text:
Self-Worth and Engaging in Detrimental Behaviour
I've long felt that some people engage in unskillful behaviour as a consequence of not valuing themselves. For example, they engage in drugs to numb or detrimental sexuality, seemingly because they feel unworthy or undeserving.
Would Buddhism link such a behaviour to self-compassion or self-esteem? Is there such a thing in Buddhism as instincts of self-harm?
Or, even, can such self-impeding behaviour be linked to some other cause, such as not seeing the consequence of actions or something of the like?
Thank you

The origin of detrimental behavior is the "self" itself. Because self is ultimately an illusion and doesn't exists, and people's belief and identification to self makes them trapped in the cycle of suffering. The "self" can never feel worthy, because it is an illusion and an illusion is always incomplete and insecure. That's why the people who have deep narcissistic personality disorder always need to cause trouble for themselves and others because their identity is always based on the "self", which means their identity is always based on an illusion. Also the identification of the self always makes people have lack of awareness and most of the people are acting their conditioning from their birth to death. So most people literally don't know what they are doing and they are completely under control of the thoughts, emotions and feelings.
The only way to become free from this never-ending cycle is to become free from the self itself. Trying to build a self esteem can temporarily work but it would collapse sooner or later because a sand castle can't live that long. A person who becomes free from the belief of the self and completely becomes free from the identification from it would have great peace and contentment and would not identified with the thoughts, emotions and feelings again so it would be impossible for him/her to act as an ordinary egotistical person again.
That being said, denying the identification with the self is not beneficial either because until a person completely becomes free from identification with the self-which happens in the once-returner stage-the identification with the self would continue for a person. So even that the self is ultimately an illusion, the nature of being a human is being identified to this illusion. That's why Buddhism gives the humanity the roadmap to become free from this illusion. And the core of this roadmap is mindfulness and staying away from the unwholesome actions.

These are beings who are suffering from passion / greed (raga) and delusion (moha). If they are denied their object of passion, they will suffer from aversion (dosa).
The following sutta quote shows how unenlightened beings who indulge in sensual pleasures, burn with sensual fever, and try to indulge in it even more. It's an addiction.
A person who is continuously suffering from delusion (moha) will not be able to see the consequences of their actions. Delusion intensifies passion / greed or aversion, and clouds one's mind and judgment. For e.g. it converts anger to rage, or converts sexual attraction to becoming overcome with sexual lust.
From MN 75:

"In the same way, Magandiya, sensual pleasures in the past were
  painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual pleasures in the
  future will be painful to the touch, very hot & scorching; sensual
  pleasures at present are painful to the touch, very hot & scorching;
  but when beings are not free from passion for sensual pleasures —
  devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — their
  faculties are impaired, which is why, even though sensual pleasures
  are actually painful to the touch, they have the skewed perception of
  'pleasant.'
"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections,
  devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds
  with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The
  more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more
  disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would
  become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction
  because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not
  free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving,
  burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more
  they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving
  increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel
  a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of
  sensuality.


text:
Can anyone explain the hua-yen sutra accroding to tendai, to me?
Can anyone explain the hua-yen sutra accroding to tendai, to me?
I've read a few books of secondary literature on tientai and tendai, a few translations of Zhiyi, the lotus sutra, some of the hua-yen sutra, some translations of hua-yen, some seconadry literature on hua-yen, and assorted scholarship (both ch'an based and otherwise) on east asian Buddhism.
I'm at a complete loss though!

sorry i mean i must come off as slightly simple there haha

I know nothing about Tendai or Hua-yen, but when I googled I found this link fascinating, to put it mildly. The stuff it says about four dharmadhatus and the principle/phenomenon relationship is literally eye-opening. Thanks for the educational question /|\ @user3293056

also makes me wonder where @dharmadhatu got his nick. There must be more to that guy than meets the eye...

This academic article seems on point

also, this SEP article seems worth reading.

i am a student of Hua-Yen philosophies, have read a handful of western derivative works and am currently working my way through Cleary’s translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra.  I have, however, no experience with TienTai.  I know how difficult it can be to find perspectives on Hua-Yen so I wanted to volunteer my effort here, but I need a little more to work with in terms of a query.  Avatamsaka Sutra is a very large collection of work, as you know.
Regarding the metaphor of Indra’s Net, this spiderweb analogy is a good one.  The idea is that of an infinite net with glass beads at every node.  As light shines through the beads one can examine any bead and see the reflection of all other beads in this single bead...and also the reflection of all beads that appears on each bead is visible if we have strong enough perception.
This also relates to a Fazang teaching regarding li and shi.  The absolute interpenetrates all phenomena non-obstructively AND all phenomena interpenetrate non-obstructively.
So, my personal interpretation here is not that identity is annihilated by the light of the absolute, but despite the uniqueness of each bead (even if all beads are clear glass, they may have random bubbles or chips and scratches) any and all other beads can be discovered by studying only one.  But none can be found at all that does not have the light of the absolute shining in and through it, no matter how chipped, scratched, cloudy or colorful it may be.  For me that light represents Tathagatagarbha...Buddha Nature.
I hope this is somehow helpful and if not that you will forgive the clumsiness of my effort.

Welcome to the site. :-)

The Hua Yen comes from Flower Garland Sutra - wikipedia says " The Huayan or Flower Garland school of Buddhism (traditional Chinese: 華嚴; ; pinyin: Huáyán, from Sanskrit: Avataṃsaka) is a tradition of Mahayana Buddhist philosophy that first flourished in China during the Tang dynasty. The Huayen worldview is based primarily on the Avatamsaka Sutra (Chinese: 華嚴經; pinyin: Huáyán jīng). The name Flower Garland is meant to suggest the crowning glory of a Buddha's profound understanding of ultimate reality.
The Huayan School is known as Hwaeom in Korea and Kegon in Japan. This tradition also had a strong influence on Chan Buddhism."
This teaching is the basis of Thich Nhat Hanh's terminology substituting "Interbeing" for Sunyata (Emptiness) - because sunyata isn't simply an "essential nature" of everything. Viet Chan/Zen is very strong in this teaching.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatamsaka_Sutra
Full text of Flower Garland Sutra:
https://archive.org/stream/TheFlowerOrnamentScriptureATranslationOfTheAvatamsakaSutraByThomasClearypdfdtyxxytd/The+Flower+Ornament+Scripture+A+Translation+of+the+Avatamsaka+Sutra+by+Thomas+Cleary+%5Bpdf%5D+%7Bdtyxxytd%7D_djvu.txt
Tiantai, on the other hand is based on the Lotus Sutra. Again the Wikipedia summary is sufficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiantai
"Tiantai (Chinese: 天台; pinyin: PRC Standard Mandarin: Tiāntāi, ROC Standard Mandarin: Tiāntái) is a school of Buddhism in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam that reveres the Lotus Sutra as the highest teaching in Buddhism.[1] In Japan the school is known as Tendai, in Korea as Cheontae, and in Vietnam as Thiên thai.
The name is derived from the fact that Zhiyi (538–597 CE), the fourth patriarch, lived on Tiantai Mountain.[2] Zhiyi is also regarded as the first major figure to make a significant break from the Indian tradition, to form an indigenous Chinese system. Tiantai is sometimes also called "The Lotus School", after the central role of the Lotus Sutra in its teachings.[3]
During the Sui dynasty, the Tiantai school became one of the leading schools of Chinese Buddhism, with numerous large temples supported by emperors and wealthy patrons. The school's influence waned and was revived again through the Tang dynasty and also rose again during the Song dynasty. Its doctrine and practices had an influence on Chinese Chan and Pure land Buddhism."
Also very big influence on Chan/Zen, as in these traditions an idea of Pure Land teaching is probably encouraged, particularly among the laity. Tiantai is credited with being the first truly Buddhism of Chinese origin.
Full Text Lotus Sutra: http://www.bdk.or.jp/document/dgtl-dl/dBET_T0262_LotusSutra_2007.pdf

this reads more like things i should have said in my question, but thanks!

everything is interconnected, inter-related, hence temporal, and lacking a true self. The Vedic Story of Indra's Web is mentioned, but as i read it in translation seems a bit vague. The actual Vedic myth isn't what the Buddhist texts refer to, so it's a bit ambiguous. What I have heard is that a drop dew on the spider's web has the reflection of all the other drops of dew on the web in it, as an analogy of this principle. I too would like more explanation to compare it to "as above, so below" "as on earth as it is in heaven" quantuum mechanics notwithstanding

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Internet and Mindfulness
I am wondering a simple question: In what conditions can we surf the internet mindfully? For what purposes is this possible or impossible?

I think it is akin to going to town for alms for monks. One should be aware that by doing so one might come into contact with various perceptions which may be agreeable or disagreeable and are a danger to the training. One should resolve on guarding the senses and maintaining the perception of abandoning (not tolerating arisen thoughts associated with ill-will, greed, delusion) so that one does not regret it later.
One should also reflect on one's intentions before, during and after doing a deed with mind, body or speech. Thus one should remain mindful of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha in general, not only when using the internet.

"Man finds himself in a perilous position…A far greater danger threatens [than the outbreak of a third world war]: the approaching tide of technological revolution in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking. What great danger then might move upon us? Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing, indifference towards ‘meditative’ thinking, total thoughtlessness. And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature – that he is a meditative being. Therefore the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive."
Martin Heidegger
Speech commemorating German composer Conradin Kreutzer in 1955

As an employee or contractor, I'm paid to spend time working.
I keep a timesheet, in which I log the times when I start and stop work, and a brief description of what I did when I was working.
I start and stop several times during a day.
And it's a habit, I've been doing it for years -- it's part of how I use a computer when I'm working.
The point is that I know when I am "on the clock" (i.e. working, at work, logging time) -- and I don't want to steal time from my employer (by doing non-work activity during working hours).
If I want to do some non-work then I can (by "clocking off"), but when I'm on the clock I use the internet for work-related activity.
This is the best example I can think of of "using the internet mindfully":

Knowing when I'm supposed to be working (e.g. "now" or whenever it is I'm on the clock)
Knowing what I'm supposed to be doing (e.g. because I've agreed the deliverable with someone else)

You could try a similar approach e.g., "This is an hour during which I'll use the internet to study Buddhism", etc.

I think it's also important to reflect after you used it: "Did I use it well?"
If the answer is "no", if you feel remorse about how -- or how much -- you use it, if you develop a bad habit, then it's good to deal with that.
For example there are many ways to modify your computer's configuration, to block its access to any given web sites. If I find I spend too much time on a web site, if it becomes a bad habit, if it's unprofitable, then I block my computer's access to it.

In the high spiritual stages this is possible. Before that, internet can only pull a person down to complete thought identified state. But in principal, a meditator must try to be mindful every moment in his/her daily life.
The best way is not using internet in most part of the day(If it is possible). If the internet using is necessary for long periods of time then a person must bring gaps to his/her internet using. Few minutes or few seconds of short meditations can make a difference. Otherwise internet would completely pull a person to unmindful state, would constantly feed greed, anger and delusion in a person and would make it impossible to make progress in the path. And it is inevitable for a person with such a life-style to transform to something that is very difficult to cure:
https://www.sudosatirical.com/articles/man-loses-will-to-live-during-gentoo-install/
The link that I posted above is the truth If you look around mindfully LOL.
To sum up, the best is not using internet in the most part of the day and the second best approach is bringing gaps to the internet using and doing short meditations whenever it is possible.

Some extended explainings: Googlyana - a Dharma practice approach on internet-realm

Internet realm is a place where many very sensible beings decided to rest. It's a little aside of the whole spectrum of Dukkha but still contains everything for a beneficial practice. Many beings which appears in this realm have no good possibilities for practice and often seek it as a window for their normal recluse beside business as usual....

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


text:
Is Mindfulness the Opposite of Multitasking?
I realized that my use of social media always involves doing something else, and if I am on the internet I might also be on social media. Thus, I am always multitasking seemingly.
How does the mind process multitasking? Is it possible to be mindful of each task (e.g. social media and writing a text) one after the other, or is such a thing impossible?
EDIT: By one after the other I mean for a short amount of time, going back and forth between the tasks.

Mindfulness(Sati) and one-pointedness(Samadhi) are 2 different things. Technically speaking, the mind cannot take multiple objects at once. So there is no such thing as multitasking with the mind. You feel like you are multitasking because the mind keeps switching so fast. So it is possible to be mindful while you are on so called 'multitasking'.
On the other hand, in the realm of mindfulness, the internet does not exist! Social media does not exist! 'I' does not exist! There are only four types of mindfulness: mindfulness of the body, mindfulness of sensations, mindfulness of mental activities and mindfulness of phenomena. So be careful of what you consider as 'mindfulness'.

Exactly correct what you've said sir! "So there is no such thing as multitasking with the mind." +1 Sir, I've heard that more bhavanga citta are arisen in between citta veeti in an ordinary being. That's why we feel we are slower than others who are spiritually in a higher level than us. And also I've heard that Lord Buddha was/is/will be able to switch between two Jhana with one bhavanga citta in between. That's the reason for only Lord Buddha can do Yamaka pātihāriya (The Twin Miracle). Am I correct?

Not sure about that @Damith. But I've heard that the Buddha is able to attain the Jhanas between each word he speaks. Bhavanga cittas are results of your birth Karma. So I'd think that the quality of the Bhavanga cittas and the level of intelligence you possess at birth has something to do with the strength of the birth(janaka) Karma. But that is something we cannot change now. So I would say Panca Nivirana(five hindrances) are the main reason to slow down a person's spiritual progress.

I'm just wondering: what exactly is entailed by 'phenomena' for that type of mindfulness?

Buddhism aside, your representation of human mind is nonsense. You basically claim that the brain is a single CPU doing time sharing based multitasking. This is completely and utterly wrong. Human brain is a massively parallel system, more similar to the Internet than a single CPU. It ABSOLUTELY does not work by assigning time slices to individual thoughts, it is running millions of process independently in parallel.

@Eggman 'Phenomena' here refers to 'Dhammas'. There's no completely accurate English word to capture the meaning of this word. You could also translate it as realities. This category contains many groups of mindfulness objects. Ex: the 5 hindrances, the 6 senses, 5 aggregates, 7 factors of enlightenment etc.

@Davor the brain does not exist in the realm of mindfulness

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

I'm multitasking right now, spinning disks on Dharmawheel Media Music thread, and writing on one of my favorite topics. Multitasking puts things in a stereo or synesthesia effect, it's why you can't remember even how you got there later, it's the conjunction of several streams of experience at once. It's got an important value at the opposite end of the spectrum and is maybe just as important as sati in my opinion.
Sati, often translated as "Mindfulness" actually only means "remember". Remember the breath. Remember to look both ways when crossing the street. Remember your order of operations in maths. It's not a mental function we don't already possess. What's unique in Buddhist meditation is remembering what? The object of meditation. It's a single thing. It's using the object to exercise the remembering. This is how rigorous training in sati leads directly to insight and Wisdom, because it trains us in remembering the Dhamma, and it's lessons. Useless to an untrained mind.
But back to multitasking for a minute: it is the corollary of play, what we did as children. When we were children, we exercised the ability to lose ourselves in play, which is essentially shedding the ego. Nothing in the Dhamma is without the elements we have in ordinary life, but it is having them discipline us in skillful means. Gradually, everything becomes the Path, because it is the Path.
In the Rose-Apple story, both sati and play are elements leading to jhana. Eventually, Siddhartha remembered this.
MN 36 PTS: M i 237
Maha-Saccaka Sutta: The Longer Discourse to Saccaka translated from the Pali by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?'
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036.than.html

The mind can't take multiple objects simultaneously. But the ordinary mode of the human mind is to try to do everything at once, be restless and go to the future as soon as possible. That's why ordinary human mind is in the confusion mode and is stressfull, suffering most of the time. Humans must do simpler things and must do things slowly. Humans are living in such a way that is completely out of the ability of human body and mind, that's why human suffering is increased in the last centuries and especially with the internet and with the increase of using technology. The abrupt climate change with it's catastrophic results is also a great proof that the "normal" way of living is insane and not suitable for humans and the world.
Mindfulness is knowing that ordinary human mind is crazy, therefore, do one thing at a time without trying to finish it.(If the desire to finish the task arises then observing the desire to not get into the restless mode again).
Also mindfulness leads people to take part of their attention to within body(but it transcends the "physical" body because the physical body is just a concept)-no matter what they are doing. In the high spiritual stages this becomes continous and is natural/spontaneous but it can't be described as multitasking because it is the most natural/ordinary thing and it must be all of the humans ability-in order to get out of the ordinary human suffering mode and to have peace and happiness all the time.

I am wondering if this could reply to my question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/35948/samatha-while-studying?noredirect=1#comment61642_35948

Honestly, I don't believe so, because the concept of multi-tasking is fundamentally at odds with the concept of single-pointed concentration. It's impossible to truly be mindful of the present task if at least part of your focus is on whatever the other task(s) are. (If you could be, then you wouldn't really be multi-tasking.)

I read elsewhere that, when you're supposed to be doing something and you do something else instead, then the cause for that (doing something else) may be an unwillingness or inability to handle a "bad mood".
For example:

You're supposed to be "on-task" (whatever that task is).
Something happens -- e.g. you reach a difficult or repetitive bit of the task, or something you tried didn't work, or a subtask which you were enjoying ended, or you start on a new bit where you risk failure
That "something" threatens a bad mood -- e.g. anxiety, failure, boredom, social conflict
To avoid that you switch to something else (e.g. social media) which you find (or used to find) easy and relatively or reliably "rewarding" -- e.g. because you enjoy it, or because it's non-threatening

If that's so, then doing social media -- in order to unconsciously avoid a mood like anxiety or boredom -- maybe wouldn't be considered "mindful".
And it's not "multi-tasking", it's "half-tasking" -- i.e. instead of staying on-task full-time, you switch away or switch off frequently, in order to try to replenish or to sustain your mood with input from (i.e. depending on) interacting with social media.
Also, in a Buddhist context, the word "mindfulness" might imply a mindfulness of something -- "mindfulness of breathing", for example. I find that if I'm absorbed in a task then I don't notice, I'm not paying attention to, other things. If you engage with social media perhaps that's instead of being mindful of whatever it is you ought to remain mindful of -- for example the main task, and/or some Buddhist doctrine, and/or breathing -- if you're engaged in a task and encounter an emotional setback, e.g. some anxiety, perhaps it's better to keep breathing for a little while, than to turn your attention to social media.

Supposing one multitsasks with social media from loneliness, would waiting things out make such socially-oriented states pass?

From DN22, we have:

Furthermore, a mendicant acts with situational awareness when going out and coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl, and robes; when eating, drinking, chewing, and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking, and keeping silent.

In this manner, one can practice Right Mindfulness in situations encompassing many tasks.
First consider that if I am studying a sutta while driving, that would be wrong mindfulness.
However, if study the sutta by simultaneously searching many websites, having conversations on different forums with many people that all converge towards the goal of right understanding of that sutta, then that would be right mindfulness.
In this way multi-tasking is fine in some situations.

good point but I am not convinced. But is difficult to me to elaborate the reasons why I do not fully agree, Maybe would be better find a priority  and be in that priority and then select one web site per time


text:
Sutta request: dedication of offerings in another ones name
This is a request for sutta references.
I'd like to know the sutta's that describe how one can dedicate offerings in the name of a dearly departed one so that (s)he can, hopefully, have a better rebirth.
Does anyone know of sutta's describing dedicating of offerings?
Thanks.

AN 10.177 could be what you're looking for, in addition to Tirokudda Kanda.
From AN 10.177:

Then Janussonin the brahman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival,
  exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly
  greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there,
  he said to the Blessed One, "Master Gotama, you know that we brahmans
  give gifts, make offerings, [saying,] 'May this gift accrue to our
  dead relatives. May our dead relatives partake of this gift.' Now,
  Master Gotama, does that gift accrue to our dead relatives? Do our
  dead relatives partake of that gift?"
"In possible places, brahman, it accrues to them, but not in
  impossible places."
"And which, Master Gotama, are the possible places? Which are the
  impossible places?"
"There is the case, brahman, where a certain person takes life, takes
  what is not given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false
  speech, engages in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages
  in idle chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views.
  With the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in hell. He
  lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of
  hell-beings. This is an impossible place for that gift to accrue to
  one staying there.
"Then there is the case where a certain person takes life, takes what
  is not given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false speech,
  engages in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages in idle
  chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views. With the
  break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the animal womb. He
  lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of
  common animals. This, too, is an impossible place for that gift to
  accrue to one staying there.
"Then there is the case where a certain person refrains from taking
  life, refrains from taking what is not given, refrains from sensual
  misconduct, refrains from false speech, refrains from divisive speech,
  refrains from abusive speech, refrains from idle chatter, is not
  covetous, bears no ill will, and has right views. With the break-up of
  the body, after death, he reappears in the company of human beings. He
  lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of
  human beings. This, too, is an impossible place for that gift to
  accrue to one staying there.
"Then there is the case where a certain person refrains from taking
  life, refrains from taking what is not given, refrains from sensual
  misconduct, refrains from false speech, refrains from divisive speech,
  refrains from abusive speech, refrains from idle chatter, is not
  covetous, bears no ill will, and has right views. With the break-up of
  the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the devas. He
  lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of
  devas. This, too, is an impossible place for that gift to accrue to
  one staying there.
"Then there is the case where a certain person takes life, takes what
  is not given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false speech,
  engages in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages in idle
  chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views. With the
  break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the realms of the
  hungry shades. He lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever
  is the food of hungry shades. He lives there, he remains that, by
  means of whatever his friends or relatives give in dedication to him.
  This is the possible place for that gift to accrue to one staying
  there.
"But, Master Gotama, if that dead relative does not reappear in that
  possible place, who partakes of that gift?"
"Other dead relatives, brahman, who have reappeared in that possible
  place."
"But, Master Gotama, if that dead relative does not reappear in that
  possible place, and other dead relatives have not reappeared in that
  possible place, then who partakes of that gift?"
"It's impossible, brahman, it cannot be, that over this long time that
  possible place is devoid of one's dead relatives. But at any rate,
  the donor does not go without reward.
"Does Master Gotama describe any preparation for the impossible
  places?"
"Brahman, I do describe a preparation for the impossible places. There
  is the case where a certain person takes life, takes what is not
  given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false speech, engages
  in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages in idle
  chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views. But he
  gives food, drink, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, creams, bed,
  lodging, & lamps to brahmans & contemplatives. With the break-up of
  the body, after death, he reappears in the company of elephants. There
  he receives food, drink, flowers, & various ornaments. It's because he
  took life, took what is not given, engaged in sensual misconduct,
  engaged in false speech, engaged in divisive speech, engaged in
  abusive speech, engaged in idle chatter, was covetous, bore ill will,
  and had wrong views that he reappears in the company of elephants. But
  it's because he gave food, drink, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents,
  creams, bed, lodging, & lamps to brahmans & contemplatives that he
  receives food, drink, flowers, & various ornaments.
"Then there is the case where a certain person takes life... has wrong
  views. But he gives food... lamps to brahmans & contemplatives. With
  the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of
  horses... in the company of cattle... in the company of poultry. There
  he receives food, drink, flowers, & various ornaments. It's
  because he took life... and had wrong views that he reappears in the
  company of poultry. But it's because he gave food, drink... & lamps to
  brahmans & contemplatives that he receives food, drink, flowers, &
  various ornaments.
"Then there is the case where a certain person refrains from taking
  life, refrains from taking what is not given, refrains from sensual
  misconduct, refrains from false speech, refrains from divisive speech,
  refrains from abusive speech, refrains from idle chatter, is not
  covetous, bears no ill will, and has right views. And he gives food,
  drink, cloth, vehicles, garlands, scents, creams, bed, lodging, &
  lamps to brahmans & contemplatives. With the break-up of the body,
  after death, he reappears in the company of human beings. There he
  experiences the five strings of human sensuality [delightful sights,
  sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations]. It's because he refrained
  from taking what is not given, refrained from sensual misconduct,
  refrained from false speech, refrained from divisive speech, refrained
  from abusive speech, refrained from idle chatter, was not covetous,
  bore no ill will, and had right views that he reappears in the company
  of human beings. And it's because he gave food, drink, cloth,
  vehicles, garlands, scents, creams, bed, lodging, & lamps to brahmans
  & contemplatives that he experiences the five strings of human
  sensuality.
"Then there is the case where a certain person refrains from taking
  life... and has right views. And he gives food, drink, cloth,
  vehicles, garlands, scents, creams, bed, lodging, & lamps to brahmans
  & contemplatives. With the break-up of the body, after death, he
  reappears in the company of devas. There he experiences the five
  strings of divine sensuality [delightful sights, sounds, smells,
  tastes, tactile sensations]. It's because he refrained from taking
  what is not given... and had right views that he reappears in the
  company of devas. And it's because he gave food, drink, cloth,
  vehicles, garlands, scents, creams, bed, lodging, & lamps to brahmans
  & contemplatives that he experiences the five strings of divine
  sensuality. But at any rate, brahman, the donor does not go without
  reward."
"It's amazing, Master Gotama, it's astounding, how it's enough to make
  one want to give a gift, enough to make one want to make an offering,
  where the donor does not go without reward."
"That's the way it is, brahman. That's the way it is. The donor does
  not go without reward."
"Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent! Just as if he were to place
  upright what was overturned, to reveal what was hidden, to show the
  way to one who was lost, or to carry a lamp into the dark so that
  those with eyes could see forms, in the same way has Master Gotama —
  through many lines of reasoning — made the Dhamma clear. I go to
  Master Gotama for refuge, to the Dhamma, & to the community of monks.
  May Master Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone to him
  for refuge, from this day forward, for life."

Thank you, that sutta contains indeed useful additional info.

This being a gift of devoted and faithful ancestors of yours, having it once dedicated that you might be able to nourish and grow to a better with it:
The most common, (guessing Nyom Medhini asked with kusala and devoted heart) is: 7. Tirokudda Kanda — Hungry Shades Outside the Walls
If further understanding is searched anonymously like a hungry shadow, may it be understood to be dedicated toward the many donors lost ancestors behind the walls: [Q&A] Hungry ghosts and food offerings to the dead and Sharing merits - Freude teilen (pattanumodana & pattidana) [Forum Guide]
Common one tries to reach ones departed ancestors in states where they could rejoice with ones deeds and so it might be that they find better rebirth. That is why there are made certain funeral fests and long ceremonies. The dedication toward the Sangha "secures" that they might meet the Sangha in other existences and with it the Dhamma at later time, and by nourishing it"s existence, making each other familiar, Nissaya and possible meeting increases.
Dedication for and offerings toward the ancestors is one of the laymans duties, if wishing after good and better.
Good if being aware of the many goodness many did by sacrifices for you and use it for good and best, never hurting or harming, misguiding others and become another of the Sages step by step. Anumodana! and Mudita.
So powerful is this,
    the accomplishment of merit.
Thus the wise, the prudent,
    praise the fund of merit
    already made.
In the case one or another has a hard to nourish and swallow it: Not having done merits in the past, even if given by ones previous beloved, one would be incapable to receive/take it. Something to think about if possible to do.
(Note that it is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, although hungry ghosts are incapable even for such, but for getting out of bondages)

Thanks. It got me started; meaning using your links I could find some English texts that are useful for me.


text:
Nature of Aversion
I was reading this answer, in which an essay is cited. In this essay, Freedom From Fear, an example is given of a hunted deer which experiences anger, and thus aversion. In contrast, the desire to escape isn't aversion, but considered potentially skillful.
I have always thought aversion involves aversive states such as avoidance from painful experiences.
Is aversion strictly about anger, and irritation? Does it have nothing to do with avoidance (though the English term somewhat suggests this)?
In sum, I wonder what the nature of aversion actually entails and encompasses.

Both fear and disliking are unskillful as they are forms of aversion. However there is a mental state which appears as fear or disliking, but it is a form of wisdom that understands the danger of something.
Ex: if you have the knowledge that a hot iron will burn your hand if touched directly, you are not going to touch it directly. But you do not have a fear or a disliking towards hot iron. The driving force there is wisdom. This is indeed skillful.

Like desire (and aversion is just the other side of the same issue=tanha & avijja), aversion is required for the path. The matter is just for what desire, for what aversion. Nyom has a lot of aversion to listen, since this question was similar raised some times ago...
What, if I hold on, will be for may long term benefit...? and vici versa. As long as not asking serious such and listen, there will be steady aversion toward useful for long term happiness.
Does Nyom see the fool behind, the nature of aversion (and greed)? The "not-knower"?

Truly, friends, for the arising of greed these two are the cause. Which two? An agreeable object and unwise (conceit) thinking.
Truly, friends, for the arising of aversion these two are the cause. Which two? An disagreeable (or fading of agreeable)1 object and unwise (conceit) thinking.

1: (Sadhu for the imput Nyom Chris!)

I think there's a mistake in the quote: it says that an "agreeable" object causes the arising of aversion (which matches e.g. this translation), however here in verse 124 it's Paṭighanimittañca (which Ven. Sujato translates as "feature of harshness") not Subhanimittañca.

Is aversion strictly about anger, and irritation? Does it have nothing to do with avoidance (though the English term somewhat suggests this)?
No, desire and aversion should both be understood in an abstract sense, sort of like the magnet's attract and repel forces.
Aversion includes avoidance as well as an overall negative attitude towards something.
Of course, as Samana Johan correctly said, aversion is just the other side of attraction (or attachment. Again, understood abstractly). We usually avoid something because we're attached to its opposite. Something like that.
In Mahayana, the nature of aversion (as well as desire) is understood to be reification or ignorant generalization. We feel aversion to the lump, once it is analyzed into its underlying causes and processes and we understand why it looks/works that way, in that frame of reference the aversion is gone.

There's some doctrine about the three poisons, which is quite neat: i.e. desire on the one hand, aversion on the other -- a pleasant symmetry.
(I think these two, might be the two 'mice' in the zen story of the tiger and the strawberry).
I wouldn't be surprised if "the three poisons" feature in the Pali canon, even so I think that in the suttas "aversion" maybe takes a back seat compared to "desire" -- i.e. it's not a big part of the doctrine -- the suttas mostly talk about desire (and ignorance, wrong view, conceit, and so on) as the problem, rather than aversion.
Also I think people don't agree on exactly what vibhava-taṇhā means -- but if "aversion" is in the four noble truths, it's not there explicitly or literally so I guess it's either implicit in dukkha or implicit in vibhava-taṇhā (and I think it's the latter).
My guess, my personal impression, is that maybe doctrines abut "aversion" were more fully developed in later forms of Buddhism, and the suttas found it sufficient to teach about desire and so on (except to teach a "middle way" doctrine instead of asceticism -- and, separately i.e. in the vinaya, a lot of discipline!).
Note there are several Pali words for desire or greed (i.e. tanha and raga which are invariably bad, and chanda which might be a desire for something wholesome). Anyway all three of these words appear in e.g. this abbreviated glossary, but dosa (i.e. "aversion") isn't there.
A dictionary entry like this translates it as,

dosa
(m.) ill will, evil intention, hostility, anger.
(mfn.) exhibiting ill will, hostile, angry.

I think the way to understand it is that if raga is a desire to keep, to increase, to continue (an experience), then dosa is the opposite in the sense that it's a desire to be rid of, to decrease, to end.
It's negative (advesha or adosa) seems to be defined as "non-aggression":

Advesha (Sanskrit; Pali: adosa; Tibetan Wylie: zhes sdang med pa) is a Buddhist term translated as "non-aggression" or "non-hatred". It is defined as the absence of an aggressive attitude towards someone or something that causes pain. It is one of the mental factors within the Abhidharma teachings.
The Abhidharma-samuccaya states:

What is advesha? It is the absence of the intention to harm sentient beings, to quarrel with frustrating situations, and to inflict suffering on those who are the cause of frustration. It functions as a basis for not getting involved with unwholesome behavior.

I think my definition (i.e. wanting an unpleasant experience to end) fits with this kind of observation.
The answers to the other topic tagged aversion -- i.e. Aversion and Mahayana -- suggest other aspects to aversion, for example:

Conceit ("I am better than they are")
Some kind of unwillingness ("I don't want to get involved")
Suffering ("I am feeble and ill")
Desire ("I wish I could be with other people at the festival instead of being alone in the forest")

The nature of aversion is the hidden energy that lives in human's subconscious mind. There are some low-frequency energies, tendencies, desires in each human's subconscious mind that causes aversion, stress, unhappiness, anger, fear, restlessness, boredom and even the desire for sensuality. The root of these emotions, feelings and desires are not seperate from the human history(and pre-human lifes). If you look to the human history you can at least have intellectual understanding of the nature of the human emotions and why they have such negative effect on most of the humans lifes. That's why most of the humans life can be easily described as "unhappy life" and the human civlisation/human created world is just the expression of this tendencies of the humans.
The only way to become free from this suffering cycle is to realize Nibbana/attain stream entry. Then gradually with the repeated entering to Nibbana, a person would more and more clearly see the root of aversion and it's root energies. And one day the root energies of aversion etc.(in the core of the subconscious mind) would start to dissolve by itself, and as the root energies of aversion diminishes, the person would enter to deep peace and calm more deeply and frequently and eventually the person would reach to a point where s/he would have permanent happiness and peace. Then occasional desires and irritations would not have any serious effect in one's life.
Until this becomes a person's reality, aversion and all kinds of negative states would continue to effect a person seriously. A meditator can become free from serious aversion and can have deep peace for few hours, days, weeks and in some rare occasions months but these states are destined to end. It is not possible to become fre from these energies until a person solves the core of the problem-which happens in a high spiritual stage. So it is better to not try to get rid of these negative states or try to escape them but to be mindful of them as much as possible.
Here is an explanation of a great mindfulness method that can take a person to Nibbana in a very short period of time that would eventually completely solve the problem of serious aversion, unhappiness and desires:
How Mindfulness Creates Understanding (The Buddhist TV) by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu


text:
Suffering in Meditation Versus in Daily Life
I feel like this is a naive question, but I'm wondering what  is the difference between experiencing discomfort and distress in meditation versus in daily life outside of meditation. Do the same states generate different results in each case, depending on the co-arising factors?
EDIT: For example, suffering in daily life might undergo rumination and even being acted upon. In meditation, perhaps the same suffering will be diminished by the arising qualities from meditation, like equanimity or compassion. Is this the case?

Meditation mustn't be limited to the formal meditation which is just done in a limited time. If a person doesn't do anything to be mindful in daily life, even having temporary calm in the formal meditation session would be difficult for him/her. Also such a practise would not effect the person in daily life, so the person would continue to experience negative mind states(and the person would "be" the negative mind states completely) without being able to observe them clearly.
If a person does such a practise, the daiy life suffering would capture the person completely and would completely influence his/her actions. And the suffering that a person experiences in the formal meditation would be "potentially" diminished or temporarily go away(but this is not guaranteed) and replaced by temporary calm, peace, compassion, equanimity etc. But If a person succeeds to do it in the formal meditation it would not have a continous effect in the person's life because only practising mindfulness all day long can change the structure of the mind and can lead a person to Nibbana.

Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.

https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-do-not-dwell-in-the-past-do-not-dream-of-the-future-concentrate-the-mind-on-the-present-moment-buddha-26637.jpg

Suffering in Meditation Versus in Daily Life

The difference comes down to whether or not one is mindful of the suffering. If not, then one might react with aversion towards present suffering and thereby cultivate further future suffering.
If one is mindful of the present suffering, one might remove it by passively observing it with mindfulness until it has been exhausted.
Be happy that the suffering is arising now and not in the future. Now you have an oppertunity to do away with it, meaning that the distance to Nibbana can be reduced.

If during meditation one reaches equanimity (upekkhā उपेक्खा), during the meditation practice, then there are no outflows. Which makes it sound impossible to achieve, but remember, one's practice may lead to the non-arising of suffering as well. It's not a naive question.
From saṃyuktāgama

First Discourse on Not Knowing:

“A learned noble disciple understands as it really is bodily form, the arising of bodily form, the cessation of bodily form, the gratification of bodily form, the danger in bodily form, and the escape from bodily form. He understands as it really is feeling … perception … formations … consciousness, the arising of consciousness, the cessation of consciousness, the gratification of consciousness, the danger in consciousness, and the escape from consciousness. Therefore he does not follow after and turn around bodily form … feeling … perception … formations … consciousness.
“Because of not following after and turning around, he is liberated from bodily form, liberated from feeling … perception … formations … consciousness. I say, he is liberated from birth, old age, disease, death, worry, sorrow, vexation, and pain.”
https://suttacentral.net/sa266/en/analayo

From the perspective of someone practicing or developing the Noble Eight-Fold Path (versus an Arahat who has removed all cankers), a difference would the mindfulness.
When you are meditating, you are withdrawn from mundane bodily and verbal actions and contemplating on the Four Noble Truths. And you have more mindfulness about the body, feeling, etc. So when a feeling arises (whether it is painful, pleasurable, or neutral), you are quick to identify them as part of suffering. And they become the object of contemplation. Instead of reacting to them, you investigate - what is the arising phenomena, what is the cessation phenomena of what has arisen.
And how do you contemplate on the arising phenomena? You contemplate according to what the Buddha has said - one seeks delight in form, welcomes it, remains holding it. As a result delight in form arises. Delight in form is clinging. With clinging as a condition, existence come to be. With existence as a condition, birth. With birth as a condition, aging, sickness, death, etc. and this whole mass of suffering come to arise. Same for feeling, etc.
That way you see the origin of the pain or distress you have now.
Then you can contemplate on the cessation phenomena. Again you contemplate according to the Buddha - one does not seek delight in form, does not welcome it, does not remain holding. As a consequence delight in form ceases. When cessation of delight comes cessation of clinging. With cessation of clinging, cessation of existence. With cessation of existence, cessation of Birth. With cessation of birth, the whole mass of suffering ceases. Same with feeling, perception, etc.
That way you see the cessation of the pain or distress you have.
The amazing thing is, when you contemplate this way, your actual pains subside and joy & rapture starts to flow (due to seeing the Dhamma within your self). However, you have to be mindful again to apply the same investigation to the (now) pleasurable feeling due to joy and rapture.
You also start to value the cessation of bodily, verbal & mental actions that you do in day to day life instead of giving value to them. You also start to see the only real solution is Nibbana. All else cannot be trusted to last (even the concentration from meditation).
With Metta

Meditation is training ground for your mindfulness its a way for you to clear your mind and deal with the suffering step by step ,So when you go to the real life you can implement.Real life of course is much harder to deal with but you can make it easier by being mindful through meditation.


text:
Friendship and Compassion
I've realized that that I don't feel much friendliness for a person which I considered my friend previously. At the level of friendship, things are not the same.
Yet, this person has done nothing wrong against me. I know they care deeply for me, they value me, and they have a hard time making friends. Their life situation is also difficult.
I would describe them as a virtuous person, extremely caring, curious spiritually. For me, it is only the fact I don't feel the friendship to be there anymore that detracts me.
In Buddhism, is friendship linked with compassion? Should I disregard the fact this person may suffer because sustaining the friendship would be untrue? Or, should I perhaps try to see things differently, and more compassionately?
Thank you

A related topic: Friend who is the same in happiness and sorrow

@Omar Ahmed. Comment section is not for answering questions. Please post your comment as an answer.

In English the word "love" has many meaning, for example:

Desire (attachment, possessiveness)
Altruism (benevolence)
Gratitude
Admiration
Familiarity
Reciprocity

Anyway I think that in English the word "friendship" is similar (many meanings, many kinds of friendship) -- so when you say "friendship" I don't think I can know what you're talking about (and so it's difficult to answer the question).
In the Pali suttas, though, I think that "friendship" occurs in maybe three ways:

The Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) describes what a "good friend" and a "bad friend" might be, for a layperson
The Brahmaviharas are described here as "the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings ... the answer to all situations arising from social contact"
The Upaddha Sutta (SN 45.2) says that having "good" friends, admiring them, emulating them, is "the whole of the holy life".

You might see also:

What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'?
Friend who is the same in happiness and sorrow

Lastly perhaps beware of "I don't feel much friendliness".
I think we're warned -- in several suttas e.g. the Culavedalla Sutta (MN 44) -- that people tend to have:

Desire for pleasant feelings
Aversion to painful feelings
Ignorance (i.e. avijjā) about neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feelings

In everyday speech, the word "friendship" implies mutual support. One remembers birthdays, celebrates marriages, introduces romantic partners, etc.  And yet many of the things a conventional friend would support become meaningless on the Noble Eightfold Path. For example, the Vinaya prohibits matchmaking, which causes one to become entangled in the cravings of others.
Yet a friend is also one who supports one on a spiritual path, providing encouragement when faith lags and self-doubt causes one to flounder and lose hope. Indeed, from SN45.2 we have:

Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

Given that your friend is a "virtuous person, extremely caring, curious spiritually," there would be common ground in discussing the precepts or observances either one of you has taken. And where the understanding of spiritual goals differs, then much fruitful discussion can unfold to benefit both.  These conversations will naturally develop as you observe your own precepts. Inevitably, those observances will cause surprise in others you interact with. For example, if you are not eating dinner, then being invited to dinner creates some interesting conversations!
In these conversations, compassion will be critical. One's own understanding of a precept and its observance may only be superficial. Our wisdom grows as we apply the precepts compassionately to our own conduct in relating to others.
Perhaps your friend will become a good spiritual companion and associate.

Another important point is your statement about "not feeling much friendliness". As equanimity and tranquility fill your life, it becomes less driven by pleasant or painful feelings. If your friendship was based on pleasant feelings and shared cravings, then that basis for relationship would naturally vanish. For example, choosing celibacy would drastically change the nature of a relationship.
Examine that "not feeling much friendliness" and ask yourself if there might now be an element of unwholesomeness to formerly enjoyed shared activity. Here, too, compassion is crucial because it is the activity you would avoid, not the human being that is your friend.


text:
Mundane Contemplation
I tend to contemplate beneficial topics throughout the day, shirking meditation at times. I conjecture such a daily contemplation is not highly concentrated.
Is there any information in Buddhism on mundane mental contemplation (if any)?
For example, how does reflecting on compassion throughout the day compare with compassion meditation? How does analysis or compassion fare when done with merely day-to-day concentration?
Is there a benefit for un-concentrated contemplation on a virtuous topic? How would a Buddhist fare without formal meditative skills?

Is there any information in Buddhism on mundane mental contemplation (if any)? Is there a benefit for un-concentrated contemplation on a virtuous topic?

Mental contemplation can be useful for training in Morality, but not for training in Concentration or Wisdom. It is good to contemplate your current karmic state, and deduce what actions can be taken or stopped to generate more good karma. That being said, training in Morality is only the first step. Without training in the other two, your chances of becoming free of samsara is very low.
I don't really suggest doing compassion meditation unless you really feel like you generate a lot of bad karma from a lack of compassion. As to weather or not your compassion meditation brings more results than contemplating day to day, only your experience can speak to that.
Contemplation can not replace concentration meditation. Training in concentration is something that requires effort and time for it to be cultivated properly. You can not think your way to stronger concentration skills. You have to actually practice concentrating.

How would a Buddhist fare without formal meditative skills?

Spontaneous enlightenment is possible, but I would not put your chips in that basket if you want to be free this lifetime. All 3 trainings work together in order to help you be free from ignorance, suffering, and samsara. If your goal is to be free, it is essential to pay all three trainings an equal amount of attention. To do that, formal concentration and insight meditation is a must.
It is not possible to think your way to Enlightenment. It is something that must be discovered and felt at the source of your being. At some point you will be required to abandon thought to move further. That can be done easier once you have learned to concentrate, and have found the wisdom present in what you observe.
I hope this was helpful my friend and I wish you nothing but love.


text:
Direct Experience of Meditation
This morning I read many posts on this site. I felt like topics on Buddhist doctrine were somewhat clear to me, but those on meditation seemed complex, difficult to me.
I wondered: Does meditation practice increase knowledge about meditation? Is this what is meant by direct experience?
I feel this may seem as a naive question; I'm mainly wondering how something experienced (i.e. meditation) might affect cognition / knowledge about the topic of meditation.
For example, I'm unsure whether a person hammering nails all day would necessarily understand their task conceptually. Does meditation necessarily give one conceptual knowledge of meditation?

One possible answer is that meditation relies both on the theoretical understanding on what's going on, but also the direct experience. They are mutually dependent as far as i can see.
A mere theoretical understanding of meditation will not take us very far in the progress, just like meditation without a theoretical description of the phenomena involved probably won't take us far either.

Simple analogy:
The experience of watching someone drive (a car) for 1000 years can never compare to actually driving by yourself for 1 hour.

I felt that @Erik had a slightly better answer in that I, also, feel both are required. While the above is true, I felt that trying to drive without watching/learning about driving first could be almost equally fruitless in its results.

Respect your view. However, the best way to start learning how to drive, still is to practically drive slowly and carefully, better with an instructor next to you of course. It's just not something to learn 'theoretically', conceptually, or 'tabletop'. Same goes for meditation. Cheers!

I respect your view as well. However, I think the 'best' methods for a person may depend on the type of individual they are. Using your analogy, if you are an experiential / intuitive type, getting behind the wheel would be best. You would not care about the physics of how brakes work. Stepping on the petal would be enough for you to learn. But for me, an analytic, often I wish to understand theory before experience. For people like me, we need both. Hence my comment of "both are required" for complete and balanced learning. Complicated individual differences give different 'best's. Regards.

Going canonical: Meditation involves samadhi (tranquil absorption) and sati (mindful awareness).
When you investigate a phenomena (breath for example) with this state of mind, depending upon the strength of your mindfulness you will see aspects of the working of the mind itself.
Almost like seeing through the corner of your mind, you see how the mind itself works. And by virtue of seeing that you might see how reality is- this could come from different angles (impermanence, fabricated nature, dependent arising)- our mind releases a little bit "ahh this is silly, why am I so worried about this!".
But those are names we use to convey our experiences. No amount of scholarly dissection of those names will help our mind release it. Only direct, real time, seeing would. Meditation develops the skill and arena for such insights.
This seeing the working of the mind does not need a conceptual framework. But certain conceptual framework (the optimal way to nail a hammer) will help you hammer it deeper and better. But it relies on your experiential understanding of hammering a nail itself. The eight fold path is such a conceptual framework which points us in the general direction of these realizations.

Its like this.Say you face a problem with the direct experience of a certain feeling ,thus you decided to formulate a new meditation concept where you contemplate that feeling.
Direct experience is to investigate the true nature of reality its subjective quality
.In hammering nails one will experience nailing
Conceptual knowledge comes about as a result of problems faced when having a direct experience.
If the nail gets bent then one decides to hammer a bit slowly next time.

A quibble. I would question whether the phrase 'its subjective quality' is correct here. It might suggest Reality is an object with a subjective aspect.  .

Its quality is experienced subjectively is what I meant.

This is what I thought you meant. I would suggest that 'Subjective qualities' are rather mundane things and meditation takes us beyond them. Indeed. 'subjective quialites' are exactly what we are trying to transcend. But I see this may be just  matter of terminology. ,.

I agree regarding transcendence ,but its merely the result.The message is that there is nothing...absolutely nothing but the quality and that is the end of suffering.

Okay. In this case we simply disagree. No problem. .

Yes. its no problem .Our disagreement seems to be of a high caliber it has a sophistication ,knowing this one is not bothered and simply learns from the other :).

Yes. Very well put.


text:
Skipping Meditation After Great Exertion
Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, in a video, describes how some beginners exert themselves too much at once and then skip sessions. That is precisely my situation. Upon meditating for much longer than usual in one sitting, I skip subsequent days.
Yet, recently I found myself wishing to meditate more, but not doing so because I feared that phenomenon would happen again.
How can this limitation (exertion then skipping) be overcome?
Would for example taking longer breaks between short sessions (15 min of meditation) inhibit overexertion? What would be the ideal length of such a break?

Meditation shouldn't be viewed as a need. You should neither regret that you skipped nor  wish that you do it.You are getting attached to the joy of meditation and this in itself is counterproductive to the practice.
Do it simply willingly any time you feel like it.Naturally then a rhythm will form that suites your lifestyle.
And remember that the practice should be applied in the real world.

Use mindfulness. Keep a record of which days you meditate, and for how long. Find ways to graph your progress. There are apps for smart phones that do this, but a simple "Practice Journal" with notes is better, as you can add whatever you want to it. It's impossible to hold everything in your memory, so notes allow you to look back and review your experience, set goals, and work towards them.

You keep using this meaningless word that is mediation, as if it is a good idea... whereas nobody knows what you mean by that.
if you mean bhavana, then say bhavana and the answer to your question is obvious. Bhavana means you do it as much as you can, each day, all the time.
If you want to be more specific, then you use jhana, sati sampajanna or the other 2 Samādhibhāvanās https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html
Sati sampajanna is obvious, since you do that as long as there is  vitakka, vedana and sanna, so again pretty much all the time, certainly not 15 minutes a day, and then spending 23h45min not developing thoughts renunciation, non-ill will and harmlessness.
you will never clean the mind by spending 23h45min each day not developing renunciation, non-ill will and harmlessness, by not forcing seeing things as anicca, dukkha anatta.
Development means exactly the opposite of whatever you are doing in 15 minutes per day, which is certainly not training the mind.
Even the people who train and clean the body do not claim they train and clean the body by spending 15minutes per day on the body, and the mind is even harder to train and clean...
Jhana is when you want sukha and you cannot do that all the time, you can pause for a few hours up to a few days, especially when you are not a idle bikkhu.
The last 2 Samādhibhāvanās are done when you want to acquire knowledge of karma and nibanna, so it is not relevant for you here.


text:
Loving-Kindness for Concentration
In meditation, I seem to have great difficulty with the breath. Having some stability and mindfulness, but very little concentration, vividness and sharpness.
However, loving-kindness works for me in deep ways. Is compassion meditation a kind of concentrative practice? How far could it bring me along the concentrative path?
Also, would interspacing anapanasati and metta (e.g. doing one one day, and the other another day) beneficial, or should one try sticking to one type?

With regards to your first question, yes, loving-kindness meditation aids concentration because, well you focus on an object (or more) while (trying) to suspend every distracting thoughts.
Initially, mindfulness with breathing can be difficult because the breath is too subtle for the "over-active & over-stimulated" mind.
That's why you can use thinking meditations such as loving kindness meditation, reflection on virtue, reflection on Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, reflection on death etc. etc.
Also, loving-kindness elicits positive emotions, which make the mind calmer and brighter. That's the reason why the Buddha praised Sila so much, and it's Sila that leads to joy, tranquility so and so forth which, ultimately, lead to concentration and seeing things as they are (vipassana).
To quote:

Ananda:] "What, O Venerable One, is the reward and blessing of wholesome morality?"
  [The Buddha:] "Freedom from remorse, Ananda."
  "And of freedom from remorse?"
  "Joy, Ananda"
  "And of joy?"
  "Rapture, Ananda"
  "And of rapture?"
  "Tranquillity, Ananda."
  "And of tranquillity?"
  "Happiness, Ananda."
  "And of happiness?"
  "Concentration, Ananda."
  "And of concentration?"
  "Vision and knowledge according to reality."
  "And of the vision and knowledge according to reality?"
  "Turning away and detachment, Ananda."
  "And of turning away and detachment?"
  "The vision and knowledge with regard to Deliverance, Ananda."

~


text:
Compassion and Motivation
I wondered today whether compassion is an antidote to a kind of lack of motivation, given that it remedies fear in the suttas, and often approach and avoidance are seen as opposite (e.g. fight or flight), and that in psychology compassion is linked with the reward system:

They [the researchers of the study] point out that a heightened sensitivity to suffering causes people to avoid that suffering because it doesn’t feel good; however, because the compassion training also seemed to strengthen the brain’s ability to regulate emotions, people may have been able to sense suffering without feeling overwhelmed by it. Instead, the care for others emphasized by the compassion training may have caused them to see suffering not as a threat to their own well-being but as an opportunity to reap the psychic rewards from achieving an important goal—namely, connecting with someone else and making him feel better.
“When your goal is to help another person, then your reward system will be activated when you’re meeting that goal,” says Weng.
By contrast, the reappraisal group’s goal was to decrease their own negative emotions, making them less inclined to be altruistic when confronted with someone else’s pain. “When you’re focused on decreasing your own negative emotions,” she says, “I think that makes you less focused on other people.”
How to Train the Compassionate Brain

I thus wonder whether compassion is said in the Buddhist tradition to increase motivation in general. I feel the Mahayana,which emphasizes compassion as primary quality with emptiness, appeals to householders historically in part because of this worldly quality of compassion.
Is there any evidence for compassion -- in the suttas or Buddhist tradition -- increasing motivation and energy aside from towards compassionate aims? In other words, does compassion increase drive in general?

Could you perhaps clarify what is referred to as "reward system" and what type of evidence you are asking for? I realize my questions may be tricky, but they could help to give a proper answer.

In context, "reward system" is probably as used in modern psychology/neurology e.g. Wikipedia.

Training your brain like training a dog?

@brother eric Yes, the biological reward systems are shared by - i'm guessing - all animals. In that sense dogs are no less sophisticated  than humans.

I haven't studied clinical psychology.
When I read this comment I discovered it has a doctrine or theory about something it calls "behavioral activation" --

In the case of depression there is ample clinical evidence for behavioral activation as a mean to counter a clinical depressions cognitions, emotions and behavior.

Using Google I found a quick description of "behavioural activation" here: Behavioural Activation: Behavioural Therapy For Depression Treatment
That theory sounds plausible (e.g. worth testing).
Anyway I think that adds insight or background information to the quote in the OP ...

When your goal is to help another person [out of compassion], then your reward system will be activated when you’re meeting that goal

... i.e. at least enough to help understand what Dr. Weng was saying.
And if that ties in (as it seems to here) to being a therapy for depression, that might answer your question about motivation -- because I think that depression is antagonistic to motivation in general.

Secondly, this article ...
Why You Procrastinate (It Has Nothing to Do With Self-Control)
If procrastination isn’t about laziness, then what is it about?
... claims that procrastination is a problem of emotional regulation -- i.e. it's caused by wanting to avoid emotional problems which you associate with the task that you're procrastinating about (and preferring tasks which give a short-term reward).
So perhaps this (quoting from the article cited in the OP), "the compassion training also seemed to strengthen the brain’s ability to regulate emotions", suggests another way in which it might improve "drive" -- i.e. by reducing a "need for procrastination".
I guess a question (perhaps your question, which I'm not sure this answers) is whether it improves all emotional regulation, or only the regulation of emotions associated with the suffering of others (compassion).

Thirdly, this article from a while ago, The Pursuit of Happiness suggests that with meditation (it didn't say what kind -- the sort practised by "the Dalai Lama's lamas, the monks") lets you "train" the mind to be "happier" and remain happy under adverse conditions (including specifically unpleasant external stimuli).
That too fits with the theory of what causes procrastination.

There's a risk that i've misinterpreted Weng, but she seems to operationalize compassion with the mechanisms in our reward system. As far as i know, compassion in a psychobiological sense doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with our reward system per se. The neural/physiological correlates in compassion and drive/reward emotions/behaviors are very different. If i understand her research, it's based on the idea of integrating the two systems of drive/reward behavior on one hand, with compassion goals on the other hand.
Going back to your question compassion is probably not motivating in a general sense, apart from altruistic behavior.


text:
Can the "Senika heresy" be useful?
The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism
By Bernard Faure p60 (I've not read this book) links it to linji ("the true man without affairs")
Wiki says

In his later years Dōgen often severely criticized the Senika heresy
  (sennigedo), which is the erroneous view that the mind abides while
  the form perishes. According to this view, there is a bright spiritual
  intelligence contained in our body that is the source of
  self-understanding. When the body dies, the spiritual intelligence
  alone does not perish but abides immutably. This view, Dōgen argues,
  when "hearing of the doctrine of this very mind (itself is buddha),
  takes it to mean that the discriminating knowledge of sentient beings
  is itself the buddha"
Dōgen (c. 1230-50) as cited in Masao Abe, Steven Heine (1992) A Study of Dōgen: His Philosophy and Religion. p. 158
The Senika heresy here mentioned is a Buddhist believe in eternalism of the self.

I'm interested, then, in whether it's only really a heresy in Soto Buddhism, and other traditions might find it useful.
I think it may be a useful fiction, which is why I ask.

Dogen seems to be arguing against the idea that Mind is fundamental or prior to form. It is common to find others arguing the same and proposing that absent thoughts there is no mind as an additional phenomenon. I don't know whether it;s a useful fiction to think otherwise, but it does seem to be a fiction.   .

well i disagree with that Peter

Lots of folk do, I know, but I'm with Plotinus, Ramana Maharshi and Dogen. . . .   . .

ok do you a reference for there being no mind in addition to form? because every buddhist i know of is a dualist about nama-rupa. saying "i'm with dogen" can sound foolish

Ramana Maharshi calls Mind 'the lens in front of the lamp' - which is to say it is reducible. Plotinus says when we think of 'The One' as God or Mind and we 'think of it too meanly'. It is a common teaching in accord with the Mahayana ontology. .

it's madhyamaka misreading [which can be virtuous] coupled with contemporary materialism?

I don't know what materiallsm has to do with this. I presume we all reject this daft idea. As for 'misreading', I doubt those who teach this view rely on what they read. I regard it as the orthodox view of Mind and don't find it contentious. But some do, I know.

The idea that the Buddha is "unaffected by the vicissitudes of bodily existence" [Mystical Realist, Kim] seems to be the root mistake that Dogen is proselytizing against.
What may be key to interpreting it is that all post Madhyamaka Buddhists taught that form, which is what the body is, is mind. Dogen then could be emphasizing that rebirth, in this life and the next, and Buddhahood, makes for some new body by mental causation. Not, then, than mind perishes completely with this body.
I've done very little koan or Rinzai study, but would guess that our original enlightenment, as the body of the Buddha, is emphasized therein: because Soto, compared to "the true man without affairs", is less concerned with 'words' and 'discriminative thought', 'causation'.

What Dōgen calls sennigedo is a view found in several schools of Buddhism, for example in the teachings of Tendai contemporary with Dōgen in Japan. But this is not what Matsuo Basho was expressing in "Mind itself is Buddha", the poem Dōgen used to argue the criticism you expressed in your quote. He quotes this poem in the story of Damei Fachang (Daibai Hojo) in both his Shobogenzo and Eiheikoroku. What he actually argues is:

“The mind that has been authentically transmitted is ‘one mind is all
  dharmas; all dharmas are one mind.’….. We clearly understand that the
  mind refers to the mountains, rivers, and the great earth; the sun,
  the moon and the stars. …. Therefore, ‘mind itself is buddha’ refers
  to all the buddhas who carry out arousing bodhi-mind, practice,
  awakening, and nirvana. Those who have not yet been carrying out
  arousing bodhi-mind, practice, awakening and nirvana are not ‘mind
  itself is buddha.'”

Stated differently, Dōgen argues that until you realize (in both senses of the English word simultaneously, not just intellectually) that "Mind is Buddha", you risk to conceptualize Buddha-nature as eternal & transcendent of causation and death. He is therefore not criticizing Basho, but the concept underlying the interpretation that all factors of experience (hō in Japanese, Dharmas in Sanskrit) are somehow not subject to causation (which implies they are timeless).
The best elaboration on this argument I know is in Heine's Existential and Ontological Dimensions of Time in Heidegger and Dogen Chapter "The Question of Time"

i believe i've read Heine's book, but not sure. thanks for the reply, and any comment on the one i'm about to write would be helpful


text:
Possibility of Unsuitable Technique
Upon (re)-reading this answer, I conjectured perhaps there are techniques unsuitable for some.
It does seem to be the case with the breath for me, in my experience, despite the popularity and near universality of the breath as meditative object. In context, I'm extremely sensitive to what people call experiential avoidance, and focusing on the breathing to the exclusion of all else seems to trigger this. More so, I read here that in some cases of dissociative people the breath may be difficult to focus on.
My question is mainly:
Given these conditions, could even the breath (or any object of meditation) be truly unsuitable for some? Is it possible that other objects would be much more suitable? How would one actually know/discover this?
I'm particularly tempted to conclude compassion (which has a visual and affective component) might be a better alternative. Yet, I'm always brought back to the breath because I keep concluding that its a universal object that should work for everyone. Am I wrong?
Thank you

Besides given already a long buddhist answer I would like to add that whenever you do certain technique to get rid of an unpleasant feeling/thought, then that just reinforces experiential avoidance & the underlying beliefs that underpin the avoidance. If you can, always expose yourself to uncomfortable feelings. Use here the principle of 'challenging, but not overwhelming'. So if you get anxious while breathing but you think you can manage this exposure, then do it to the point it feels doable for you, & then focus on the uncomfortable sensation & observe it curiously and non-judgmentally.

I'm responding because of the dissociative bit, which I recognise very much. In my case the trigger is the wrong type of concentration (laser like focus instead of unwavering composure). You might find this video helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kY4zVThpro
Practising this way could help you avoid dissociation.

I don't think the idea that breath meditation is universally suitable has any explicit basis in the texts. I'm not sure if you are aware or interested, but the Visuddhimagga has an explicit opinion on which types of meditation are suitable for which sort of individual:

As to suitability to temperament: here the exposition should be understood
  according to what is suitable to the temperaments. That is to say: first, the ten
  kinds of foulness and mindfulness occupied with the body are eleven meditation
  subjects suitable for one of greedy temperament. The four divine abidings and
  four colour kasiṇas are eight suitable for one of hating temperament. Mindfulness
  of breathing is the one [recollection as a] meditation subject suitable for one of
  deluded temperament and for one of speculative temperament. The first six
  recollections are suitable for one of faithful temperament. Mindfulness of death,
  the recollection of peace, the defining of the four elements, and the perception of
  repulsiveness in nutriment, are four suitable for one of intelligent temperament.
  The remaining kasiṇas and the immaterial states are suitable for all kinds of
  temperament. And anyone of the kasiṇas should be limited for one of speculative
  temperament and measureless for one of deluded temperament. This is how the
  exposition should be understood here “as to suitability to temperament.”
Path of Purification 3.121

I think it is proper to question the assumption that any meditation practice would be suitable for all individuals, though one might say that sati or "mindfulness" in general is universally applicable.

I also often think that one should stick to one school of thought, to one teaching etc., but often this leads to narrow mindedness and rigidity. Besides, if a given method works for you better than another, why don't use it?
To quote:

“Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught”.
  (Ājīvaka Sutta; AN 3:72)

Firstly, we can see that the Buddha taught in a manner that is conducive both to oneself and to others. There is often the impression that Dhamma is exclusively concerned for other's, but that's not quite correct:

Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do.

There is also the case that some monks during the time of the Buddhs commited suicide because of the asubha bhavana practise. Those monks became disgusted by their own body. This shows you that they weren't ready yet.
Secondly, if we take MN 20 for example we can clearly see that Buddha employed a number of strategies not just one. "If X  doesn't work use Y, and if that doesn't work either, use Z".
And lastly, there is the pali word 'upaya', which translates as 'skilful means'. When the Buddha was asked about certain things or teachings the Buddha often gave 'mundane answers' or remained silent, in order to not cause further confusion. For lay people he often began a talk on morality and on the drawbacks of sensuality. Then, when the mind was rid of the hindrances, he gave higher Dhamma.
Similarly, if Mindfulness of Breathing causes you distress then put it aside for a while and do metta meditation.
To summarise, there is no one size fits all. Different people, different history, different dispositions, different preferences & so on.


text:
Concentration's Meaning
I've read a few answers and concluded that for most of these answers, concentration in meditation often implies unawareness of peripheral stimuli. This confuses me. I usually have wisps as thoughts rather than full blown thinking in meditation, but I don't particularly become unaware of my environment.
Is such an experience very advanced? More so, does unawareness imply literally not seeing/hearing/etc. or merely not being solicited by such distractions?
Finally, I'm wondering whether the diminution of thoughts in itself means little. Is attention placed upon the object consistently more important than thought reduction? For example, I can imagine attention being close to the object but thoughts (e.g. about the object) arising, but I can also imagine a thoughtless person's attention being fragmented, directed without focus. Is any of these more important?
Thank you

I've read a few answers and concluded that for most of these answers,
  concentration in meditation often implies unawareness of peripheral
  stimuli. This confuses me. I usually have wisps as thoughts rather
  than full blown thinking in meditation, but I don't particularly
  become unaware of my environment.

Well, it does depend very much on what sort of concentration you want to achieve.
The concentration that leads to unawareness is absorption concentration. And that is not the type you want if you want to go for enlightenment. So, absorption is not the concentration of the Noble 8-fold Path.
Think about it. We all were and are absorbed in all kinds of stuff: reading, watching a movie, absorbed in thoughts, and so on. If absorption would be the way, half the planet would be enlightened.
The type of concentration the 8-fold Path speaks about is more of peaceful, unwavering composure of the mind. It is not focused on one particular thing, it is not absorbed. Some monks compared the needed concentration to the Hubble telescope (wide lens, wide field of awareness), it's not a laser.
The mind is unwavering, it keeps united and has the entire experience in one sight, so to speak. Think of a person standing on the top of a mountain being able to see everything with one look. That's what's meant with one pointedness.
And then, whatever thoughts, sights, sounds, smells, tastes or touches appear, it really doesn't matter. Because they are all caught in that one field of awareness. And since they are all in one picture there is no need for the mind to jump here or there, as it is with laser pointed concentration.
But again, depends on what you want to achieve.

Is such an experience very advanced? More so, does unawareness imply
  literally not seeing/hearing/etc. or merely not being solicited by
  such distractions?

Well, what do you call advanced? It really depends on the goal, doesn't it.
And yes, unawareness means not seeing, hearing and so on. Nice exercise, but completely useless for one who wants to achieve enlightenment.

Finally, I'm wondering whether the diminution of thoughts in itself
  means little. Is attention placed upon the object consistently more
  important than thought reduction?

Again, it depends on what you want to achieve.
There is no need to get rid of thoughts, if that's what you're asking. On the contrary, the first jhana is thinking and pondering. So, thinking and pondering on the right things. Example would be metta meditation, where you direct your attention to the thoughts of well wishing. And when there is momentum, the thoughts will continue automatically and attention can be directed at pity and sukkha, the next jhana. And so on.
But all the correct jhana have in common that they hold steady, once correctly established, so that you can go about your daily business without the mind starting to waver. Meaning you can be walking around, sitting, lying down, do the dishes, whatever, the mind will keep this unwavering quality.
Hope this helps.

Thank you, great video recommendation as well.

Concentration is a poor translation of samadhi. Samadhi means meditative state. And right samadhi is one with strong mindful awareness. Deep samadhi is a state of absorption into the meditation object.
There are also characteristic states of samadhi called jhanas which generally implies prominence of a particular mental quality (physical pleasure, mental joy, contentment and equanimity). However, the depth of each of these varies and are often debated between schools. This brings in the classification between commentarial jhanas (very deep states) vs sutta jhanas (just enough absorption to investigate phenomena).
Some schools prefer complete absorption as you imply in your question. Others, just enough absorption to have stable attention and plenty of awareness for insight practices. Certain suttas imply this sort of samadhi:

Monks, secluded from sense pleasure... a monk enters and dwells in the first jhana. He steeps, drenches, fills and suffuses his body with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that there is no part of his entire body that is not suffused with this rapture and happiness. Just as a skilled bath-attendant or his apprentice might strew bathing powder in a copper basin, sprinkle it again and again with water, and knead it together so that the mass of bathing soap would be pervaded, suffused, and saturated with moisture inside and out yet would not ooze moisture, so a monk steeps, drenches, fills and suffuses his body with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that, there is no part of his entire body that is not suffused with this rapture and happiness born of seclusion. (D.i,74)

There are two ways we typically know the presence of thoughts (The Mind Illuminated by John Yates PhD et. al). Attention and awareness. You attention can be stably on the breath and you mindful awareness can see thoughts and distraction come and go. This shows maturity of practice and there is a sense of standing aback and watching the breath. Thoughts stop arising as you consistently ignore them. It's a learned behaivour (unification of the mind aka citta-ekagatta) where the mind system is together working on stabilizing attention and observing the meditation object. This is the required amount of samadhi per a lot of teachers to begin insight training as your mind is now a sharp sword that can cut through anything without getting caught up.
Further and more in depth discussion on this topic can be found here:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html
http://www.leighb.com/jhanas.htm

The bottom line though is that samadhi is a joyful, restful, alert and mindful state. It should ideally be nourishing and nurturing.

The practitioner can't remember any object of unawareness mind, sleeping, but he can clearly remember every object, mind, and mind factors of concentration meditation.
Unawareness mind, sleeping, is a resultant (Vipaka), but concentration meditation is karma (Karma).
Unawareness mind, sleeping, doesn't give any resultant, but concentration meditation gives resultants.
Unawareness mind is sleeping, ignoring the object, but concentration meditation is doing 30-36 jobs to the object.

Concentration meditation is strongly thinking of the only one object. It doesn't stop to think. Only unconsciousness mind, sleeping, is not thinking and the concentration meditation is not  unconsciousness mind.

Is such an experience very advanced?

The goal of Concentration meditation is to lengthen the amount of time you can give unbroken attention to your meditation object. A secondary goal could also be given to move through the Jhanas as your practice gets stronger. The attainment of the Jhanas can be seen as more "advanced" practice, although they tend to arise naturally as you progress.

More so, does unawareness imply literally not seeing/hearing/etc. or merely not being solicited by such distractions?

In higher Jhanas, yes it is the case that some sensations will seemingly "drop away" as your focus heightens on your meditation object, although reaching these higher Jhanas are not required for gaining insight or becoming enlightened. This is what is meant by unawareness in a Jhanic state.
When you are not in a Jhana though, you will find there is still the jumping of awareness to different sense doors. This may happen very quickly and without being noticed which gives the illusion of you observing other senses while you are focusing on your meditation object. It is important to remember that this is an illusion, and it is impossible for the attention to be directed to two things at the same time. Awareness must jump from one thing to another in order for both to be perceived.
If you catch yourself observing a thought, as long as you bring your attention back to your meditation object, you are doing concentration meditation correctly. If you keep practicing in this way, you will lessen the thought stream as well as increase the length of time you are able to hold your attention.

Is attention placed upon the object consistently more important than thought reduction?

Attention placed on the object is important for doing insight meditation. The longer you can hold your attention, the greater the chance you will be able to observe insights that will profoundly change your understandings.
Thought reduction is also important. It is very easy to get wrapped up in the content of what is appearing. This is the same reason why we suggest closing our eyes while meditating. The content of what we observe can be very distracting. Thoughts in particular are more often than not misleading, and reinforce the beliefs that hold you in Samsara. The less distractions we can have while focusing, the easier it will be to observe the processes that are occurring.

Is any of these more important?

I think the two honestly go hand in hand. With only one and not the other, you are at a major disadvantage compared to if you had both. You are correct in your descriptions that they are both very useful tools that help us discover the truth about reality. I would suggest continuing your concentration practice with the intention of cultivating both.
I hope your meditations are fruitful and wish you nothing but love.