect, no matter how distinctly understood to be a discrete thing in our social construct. Holding images is just shocking to have a clear, vibrant contruct having your full attention, doubly so when you don't know what it is, and then triply so when you know it means everything. Same experience for chanting, but I eventually stopped chanting completely, as I felt like I didn't know what kind of fire I was playing with.

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


text:
How worried should one be about the lay precepts?
I took the lay precepts after a short retreat. It was suggested that we say them however loudly we mean them.
I'm kinda worried about this. I may have over-estimated how much I meant them, and also, I may have said them too loudly anyway due to getting caught up in the moment.
This concerns me: what does it mean to break the precepts?

Precept is a promise or pledge or vow to abstain from certain actions. When you break a precept you break the promise, i.e., you pledged you will abstain but you have done what you promised not to do. You should retake the precept, i.e., promise or pledge or vow to abide by the rule of abstaining.
Also saying them loudly maybe you are psychologically more serious about preserving or abiding by them. Also as with any pledge or promise or vow you should mean it and have intention to keep it.
The abstainment in the precepts are towards actions that are unwholesome. So if you break them this also means you are doing something unwholesome hence accumulating bad Kamma. Precepts is a rule base or ritualistic approach from abstaining from what is unwholesome.

It means your probably making bad kamma. There is no magic in taking the precept vows.
We dont need to be affraid of making bad kamma when we can make right effort and determination to keep the precepts.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Lack of Grasping of the Object of Meditation
I asked a question previously about the object of meditation being faint. Perhaps I'd like to reformulate my question more specifically as I still encounter these kinds of problems, and I will provide the sensations I experience.
When trying to meditate on the breath at the aperture of the nostrils, the breath is not present and cannot be felt, no matter how much I try to arouse attention. It could only be slightly felt at the level of the abdomen. When I try to visualize any object, this object is usually extremely faint and transparent almost. I have the impression my mental agitation is feeble, but also that the clarity of my mind is very dull.
I'm wondering what could be the causes of this. Is it a too weak concentration? Too weak mindfulness? Is it a kind of lethargy and dullness?
How can I remedy to this? Of the possible solutions I've read about I understand arousing attention (which I have difficulty doing), applying certain antidotes as the perception of light or enlivening the mind, or perhaps some other solution I don't know about. Perhaps changing the object? I'm actually unsure of any of these solutions.
Greatest thanks.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might find useful.

Meditation is non-doing.  However, you must prepare and devote time and space to this "non-doing."  That preparation is infact an act of doing in an effort to partake in an act of non-doing.  What is in the process of being done has a goal.  The goal is to partake in an endeavor of what is not being done.  Meditation by it's very nature creates a paradox for the participant.  The answer is to relinquish the paradox.  How does one do this ?  The act, or non-act if you will, must at first be recognizable.  Then there is a calling to fuse the act and the participant into one state of beingness. How does one transmute?  If you were to focus on the 5 strengths that might be of some use.  Conviction, persistence,mindfulness, concentration and discernment can create a looping effect in the mind whereby the one meditating can constantly reflect on how each strength effects not only the current state of mind but also the relation of the 5 strengths themselves.   The distraction of the mind becomes the essence of the meditation.  In order to break through the thraldom of the senses and the inertia of conceptualized thought patterns the mind needs to be distracted.  To have a goal in meditating is not the answer.  To be able to transmute the energy of who and what is currently proclivitating in and around us into what is our true nature is meditation.  I hope this helps.

This is often an issue: you attempt to focus, but instead feel a sense of dullness, flatness, "spaced out" ... what have you. Increasing the effort to focus usually increases dissatisfaction with the results. In truth, sensations come and go, some are intense, some are dull. It may help to place the emphasis on being "receptive" over being "concentrated". After all, there is no point in focusing on a sensation that may not even be there.
Instead of saying to yourself "I must focus on sensation" try "I will be receptive to sensation".
Instead of "I must concentrate on my breath" try "I will follow the breath".
Some practices do place an emphasis on focused and willfull concentration, but it is counter productive to force it if you are not at that stage.

Mental dullness goes hand in hand with drowsiness. The drowsiness do not have to be strong but there will be mild drowsiness. If this is the case use the techniques in Pacala Sutta to eradicate them.
The way to increase concentration is to do sustained pratice of Anapana with continuously smaller areas in which you look for sensations:

triangular area from top of the nose to the base of the nose and upper lip
triangular areas from tip to the base of the nose and upper lip
base of the nose and upper lip
a spot in the centre of the upper lip

Even if you do not feel anything it does not matter as long as you are continuously trying to and your attention is in the area. The success criteria is not that you feel anything but there is sustained and continuous effort to feel sensation in this area. If you do not feel anything do not get agitated or defeated about this or any trace of anger because you do not feel it. Also there should be no craving for the object but mear effort to still your thinking and pondering mind and stay focused by redirecting your mind to the chosen object where by stilling your verbal fabrications whilst seeing the arising and passing of phenomena clearly at the concentration point.
One you feel the sensation, you should scrutinise the sensation to see smallest elements which make it. At some point you will see they are smaller clusters of sensation and finally the arising and passing of these sensations.
Also see my aswer to: Faintness of Object of Meditation

"I asked a question previously about the object of meditation being faint. [...] When trying to meditate on the breath at the aperture of the nostrils, the breath is not present and cannot be felt"
If your breath really was not present, you would be dead by now, wouldn't you?
It's important to understand that it's not the breath which is faint, it's the faculty of mindfulness that is. The breath is always there, always in a observable state.

"And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself?" [...]
"Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' -- MN 10

So if you really can't find your breath, there is nothing wrong about it. Meditation is all about observing and letting go. Just know 'short breath' or 'subtle breath' or 'no breath'. Don't search the breath, try to be clear and present no matter what.
"no matter how much I try to arouse attention"
You named this question Lack of Grasping of the Object of Meditation. I actually think this is the problem. You're trying to grasp the object. Don't grasp. The goal is letting go which is the opposite of grasping. Concentration comes from awareness, awareness comes from surrendering to the present moment.
Understanding Right Effort
Right Effort is key for directing your mind towards the meditation object. Changing your meditation object will not help you, since both problem and solution are lying within your own mind.
Right Effort is trying without trying. If it feels like effort, it's not right effort. If it feels like no effort at all, it's still not right effort. It's about keeping the balance between dullness and restlessness, the middle way.
Also, concentration is often wrongly understood as constant applying of effort, but it's more about clarity and awareness of mind than that.
I suggest you to listen to this explanation of Right Effort by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

"Now what do you think, Sona. Before, when you were a house-dweller, were you skilled at playing the vina?" "Yes, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too taut, was your vina in tune & playable?" "No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too loose, was your vina in tune & playable?" "No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were neither too taut nor too loose, but tuned (lit: 'established') to be right on pitch, was your vina in tune & playable?" "Yes, lord."
"In the same way, Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to restlessness, overly slack persistence leads to laziness. Thus you should determine the right pitch for your persistence, attune ('penetrate,' 'ferret out') the pitch of the [five] faculties [to that], and there pick up your theme." -- AN 6.55

Two little tricks:

Wet your finger and dab the rim of each nostril.  Breath in and out normally.  You should be able to pick up the sensation enough from there to keep your focus on it after the water evaporates.
Instead of trying find the breath a the edge of the nostrils, see if you can find the temperature change at the edge of the nostrils.  The in breath is cool, the out breath is warm, cool, warm, cool....

And remember.  One breath at a time.  Just this breath.

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


text:
Can Buddhism be harmful?
There is the much talked about example of "zen sickness".
But I wondered can any buddhist theory or practice can ever be harmful to a human?
I'm looking for an answer from anyone, not necessarily a Buddhist perspective. Though, of course, I'd be dismissive of anything unreasonable.

i can say that Buddha was mindful of every word he said making sure they are beneficial to all beings.  However, there might be some thing that seems to be harmful in short term but actually good in long run.  For example, during Buddha's time, 500 monks committed suicide after contemplating unpleasantness of body and 5 skandha.  (Buddha often talked about the drawbacks of all things that create sensual pleasures).  Those monks took it over the top and felt disgusted by their conditions so they took the wrong way out.  Later, someone asked Buddha if he didn't see that coming, Buddha said those monks would have taken their lives anyway from past karma.  at least they got some true knowledge in dhamma while they were still here which would benefit them in the future.
So in short,  practicing Buddhism according to Buddha (8 folds path) is not harmful.

good answer, tho i found the implied statement that the buddha only taight the 8 fold path, a little suspect

Buddha certainly did not talk only about 8 fold path, however, every thing about general practice could be group into one of the 8 fold path.  However, you could find teachings to individuals outside 8 fold path.  example, when buddha replied to deva (usually very short).  Deva came and told Buddha there was no love greater than a mother for her child  or first Child brings the most happiness to parents.  Buddha corrected that deva that love for self is the greatest (largest-not best), and obedient child brings most happiness to parents etc.

further more to add to my answer above, teaching of the unpleasantness of body is a step for samma sankappa (right intention-intention to remove from ill will and attachment to sensual pleasures)  for one to remove from sensual pleasure, you have to see their drawbacks .  Buddha taught those monks and to inspire them for "right intention or sammā sankappa" .  unfortunately the power of karma got those monks to walk in the wrong path however, they walked away with right intention in their pockets so to speak.

But I wondered can any buddhist theory or practice can ever be harmful to a human?

Many people pratice certain techniques as Buddhist pratice. When you come across a pratice that someone says is a Buddhist pratice you should try to ascertain:

is this actually the Buddhist pratice comparing it with the original words of the Buddha in record or have you learned the right things
have you understood the pratice correctly and to the enough detail or do you understand the theory behind the pratice well enough
is what you are practicing the correct pratice or despite you have learned the right thing and know the theory are you putting it to practice the proper way
does your pratice fit your character type. Now within the the different meditation techniques there are suitability based on character type.

If any of the above are not met you cannot blame the pratice.
Also if you pratice Insight meditation then nothing can go wrong. More particularly you should contemplate on the arising and passing of sensations pertaining to:

Sensation from beauty or ugliness of physical form and sensations arising from the states of material form
Sensation on their own right due to perceiving something is favorable or not
Sensation due to mental states
Sensations due to mental content

One case of Zen Sickness (Zen Sickness by zen master Hakuin) mentions about excessive striving. In Buddhism you effort should be balanced. Excessive striving can lead to craving, restlessness and doubt:

you are caving for the result or some experience which you are chasing after through meditation. You are accumulating craving instead of reducing it.
you are too frequently measuring your progress hence restless about getting the results fast or doubting the technique, the teacher, and your ability. Resentment follows if it is less and excessive pleasure if it is more. Also you are doing something other than meditation which is measuring progress. Also if measuring lead to doubt you are engrossed in doubting that practicing.

This is a simple tip for your mind. The real Buddhism is the religion which have mentioned by the Lord Buddha. Its the only way which shows the path to nirvana. If you want to study, feel and follow the Buddhism, then I prefer you to follow the real Buddhism which mentioned by the Lord Buddha. The real path(real Buddhism) will never let anyone to a harmful way. You may feel, if you able to find a little time to study the real Buddhism. Friend, I think, the "Zen sickness" that you have mentioned is a trend in modern culture.

ok i appreciate the intent, however clumsily expressed

No offense. Pardon, if anything has wrongly or unnecessarily described.

no offence taken! it's just not a very good fit for an answer on a q&a site

Dear friend, next time try to be a bit more elaborate with the words. After all we humans loose all that we express indirectly once we express our feelings in words as there is no way to express Tone or feelings like we do with voice. Someone might take the words in a completely different manner, Namo Buddhaya!


text:
What is the perfect truth in Tientai Buddhism?
It it well known that Tientai teaches the identity of the mundane and real truths.

In its complete teaching, what is being equated?

Is it equating the real truth of the separate teaching with the complete teaching's mundane truth?
The so called "separate teaching" is what Yogacara and Hua-yen Buddhists claim, and Zhiyi says (translated by Swanson) says that therein:

I'm going to answer based on a hunch. Swanson notes, in his translation of the Mo-Ho-Chih-Kuan, that

These three [truths as] expressions [of the perfect teaching] seem to
  be the same as the formulation in the Distinct Teaching, but as
  Chan-jan points out (BT–I, p. 284), the Distinct Teaching takes each
  of these formulations to be a separate level of understanding.

My hunch is that:

for the separate teaching, the mundane truth does not contain anything of the
absolute, and is only its negation.

As the perfect teaching merely integrates the three truths of the separate teaching (see above quote) it only teaches:

neither existence nor emptiness, and not neither existence nor emptiness.

And, because the perfect teaching includes both truths of the separate teaching, the perfect teaching must include:

existence and nonexistence

All three truths in perfect teaching, beyond words.

The three types [of truth such as "emptiness"] are all empty because they are beyond verbalization

My second hunch is that:

we can only express what is beyond verbalisation to say it is merely provisionally true.

Then the perfect teaching must only state that

any proposition that mentions existence, or non-existence, or
emptiness, or non-emptiness, is merely provisionally true.

Whatever, that is, "existence" is translated as.

The Threefold Truth The Tiantai school took up the principle of The
  Threefold Truth, derived from Nāgārjuna:
Phenomena are empty of self-nature, Phenomena exist provisionally from
  a worldly perspective, Phenomena are both empty of existence and exist
  provisionally at once.[5] The transient world of phenomena is thus
  seen as one with the unchanging, undifferentiated substratum of
  existence. This doctrine of interpenetration is reflected in the
  Tiantai teaching of three thousand realms in a single moment of
  thought.[5]
The Threefold Truth has its basis in Nāgārjuna:
All things arise through causes and conditions. That I declare as
  emptiness. It is also a provisional designation. It is also the
  meaning of the Middle Path

I am far from qualified to answer this question. But conceptually I believe it's not too difficult to understand the Three Truths, essentially it boils down to the following:
First, understanding that things are empty. Based on dependent origination, we realize that all phenomena that arises are subject to cessation. This is because that is, this is not because that is not. Hence, based on Nagarjuna designation, it is seen as empty.
However, seeing everything as empty doesn't tell us what really goes on. So we at least need to know how to make use of this emptiness. We need to be able to turn our ignorance and delusion into wisdom. We need to perceive the effects of the Four Noble Truths, see the Dharma from Suffering to End of Suffering. We need to become enlightened. We also need to avoid the dangerous pitfall of thinking there is nothing at all and become annihilistic.
Finally when we have attained some wisdom, we also need to realized that whatever attainments we have made, is too impermanent and subject to change. This realization is the middle way. That things are neither merely empty nor truly existent. This is the Middle Way between annihilism and eternalism.


text:
Unnecessarily Complicated Analysis of Anapanasati
Alright, I'm having a lot of unnecessary trouble, and would like some advice regarding anapanasati. I've attempted to understand the technique as with the Anapanasati Sutta, with The Attention Revolution of Alan Wallace, with Turning the Mind into an Ally by Sakyong Mipham, and have taken many classes of meditation in different contexts. Still, I am having extreme trouble lol. Therefore, I'm going to attempt asking extremely detailed questions to clarify the meaning for myself, and hopefully others.
To my understand, from The Attention Revolution explicitly and in the Anapanasati Sutta in the form of the directive to "calm bodily fabrications", relaxation is necessary.
Question 1: Do they mean calming the body's physical tension, i.e. muscle tension or the mental sensation of tension in the body?
Now, in The Attention Revolution and Turning the Mind into an Ally, stability comes next. This occurs with the decrease of conceptualization. Yet in the Abhidhamma I recall seeing that until the first jhana thought is still present. What does this mean?
Question 2: What do we mean by calming thoughts? Calming all thoughts? Gross thoughts? Trying to calm thoughts even though they will not ultimately subside?
Then, from my understanding clarity is developed. Personally, in all these texts, I fail to grasp what is meant by clarity.
Question 3: Is clarity a kind of brightness of the object, or a greater focus? Is clarity a more detailed object? Is it a part of the object or the mind? How can it be recognized?
Final question: I seem to have tried to figure out all these things and meditate in a proper way. Yet, if I sit and try to meditate every day, and attempt to focus on the breathing, and I meditating in a proper way? I don't quite get what distinguishes proper and improper meditation, and whether I should meditate or not when possible. How long should it take to see either results or a shift in my meditation.
Thank you for any advice you could give me.

I think you are intellectualizing meditation too much. You'll know it when your mind is clear & calm, so don't worry about it when it's not. There are 5 hindrances which prevent clarity (the 5. one is doubt). Try to drop your concepts during meditation. Meditation is not about doing more or gaining something, it's about doing less!

calm bodily fabrications

Calm the bodily fabrications is to calm the breath. This is not by controlling it but having the intention but not the action to calm the breath. In many cases you don't need even this. It will calm down on it's own.
More on this see: page 35, Knowing and Seeing 4th Ed by Pa-Auk Sayadaw and Lecture 3 in Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu
Preceding to trying to calm your your fabrication you should feel the whole body and breath otherwise this step will be premature. This is you should be able the feel the whole breath as well as you body. When breathing there are sensations that arise tied to breathing elsewhere in your body like expansion and contraction. You should be able to feel all this as well as any feeling even in remote areas of your body like your earlobes, toes, etc.

Question 1: Do they mean calming the body's physical tension, i.e. muscle tension or the mental sensation of tension in the body?

Calm the bodily fabrications is not the same as claiming physical tension thought this also seeds to be done.
You have to let go of physical and mental tension. These tensions manifest as an unpleasant sensation. You should look closely at these sensations as mere sensations without any aversion towards it. For a beginners you should try to divide and dicest the pain to see its constituent parts. If you can see it's arising and passing nature then perhaps you can concentrate on this. Initially even when you look at it the pain linger for a while. Not to worry just let go of this bring it to your meditation object. At later stages once you have look at its arising and passing nature the pain will just disappear. Do not wish or crave for this in which case this might not happen.
In summary the way to release tension is to try to see the tension or pain clearly and closely and once you see it its arising and passing nature.
Maha Saccaka Sutta your body should not be stained. So if your are fatigues maybe try lying posture. Also if you muscles are tensed loosen them. Sometimes you facial muscles may become tense. Best way to loosen them is to smile. Also smiling reduces tension and brings about pleasant or neutral sensations.

This occurs with the decrease of conceptualization.

Conceptualisation happens in verbal fabrication. Verbal fabrications is not explicitly mentioned in the Anapana Sutta but should be calmed before calming the mental fabrication. This can be achived by keeping your attention focused on a object you are bringing down creation of new verbal fabrications. In the Abhidhamma there is 5 fold Jhana classification. In the Sutta there a 4 fold classification. In the Suttas the 1st and 2nd Jhana in the Abhidhamma system is amalgamated into one. The 1st Jhana has initial application and the 2nd Jhana is sustained application in the Abhidhamma system and in the Sutta system both initial and sustained application is considered in the 1st Jhana. Initial and sustained application is what enables thinking and conceptualisation. Once these fall away (Abhidhamma 3rd Jhana and Sutta 2nd Jhana) there is no conceptualisation or the mind does not have the ability to think or conceptualise. The definition of verbal fabrication is found in Cūla Vedalla Sutta and Aṭṭhaka,nāgara Sutta mention how verbal fabrication is stilled after the 1st Jhana.

Question 2: What do we mean by calming thoughts? Calming all thoughts? Gross thoughts? Trying to calm thoughts even though they will not ultimately subside?

This is to reduce verbal fabrication as discussed above. The main thing here is trying to reduce them. You have to have sustained effort to calm the fabrication by 1st anchoring the mind on an object then then continuously reviewing if it is with the object and re directing it to the object when it wanders away and perhaps even when it still is focused on the object followed by trying to see the object more clearly and closely. What you have to do is try and not develop aversion if you cannot sustain your attention and also not crave or get too attached to the object of being able to keep the mind with the object.
Breath meditation does have calming mental fabrication. This not claiming thoughts calming the perceptions and feelings, i.e., you do not perceive pleasant as agreeable and unpleasant as agreeable. In the Jhanic route this is in the 4th Jhana.
Also keep an eye on potential answers to this question: How does one calm one's bodily fabrications?

Question 3: Is clarity a kind of brightness of the object, or a greater focus? Is clarity a more detailed object? Is it a part of the object or the mind? How can it be recognized?

Once you keep trying to stay with the object followed by looking closely and clearly in more detail as per its construction and nature, as time progresses you will start seeing the object more clearly and in detail.
If the object or meditation is mind made then the clarity would of this object. If it is related to arising and passing then the clarity would be of this nature.
Looking closely is synonymous with Jhana in some definitions. See: What exactly is Jhana?

Final question: I seem to have tried to figure out all these things and meditate in a proper way. Yet, if I sit and try to meditate every day, and attempt to focus on the breathing, and I meditating in a proper way? I don't quite get what distinguishes proper and improper meditation, and whether I should meditate or not when possible. How long should it take to see either results or a shift in my meditation.

The worry you are having here might become a hindrance as you are not sure of your pratice. In Breath meditation in most cases you should just try look at things as they are and not control it. A few places you have to be active is to relax body and mind and also calm the fabrication.
What is proper meditation is if the meditation helps reduce your mental defilements. If your pratice feeds into it you are doing it wrong. See Pahāna Sutta which is a short description of letting go of the roots and Avijja Pahana Sutta 2 which concentrated on ignorance.
Also measuring the time to see results or longing for results lead further away from eradicating the mental defilements as this is a form of craving. The results will manifest itself when you have properly let gone (including searching for a result and measuring progress) and not creating any more conditioning / fabrication and past stock of conditioning / fabrication have been depleted.
Also see: Ānâpāna,sati Sutta

Thank you very much for the answer! I do have a question though, when you say "you should be able to feel the whole body / whole breath" does this mean one should practice meditating on body sensations before engaging in the breath, ideally? I do not feel much bodily sensations.

This can help but you can also focus on a pinhead point on the centre of the upper lip and you mindfulness stick expand this to your whole body.

It appears obvious vitakka & vicara are the "verbal fabricator" rather than the "verbal fabrication". As stated in MN 44: "Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabricators". Vitakka & vicara are 'cause' and verbal speech is 'effect'. Refer to the Buddhadasa book you posted.

One would have thought that the breath would have been the simplest of objects to meditate upon :)
Well it is.
The first 4 steps of being mindful of the in-breath and out-breath according to the Ananapanasati Sutta are

Aware that the in-breath is long one breathes in / aware that the
out-breath is long one breathes out
Aware that the in-breath is short one breathes in / aware that the
out-breath is short one breathes out

This requirement to evaluate the breath (not control it), helps the mind be mindful of the breath.
As the mind is mindful of the breath, one will be able to experience one's whole body (sabba kaaya), albeit subtly, as the inhaling and exhaling motions generate sensations throughout the body.
As one continues to be mindful of these subtle whole-body sensations, one will begin to be aware that the breath (kaaya sankhara, i.e. the bodily formation) is now calming or calmer than before.
This calmness is peaceful, tranquil, free from the disturbance of lust and conflict, non drowsy, free from anxiety.

Question 1: Do they mean calming the body's physical tension, i.e. muscle tension or the mental sensation of tension in the body?

There's debate over what these passages mean. See this question: How is the Pali Phase “Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami… passasissamiti sikkhati…” Interpreted as per Different Linage?
In short, it is not crystal clear if kaya should be taken as the physical body or as the breath, and people have different takes on this.

Now, in The Attention Revolution and Turning the Mind into an Ally, stability comes next. This occurs with the decrease of conceptualization. Yet in the Abhidhamma I recall seeing that until the first jhana thought is still present. What does this mean?

In the first jhana, vitakka ("applied thought") and vicāra ("sustained thought") are present. The Visuddhimagga explains them as:
Herein, applied thinking (vitakkana) is applied thought (vitakka); hitting upon, is what is meant. It has the characteristic of directing the mind on to an object (mounting the mind on its object). Its function is to strike at and thresh—for the meditator is said, in virtue of it, to have the object struck at by applied thought, threshed by applied thought. It is manifested as the leading of the mind onto an object. Sustained thinking (vicaraóa) is sustained thought (vicára); continued sustainment (anusañcaraóa), is what is meant. It has the characteristic of continued pressure on (occupation with) the object. Its function is to keep conascent [mental] states [occupied] with that. It is manifested as keeping consciousness anchored [on that object]

Question 2: What do we mean by calming thoughts? Calming all thoughts? Gross thoughts? Trying to calm thoughts even though they will not ultimately subside?

I take you refer to the passage containing "calming mental fabrication". Yes, calm the thoughts.

Question 3: Is clarity a kind of brightness of the object, or a greater focus? Is clarity a more detailed object? Is it a part of the object or the mind? How can it be recognized?

It is both improved ability of insight and the (consequential) capacity to deeply discriminate that which the mind directs to.

Final question: I seem to have tried to figure out all these things and meditate in a proper way. Yet, if I sit and try to meditate every day, and attempt to focus on the breathing, and I meditating in a proper way? I don't quite get what distinguishes proper and improper meditation, and whether I should meditate or not when possible. How long should it take to see either results or a shift in my meditation.

I'm not sure how to answer that. Maybe finding a teacher and/or doing longer retreats may help you on how to evaluate your practice?

The almost universal tenuous translation "bodily fabrications" is of the Pali word "kaya sankhara". The "kaya sankhara" is defined in the Culavedalla Sutta as the in & out breathing. Therefore, calming the kaya sankhara means calming the breath. There is nothing to debate here.
This demonstrates the proper translation of kaya sankhara should be "body fabricator" or "body conditioner", as explained in 'Anapanasati: Mindfulness with Breathing - Unveiling the Secrets of Life' by Ven Buddhadasa Bhikkhu.
As for vitakka & vicara in the 1st jhana, there is no need for the beginner meditator to be concerned about this since the 1st jhana is too advanced for the beginner.


text:
I only know that I will know nothing: can that ever have any currency for Buddhists?
The Socratic / dialectical phrase:

I know one thing: that I know nothing.

If one were to subvert it to

I know one thing: that I will know nothing.

Is it a maxim that can guide practice, in any conceivable way?

Why does changing the tense subvert it?

cos it has a different meaning, is all

"A fool who knows his foolishness is wise at least to that extent, but
  a fool who thinks himself wise is a fool indeed." - Dhammapada 63

If a foolish person were to become aware that he is foolish, there is potential for spiritual growth. But the fool who thinks that he is wise, blocks himself from any spiritual development due to his delusion.

i like your answer, thanks. it is foolish to think you are living up to your values

It's good to be aware of whether you are keeping to your values, but overestimating yourself is what's meant here.

well, my point was that maybe keeping values isn't all you can do. but thanks for the reply :)

Not quite sure what you're looking for. The I will know nothing has positive effects in  the sense that it will allow us to lead life in a more common sense fashion. It also jogs our spiritual side in the sense that we observe ourselves and our surroundings more. We tend to quieten ourselves a bit more and be more humble with regard to the vast expanse that is the universe and us being the tiniest of tiny specks in it. We get back to the basics.
When we realize we don't know something we automatically start asking questions about it. To try to know what we don't know is in our nature. We are curious. A background process starts running in our mind questioning existence and everything in it. This aids our practice. Or rather our life becomes some sort of practice in itself. We tend to just feel this moment a bit more.

There are two benefits of recognizing self-ignorance: low-level and high-level.
The high-level is the recognition of one's fundamental ignorance. This is crucial for the Buddhist process because this is the very first step in the Buddhist process-of-becoming-who-we-are, the chain of causation and understanding that piece of philosophy. Read more about it for more info.
The low-level version is recognizing one's conventional/relative ignorance. This low-level version actually has the most practical benefit!
Here, this understanding of our relative ignorance has the benefit of being more compassionate towards others (as well all the other Brahmaviharas in some way), developing eagerness to learn the Dharma, being more open to new knowledge, being more aware of one's own mind and transgressions, and just overall being a good person because you know that you don't know so might as well do good!

I know one thing: that I will know nothing.

Even at "ultimate-level", it is mostly true because as the Diamond Sutra states, the person who is Enlightened, does not know of a person who is Enlightened. There is no ego, individuality, or a person, furthermore as the Heart Sutra says, there is no suffering, no cause of suffering, no knowledge, nothing. These were all illusions piled on top of illusions for the sake of leaving illusion..

This is agnosticism, a view that the Buddha explicitly calls stupid in the Brahmajala Sutta. I quote from my book, Conversations with the Buddha, p. 22 (see also p. 25):

"The ‘Eel Wrigglers’ (amaravikkheppika), which can also be translated as ‘endless equivocators,’ are agnostics who refuse to commit themselves to any view, but simply say, “I don’t say this, I don’t say that. I don’t say it is otherwise, I don’t say it is not. I don’t not say it is not.” This belief, if we can call it that, is based on the desire to avoid lying, attachment, and cross-examination, which comes simply from not knowing. These are the first three arguments. The fourth argument is because one is dull and stupid."

This view should be distinguished from the view that the dharma is trans-linquistic and trans-rational, although the two views are often conflated, especially by Western students.


text:
Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to those we have injured?
I posted the identikit question to Christianity stackexchange, and was met with dumb silence.
Which, really, I was shocked by. E.g. the parable of the good samaratin:

Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to
Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat
him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest
was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other
side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and
saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he
travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with
compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and
wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and
took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two
denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of
him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.'
Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbour to him
who fell among the robbers?"
He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

'Mercy' can be defined as

compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within
one's power to punish or harm.

Which is very, very close to exactly what I mean: compassion towards someone who you have punished or harmed.
Because it seems to me to be the bedrock of intelligent ethics, I was very interested in if the Buddha ever discussed this.

Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to
those we have injured?

please don't leave downvotes without a comment, it is lazy and disruptive

What is your question? What is your reason for quoting the parable of the Good Samaritan?

i quoted it because i think it's a useful expression of what i mean, and to illustrate i would like a buddhist example

the parable of the good samaritan
The parable of the Good Samaritan isn't about "special responsibility to those we have injured". In the parable:

The "certain man" was injured by robbers (who stripped and beat him)
The injured man was ignored by a priest and a Levite
The Samaritan showed compassion and acted as if he had a special responsibility (even though the Samaritan had nothing to do with, wasn't responsible for, causing the man's injury)
Jesus's message is to do like the Samaritan did

'Mercy' can be defined as compassion or forgiveness shown towards someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.
You seem to be interested in the definition of "mercy".
I slightly disagree with your definition above. If you're able to rescue someone from drowning, for example, then that could an act of mercy, but (assuming you weren't the cause of their being in the water) nothing to do with "punishing" or "harming".
You might like Wikipedia's article on Mercy (I went to it to look for the etymology of the word). An interesting part is at the end,

To be mercy, the behavior generally can not be compelled by outside forces. A famous literary example that alludes to the impact of the ethical components of the mercy on the legal aspects is from The Merchant of Venice when Portia asks Shylock to show mercy. He asks, "On what compulsion, must I?" She responds:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.

That almost argues against your definition: because there might be some special obligation towards someone you have injured.
The corresponding traditional Buddhist virtues, by the way, if you want to research them further, might be the Brahmaviharas (including Karuṇā which is 'translated' as compassion), and ahimsa (harmlessness or non-violence, for example mentioned here).

compassion towards someone who you have punished or harmed
There may be something somewhere in Buddhist scripture, that talks about whether and how to behave towards people you have injured.
Although that's your question I'm not immediately inclined to answer it, because the more important message of Buddhism is, "because you have compassion for people, do not cause them injury".
The basic rules of conduct, for example the five precepts, and the ethical conduct portion of the eight-fold way, are to do with not causing injury.
One of the suttas about the five precepts starts with,

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...

The practice of Dana (i.e. gift-giving or generosity) is made especially by laypeople towards monks and nuns; and not because those monks and nuns were injured by the laypeople.

Because it seems to me to be the bedrock of intelligent ethics
Some people think that the "golden rule" is the bedrock of intelligent ethics, e.g. "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", also known as "love thy neighbour as thyself".
I think you'll find that in Buddhism too, for example in the Dhammapada,

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness
hereafter.

One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness
hereafter.

Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.

Did the Buddha ever teach that we have a special responsibility to those we have injured?
I'm pretty sure he taught that we have some responsibility to not injure people.
I think that the practice of deliberately (intentionally) injuring someone would be likely to have a negative/undesirable karmic consequence.
I'm not sure it's always possible to undo an injury (which is a reason for avoiding causing injury in the first place).
Answers to other topics on this site, for example What do we do when we've broken a precept?, don't seem to focus on restitution or special responsibility towards the injured party.
The practice of the Buddhist "Metta Bhavana" (or "cultivation of loving-kindness") meditation is meant to develop compassion towards all people, both near and far, both more dear and less dear -- and not especially towards "someone you have punished or injured".

Chris, i think the parable can be interpreted that way :)

Chris, that is a good and thorough answer. I will accept it, at least until I get something specific. cheers mate :)

I added a bit to the answer, about 'mercy'.

Sorry, are you saying that the parable can be interpreted as the Samaritan being one of the robbers? I don't think so. If you read the parable and article, I think it's saying that the Samaritan behaves as a loving neighbour, even though the Samaritan has no previous relationship (for example the Samaritan isn't even Jewish).

The original version of your question was, "Does Christianity teach that we have a special responsibility to the people we have injured? Or is it limited to those that are close to us, the very misfortunate, etc.?" IMO the Good Samaritan is not someone who caused injury ... and, he isn't socially close (for example like a "close family member"), though he is physically close i.e. within reach, assuming he doesn't cross to the other side of the road. Instead this is in the category of the "injured man" being very unfortunate.

specifically, the hatred of one group (the samaritan) and the other (the "jew"). :)

@user3293056 See also e.g. Matthew 5:47 ... it may imply the opposite of having a special, exclusive, and/or conditional relationship. Or, "an eye for an eye" sounds to me like "special responsibility" towards someone you injured (i.e. that you owe them compensation), but that (old testament law) is reversed by Jesus (who said to "turn the other cheek" instead), and there are some more-or-less similar teachings in Buddhism.

Yes householder, interested,
Reconciliation is very important to be able to move on, so one should, when ever there is a change, seek after such.

"Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are fools. Bala-pandita Sutta: Fools & Wise People

As it is not always possible, there are placed less duties, but there have been given such for Bhikkhus, especially toward lay people and such is also needed in cases where the monks have rightly turned over the bowl for lay people. And there are also transactions within the community.
In the first case, having done wrong toward a lay person, there is even a detail way how to do it and that such as reconciliation is very needed within relations.
There is a generous work by Bhante Thanissaro on this matter: Reconciliation, Right & Wrong
One may let it be known if details are wished to get known to understand this matter well for a possibility to walk on, since not done blocks one 100% off.
Being that important, follower would ask the teacher and Tripple Gems on each meeting anew for forgiveness (Vandami) since otherwise the "first precept" is broken and no change to ever success in Dhamma. As known wrongdoing toward them can be a matter that leads to hell and cuts one off totally.

Requesting Forgiveness from the Tripple Gems:
Repeat Namo... three times. Then:
Ratanattaye pamādena, dvārattayena kataṃ,
Sabbaṃ aparādhaṃ khamatu no bhante.
May the Triple Gem forgive us for any wrong we have done out of carelessness in thought, word, or deed.

...from Monk(s), teacher...
Repeat Namo... three times. Then:
[Mahāthere]* pamādena, dvārattayena kataṃ,
Sabbaṃ aparādhaṃ khamatu no bhante.
(Three times.)
Venerable Sir, may you forgive us for any wrong >we have done you out of carelessness in thought, >word, or deed.
[* Mahāthere is used for very senior & >highly respected monks. Change it to There for >somewhat less senior monks, Upajjhāye for one's >preceptor, Ācariye for one's teacher, and >Āyasmante for monks in general.]
Bow down & stay there while the monk says:
Ahaṃ khamāmi, tumhehi pi me khamitabbaṃ.
I forgive you; may you all also forgive me.

Extended and usual forms found in the morning and evening recitations.
So especially parents, teacher, supporter, and Tripple Gems: hurry up if there is anything not solved!
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

Yes. Buddhism teaches if we have performed a harmful action and we become conscientiously aware we harmed, we should ask for forgiveness and do whatever we can do to reconcile the matter.
For example, the scriptures contain the following stock phrase:

But because you see your transgression as such and make amends in
accordance with the Dhamma, we accept your confession. For it is a
cause of growth in the Dhamma & Discipline of the noble ones when,
seeing a transgression as such, one makes amends in accordance with
the Dhamma and exercises restraint in the future.

The scriptures also contain the following teaching:

These two are wise people. Which two? The one who sees his transgression as a transgression, and the one who rightfully pardons another who has confessed his transgression. These two are wise people.
Monks, these two are fools. Which two? The one who doesn't see his transgression as a transgression, and the one who doesn't rightfully pardon another who has confessed his transgression. These two are fools.

It follows the robbers in the Parable of the Good Samaritan have no special responsibility in Buddhism because they were not conscientiously aware and they were not Buddhists. The Buddhist Path is only for Buddhists.
For example, puthujjana ('blind worldlings') often attempt to harm my efforts to teach to the True Dhamma but I have no expectations towards them to have 'mercy' on me because they are puthujjana ('blind worldlings'). Their destination of "hell" is already determined by their actions. Jesus said: "Forgiven them Father, for they know not what they do". Similarly, the Buddha taught all unskillful actions have ignorance or not-knowing as their source.

The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience &
lack of concern.
Avijja Sutta

Since the ignorant do not know what they are doing is wrong & harmful, it is not possible they have a sense of special responsibility. They will continue to act motivated by what they believe is 'right', even though they are wrong & harm themselves, others & even the Buddha-Dhamma.


text:
Can the dharmakaya buddha be manifest as human?
It occurred to me that some human life has immeasurable value. Not just is very very valuable, but cannot, in principle, be contrasted with the value of another sentient life.
I think that the term for this immeasurability is the dharmakaya.
Do any traditions claim that the dharmakaya is never manifest in a human being?

I am writing from the point of view of Tibetan Buddhism. Your question actually has two aspects. The only thing that can set humans apart from other sentient beings is realization of "precious human life". This is the desire,ability,and opportunity to take refuge in the Three Jewels of Buddha,Dharma,and Sangha.
The second aspect is the understanding of the three kayas (bodies) of the enlightenment of a buddha.
Dharmakaya represents mind,and as such has no bodily form. It is always present,yet does not change or transform. It is not the conceptual daily mind that we are all familiar with, but rather primordial, pure and clear mind, hence unchanging. It is the basis for determining sambhogakaya and nirmanakaya.
Sambhogakaya represents speech. It is the speech that manifests wisdom in a verbal and nonverbal aspect. In other words, thinking and speaking with wisdom from the Buddhist point of view. It is the ability to communicate wisely on all levels.
Nirmanakaya represents the body. This is the physical aspect of one who is enlightened. It is the literal body that communicates and relates, changing constantly as it purifies karmic influence and residue. This continues until purification to the point of being one with extraordinary ability to work for the benefit of others.
As a sentient being with precious human life,the three kayas work together as one to produce an enlightened buddha.
These topics and many others are covered in Khenchen Konchog Gyaltshen Rinpoche's very easy to understand book,"A Complete Guide To The Buddhist Path".

Dharmakaya is not this virtue. Dharmakaya is the essence of Buddhahood and formless in nature.
Sambhogakaya is this collective virtue that you speak of and a highly cultivated person can "show it off" so to speak in a physical manner.
That being understood, your question:
Do any traditions claim that the dharmakaya is never manifest in a human being?
With the proper above understanding in place, your question is actually about the sambhogakaya which is like a collective strength of one's paramitas.
No one has absolutely 0%, maybe some very very low. If one is lucky enough to be a human being, then they definitely do not have 0% and have done some great good (maybe lifetimes ago) to deserve being human.


text:
Tiredness and Meditation
I decided to meditate continuously, no matter what occurs within meditation. I will attempt to do as best I can.
However, the only circumstance when I feel like meditation would be difficult would be when experiencing lethargy or fatigue.
I noticed that some things usually occur while particularly tired:

Meditation becomes difficult as the mind tends to drift or wander.
Rather than generate insight or focus the mind will create aimless and incoherent thoughts.
The body will slacken and it becomes easier to drift off.

Hence, does anyone have tips to generate more energy for meditation, be it in terms of lifestyle or immediate antidotes? And should I try to meditate despite these feelings of tiredness and fatigue or should I merely abstain or distract myself until I am more alert?
Thank you.

Story about Ven Moggallana might be interesting to you.  He was struggling with sleepiness (or tiredness) on his path to liberation.  Buddha gave him specific set of instructions.  Per Buddha, Last step to fight sleepiness is to actually sleep.  Maha-Moggallana

Wow, sounds like a good practice but nobody ever said it would be %100 easy.
As long as I practice continuously I try to be mindful of my reactions to how the practice is going. The more mindfulness the better the faculties become balanced. Sometimes we are more mindful than other times. Sometimes it seems like we can't get into it, we don't have enough runway clearance to get the mindfulness off the ground.
One is less likely to become lethargic while doing walking meditation and also it gives one added concentration so one could do sitting meditation immediately after with a more balanced concentration.

@Eggman… have you ever tried ‘Walking Meditation’? ; It’s an essential part of the meditation. It develops an added skill, the skill to be centered in the body not only while the body is still, but also while the body is moving. Walking meditation teaches you to be still in the midst of movement, to get a stronger sense of the mind as the observer that doesn’t move along with the things it observes.  The ability to observe the mind in action and yet not get caught up in the action is important. And this is why walking meditation is so important, because it helps give you practice in perfecting that ability.
If you’re feeling tired, try to breathe in a way that gives you more energy. If you’re feeling tense, try to breathe in a way that’s more relaxing. You want to be friends with your wise qualities inside, the thoughts that help you, that point you in the right direction. You want to learn how to encourage them. After all, meditation is not simply a matter of driving thoughts out of the mind. You first have to learn how to think skillfully. Just listen to all the conversations going on in the mind: Should I meditate? Should I not meditate? Notice all the voices that say, No, I’m too tired, I need my rest, I want to do something else. Ask yourself: Are those your true friends? Where are they going to take you? Learn how to encourage the voices that take you where you really want to go. This is one of the most basic skills in meditation. If you can’t master this one, you can’t do anything else basic, like sticking with the breath.

I find it easiest to meditate first thing in the morning. I have a half cup or a cup of coffee first as part of my morning ritual, then meditate for an hour. The best thing you can do is to get a good night's sleep so you are rested in the morning.


text:
What is the buddhist conception of light?
How do buddhists regard light? In their statues the eyes of Buddha are most times closed. Do they consider light a low worthy thing or something else. Newton showed gravity to be a powerful competitor of light. Hindi poetry considers the sun a selfish object despite the sun is supporting life. From this a doubt came to my mind that maybe buddhist regard light as a lowly?
Light has cleansing and illumination quality, Islam stress upon physical cleaning before praying. Does buddhism consider bodily cleansing a high virtue?

The Buddha was a psychologist rather than a physicist or house cleaner. The Buddha is called the 'Spiritual Doctor'. For the Buddha, the most important light was the 'light' of wisdom.
Also, the Buddha mostly enjoyed living in the forest or jungle therefore was not overly concerned with keeping marble temples clean; similar to how Muḥammad (PBUH) formerly enjoyed meditating in a cave & would wrap himself in blankets when giving a revelation.
Therefore, the Buddha's eyes are closed so the mind can be understood internally, in particular, how the mind generates sufferings & how the mind frees itself from suffering.
That said, the Buddha was also a mystic and taught one meditation called the 'perception of light', which can be used to develop psychic powers. The Buddha had the 'Eye of God' (dibba-cakkhu) therefore could see, hear & know what people were doing from within his mind. That is why his eyes are closed. The Buddha did not have to open his eyes to know what was going on the world.

And what is the development of mind using concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to the attainment of knowing & seeing? There is the
  case where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved
  on the perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him]
  is the same as night, night is the same as day. By means of an
  awareness open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind. This is
  the development of mind using concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowing & seeing.
Samadhi Sutta

According to the suttas, contemplation of light is said to and does lead to wakefulness. This contemplation can be done in the dark or with eyes closed by recollecting a bright light.  There is also a key Buddhist meditation upon light "aloha kasina", this requires the eyes to be open, even partially, until the counter part sign is established. (This is a very elementary description, so please Google the term for more details)
Physical cleanliness and hygiene are highly regarded in Buddhism. However morality, generosity, compassion and wisdom are even more highly regarded.
In Buddhsim, material objects or phenomenon,  like light, are not considered lowly or holy per se. Instead it the actions of beings that are classified as lowly or holy.


text:
How integral is the synergetic aspect of buddhism?
I remember reading, in the 1st book I picked up on Buddhism, that it was a synergetic religion, literally, that it combines with (I suppose indigenous) traditions, such as the tao, and bon.
Did the Buddha ever talk about this aspect of (what has ended up as) his teachings?
Are there any interesting studies or way of thinking about Buddhism in those terms, general to all that it has taken up and made its own?

The Buddha clearly identified his dharma as something that both transcends and complements religion, including teachers, rules, lifestyles, and ethics. He specifically invites his hearers to remain associated with whatever religion they have inherited, and implies that the dharma is perfectly compatible with all of this. See, for example,

"…you may think: ‘the ascetic Gotama says this in order to get
  disciples.’ But you should not regard it like that. Let him who is
  your teacher remain your teacher. Or you may think: ‘He wants us to
  abandon our rules.’ Let your rules remain as they are. Or you may
  think: ‘He wants us to abandon our way of life.’ But you should not
  regard it like that. Let your way of life remain as it was. Or you may
  think: ‘He wants to establish us in the doing of things that according
  to our teaching was wrong, and are so considered among us.’ But you
  should not regard it like that. Let those things you consider wrong
  continue to be so considered. Or you may think: ‘He wants to draw us
  away from things that according to our teaching are good, and are so
  considered among us.’ But you should not regard it like that. Let
  whatever you consider right continue to be so considered. Nigrodha, I
  do not speak for any of these reasons." (Digha Nikaya, sutta 25, para. 23; iii 56)

Elsewhere he tells a disciple who has converted from Jainism to continue to support the Jains with alms, and he disparages ethics, rules, and mere mechanical observances as inferior matters. He even warns against dogmatism, pointing out that dharma is beyond linguistic and rational categories.

The Buddha's teaching was originally pure & unique. The synergism occurred when Buddhism traveled from India to China, Tibet, etc. In India, Buddhism also synergised with Hinduism, until it disappeared.
When I use the word "unique"; I am referring to the Four Noble Truths and other supra-mundane teachings such as The Three Characteristics, Dependent Origination & Emptiness.
Of the Four Noble Truths ,the Buddha said: "These were things he had never before" and called them: "The special teachings of the Buddhas" (MN 56 ).

Then the Blessed One discoursed to him a graduated sermon, that is to say, he spoke on the subjects of liberality, virtue, the heavens, on
  the evil consequences, the vanity and the depravity of sensual
  pleasures, and on the advantages of renunciation.
When the Blessed One perceived that the mind of Upāli, the householder, was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and
  lucid, then he revealed to him that exalted [special]
  doctrine of the Buddhas, viz. Suffering, its Cause, its Ceasing and
  the Path.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn56

~~~

273. Of all the paths the Eightfold Path is the best; of all the truths the Four Noble Truths are the best; of all things
  passionlessness is the best: of men the Seeing One (the Buddha) is the
  best.
274. This is the only path; there is none other for the purification of insight. Tread this path, and you will bewilder Mara.
Dhammapada

~~~

And the Blessed One spoke, saying: "In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path,
  neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or
  fourth degree of saintliness....Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers.
Maha-parinibbana Sutta

~~~

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning,
  transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will
  lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these
  teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train
  yourselves."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn20/sn20.007.than.html

well, by definition, to an extent, at least to the extent that you have elaborated on. what did the buddha say about the "uniqueness" of his teachings? that doesn't seem to be strictly identical to his realisation, but could perhaps be so

"Never heard before" is presumably from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. What is the source of the other quote, from where are you quoting, "the special teachings of the Buddhas"?

The Buddha was honest & not thief. When the scriptures say: "I teach this" I have never seen topics such as good & bad karma, generosity, metta, etc, mentioned because these were taught previously by other teachers. In AN 3.61, it is said: "This is what is taught by me - the six elements [including consciousness element]; the six sense spheres; the eighteen explorations of feelings; & the four noble truths".

Did the Buddha ever talk about this aspect of (what has ended up as) his teachings?

Historically, "the Buddha" lived in what's now northern India (e.g. Varanasi) in maybe the 4th century BCE.
Buddhism migrated into China starting in about 100 BCE, which is where it met with Taoism.
And, according to Wikipedia, Bon started in the 11th century.
So I'm not sure it makes sense to ask whether "the Buddha talked about" Buddhism merging with Taoism and Bon, given that this meeting occured centuries after his life.
So I'm answering that, in my opinion, the Buddha didn't talk about it. The idea of his talking about it would be anachronistic.
If you want to know what the Buddha did talk about, I suspect our best rcord of that is what's recorded in the Pali suttas (and the Vinaya), which are e.g. as published on accesstoinsight.org and on other sites including these.
The Buddha did talk about or reference religious beliefs and traditions that were contemporary to his time and place (maybe Vedism, Brahmanism, and so on); sometimes implying some commonality between Buddhism and other schools or non-Buddhists (e.g. IIRC he says somewhere that he agrees with what the wise agree with), but more often pointing out some difference or distinction.
The question (of what the Buddha talked about) is complicated by Buddhavacana recorded after his death.
If you want to ask about, for example, the influence of Taoism on Buddhism, then I think you ought to ask a slightly different question: e.g. ask about the influence on a specific school of buddhism (e.g. Chan Buddhism) ... and maybe don't ask what the Buddha said about it.

By synergy if you mean that you cannot do it alone, and God has to be with you or the universe should approve of you or whatever, then the Supreme Buddha’s Dhamma is not synergetic. The formlessness of the God, Yehovah and Allah has resulted in banning idol worshipping and making statues or drawing pictures of the "unmanifested" being forbidden. There are these do’s and don’ts in other aspects too of these religions.
That said in Buddhism, one needs the assistance of fellow Dhamma-farers who are fully established in the path, and the Devas, (at least up until you yourself is fully established in the path as a stream entrant) if one is to succeed in this path.
If the continuance of the round of rebirths occurs due to Dependent Origination, the latter must cease for the round of rebirths to cease occurring. The way to make that happen is to follow the Noble Eight-fold Path. To fulfil that process, one needs to association of noble friends, hearing the Doctrine and keep company with righteous people. He would also need a rebirth conducive to fulfil the process of following the Noble Eightfold Path. Now, that is where merit plays its part.
A rebirth in worlds of the Brahmas and Devas becomes a very helpful asset to one who searches for the goal of Nibbana. Such rebirths are the results of merits. So we must understand the true worth of merit. Those who spend the time arguing "We do not need merit but only wholesome deeds" unfortunately may end up getting neither.
Whoever is in the Noble Eight Fold Path – the road less travelled, need the company of Noble Friends who would encourage you in this path. When Ven. Ananda told The Buddha that 50% of the path depends on the association of Noble Friends, The Buddha corrected him, saying that it is depended 100% in the association of Noble Friends.
Sadly in the present day and age there are many so-called-Buddhists that bear misguided and false views harming themselves and many around them.  In Sri Lanka specially, there are many who carry false beliefs while taking refuge in auspicious times according to asterism, auspicious signs, horoscopes, planetary objects, and the twelve houses of astrology. None of these have anything to do with Buddha’s teachings.
We live in an unfortunate time where the Asura Forces are far greater and stronger. One would only make one’s refuge in the Triple Gem impure by believing in horoscopes, following auspicious times etc. etc... Tell me how many of us ‘Buddhists’ have made the Sutta & Vinaya Pitaka (the Doctrine) of the Buddha, their teacher? It’s only a handful. We may say that we seek the blessings of the Triple Gem to protect and guide us, but what we go behind and look up to are the politics, the horoscopes, the auspicious times, the Asuras that we call ‘Gods’, and other ‘a’dhammas.  So to overcome these we need the assistance of Davas who are well established in this path. In this way, the Supreme Buddha’s Dhamma is synergetic.
Many Buddhists in the present day may believe that beings in the worlds of Devas cannot accumulate merits. This view is contrary to the discourses of the Buddha. In the Doctrine, there is a meditation called the 'Contemplation of Devas'. In it the Buddha spoke about The World of the Four, The World of the Thirty Three, Yama, Tusita, Nimmanarati, and Paramimmita Vasavarti. These are all Deva Worlds.
A disciple who has developed the powers of a Noble learner such as faith, virtue, learning, liberality and wisdom, has the qualities to receive a rebirth in those Deva Worlds. Such a disciple with the powers of a Noble learner could contemplate: "Devas too have noble qualities that I possess. After my death in this world, I can receive rebirth among the Devas". Thus the disciple with the powers of a Noble learner does the meditation called 'Contemplation of the Devas.'
If one cannot lead a life of virtue and Dhamma in the worlds of Devas, The Buddha would not have taught His disciples how to meditate on the 'Contemplation of the Devas'. Another thing we know is that when the Buddha preached 'The Motion of the Wheel of Truth' (Dhamma Cakka Pavattana Sutta) only one person in the world of human beings reached fruition of the path, while Devas in twenty two worlds of Devas reached fruition of the path.
In Samyukta Nikaya there are discourses called Devata Samyukta and Devaduta Samyukta. When these discourses were spoken by the Buddha, there were many beings from the world of Devas who reached the fruition of the Path. Sakkapanha Sutta in Digha Nikaya (collection of long discourses) shows that Sakra, the Lord of the Deva world of the Thirty Three had reached fruition of the Path.


text:
Is this a passable translation of Dogen's "without thinking"?
His, Dogen's, Fukanzazengi, says

Think of not-thinking. How do you think of not-thinking? Be before
  thinking. These are the basics of zazen.

I haven't, I think, been formally taught zazen. But how does this sound, as a paraphrase:

think of thinking which is no longer thought

Because, taken literally, I feel that it is a very good way of looking at our relationship to history, when we cannot do anything about it.

It reminds me of the unrelated quote: "Behind nothing, before nothing, worship it, the Zero."

Think of not-thinking. How do you think of not-thinking? Be before thinking. These are the basics of zazen.

When one's perceptional faculties are acutely developed and on the cusp of awakening, logical perception will begin to occur before emotional perception.
For example, if there is a loud bang, the first perception in the mind will be, just a loud bang, nothing to fear. The very next nano second, the emotional perception will arise, suggesting fear and panic. However this emotional message will have no relevance because the event has already been cognized logically.
In modern scientific terms, one could describe it as the speeding up of the logical brain over the pre-brain.
By intently examining every moment in zazen we cause the evolution of the response time of the brain's logical faculties.
To be before thinking is indeed a very literal action.
The pre-brain, or animal-brain, or Amygdala evolved in human evolution as a primtive information processor, only emitting a binary response - fear or pleasure. It is very stupid but very quick. It keeps one alive, uses very little energy, but is useless for day to day human activity. The pre-frontal cortex is a far more sophisticated organ, whose response to inputs includes no emotion, only logic, but takes more calories, and has a slower response time.
In a normal unenlightened brain, the amygdala responds faster than the PFC. By the time the PFC gets event data it is already meddled with by the Amygdala and has been characterized as positive or negative.
To attain being before thought we train in faster response and intelligent reponse.
When we do long hours of zazen, by choice-less-ly observing events, we strengthen the nervous system leading to the pre-frontal cortex, and weaken the nervous system leading to the amygdala. Exactly like strengthening a muscle with use, and atrophying another muscle with disuse. In time the PFC reacts faster than the Amygdala to everything leading to a very logical person who's not swayed by the emotional ups and downs of life.
However, this is a physical modification, and can change with age or injury.
The real permanent change is when we also train our logical faculties to learn to recognize and discard the emotional meddling of the amygdala if and when it arrives before the PFC.
Thus even if an event is characterized as fearful or anger inducing by the Amygdala, by realizing no-self we can discard animalistic habit patterns, and utilizing the energy of mindfulness and wisdom we decide on the moment on its merits.
Eventually after practicing this until it becomes second nature, and by discarding identification and habit patterns we are finally before thought, and the turbid waters of the mind become still and clear.
CAVEAT: I am not a neural expert, this theory is solely based on personal inquiry, a little experience and a little hypothesis. YMMV.

While this is very interesting, it doesn't really answer the question, and is not suggested in the actual text. Further more, given that the text was meant to be a universal recommendation, it would imply that the text was directed at general audiences, who do not have the necessary background in meditation.

To me the English phrase, "think of thinking which is no longer thought" implies that it used to be thought, that it was previously thought, but is no longer thought i.e. it is not thought any more. In other words it's something to do with after thought, not before thought.
The way I understand "before thought" is, for example, if I see a tree then what I'm seeing is light reflected off a tree: I'm seeing light after it's reflected (instead of seeing the tree itself). If I wanted to know the tree (i.e. reality) and not just know the reflected light (i.e. thoughts), then I ought to consider what's happening before the light is reflected.

well, is one way to "be" to think of thinking??

Additionally if I wanted to know the tree may be "seeing" or considering the source of the reflected light isn't enough. Furthermore hearing, touching, smelling the tree can help to experience it. With this in mind the pure thinking can play a smaller role.

I had a look at translations of Dogen's essay "Universally Recommended
Instructions for Zazen":

Think of not thinking. Not thinking-what kind of thinking is that?
  Nonthinking. This is the essential art of zazen.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scbs/sztp3/translations/gongyo_seiten/translations/part_3/fukan_zazengi.html
I did further research on the text and came across the archaic Japanese original as well as the modern Japanese translation.
Dogen's Original Passage

箇（こ）の不思量底を思量せよ。不思量底、如何（いかん）が思量せん。非思量。これ乃（すなわ）ち坐禅の要術なり。

Modern Japanese

不思量に止（とど）まり居る処のみを任運に、そのまま不思量底であるところ、本来の相としての非思量に在る。これが、まさに坐禅の要術である。

http://www.geocities.jp/sybrma/235.5hukanzazengi.yaku2.html
Now I am not a Japanese speaker, however the Chinese characters (Kanji) used in both passage are 不思量 and 非思量 which would roughly translates as 'not thinking' and 'non thinking'. Suggesting that 'be before thinking' is not a good translation.
Further research indicates the context that the phrase was used:

These words appear in a dialogue that Dogen makes the subject of SBGZ
  Zazenshin: A monk asked Yueh-shan, "What does one think of when
  sitting motionlessly in zanen?" Yueh-shan replied, "You think of
  not-thinking." "How do you think of not-thinking?" asked the monk.
  "Nonthinking," answered Yueh-shan.

http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60478.pdf
This would suggest that the intent of his message was not about some kind of 'prescience' (the fact of knowing something before it takes place; foreknowledge) as the word be before thinking or before thought would suggest, but the single pointed concentration that result in the falling away of thoughts.
This corresponds with the mental factors of the Jhana, which the the Pali root word for Chan/ Zen.

First Jhāna — the five hindrances have completely disappeared and
  intense unified bliss remains. Only the subtlest of mental movement
  remains, perceivable in its absence by those who have entered the
  second jhāna. The ability to form unwholesome intentions ceases. The
  remaining qualities are: "directed thought, evaluation, rapture,
  pleasure, unification of mind, contact, feeling, perception,
  intention, consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness,
  equanimity & attention"
Second Jhāna — all mental movement utterly ceases. There is only
  bliss. The ability to form wholesome intentions ceases as well. The
  remaining qualities are: "internal assurance, rapture, pleasure,
  unification of mind, contact, feeling, perception, intention,
  consciousness, desire, decision, persistence, mindfulness, equanimity,
  & attention"

As noted, by the second Jhana all thoughts have ceased, only awareness of bliss and other Jhanic factors remains.
A poster here suggested that it could be to do with:

When one's perceptional faculties are acutely developed and on the
  cusp of awakening, logical perception will begin to occur before
  emotional perception.

While this could possibly occur in meditation, it is not suggested in the actual text. Further more, given that the text was meant to be a universal recommendation, it would imply that the text was directed at general audiences, who do not have the necessary background in meditation. Who might be wondering what they are supposed to think during sitting meditation, the answer being not think of anything in particular. (A more systematic way is to direct your thoughts to an object of focus, for example your breathing).

@Adamokkha Thanks for trying to edit my post. I did meant prescience not presence the first time round.


text:
How do the four marks (cessation, change, etc,) build?
The four marks are, in order from coarse to subtle

Cessation
Changing
Abiding
Arising

These are discussed in a number of places, but the English language translator of Kihwa's (Korean) commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment, seems to associate them with the Awakening of Faith in Mahayana. See e.g. p157 of that book.
What I'm wondering, is how this works, how does the meditator go about "eliminating its mistaken function" (presumably -- see them to be empty), if there are no entities to be found in the first place?
i.e. do they study the mark of cessation, then study the mark of change, etc., as if each mark inhered on some identical object? Or is the mark of change just another way of looking at the mark of cessation, without any thought really bearing the four?

quite a whimsical question, but i wondered a little :)

"Turn to your experience"
Simply go as deep as you can go with each word.  Try and apply the word "abiding" to what is going on around you right now, then to your body, then to the totality of your undivided experience of the world.
Try and view the world from a frame where one could catch a glimpse of the flicker between moments.  What is that?  =)
Arising, Abiding, Cessation ... all of these together are "change"  but the wording is very particular here:
abiding is a process of sustaining, that is: something is upheld by causes and the context much like how a tree holds out a branch, whereupon there is a leaf, whereupon there is a ladybug, for now.
cessation is also a process, the translator clearly opted for "cessation" as opposed to "cessating" because it would be strange, but the -ing makes for better contemplation because cessation or cessating is also a process, the process of dissolution of one entity, because whatever was sustaining its causes burned out or the context shifted ... micro and macro terms for the "same thing"
arising is the process of becoming, the process of manifesting, and this is precisely what Noble Arya Nagarjuna illuminates with Madhyamika (or middle-way) reasoning in his composition Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way
For sake of completion to this answer, i'll add some words about arising
Arising is also no doubt a process; that of manifesting, as mentioned above.  Arising, the more we investigate it, can be seen to be a spontaneous (in-the-flash-of-the-moment) process yet there is clearly some sort of trajectory between qualities of moments.
In order to investigate on this level, one needs a lot of calm.  So first ones neural activity has to be very relaxed and near a state of homeostasis, which is Shamatha or Calm-abiding, the Tibetan term is Shi-nay.
Then there is insight meditation, it's possible for some people to really be able to get a perfect brief fissure/upheat of awareness and thereby polish their wisdom, but for the most part, and for sustaining clearer and more open / bare forms of attentiveness, it's crucial and wonderful, necessary and also exhilarating to develop a strong meditation practice.  That is, meditating every day for at least 30 minutes.
Just make time to sit and at least try and stay undistracted for that long,
and when a good settling fits, try and crank up the light on your personal experience of the moment and its transitionings.
With consistency and quality of meditation time, you are gradually making the conditions more and more perfect for something to happen.
Which is why we must totally discard the notion of expectation, and totally discard the notion of happening.  We are not investigating what will happen, we are investigating how everything is currently happening and therefore, ah i just adore the phrase, "turn to your experience."

probably a bit too practical for me without sitting with a teacher, thanks for the reply :)


text:
Mindfulness with Pride, Anger, Hatred
I've recently tried doing a more open form of meditation where I put the least amount of alteration on what I experience, therefore letting everything arise non-judgmentally. However, I realize some problems I'm experiencing with this.

I'm still debating or trying to understand whether one should experience fully all emotions and states or whether one should apply antidotes to certain states when they arise. Generally speaking, which is the case? Which would correspond to being fully mindful?
I am having extreme difficulty with anger and pride when they arise, as when they do, I seem to be unable to keep a compassionate attitude. Basically these states seem to change my mood and outlook when they occur, and I have difficulty experiencing them without doing this.
Lastly, I'm unsure whether this is related as well but I noticed I have a much easier time doing mindfulness when I'm basically curious and aware of everything arising rather than re-focusing on the breath. Any ideas on that topic?

Thank you for any answer relative to any of these questions or all of these questions together.

1-I'm still debating or trying to understand whether one should experience fully all emotions and states or whether one should apply antidotes to certain states when they arise. Generally speaking, which is the case? Which would correspond to being fully mindful?
You can try to experience fully all emotions and states as you apply an antidote. You wouldn't have to stop being mindful in order to do this other "antedote" practice, you can be mindful of the other practice too. When we "experience fully all emotions and states" moment by moment, that is mindfulness.
2-I am having extreme difficulty with anger and pride when they arise, as when they do, I seem to be unable to keep a compassionate attitude. Basically these states seem to change my mood and outlook when they occur, and I have difficulty experiencing them without doing this.
You can be compassionate towards yourself as you are mindful of your reactions to attempting to be compassionate to yourself. If you see you are suffering, tell yourself "it's okay". Be nurturing to yourself and be mindful of your reactions to your own compassion being aimed at you. Maybe you  dont feel your worthy of compassion grom yourself. Then tell yourself "Its Okay".
3-Lastly, I'm unsure whether this is related as well but I noticed I have a much easier time doing mindfulness when I'm basically curious and aware of everything arising rather than re-focusing on the breath. Any ideas on that topic?
Always go back to the breath. This is what grounds the practice and facilitates peace. The breath gives the practice a home.
You will grow more and more weary of everything arising, if you are practicing correctly.

How you practise is your choice.
In formal Buddhism, having 'right mindfulness' means to apply antidotes to certain unskilful states when they arise. This is described in the 6th factor of the Noble Eightfold Path (Right Effort) and in suttas such as the Dvedhavitakka Sutta.
However, this can cause stress if the unskilful states are powerful. Therefore, sometimes we must simply be patient with unskilful states until they subside or until we learn the lesson we need to learn from them.

And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts
  his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful
  qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire,
  endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the
  sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have
  arisen. (iii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence,
  upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful
  qualities that have not yet arisen. (iv) He generates desire,
  endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the
  maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, &
  culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is
  called right effort. Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path

I'm still debating or trying to understand whether one should experience fully all emotions and states or whether one should apply antidotes to certain states when they arise. Generally speaking, which is the case? Which would correspond to being fully mindful?

Both can be done fully mindful. If you experience fully all emotions, you can be mindful during that experience. If you apply antidotes to certain states when they arise, you can be mindful during these experiences. Just remember, when you note an emotion/feeling/thought/etc., let go of it and return to your meditation object (in your case the breath). Be mindful of "things" that distract you away from the meditation object, so that whenever you notice that your mind wandered away from the meditation object, return back to it and stay with it.

I am having extreme difficulty with anger and pride when they arise, as when they do, I seem to be unable to keep a compassionate attitude. Basically these states seem to change my mood and outlook when they occur, and I have difficulty experiencing them without doing this.

If you're having difficulties with anger and pride, stop the arising of anger and pride. How? Observe as precisely as you can how anger and pride arise. If you'll observe precisely enough, you'll see the cause of both. Remove the cause, and both will be removed. In order to be able to see the cause, you must train your mind until you reach a point where you can be focused on your meditation object (in your case the breath) without interruptions.

Lastly, I'm unsure whether this is related as well but I noticed I have a much easier time doing mindfulness when I'm basically curious and aware of everything arising rather than re-focusing on the breath. Any ideas on that topic?

Why do you have a much easier time doing mindfulness when you're curious and aware of everything arising? What bothers you when you're re-focusing on the breath? Answer it yourself and you'll know what you should work on.
Nonetheless, when you see something arising, you should note it, and then let go of it by re-focusing back on the breath. Note and let go by going back to your object of meditation (in your case the breath). You should train your mind like that. With practice, you'll be able to be focused on the breath without interruptions. You'll need this level of concentration later to see the main cause of phenomena arising in your mind (in your case, for example, anger and pride).


text:
Importance of Posture in Meditation
I'm curious to know: how important is posture during meditation? Could someone meditate on public transport, or while walking in different places? Is there a difference in the necessity of posture between a beginner and an advanced practitioner?

To answer your question, yes one can meditate anytime anywhere.  The following might be far reaching example, however,  during Buddha's time Ven. Maha Kassapa was an expert in meditation.  As a matter of fact, he was the only person Buddha compared himself to be equal in the ability to enter Jhana at any time any posture.

Posture is extremely important however sitting cross-legged is not important. What is important is having a naturally erect spine so the mind is alert & the breathing can flow unrestricted.
When sitting in public transport, sit upright, close your eyes & meditate. Completely let go of any self-consciousness that other people are watching you & know what you are doing. Relax & enjoy.
As for walking meditation, this is something monks do a lot. You should try to learn how to do walking meditation (but not in a busy or dangerous place, such as when crossing a busy street in the city).