text:
Is there any biological constraint to attain Nibbana?
This question may look like a copy of this question, but I am asking in a broader sense including age limit.
The historical reference of a person attaining Nibbana in oldest age is Joshu, apparently, he became enlightened at the age of 80 and then settled down to become a master. But he looks like some kind of exception.
Gotama Buddha attained Nibbana in His 30's, from scriptures all the others seem to be between 30's to 40's nobody is told to be very old. Neither was Bodhidharma, Zen patriarchs, Tibetan masters like Milarepa, Marpa all seem to be somewhere in 30's or 40's during their Nibbana, based on what all things they did after that.
So, I am asking is there any biological limitation, age limitation, for Nibbana?

As far as I know the youngest arahant in the sutta's was 7 years old. Unfortunately I don't remember which sutta this is.
So, I would say: no, there is no limitation to reaching arahanthood or nibbana.

(check my pali spelling because it's from my memories too)  Tabba-Malla-Putta -Thera).  one of Buddha's great disciples in the area of arranging places for Bhikkus  to live (at Jetta Grove-by matching personalities to share same room etc), and distributing gifts received for Sangha.   He was accused of raping a Bhikuni.  when asked by Bhudda, his answer was something like ( act of fornication) wouldn't even occur in his dreams, etc..  This goes to show that an arahat has dreams, just not about sensual pleasures.


text:
Favourite Mahayana inspirational texts/treaties
I would like to ask the community here what are your favourite treaties or texts in Mahayana tradition that did personally make great impact on your practice in the way that it cut through illusion or allowed you to grow by breakthrough in understanding etc. It might have sentimental value of sorts.
It might be a bullet point list with the title and description what it is and why it had such impact on your practice.
Examples of such works could be Dogen - “Shobogenzo” or Shantideva - “Way of Bodhisattva”. It might be written from perspective of Vajrayanists but not about tantric practise per we.

This question is potentially divisive given that there could be an "accepted answer" to such an open ended question.  A better forum for such a question might be: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/c/discussion, which supports open, thought provoking supportive discussion.

@OyaMistAeroponics An answer's being accepted "simply means that the author received an answer that worked for them personally."

Hope this helps!

On the method side: Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life

The quintessential guide to the method aspect of the Mahayana path and one of the most beautiful works of literature ever conceived. I challenge anyone to read this book three times and not come away with an aspiration to become a Bodhisattva for the benefit of all.

On the wisdom side: Nagarjuna's Fundamental Treatise on the Middle Way

The definitive explanation of the Buddha's Middle Way. This treatise explains how things exist and how they utterly do not exist. Ideally, the commentary by Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti, Je Tsongkhapa and others should be read in order to understand what this treatise says and what it does not say. Probably one the most important yet misunderstood text in all of human history.

Analogies, metaphors, allegories, illustrating and illuminating the above including: Rope and Snake, Dreams of a Mother, Ambrosia+Water+Pus&Blood, Chandrakirti's Chariot, Ship of Theseus, many many others.

These have been extremely helpful to my mind and contemplating them has opened up my own understanding meager as it is.

Diamond Cutter Sutra

Especially this verse, "As a star, a visual aberration, a lamp, an illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud – view all the compounded like that." This succinct instruction by the Buddha summarizes how to view all phenomena.

The Sutra of Golden Light

The last few chapters are both self-referential in delightful way and give extremely beautiful examples of Buddha Shakyamuni's actions as a Bodhisattva in previous lives. IMO, reading this Sutra is a good way of starting a New Year.

This verse, "As long as space endures, as long as sentient beings remain, until then, may I too remain and dispel the miseries of the world."

The quintessential sentiment of a Bodhisattva displaying profound Bodhicitta.

I agree Diamond Sutra had great impact on my practice it explored notions of Heart Sutra that match my meditative and mindfulness insight about interbeing. It has a great shock value when first read.

Vajracchedikā prajñāpāramitā sūtra (aka The Diamond Sutra) - one of the first Buddhist texts I ever encountered in my late teens. Very puzzling back in the day. Inspiring, because apparently full of meaning but absolutely incomprehensible.
Shōbōgenzō by Dōgen - yes, because it very clearly expresses the spirit of Enlightenment.
Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra - clearly illustrates practical implications of prajnaparamita.
"The Prayer of Kuntuzangpo" and what basically is a commentary on it, "Lamp of Mahamudra" by Tsele Natsok Rangdrol - very clearly explains the Ground Mahamudra.
Śālistamba Sūtra - the best explanation of Twelve Nidanas, linking Early Buddhism and Mahayana.

The Diamond Cutter Sutra was going to be near the very top of my list of Sutras, but OP asked for non-Sutra refs.
This verse especially, “As a star, a visual aberration, a lamp, an illusion, dew, a bubble, a dream, lightning, and a cloud – view all the compounded like that.”

I have lifted that requirement, I think it was unnecessary. You can go ahead and add it @Yeshe

I've been much impressed by (the german translatio of) "the essential teachings of Zen Master Hakuin". A partly very fierce statement - that style of teaching was really new to me and unexpected when I'd just a couple of years met buddhism. One which really took me on his line was his refusal of bad habits in contemporary zen-lineages and/or temples: very populated temples preferred by young monks because of good food, dried-out lineages: dead ("ashes") after only few generations of followers, and something else the like.
On the other hand a very clear, detailful and even challenging interpretation of the dharma: for me a true spiritual leader (and successful reformer)

Without a doubt, the Heart Sutra was the most impressive sutra I heard which basically put me on the path of the Dhamma. This is coming from a Theravadin.
1. The Form is Emptiness and Emptiness is Form.
Before I read this, I had just finished reading Krauss' book, the universe from nothing. There are many commentaries on this sutra, one of them is by Indian mystic Osho. When I listened to His commentary on Heart Sutra I could relate so much of it to physics that I never looked back. The core of this Sutra also resounds in recent research in physics like works of Bernardo Kastrop about Idealism.
2. There is no suffering and no end of suffering.
This was another Sutra which established me into immense faith in the words of the Buddha. Basically, Buddha contradicted Himself while explaining to Sariputta. The intelligence of the Buddha to put forth His ideas is unparalleled. This made me realise there is nothing dogmatic about Buddhism.
Some works by Zen masters.
3. Zen Mind beginners mind, by S. Suzuki
Not a Sutra but a scholarly work by the S. Suzuki, excellent explanation of No-mind approach towards living life. Ths made a huge impact on me because after reading this book I was in a Zen monastery and was cleaning a pathway covered with dry leaves of silver oaks, believe me, or not, I had a Kensho.
4. The way of Zen, by Alan Watts
Don't remember the exact lines or words, but this book gave me a very vivid understanding of Zen.

Do you understand a 'kensho' as being the same as a direct perception of emptiness? ie., achieving the first bhumi?

@YesheTenley no i just tried to find a word from Zen literature to describe the experience I had...it wasn't emptimess but it was a sense of annata with hightened joy which lasted for few seconds...

The Heart Sutra contradicts Theravada therefore a Theravadin cannot ever praise the Heart Sutra.

@Dhammadhatu I have my troubles accepting the Bodhisattava Vow other than that I see the differences as contextual. So as a Thervadin I don't have much problem praising the sutras.

Curious about Dhammadhatu's comment, I found this interesting: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/5480/heart-sutra-controversy

The differences are huge. It merely shows you don't understand Theravada and don't understand the Heart Sutra. The Heart Sutra is teaching "nothingness" or "non-conceptuality", which is not Theravada.

Heart sutra teaches that things are empty of Self, but that does not mean nothingness of non-conceptuality which is essentially nihilism. Mahayana is not nihilism. When you have negations in the sutra it is only to show that things aren't as they are if we frame them without considering dependent origination. And then we get the meaning,only when it is Selfless context-wise. Seeing the mountain, not seeing the mountain and seeing the mountain again.

Its just Mahayana sutras have different tactics vs Theravada. They are meant to be figurative and non-direct in meaning in order to accelerate progress through a shock factor, rather than using direct, unambiguous meaning through vocabulary.  From Tricycle magazine (Gil Fronsdal, former Theravada monk): https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/books-articles/articles/emptiness-in-theravada-buddhism/

In all discussions of ...your favourite treaties or texts...that did personally make great impact on your practice..., one must be sharply aware and mindful of the following:
... he conceives 'the gods of Abundant Fruit as mine,' he delights in the gods of Abundant Fruit. What is the reason? Because they have not been fully understood by him, I declare.
There are those who may consider the Pali canon "non-Mahayana". However, this particular root discourse is very helpful in understanding the saying often attributed to Zen master Lin Chi:

If you meet the Buddha on the path, kill him

Even the Heart Sutta ends with

Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha

To paraphrase, Gone, gone, gone all the way over,all gone to the other shore, Enlightenment, hurrah. And that includes gone beyond favorites.

When I started studying Rinzai Zen in the 1980's I was captivated by Rinzai zen books. They became my "favorites". The pithy sayings spun my head and galvanized me into intense inquiry. And yet, the more I studied, the more favorites disappeared. I eventually found and resonated with the Heart Sutta and started chanting that core mantra. It seemed an appropriate focus to the disappearance of favorites. And then one day I met a Buddhist monk. I asked him why I could not find a copy of my favorite Heart Sutta in Benares/Varanasi when I visited that Indian city holy to Buddhism. He told me, "the Heart Sutta is Chinese." And then he directed me to the Pali Canon.

That doesn't mean to let go of everything. A translation is, "go, go, go beyond, go thoroughly beyond, and establish yourself in enlightenment."

FWIW, I don't think of the pali-Canon as "non-Mahayana" either :) The important question for this thread is what @dhamma4life was intending.

@YesheTenley yes. Answering this has been somewhat personally stressful for me. A good practice. Thank you.

I prefer this translation : "Gone, gone, gone all the way over, everyone gone to the other shore, Enlightenment, hurrah!".

Given the variety of translations, I've edited the paraphrase to simply reflect my own crude and imprecise personal interpretation. Apologies for not getting it quite right. It is ironic that this is a Chinese sutra that I, even though I am Chinese,  cannot read in the original because I don't know Chinese.

Nothing wrong with the translation you had, it is one of the popular ones, however, there is a slight stress on "everyone gone" or "all gone" to point out bodhisattva's wish for all beings and it's always worth pointing out.

Since I started the topic, I may post something as well.

Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind - Shunryū Suzuki

First book on Buddhism that I have read. It was about 14 years ago when I took it from the shelf, pointed to me by my mother. Frankly, it caused more confusion than actual merit. Concepts explained in the book are not laid out very well, and concept of non-duality presented may be counterproductive taking emptiness for nihilism by ordinary person. It is quite shocking given how popular this book still is. Nonetheless, this was the first touch and opportunity for getting to know Buddhism per se, as such it has only sentimental value.

Dogen - Shobogenzo

Greatly inspired by Suzuki's book I delved deep into Dogen's work and Zen in general. Shobogenzo and Dogen's postulates didn't make much sense to me at the time, but eventually, what I considered utter nonsense came back to me with the wave of understanding as a surprise, only after reading bits and pieces from Pali canon by Buddha - the proper way, ground-up as it should be. Dogen's work is a true masterpiece that anyone should read, I much believe so. I recommend Gudo Nishijima's translation along with commentary.

Diamond Sutra

Whoever wrote this sutra, that person was a realised being at a great level of understanding. A mother and father of all koans, it’s a Diamond that cuts through illusion, a cleaver penetrating through consciousness. With all the Theravadin heritage to Buddhism, and all the reflection that Mahayanists had at gradual, patient ways of understanding, with all the respect towards rich and rigid Pali vocabulary and knowledge-centric drills of understanding - here’s something different, the Diamond sutra, a complete antithesis of the above. The text that negates all the subtle, patient ways to experience glimpses of Enlightenment. It is meant to shock, to violently prod in order to rewire the way brain perceives and understands things. Diamond sutra is best to be taken by an inexperienced person, the unprepared lost sheep that will become a wolf and then ultimately shepherd of the sheep (Bodhisattva). It hammers with shocking and fearful statements, only to bring joy and understanding borne out of shortcutting and cracking the mind open. All to arrive at the true door of the dharma eye. There was nothing starker that stood in contrast with traditional ways of teaching, teaching not by laying out mere intellectual knowledge, but by exposing direct experience of states of mind beyond concepts and cognition. It is more than sutra - it is a deeply meditative experience, just by barely reading it.

Thich Nhat Hanh - A poem on Vietnam war crimes.

The poem was written shortly after Hanh's followers faced brutal execution. I cried when I first read it, it struck me deeply how much compassion a person might have, then I first realised what burden it is to take up a Bodhisattva vow and what it actually means. Link: Promise me, promise me this day, promise me now...

Eight Verses on Training the Mind - Geshe Langri Thangpa

Following on concept of Bodhisattva, this is a great text when one feels down and needs a hint or a reset on the path. It conveys all of the advice required to get back on track in the moments of confusion. I chose this text due to simplicity and because it's very concise (short) as a memo.

Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment - Atisha

Another profound text that tackles on Bodhisattva discipline, profound insight into Emptiness and meditational advice. This is from the perspective of Vajrayana and the last stanzas tackle Greater tantras. Just as Eight Verses for Training the Mind, I use it as a supplement whenever confused, and in need of clarity. An invaluable read of greatest value.

Nagarjuna: The Philosophy of the Middle Way - David J. Kalupahana

This book is actually very interesting as it was written by Theravadin and aims to prove that Nagarjuna was no Mahayanist. Rather, later some of the interpretations and commentaries oftentimes distorted many points of Nagarjuna's message. In my opinion the book does prove its presumption successfully. It also describes false prophet phenomenon in which Nagarjuna was given too much credit without actually being revolutionary with his philosophy. Furthermore, it tackles why Mahayanists chose a new icon that many times was worshipped and the put on pedestal above Buddha in the canon.  Kalupahana there concludes that it was merely a rivalry aspect/tactics between the two schools, purely to undermine Theravada. The book also includes Kalupahana's translation of Nagarjuna's work.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Will an electronic gadget designed on reward/punishment mechanism of brain help improve meditation?
The most challenging part of meditation is to keep our wandering mind aware of persent moment and mindful of thoughts.
Our brain has some thing  called 'Default Mode Network' which is nothing but our ordinary mind full of worries and past and future etc. This mode is converted into something called as 'Executive Mode' in states of meditation and states of what people called flow.
Now, scientists for ages have trained animals to behave in certain way through reward/ punishment mechanism which gets our brain trained to do particular task or behave in particular way.
If I designed an electronic gadget, something similar to this. With an added mechanism that whenever your mind will wonder a small tingiling shock will be given to your skin and otherwise nothing will happen.
Using dry electrodes and signal processing techniques we can now detect when the mind wanders off.
My queation is,

Will this kind of technology be accepted by serious meditators or otherwise will it be helpful to people who are new to meditation.
Or will it prove to be nuisance.
Do you think we can train our brains to be mindful all the times through such reward/punishment exercise.

See also Computer Feedback in Meditation (one of the answers mentions using the "Muse" device).

I have a Muse. They are not serious meditation devices. There is simply too much noise and thus too many false negatives and false positives to make an actually useful meditation training aid. If such devices could be improved in the future to provide a higher quality signal without so much noise, then perhaps they could be useful. From my experience with the Muse the fidelity would need to be near 99.9999% to have a chance of helping though.
Of course, your mileage may vary. Perhaps others have had different experiences.

First only puthujjanas who are materialists care about the brain.
Second, the word mindful for sati or satipatthana  is really used by people lacking vocabulary.
Same situation for the word mind, but even worse, since is there no mind in pali, but a declination into 3 words. THere is ''citta'', there is ''mano'' and there are the 6 ''Vinnana'', ie the consciousness aggregate (viññāṇakkhandha).
THe wandering of the mind is the ''papanca'' of the mano.
Third, the way to be concentrated on something is to be relaxed and have joy,  piti. Once you are concentrated, you have joy and once you have joy your citta is not dispersed to the point of not being disturbed by little pains, sounds,  or worries . In other words, you cannot be concentrated without having joy.
Your fantasy of naggering the person filled with papanca and struggling to reduce the papanca has nothing to do with this joy.

"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma... verified confidence in the Sangha... virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration. Not content with those virtues pleasing to the noble ones, he exerts himself further in solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedfully, joy arises. In one who has joy, rapture arises. In one who has rapture, the body becomes serene. When the body is serene, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure, the mind becomes centered. When the mind is centered, phenomena become manifest. When phenomena are manifest, he is reckoned as one who dwells heedfully.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html
Since you care about papanca, here is the method to avoid it: first  you become a disciple, you do satipaṭṭhānaṃ , you have confidence in the buddha and when you are around people you do satipaṭṭhānaṃ , confidence in the buddha and you are ''nice guy'' which means you show''Khantiyā, avihiṃsāya, mettacittatāya, anudayatāya'' ie patience, harmlessness, friendliness and sympathy. https://suttacentral.net/sn47.19/en/bodhi
THen you go to a place alone. Then your mano has Pīti, then your body has passambhati, then has sukhaṃ vediyati, which is pleasant vedana, then the citta has sukhha, and once it has sukkha it has samādhi, which is centered or ''not dispersed''. Once you live like that, you are a person who ''lives diligently'' and ''knows phenomena when they manifest''.

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


text:
The Buddha's struggle with the first absorption
I need help reading the footnotes from the following passage in
the book Satipatthana, and finding the suttas which they reference.

in one instance at least, the Upakkilesa Sutta, the Buddha gave a detailed account of his own struggle to attain the first absorption.41 This passage leaves no doubt that the Buddha himself encountered considerable difficulty when he attempted to attain the first absorption, even though in his early youth he had already once experienced it.
Analayo. Satipatthana (Kindle Locations 1196-1199).

Footnote 41 says

M III 162, where only after having consecutively overcome a whole series of mental obstructions (cf. in detail page 199, footnote 73) he was able to attain the first jhāna. Cf. also A IV 439, which reports his struggle to overcome sensuality in order to be able to develop jhāna.

What sutta does M III 162 reference? (as Majjhima Nikaya contains 152)
And footnote 42 says

M I 246. Possibly his ability to enter the first jhāna so easily at this particular moment during his early youth was related to samatha practice undertaken in a previous life, an ability lost during his adolescence and later sensual indulgence as a young man, so that he had to develop it anew.

To what does M I 246 reference?

See also Tripitaka Section Numbering

How are you able to know that M I 246 is within MN 36 and M III 162 is within MN 128 ? Is there a rule you followed to deduce this?
Both number-systems (e.g. "MN 1" compared to MN i 1") are ordered and in the same sequence, i.e. increasing from lowest to highest.

This page lists from "MN 1" ("MN i 1") through "MN 50" ("MN i 332")
This page lists from "MN 51" ("MN i 339") through "MN 100" ("MN ii 209")
This page lists from "MN 101" ("MN ii 214") through "MN 152" ("MN iii 298")

If you're looking for "M I 246" for example, go to the first page and scan it (i.e. look at the ranges of numbers):

MN 36 starts with MN i 237
MN 37 starts with MN i 251

So M I 246 is somewhere inside MN 36.
246 is about half-way between 237 and 251: so I guess that it's half-way, in the middle, of MN 36.

Go to https://suttacentral.net/mn and follow the 2nd set of sutta references.

M I 246 is within MN 36.
M III 162 is within MN 128.

The above said, Analayo's ideas about MN 128 are probably wrong. MN 128 is about a certain dilemma of Venerable Anuruddha, who later was renowned for his psychic powers. The certain dilemma or subject matter of MN 128 is 'obhāsañceva sañjānāma dassanañca rūpānaṃ', namely, 'perception of light and seeing of forms'. MN 128 appears to be about the coming to be of a psychic power rather than about the 1st jhana. Here, the Buddha gives an account of his own struggle with what appears to be a naturally occurrence of a physic power (which will not occur with every meditator, such as Venerable Sariputta, who did not have any psychic powers). Therefore, MN 128 does not appear to be about the Buddha's struggle with the first absorption.

How are you able to know that M I 246 is within MN 36 and
M III 162 is within MN 128 ? Is there a rule you followed to deduce this?

There is no rule. You just follow the reference on the internet or in the book (see the answer for the book).


text:
Practice of Dhamma and loss of masculinity
Since the practice of Dhamma, I have experienced a loss of masculine nature like I am almost becoming a woman. I have given up aggression, anger, I make sure I am polite, not indulge in harsh speech (yesterday somebody was rude to me, but I didn't hit back like a man, I let-go, like I am now powerless), withdraw from addictions, not to eat meat as far as possible, no participate in actions hurting others like any kind of physical aggression, give up gambling, don't find the activity of going to gym and pumping up muscles any meaningful, instead I sit and watch my thoughts.
Under this discipline, any form of adrenaline triggering activity becomes almost undesirable. It is like I am psychologically turning into a woman. I don't know if this is helpful but certainly screwing up my sense of being a man.
question is,
Is this what anybody else experiencing? Is there any workout around the problem?
Is it inevitable?

In this part of the world, being calm and collected under pressure, not getting easily upset are also considered masculine qualities apart from physical strength

The anger of my youth has (mercifully) faded, but I don't feel feminine because of that.

There are positive and negative female and male traits. Positive male traits include courage, goal-orientation, reliability, capacity for leadership. Negative male traits are f.e. violence, tyranny, coldness. Positive female traits include nurture and a sense of family. Negative female traits are f.e. fickleness and timidity.
I dont think buddhism is about becoming some genderless entity. It's about adopting the positive traits of each aspect, not to give up one to be (bad at) the other.
You can be assertive without being violent, you can be a leader without being a tyrant.
Likewise you can love a child without being overprotective.
You mentioned going to the gym. Sure, muscles can be used to hurt someone, but they can also be used to help someone move furniture, to rescue someone from a crashed vehicle or to carry a tired child.
Going to the gym also makes you feel good about your body, is good for your health and immune system and a myriad of other things, which I don't think Buddhism is opposed to. On a more technical note: Going to the gym and exercising increases testosterone. If you stop going to the gym after doing it for a while, it's  natural to feel less masculine as your testosterone level decreases compared to before.
If you are a pushover I dont think this will do you good nor your community. Have the capacity for violence but only use it when absolutely necessary. Be able to lead, but be able to follow, too. Be calm and collected, not angry. All these are positive male traits.
In his youth the Buddha was trained in swordsmanship and archery, by the way. He certainly had the capacity to protect people from harm and all the other advantages that come from being a warrior in a garden rather than a gardener in a war.
I'd say meditate on which traits (male and female) are positive and which are negative and then adapt the positive ones or try to shift your balance of good and bad traits towards the good ones. Accept your dark side, enhance the good side.

It is not about being much so genderless but being non-discriminating. In the way that basic libidal and aggressive drives are hindrances that aim to please Self and there isn’t any reason to stick to such concepts.

I believe @eluebke has it basically correct. Another way to look at it is that the path we should be following is one of the evolution of the self beyond limited definitions of male (in your case) as defined by traditional 'traits' like aggressiveness or brutishness. As he said, meditate on the best of Human traits and try to redefine yourself via those. These are the ones which will help you progress forward in your quest for enlightenment. IMHO.

"Have the capacity for violence" is not a Buddhist teaching or advice. One shouldn't attempt to meditate on male vs female traits but on doing good or bad in general. Both men or women can have sense of family - men don't have to hide behind labels to avoid responsibility. And lastly, yes, Buddha was taught archery but before he became The Blessed One, from which point he completely lost capacity for violence and that was his teaching. There are also some known myths from non-Buddhist perspective (scientific); for example long effect of exercising & spiking testosterone is negligible.

Even from Freudian perspective, man should be careful of animal and juvenile instincts (there "id" that stands for aggression and libidinal drives), by rational means of intellect and then self discipline as those are negative; meant to satisfy "me" in a fastest way possible without considering cause and effect factors. We are mindful in Buddhism to yield control applying ethics and rules and that is what we do to transform. If one feels non-masculine doing Buddhism - it means that this is progress stage of the path.

What is masculine and what is not is only the product of collective thought, consciousness, and superstition in a given culture. Note how this differs among animals, there, it (masculinity) is not a fixed, unilateral idea.
It is not worth to be caught up by fixed ideas and divide masculine and feminine, for they are one and cannot exist without each other as there wouldn't be continuity of human life as we know it.
Such clinging to polarity brings suffering.
Rather, perceive it in terms of human virtue and nature in general and transcend such limited notion. Such notions lead to generalisations, generalisations lead to prejudice, and prejudice leads to suffering, inequality.

It is difficult and challenging to be the target of danger, violence, hate, anger and abuse. These threats to self give rise to fear and dread, with a compulsion towards fight or flight as a solution to defend self. Is fight masculine? Let's say not. Is flight feminine? Let's say not. Is fight better than flight? Let's say not. Instead, let's take a look at what is said about fear and dread.
The Bhayabherava Sutta (Fear and Dread) states:
While I walked, the fear and dread came upon me; I neither
stood nor sat nor lay down till I had subdued that fear and
dread
This sutta discusses dealing with fear and dread in controlled situations: sitting, walking, etc. But what about when someone throws a punch at you? I've been in fights where things got nasty because the only alternatives I had at the time were fight or flight. Was that a choice of masculine/feminine? No. Basically I did not have any skillful means. I studied Aikido and Zen together and learned a lot. And the dojo was coed--we all learned a lot from each other. Was that enough? No.
To live the truth of the Bhayabherava Sutta is very difficult. It is difficult because we need to live it with every breath, and most certainly when a knife is pointed at us. It is necessary to live it because only when you are free of fear and dread can you apply skillful means.
...adrenaline...
Sitting on a cushion with friends in a familiar place meditating is problematic when trying to deal with fear and dread. And today's society with all its guardrails tends to prevent situations of fear and dread. You could try to meditate alone in a graveyard but would no doubt be arrested for trespassing. However, it is possible to meditate on the Dhamma and the Bhayabherava Sutta in some adrenaline sports, provided that the focus is on the Dhamma and not the adrenaline or the adventure or the attainment. Dangers in these sports are very real and so is the fear and dread you need to deal with. Meditating with real fear and dread in action has helped me much more than worrying about gender. Indeed, I've learned more from brave women than brave men.
Namaste.

Well, I think giving up meaningless stuff like gym and reacting is a good thing.
What we consider to be a man or a woman is based upon social and cultural conventions anyway. Meaning, it differs from society to society. So, why cling to those ideas when they're that changeable?
Not feeling 'like a man' is only a problem when one identifies with 'being a man'.
I myself don't feel like a woman. Most of the time I feel quite genderless, so to speak. I've ask a monk ones about this a while ago. Apparently it's something advanced meditators experience.
So, yeah. Letting go of identifications is part of the deal. And sooner or later you probably won't find it such an issue.
Hope this helps.

Sounds very familiar, I went through a similar phase. Whether you call it "feminine" or a "pushover", there is certainly the tendency to get exceedingly soft if one truly takes Buddhist practice to heart -- after all, you're supposed to eliminate ego with its defensiveness, aggression, and hard opinions. You're supposed to control your emotions, avoid harsh speech and other forms of violence, stay away from alcohol, guard your senses from violent and lustful experiences which are pretty much the cinematographical norm these days - and so on and so forth.
Leaving aside the question of masculine vs. feminine (which I think is irrelevant to this conversation), yes, I believe this phase is normal and almost inevitable. Luckily, this is not the final destination.
This phase is what my Zen Master called the "form is emptiness" phase, and what follows after can be broadly characterized as the "emptiness is form" phase.
"Form is emptiness" is when you work on destroying attachment to form. You start by giving up and destroying the crudest attachments, like coarse anger and desires. Then you destroy more subtle attachments, like e.g. the tendency to self-assert and judge others who don't follow the same path. Then you destroy even subtler attachments, like subconsciously basking in your own purity and sainthood. Then you destroy whatever remains after that. This process goes on until you pretty much lose any form; you destroy all clinging to any conceptual ground; you no longer identify with any position, especially the position of "goodness" or "purity".
This leaves you with no ground to stand on, nothing to protect you, no desires to provide a sense of direction, no values to give you purpose. This is the peak of losing form. At this point you are 100% vulnerable, way beyond losing masculinity. It's like, you are not even a person anymore. There is no personality, no individuality, nothing left - you are completely transparent with no desires, no opinions, no will of your own.
And then, once you get more or less comfortable with having no ground (you can't really get comfortable, but you can get used to it) -- you can start exploring the other side of nonduality, called "emptiness is form". This is when you realize that since nothing in life has absolute importance, you are free to declare new forms, and you have a right to assert your opinion. You can even manifest aggression when that's required by the circumstances.
So, to summarize the above: this phase is normal, keep letting go of progressively subtler attachments until you completely lose shape, and then some part of your aggressive masculinity that you're currently suppressing because of its inherent violence interfering with the Path, will be reintegrated back and you will no longer feel "feminine" or meek.

I wouldn't maybe say reintegrated back (in the same form) but transformed and made of something of very indifferent importance to dwell upon; worth a chuckle at best.

A lot of the things you describe are associated with an active way. For example, to develop your body versus listen to your thoughts, is a clear example of active and outward versus passive and inward. These dichotomies correspond with masculine and feminine in many cultures.

Is this what anybody else experiencing?

The dominant culture in much of the world today is excessively outward and active. It is natural that in seeking the middle way, one turns inward and becomes more passive to counter-balance. Much of Buddhism also teaches of and trains toward the importance and the benefits of passivity in the external world. There again, it is natural that a practitioner will turn inward and become more passive.

Is there any workout around the problem? Is it inevitable?

This is harder to answer. The above points give context one can operate it regarding activity and passivity in one's life, internal and external. Seek balance and clarity. Looking closely at one example, let's consider going to the gym. Are you clear about why you go? Try to gain as much clarity about it as possible (which will take both active seeking and passive listening). With clarity about the phenomenon or experience, try to seek balance about it in your life. Sometimes balance takes a "hands off" approach, and sometimes having a hands-off approach takes effort. Sometimes balance means finding the right amount of something (a passive process) and adjusting habits and ways accordingly (an active process). There are many layers to striking a balance, and there are more layers still to walking the path. Therefore it is hard to say what is inevitable or what appropriate workarounds are for a particular instance.

The real issue is you losing all those "addictions" you are describing. That, I believe, is the goal you are trying to reach, but I can remember talks from some western Buddhist monks who said that at some point some people get afraid that when you lose all that stuff - what do you keep in the end?
I would suggest to you that you should be happy - whatever you are doing seems to be working as intended.
Whether you label it manly or womanly is up to you and your level of, frankly, machismo - but irrelevant, at the end. Those more extrovert things you notice (getting angry, hitting back etc.) are simply something we maybe relate most with men (aggression), hence the psychological connection in your brain about that.

Physical aggression / gambling / going to gym / pumping up muscles / hit back / addictions / meat eating.....etc etc etc...
None of the above, are gender specific traits. Meaning, they are both a manly or womanly thing, it can happen on Men and Women.
In Buddhism perspective, there are only wholesome and unwholesome acts. Your best bet is to stick with the wholesome acts.

Dependence is a niche acquired through mental mutilation. Addictions being the best example. Mental conditioning is sadly a dying art.


text:
why can't we swap one desire for another and another?
We know that because of impermanence, that nothing is worth clinging to. But did the Buddha say any words on why we cannot swap one impermanent source of satisfaction for another, and continue doing so?
For example, one might take drug A to induce euphoria, then when drug A wears off, replace it by drug B, and so on.

Even prescription drugs tend to lead to increased craving for more, and for this reason, even they are unreliable. But don't know if this is purely a mental phenomena, not unique to only drugs, and the same would be true for all objects of desire.

driven by endless greed, one would inevitably want for what cannot be given.

To put it simply: because "suffering" dukkha does not necessarily arise in the aspect of pleasant feeling. There is suffering in the aspect of pleasant feelings. It is called 'suffering of change' or 'contaminated happiness'.

"Why we cannot swap one impermanent source of satisfaction for another, and continue doing so?"
The act of swapping one impermanent source for another... is also subject to impermanence. One can realize this with logic or simply look at the experience of those beings that have tried... ie., every sentient being in existence :)
Our very existence is a cause and condition for the suffering of others. The First Noble truth contains both coarse and subtle understandings of Dhukka. The most subtle is what is called the Sankhara-dukkha. This is an all pervasive unsatisfactoriness. Swapping from one impermanent source of satisfaction for another is itself unsatisfactory. To recognize this as Dhukka is wisdom.
"For example, one might take drug A to induce euphoria, then when drug A wears off, replace it by drug B, and so on."
What will that experience of it wearing off feel like? Satisfactory? What about when all the drugs run out? What will be the karma of someone acting in this manner? Look at the very real experiences of your fellow sentient beings that have tried this... do you find them satisfactory? If not, why not?
Ice cream is my favorite thing to eat. I now regard it as a form of suffering. To really understand the predicament we are in we have to see the Dhukka in those things we typically find "happiness" in. All of this, no manner how many drugs we take, is subject to aging, sickness and death. That's Dhukka.

MN 75 gives the analogy of a leper and shows that by swapping one desire for another, we would simply be making our craving and attachments progressively worse, which is a slippery slope to deepening our suffering.
The reason for this is that sensual pleasures are impermanent, and either their future absence will cause suffering, or their future side effects will cause suffering. They can't be sustained forever. And when you swap one desire for another, craving gets deepened and the "sensual fever" burns deeper. This will result in suffering becoming deeper.

"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.

For example, one might take drug A to induce euphoria, then when drug A wears off, replace it by drug B, and so on.

The problem with replacing a sensual object with another is that over time, the body system's sensual receptacles grow numb to the old stimuli and it'd require stronger and stronger stimuli to trigger the same level of pleasurable response. An analogy is when one drinks salt water to try to quench his thirst, it only makes his thirst more severe, and s/he'll keep drinking salt water to death.

But did the Buddha say any words on why we cannot swap one impermanent source of satisfaction for another, and continue doing so?

The Buddha did say about a gradual process of replacing one gross/coarse source of satisfaction with other less coarse/more refined ones, and incrementally more and more refined ones, until a day when one's defilements are completely eradicated and one no longer craves any kind of stimuli coarse or subtle at all:

Even though a disciple of the noble ones has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, still — if he has not attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that[4] — he can be tempted by sensuality. But when he has clearly seen as it actually is with right discernment that sensuality is of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks, and he has attained a rapture & pleasure apart from sensuality, apart from unskillful mental qualities, or something more peaceful than that, he cannot be tempted by sensuality. ~~ MN 14  ~~

'swap one impermanent source of satisfaction for another'
Is this not exactly what we do all our lives?
did the Buddha say any words on why we cannot?
Is the first noble truth not exactly why we musn't even if we can?
There is no 'cannot' there is only awakening to folly.

In your own words of understanding the first noble truth, can you explain, exactly why we musn't 'swap one impermanent source of satisfaction for another' even if we can?

For a simple reason that it brings an everlasting orgasmic joy.

Sarcasm aside, is lasting joy not possible as long as we continue to find something else that brings us joy?

@avatarKorra He he I am glad that you got the sarcasm...to tell you a scientific reason...there was an experiment done on rats where they were given a choice to stimulate their brains to get an orgasm...the rats go hooked but all of the experimental subjects died. Human brain is  designed that ways. It doesnot respond to permenant happiness inducing harmones the way u are visualising it. So, no...lasting joy is not possible by changing the object of pleasure. Not even with drugs. Neurochemistry also has a say as much as psychology and biology.

yes I think from the side of sense pleasures, laws of chemistry/physics/nature will not allow the body to find lasting satisfaction in this way. And to generalize beyond the senses to all things, it seems that at some point we will run out of options to find 'something else' to bring us joy, and at that time we'll see dukkha gain. In any mundane thing we try to find joy in, it carries either the danger of attachment, or the satisfaction doesn't last (e.g. we get bored of it).

We can not replace A by B by C by D and so on because the consumer is perishable. The euphoria which gets generated by coming together of body and drugs fails to get generated after some time as the body dies or becomes deseased. This applies to all the objects of satisfaction. For example imagine someone changing wife every year to enjoy sex. But after some time his sexual organ will fail to respond to sexual stimuli as he will become diseased or will leave his body. Therefore objects of satisfaction can not be replaced forever.

while the consumer is still alive, though, can he not continue to find satisfaction by finding a new drug? I suppose not, because there are only finitely many classes of drugs to induce euphoria. And finding a new drug does not guarantee that cravings for old drugs are removed.

Yes ,drugs are finite and life is also finite. End of life doesn't mean end of you. You will be reborn and you will again search for drugs. You will suffer if you do not get rid of drugs.  Police will remove the drugs or you will go mad when it will not be available. Therefore avoid to depend on replacement plan.

and what would you say to someone who doesn't believe in rebirth (as transmigration of human life), isn't in danger of the police, nor goes mad from taking drugs?

As long as there is craving ,Rebirth is a fact and can not be denied.

MN 54 describes how sensual pleasures cannot bring satisfaction and the more than are indulged in the more they bring chronic weariness.
The more pleasures are indulged in, the more craving grows, the more the capacity to obtain pleasure from sensual pleasures diminishes.
This is why people become addicts and reach a point where their objects of addiction cease to bring pleasure and bring suffering.

Householder, suppose a dog, overcome by hunger and weakness, was waiting by a butcher’s shop. Then a skilled butcher or his apprentice
  would toss the dog a well hacked, clean hacked skeleton of meatless
  bones smeared with blood. What do you think, householder? Would that
  dog get rid of his hunger and weakness by gnawing such a well hacked,
  clean hacked skeleton of meatless bones smeared with blood?”
“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because that was a skeleton of well hacked, clean hacked meatless bones smeared with blood. Eventually
  that dog would reap weariness and disappointment.”
“So too, householder, a noble disciple considers thus: ‘Sensual pleasures have been compared to a skeleton by the Blessed One; they
  provide much suffering and much despair, while the danger in them is
  great.’


text:
Was Gautama Buddha's wife Yesodhara in any way instrumental in Him becoming a Buddha?
Considering the story we know about the life of Buddha as Siddhartha and also considering that Yesodhara was Buddha's partner in His many previous lives, can we say that Yesodhara was somehow instrumental in Siddhartha becoming a Buddha?
OR
With or without Her being in His life He would have made it?
(Her pervious life with Buddha is in wiki article and here.)
I know this question is as such irrelevant to practice but I am trying to get around this idea called 'soul-mates' which is in pop-media.

It appears the stories in the question are not from the Pali suttas but are later commentary stories and Mahayana ideas probably created to salvage Gotama's misogynist reputation.
It appears Yasodharā is not mentioned in the Pali suttas, apart from supposedly as Bhaddakaccānā in AN 1.245. The Pali suttas appear silent on Yasodharā and only refer to Gotama's parents when Gotama left home.

So, at a later time, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with the blessings of youth in the first stage of life — and
while my parents, unwilling, were crying with tears streaming down
their faces — I shaved off my hair & beard, put on the ochre robe and
went forth from the home life into homelessness.
MN 26

The Pali suttas do not report the traditional fables or children's stories about Gotama seeing a sick, old & dead man and secretly leaving home. Instead, the Pali suttas report Gotama unhappy with worldly life in his palaces and having an existential crisis (refer to Sukhamala Sutta).
Since Gotama left home after his son was born, it appears possible he made a deal with his father to bear an heir to the throne. In other words, his wife was probably unimportant, apart from her role of child bearing (breeding) for the family lineage.
Since Gotama was married for 13 years but childless, based on the above suttas mentioned, it appears obvious Gotama had little or no interest in sex. Obviously his family (clan), wife, child and royal status were a burden for him. This is probably why the Buddha taught in MN 26:

Monks, there are these two searches: ignoble search & noble search. And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being
subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise
subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness...
death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is
likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.
And what may be said to be subject to birth? Spouses & children are subject to birth. Men & women slaves... goats & sheep... fowl &
pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares... gold & silver are
subject to birth. Subject to birth are these acquisitions, and one who
is tied to them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for
them, being subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to
birth.
And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves...
goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares...
gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death...
sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death...
sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to
them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being
subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging...
illness... death... sorrow... defilement. This is ignoble search.

In conclusion, Gautama Buddha's wife Yesodhara was probably highly instrumental in Him becoming a Buddha because she showed Gautama she was incapable of bringing Gautama any real happiness but would only bring burdens & misery.

If Gotama and Yasodharā were childless, what about Rāhula?

i wrote childless for first 13 years of marriage. Then unmarried as soon as become a father. Abandoned his wife.

Thank you for this answer. If this version of stories is held correct I suppose my craving for the other to attain Nibbana ends. I am a Theravadin so  I will take this as the truth. So in effect, you don't need that perfect wife who has followed you life after life, to attain Nibbana. This helps.  Thanks again :).

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

I am trying to get around this idea called 'soul-mates' which is in pop-media.
The term 'soul-mates' doesn't make sense in ultimate reality as there are no souls to begin with. But if you simply interpret it as being the perfect husband and wife, it has meaning in Buddhism.
With or without Her being in His life He would have made it?
Once the Buddha Deepankara gave the prediction that the Bodhisatta is going to be a Buddha, it was going to happen one way or the other.
Yashodara Theri herself answers this question in her last words before she passed away.
“me saranam atthano” (“I am my own refuge”).
Nevertheless, she was the perfect wife to the Bodhisatta.

The relationship between Yashodhara and Prince Siddhartha was long and
  deep-rooted. It had started many, many years ago at the time of the
  Dîpankara Buddha. At that time, the Prince (Bodhisatta) was born as an
  ascetic by the name of Sumedha. After an exceedingly long period of
  practicing the ten virtues, the Bodhisatta Sumedha had finally
  completed the eight requirements to receive the definite proclamation
  of Buddhahood from the Dîpankara Buddha. Yashodhara, at that time, was
  born as a noble lady by the name of Sumitta. She saw the Buddha
  Dîpankara give the Bodhisattva eight handfuls of white jasmine flowers
  and the definite proclamation that He would be a Buddha by the name of
  Gotama, of the Sakyan caste, in the distant future. Cutting off her
  hair, she aspired to be His consort and helpmate and to support Him
  actively in His quest for Buddhahood.

Since then she had been the wife of no other but him during the entire period(100,000 world cycles and four infinite periods).
Another example for a perfect couple is Nakula matha and Nakula pitha.

If this version is accepted then it means really they are soul mates as its defined in popular media. I understand that there is no soul so no question of having soul mates, but loosely defined it as the person you will meet life after life in each reincarnation is defined as soul mate then it makes sense to call them soul mate. Also if this part of the story be stressed ' be His consort and helpmate and to support Him actively in His quest for Buddhahood.' then it directly means she was instrumental for His Nibbana. As it literally indicates she supported Him, so her support was needed.

@FriedrickNietzsche it depends on what the term 'soul-mates' means to you. Buddhists do not have to protest against the usage of such terms. Especially if they are meant in a conceptual sense. If you are a married person, you will know that it's very useful to have a supportive wife, but it's not a necessity to succeed in life. It's the same case for the Bodhisatta. :)

Who we finally called Yashodhara was an integral part of who we now call Siddhartha Gautama's achievement. She not only was an integral part, she also achieved realization in that lifetime. Ignorantly claiming that the circumstances in which karma was dispelled are not necessary is counter-productive.  For instance, even in his last lifetime as the Buddha, Siddhartha stepped on a briar and hurt his foot. Ananda said, "How can this happen?" Gautama said, "It's the last little bit of karma that I had to dispel."
Yashodhara and Siddhartha made a pact in the time of the Later Dipankara Buddha - they would travel together through all of the subsequent lifetimes until enlightenment and if one achieved, they would come back for the other. We see undisputed (finally, sigh) stories of Yashodhara copying everything Siddhartha did as an Aesthetic. Shaving hair, doning yellow robes, eating once a day....while still in the palace waiting for him.  This is not the action of a distraught or angry wife. Let's think about it.
Male Chauvenistic tendancies aside (if we can bear it) Yashodhara was principle part of Siddhartha's history. If you believe that he was ACTUALLY omniscient and did ACTUALLY remember his lifetimes, you must assume he could tell stories about them.
Men who claim women are unequal practitioners, evidenced by the 8 extra rules that place women "below" men are right.  Men and women are unequal.  Women are superior Bodhissatvas. Naturally they give their bodies to others (carrying a child), Feed them from their own bodies, subjugate their own needs to take care of others.
More rules are always given to more serious practitioners. Ignorant beginners only have a few rules.  Let us think about this, too.

Welcome to the site! May I ask -- where do you find the stories, which you referenced in the 2nd paragraph? About the pact, and about what Yashodhara did while waiting in the palace?


text:
As a Buddhist how do I get over hatred towards my previous religion?
I am filled with genuine hatred towards my previous religion. My hatred is not directed towards other religions it's just towards my past. And this constantly bubbles up during meditation.
I don't live in a majority Buddhist country and it was a long hard journey to arrive at the Dhamma.
I don't have any problem with them following their respective paths but I am filled with rage for all the lies that were filled in my head for their own greed and ignorance. I get so enraged when I see people around me preaching non-sense theology to other people and to what effect, only to fulfil material desires.
So, what is the strategy when you see the lies and ignorance around. Do you keep quiet as not to get into a debate to keep the 'Right Speech' or do you get into arguments?
How do I get rid of hatred and tolerate other people spreading lies?

You say your hatred isn't toward religion in general, but is "just toward your (specific) past" -- so ought you explain more than you have, about your past experience[s]? I find it hard to understand the problem as stated and to relate to the question, e.g. because when I've experienced people preaching I didn't interpret their motive as being "for their own greed and ignorance" and "only to fulfil material desires" -- is that (their motive) an important part of why you're angry? Are you angry about some material loss of yours, being defrauded?

@ChrisW I get your point. The question may have looked ambiguious. But answer your question it would becone long a very post. But in short I am angry to have led on to wrong beliefs. The belief that there is some benevolent God in heaven who  basically wishes good of me and is going to help me be happy if I pray him. This caused me lot of harm. Emotionally and otherwise to my life itself.

Would it be safe to say that you take serious issue with people lying to take advantage of others in general, not just in religion?

@undercat in a broader sense, yes

What is your former religion? The religion of my past is conservative baptist Christian. I generated a great deal of aversion toward it before I became a Buddhist. The Buddha dharma has actually helped me get past this aversion and see beauty in my past religion. If you are Christian, would be happy to share my perspective if it would help.

@YesheTenley  Thank you for your offer. Although my previous religion is hinduism, it will be helpful to know which Buddhist ideas got you past the aversion.

@FriedrickNietzsche i do not whether this will be helpful or not, but there was a great hindu scholar swami vivekanada (he was a great believer in buddha and a true representative of hinduism, i have no idea whose version of hinduism you followed since it is not even a religion). He has a nice book 'karma yoga' in which he discusses how to handle the dilemma of correcting others or just letting things go, this is the only book of him i have read so i have no idea whether there are better advices in his other books.

Were they lies, or merely falsehoods?  Typically lying requires one to know something and say another.

@CortAmmon so is “fairytale” telling “lying” or “falsehood”?

@Kyslik I'm sure that depends on how you tell it, and why.

Think of the followers of your former religion as people who believe that the earth is flat. There's no point getting angry at them. It's ok to argue with them in social circles if you feel it might be useful to some and if you are confident that you can handle it.
But if it is getting to the point that you start shouting at them or trash talking at them, you should stop and contemplate the Anatta nature of beings. You cannot make other beings think the way you want at will. Meditate on the wanting to control others' thoughts. Whenever anger arises in the mind, simply note it.

Well... I hate to say it (wink-wink)... but... having that rage and seeing that other religion as a collection of "lies" and those people as "liars" does say something about your level of realization in Buddhism. Yes, not very good.
You must change the way you relate to both, change the way you see it. Buddhism must not be handled as if it was a position of truth. Buddhism is a position of tolerance, a position of appreciating all positions. You should stop making Buddhism into another house for your ego.
When you get Buddhism, you don't identify with Buddhism. You see all religions, including Buddhism, as part-truths - echos or reflections of truth. Each partially valid and partially wrong in its own unique way. Then you can appreciate the wholesome elements in each and see the confused elements as natural side-effect of their chosen way to inform and communicate the wholesome elements.
I suggest you read Trungpa's Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism. Hopefully, it will help you see how Buddhism relates with Ego.

If religions are not lies, then what is it?

To me, they are useful fairy-tales, perfect for small children that most of us people still are. Fairy-tales tell truth, in simplified and decorated form - because children have simplistic mind and very short attention span. You can't tell them serious things, because they will stop listening before you finish, and will not understand if you do. IMO that's why wise people invented religions and fairy-tales.

@J.Chang The philosopher Alan Watts often talked about Myths.  He defined myths as "images with which we make sense of the world."  I find extending that definition from myths to religions is not unreasonable.

@AndreiVolkov : Have you ever heard about a concept called "straw man"?

Yes, sure. Why?

As a buddhist follower myself, shouldnt this current religion teach you about tolerance? and acceptance?
Why be angry about the lies told to you, reject it in your mind and you will be free from it.
Just like what Buddha had said, what happens when you reject a gift from a person? it goes back to them. same thing here. reject the lies and its goes back to them.
The fact that you are still angry only point to 1 thing. You had unconsciously accepted the lies.
Being truly free, as in Buddhist teaching is not to hate whatever pass you have but to move forward with the new path you choose.
Ultimately, the choice is yours. Let it go and free yourself.

(This is not really a prescriptive answer, just a few questions that perhaps could shed some light on your feelings. Furthermore, I'm just another person curious about Buddhism, so take what I wrote with a lump of salt.)

How do I get rid of hatred and tolerate other people spreading lies?

My suggestion is to try and understand why the liar (in your case, some of the religious followers) chose to lie to you and others.
You say, it is "to fulfill material desires", but have you tried "stepping into their shoes", as unpleasant as it may sound, and considering what former struggles, traumas and bad influences of the past made that person value material desires so much at present?
No human being is born in sin. Have they ever struggled with money or popularity when they were younger? Were they raised in a very religious and conservative family and were forced to take the same world view as their family and mentors?
I believe that if you succeed in seeing how their innocent youth got bruised and transformed by the imperfect world around them, your hatred will slowly transform into compassion and understanding.

I think this is a great chance to practise compassion (in Buddhism, this is one of the four brahmaviharas or sublime states, known as karuna or compassion).
There's the story of a Japanese soldier who hid in the jungle during World War 2. Even after the war was over, he remained in hiding in the jungle for decades. Then one day, he came out, still in fear, but discovered that the war was over a long time ago. Wouldn't you feel compassion for this soldier instead of contempt, because you understood the reason why he hid in the jungle? It's due to his fear and ignorance.
If you have a grandmother suffering from senile dementia, who sometimes lashes at you, would you be angry towards her or would you be compassionate? Surely, you would be compassionate towards her, because you understand that she is behaving in this way due to her medical condition.
Similarly, try to understand the background and motivations of those people who practise the other religion. Perhaps, they choose their beliefs and practices simply because they blindly trust their parents' teachings, and they are afraid to consider anything else, due to fear of divine retribution or due to fear of temptation by an imaginary invisible malevolent being. Then you would have compassion for them.

ok. I can understand you. It's not a matter of your past religion, and it's a matter of your thinking pattern. if you can stop your thoughts flood then there is no any mind disasters now you already have.
here is a small solution for it. just see your thoughts are arising and seas but don't accept it or reject it. just let it to come let it to be and let it to go with using your mindfulness and wise consideration.But don't be a part of that thinking pattern. touch the silence in between two thoughts. be mindful only to attach to that. then all your thoughts will vanish. then you free from the problem. be sure to  practice meditation on breathing continuesly to stop unwanted thoughts you have.

So, what is the strategy when you see the lies and ignorance around. Do you keep quiet as not to get into a debate to keep the 'Right Speech' or do you get into arguments?

Nowadays I usually keep quite. Their opinions and ideas are not my problem, and I don't want to make it my problem. The story of holding on to hot coal and burning oneself helped a lot. Also, realising that no matter what I would do there would be no end to whatever opinions or ideas, cause there are too many. It's infinite, endless. The only solution is to not get involved.
That would be my suggestion to you: don't to get involved. Care for your own mind and let them be with theirs.
Peace.

You say, "The belief that there is some benevolent God in heaven who basically wishes good of me and is going to help me be happy if I pray him. This caused me lot of harm. Emotionally and otherwise to my life itself. –"
First I would like to say I am sorry that someone in your Christian past taught you something that Christians do NOT believe. A cursory study of Reformed Theology would show you that actual Christians do not believe in such a God as you have described. There are prosperity preachers and other aberrant teachings that spread vacuous lies and untruth under the guise of Christianity- and they burn like wildfire through many under-educated congregations.
Being angry about it is frustrating, infuriating, and rather pointless as it only hurts you and keeps you from moving forward. At some point in each of our lives we have to make a choice to only own our own stuff if we want to move forward emotionally, psychologically, and attain a level of peaceful happiness.
Each one of us must choose what we believe. A lot of people think that indoctrination trumps choice but it does not if you are even a modest thinker.
You can choose today to let it go. You can acknowledge it, and accept it as part of your past and move forward with your studies and practices in Buddhism unfettered from the anger your feel regarding your previous religious experience - accept that the people who are part of your past who still practice their faith are, like you, seekers along the way trying to find their own place in the universe and their own understanding of peace, joy, happiness, and love.
We are complicated beings, but the vast majority of people all pretty much want the same things.
Moment by moment we all choose how we will respond, how we will think, how we will love or withhold love - keep choosing peace, love, unity, and joy.
Blessings,
Robin

In a subsequent comment the OP said their previous religion was Hinduism (not Christianity).


text:
What is the best strategy to confront Non-Buddhist ideology?
I am sure everybody in this world thinks that 'my religion is the only true religion' etc and its variables. As we live in a diverse society, in today's age of information we invariably bump into people or places, online or offline, with ideologies which totally contradict Buddhist beliefs.
What is the best strategy to deal with such situations? Should we keep silence and ignore and let them live in their ignorance or should we confront and try to explain the Dhamma to them?
In the latter situation, it always ends up in heated debates about the existence of god and its near impossible to explain a non-Buddhist that soul doesn't exist and that self is an illusion.
What do you do?

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

There's an apocryphal Christian story, that I heard or read long ago -- where somebody asks someone else (possibly a Buddhist):

Have you ever thought of becoming a Christian?

... to which the person replies:

If you mean a good Christian, like your Christ -- I don't have the courage.
But if you mean being a bad Christian, like you -- I wouldn't want to be!

If you want to be persuasive (about the benefits and/or truths of Buddhism) perhaps it's important to be a good Buddhist.
I don't want to criticise but "ending up in heated debates about the existence of God" doesn't sound attractive or persuasive to me.
I'm particularly afraid of someone's thinking, "if being a Buddhist means being like you, I wouldn't want to be!"

I once tried to explain Buddhism (not in a "confrontational" way) -- see How to explain what Buddhism is? -- and I don't think I was very successful.
Still I hope I learned from that, that there are many different aspects of Buddhism: and different aspects appeal to or make sense to different people.
The Buddha was especially skilled at knowing different people and speaking accordingly.
It may be that the topics of God, Soul, and Self are especially important to you -- for what it's worth or for example, I don't see that as the most important doctrine.
A friend once told me a bit about communication theory, saying that when people choose a topic of conversation, then talking about what's far away (distant) is less intimate than what's close (here); that what's in the past or future is less intimate than what's now; and that talking about people we don't know, and/or talking about friends, is less intimate than talking about ourselves.
It seems to me that talking about "God" is very distant. Perhaps it's too easy to argue about something you can't see!
If you want to talk about Buddhism maybe it's better to consider aspects of Dharma like Ehipassiko, perhaps like the Kalama sutta.

Five more things.
One is that I tend to assume "good faith".
My parents professed Christianity when I was young. I don't think they were doing that in order to deceive me.
I assume they had some reason[s] for their belief[s] and that the words they spoke had some meaning[s] to them, even if those words didn't wholly make "real" sense to me.
So if I were going to engage in a conversation about God and Soul and so on, I think my participation ought to include my being interested in finding out or understanding what those words mean to someone, and why they use them and so on.1
Conversely, if I'm not interested in doing that, then it's maybe not a topic of conversation I should engage in.
The second is that (when I was young and they were trying to indoctrinate me) I was willing to believe all kinds of doctrines. Or if not believe, at least not dispute. "So, God wants us to love our neighbour as ourself? Well sure, why not. Good doctrine, more or less. And God loves us? That's nice to know, thanks for saying so. And there's a resurrection and an afterlife? Well, OK: if you say so." There was one bit of doctrine though that I couldn't manage. The way it was taught at that time was, "The Church has a monopoly on the Truth: what the Church teaches is true, and everything/everyone else (including every other religion) is wrong." And I thought, that bit of doctrine was just too much: "So, 'the Annunciation', OK, 'the Trinity, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Heaven' ... whatever, OK: if you say so. But 'everyone else is wrong'? That's incredible! Impossible!" And I think that maybe Buddhism too warns against being a sectarian who argues in this way ("This alone is true") about the dhamma.
The third is that I guess (if you'll excuse my saying so) that your "heated debates" are motivated by some form of conceit, specifically comparing yourself to others: "I'm Buddhist and they're not. My being Buddhist means I know the Dhamma, whereas they are living in ignorance." That's maybe not something you want to perpetuate (even when the debate is whether 'self' is an illusion).
Fourth, if you are arguing online that's maybe even less sensible/effective than face-to-face (xkcd).
Fifth, IMO the "ideologies which totally contradict Buddhist beliefs" are for example the ideologies which involve killing -- or lying, and so on. If you understand that kind of doctrine to be the "bottom line", you might decide most people are agreeable or "very civilized".
1Maybe you can see this sort of attitude here, i.e. I like to assume that I'm at least a little ignorant about another person's views.

The actual Buddhist way is to keep silence and ignore and let them live in their manner. The question asked isn't actually an issue in Theravada Buddhism. The Pali teachings literally say to only teach Dhamma to those who are interested and attentive (AN 9.5; MN 26; etc).
Also, since "self" is an illusion, why would there be any reason for arguments & debates?

Telling other people that what they do wrong and even more that what they believe is wrong does not work well. I barely works when supported with facts, but as religion is about belief, it will work even less. It is better to lead by good example and an open discussion. Show similarities and listen to them. I am not confessed to any religion, but I can very well understand how people benefit from a religion when discussing it in such a way instead of more agressive persuasion.

In my experience, every religion seems to be based on the same deep fondation of widsom.
The diffences are superficial. Believing in a god for instance should not be considered a bad thing if it helps people to live moraly and to adhere to this wisdom or to pursue it.
I would only confront people whith their ideas if they take religion as an excuse to do bad things, by encouraging them to reflect on their actions.
Afterall, there are a lot of people in ths world. Everyone thinks differently and thus a religion that suits you will not and should not suit everyone, that's why there are so many of them.
So I would say to stay out of the debate as long as it is about the superficial aspects of a religion (aka beliefs), and engage into it only if you feel like people would commit ubskillful actions in the name of it, as something is likely not well understood from their perspective and I am lileky to make a difference without contradicting their beliefs.

One of the answers on how do you confront a different religion is that you really don't.
There is no need to confront anything and anyone. Dalai Lama points out that nearly all religions have the same potential, message and goal; the wish to bring the world to better conditions and make humanity more compassionate is shared amongst all of them.
We can all work towards a similar better aim, there isn't any need for elitism and feelings of superiority. We can have fruitful conversations rather than painful quarrels.
From my perspective, apart from my wife, none of the people I know, and especially friends of mine, have a clue that I am a Buddhist. If prompted for an answer all I say is I want to be a better person, and meditate to purify my mind and to be a better human being. That works and serves as a middle ground; we don't have to march out with labels, sings and other things. We can keep that away as signs and labels are distractions, we should go forth beyond them, with no attachment to them, ready to let go of them for greater good.
If Christians feel that there is a soul - fine, I cannot really deny it, although I cannot really find it either, through my own experience. The point being is that it takes to shred ego down to have compassionate possibility and ability of dialogue, to discuss real stuff, rather than going about pillars of doctrine in a dualistic, divisive realm of signs. At that level of discussion it all aims towards the same direction, typically, which is liberation from suffering.

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

Should we keep silence and ignore and let them live in their ignorance or should we confront and try to explain the Dhamma to them?

What comes to my mind is the story of Buddha not really being keen on teaching others.
(From the Pāsarāsi sutta [MN 26].)

‘Enough with teaching the Dhamma That even I found hard to reach; For
  it will never be perceived By those who live in lust and hate.
Those dyed in lust, wrapped in darkness Will never discern this
  abstruse Dhamma Which goes against the worldly stream, Subtle, deep,
  and difficult to see.’
Considering thus, my mind inclined to inaction rather than to teaching
  the Dhamma. ... '

So, I guess there are several factors.
Is the other person just spouting his/her own opinions and idea's or really open to discussion? Does (s)he want to hear something contrary to own belief?
Of course also relevant: what is your own motivation? Why do you want to confront and explain? Is it truly out of compassion or is it just wanting?
How does trying to convince someone else help you? Does it make your mind peaceful or is it disquieting?
In my own little world of experience it's is more peaceful to stay out of discussions, opinions, confrontation and so forth.
Hope this helps a bit.

Please compare "inclined to inaction rather than to teaching" with examples contrary to it. The buddha did, after all, preach/teach to all kinds of people many times for many years. Is the above quote really representative of the budhha's views?

@Jonathan Imho. it is. There is a difference between 1. being eager to teach others, having this outward going attitude and 2. being inclined towards inaction and only teach when someone else asks for a teaching. Hope this helps.

Whether ideas should be confronted to start with depends on the type of idea. It depends on whether they fuel virtue or non-virtue (such as anger, for instance) and it depends on how it leads one to act.
"Black people are lesser than white people" is an idea. "The gods want us to sacrifice goats, and if we do so, we will be able to cross the sea to go back home" is another. It is not hard to see how non-virtuous these ideas are.
In Buddhism, facts matters to the extent that we suffer because we do not see things the way they are (when we conceive of what is impermanent as being permanent... suffering as happiness... impure as pure... empty as having a self, etc), however, being a good Christian is better than being a bad Buddhist.
Hence, the question is not primarily "Is this idea factually concordant or not?" but "Is this idea wholesome and does it lead to wholesome actions or not?". It can also be "Is the way that person relates to this idea wholesome?". This is because it depends as much on the idea as it depends on the way we relate to them.
Anyway, it doesn't answer your question: what is the best strategy?
I think of two of them:
The first is to be an example of virtue, compassion, wisdom, and discipline yourself. It is the best way to inspire others: for them to want to become more like you, without you have to "preach" anything.
The second is to put efforts to build a trust relationship before. Without such a relationship, none will hear what you say to start with.
In any case, you need to be patient, and you need to restrain yourself from speaking to quickly. Take the time to know where she stands first. Take time to hear her instead of assuming from the start.
"Patience" can be a third strategy. Together with humility, it's a good ground for listening and understanding.

For this answer, I'm going g to draw on a story from a non Buddhist tradition.
There is a Jewish story, that a skeptical passerby asked a very famous Jewish teacher (rabbi) to explain Judaism while standing on one leg. The answer was roughly, "what is hateful/seems wrong (to you) do not do it to others. This is the core, the rest is explanation."
Why do I offer this quote? Because it wasn't necessary to explain about god, or holy people, or specific laws of his religion, or anything else, to give this answer. I am sure that from all the wisdom of Buddhism, you can find a core which will be understood by others. Perhaps "Life is unpredictable and contains sorrow. Buddhism teaches that if you cannot stand aside from the sorrow,when it is your turn, and accept that this is part of the pattern of life, you will develop negative perspectives on life,and those will harm you and other living beings. Therefore, learn to be compassionate and caring for all living beings, for all suffer, and all will one day die." Or whatever wording you prefer.
But you can condense it to a description that most will understand.
Then, after that,anything else,explain that "I personally also believe that.....(other stuff), because my teachers and traditions teach me so."
The key is, the important things about Buddhism will either be able to be said in a way they can appreciate and fit into their tradition, or else it doesn't deter them from Buddhism at the least, because you've made clear they are just your personal beliefs... which they can consider, accept, learn, or sideline as they need to.

I recently had a dream in which I was fighting a man. He was a scary looking shadow - thin, tall, shaved head, aggressive. The more I fought, the stronger he got, and at some point I realized there was no way I could win. I tried to hide in my car, but he grasped my left arm and was holding it with force, making it impossible for me to close the window. He was definitely stronger than I was; with all his might he pulled me by the arm as I desperately tried to release it and close the window...
And then at some point I realized this was a dream, and thought to myself: "If this is a dream, he must be projection of my mind. In some sense he is my mind, he is part of me. This means I'm actually fighting myself! It makes sense then, that the stronger I fight the stronger he gets! But what if I, instead of fighting, try to reintegrate him back into myself?"
Having thought so, I stopped fighting and pulled the man closer so our foreheads could touch. As I did that, the man began melting, like a big black drop of mercury, like Terminator 2 in the movie. As he melted he was getting sucked into my forehead, until all of him was inside me. I woke up feeling I have solved the puzzle.

The best way to confront non-Buddhist ideology is by accepting and assimilating it. There is no need to fight or argue. There is always a way to accept other teachings' descriptions - and interpret them in the Buddhist sense.
God can be explained as either Dharmakaya or Alaya-Vijnana. Soul and spirit can be explained as continuity of informational causation.
There is absolutely no reason to fight, since all these different religions are alienated parts of Sat-Dharma, like that shadow man in my dream.

Confrontation, hatred of your previous religion and negative judgement are not in keeping with Buddhist teachings.
At the moment it sounds as if you're having difficulty dealing with a lot of personal conflicts and are new to Buddhism.
I don't doubt your commitment but perhaps you would be best learning what Buddhism is to you before attempting to teach others.

'It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles'

To best represent Buddhism to non-Buddhists be sure that teaching Buddhism is your true intention. I'd recommend avoiding these confrontations until you're sure of what Buddhism means to you and can better represent the beliefs encompassed within it.
This is true for all religions but followed by few - it isn't only Buddhism that gets misrepresented by those who try to teach before they have truly learned.


text:
Did Buddha ever get angry after enlightenment?
I'm exploring the nature of anger, so want to know.

As well as When did the Buddha get angry?, see also Was the Buddha harsh? and Did the Buddha ever 'thunder' during a Fire Sermon?

Anger(Patigha/Byāpāda) is uprooted at the stage of Anagami. So it's technically impossible for any being who has attained Anagami or above to get angry, let alone the Buddha.

Can you cite some reference on this?

Read the fetters cut off by Anagamis. Linked it.


text:
What is anger. How it is different from violence?
I want the differences between the two, followed by their definitions?

See also What is the etymology of “byāpāda”

Anger refers to a mental state. Violence usually refers to a destructive or harmful physical action caused by an angry mental state. Both are originating from the defilment called Dosa(aversion).

Violence is like setting another person or thing on fire. Anger is like setting yourself on fire.

I just found a  sutta about angry men and women
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/ati/an/07_sevens/an07.060.than.ati.htm

Does it explain the difference between violence and anger?

You tagged the question fetters, and therefore perhaps the "anger" you're referring to is byāpāda or perhaps it's paṭigha.
I'm not sure what "violence" is (i.e. what word it is, whose definition you want). There is a chapter in the Dhammapada whose title is translated as Violence, that's the Daṇḍavagga in Pali, i.e. "the chapter about daṇḍa" -- see a definition here.


text:
Can an objective criticism of somebodies work, which might hurt feelings, violate 'Right Speech' precept?
If we write or verbally express an objective criticism of someone's work, for e.g. if I write a bad(but honest) review of my friends movie, or if I tell my friend that I don't like her cooking (instead of lying to keep her mind), or if I tell an honest truth to someone about something related to him/her, but if in all these situations the words will cause hurtful feelings to the other, will that constitute 'wrong speech' adding up to bad karma or not?
Note: I will be telling truth in all situations as perceived by me. And the intention here is not to do harm but just to express my feelings.

MN58 Abhaya Sutta:

(1) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual/untrue, unbeneficial, and unendearing/disagreeable [i.e. painful - AV]  to others -- he does not say them.
(2) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true but
  unbeneficial and unendearing/disagreeable to others -- he does not say
  them.
(3) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true and
  beneficial, but unendearing/disagreeable to others -- he has a sense
  of the proper time for saying them.
(4) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual/untrue, unbeneficial, and yet endearing/agreeable to others -- he does not
  say them.
(5) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true,
  unbeneficial, and endearing/agreeable to others -- he does not say
  them.
(6) In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual/true, and
  beneficial, and endearing/agreeable to others -- he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

Also:

It's as if a man were shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. As a result of being shot with the arrow, he would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon. The surgeon would cut around the opening of the wound with a knife. As a result of the surgeon's cutting around the opening of the wound with a knife, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would probe for the arrow with a probe. As a result of the surgeon's probing for the arrow with a probe, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would then pull out the arrow. As a result of the surgeon's pulling out the arrow, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. The surgeon would then apply a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound. As a result of the surgeon's applying a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound, the man would feel fierce, sharp, racking pains. But then at a later time, when the wound had healed and was covered with skin, he would be well & happy, free, master of himself, able to go wherever he liked. The thought would occur to him, "Before, I was shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. As a result of being shot with the arrow, I felt fierce, sharp, racking pains. My friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives provided me with a surgeon... The surgeon cut around the opening of the wound with a knife... probed for the arrow with a probe... pulled out the arrow... applied a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound. As a result of his applying a burning medicine to the mouth of the wound, I felt fierce, sharp, racking pains. But now that the wound is healed and covered with skin, I am well & happy, free, master of myself, able to go wherever I like."

Can an objective criticism of somebodies work, which might hurt feelings, violate 'Right Speech' precept? -- Yes, it can: 1) if it is not beneficial; 2) if it is not said at the proper time.

Good citation! Interesting how the category of untrue/unfactual, but beneficial was left out altogether.

That would constitute lying isn't it! So would be wrong speech that ways.

@FriedrickNietzsche Perhaps the comment on "unfactual but beneficial" was an allusion to upaya.

Potaliya, four kinds of people exist and can be found in the world.
  What four kinds?  The four kinds are:
Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth,
  at the proper time, but do not praise those who should be praised,
  according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people praise those who should be praised, according to the
  truth, at the proper time, but do not blame those who should be
  blamed, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people do not blame those who should be blamed, according to the
  truth, at the proper time, and do not praise those who should be
  praised, according to the truth, at the proper time.
Some people blame those who should be blamed, according to the truth,
  at the proper time, and praise those who should be praised, according
  to the truth, at the proper time.
Potaliya, these four kinds of people exist and can be found in the
  world.  Of these four kinds of people, that kind should be the most
  fair and right, the most refined, to you?
Venerable Lord Gotama, of all those four kinds of people, the kind of
  person who does not blame those who should be blamed, according to the
  truth, at the proper time, and does not praise those who should be
  praised, according to the truth, at the proper time; is the kind of
  person who is the most beautiful and refined to me.  What is the
  reason for this?  Because this is fair and right with upekkha
  (equanimity).
Potaliya, of all those four kinds of people, whichever kind of person
  blames those who should be blamed, according to the truth, at the
  proper time, and praises those who should be praised, according to the
  truth, at the proper time; this kind of person is the most beautiful
  and refined of these four kinds of people.  What is the reason for
  this?  It is fair and right because such a one knows the right time in
  those circumstances.
AN 4.100

most important thing is what is the purpose of saying or doing something. If you are doing something without defilement then it is OK. (ex. anger) also it should give a right benefit for both side.

" And the intention here is not to do harm but just to express my feelings " you already answered your question, if your intention is not harm, that it. You do nothing wrong then. If someone is intentionally say something to hurt someone that will be add bad karma.


text:
how desire for cessation, never to be reborn, is different from desire for non-being?
The Second Noble Truth identifies three aspects of craving, one of them being craving for non-being.
How does the desire for cessation, to attain final Nibbāna, never to be reborn, differ from the desire for non-existence?

just found a related question -  Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire?

Vibhava tanha (craving not-to-be) is a type of craving.
Cessation of being (bhava nirodha) is the cessation of craving (tanha nirodha).
The "desire for cessation" called 'chanda iddhipada' is not a type of craving (tanha).
Also, bhava nirodha is not "never to be reborn". "Bhava" is "egoism". "Bhava nirodha" is the cessation of egoism.
If mind believes believes in "ego" or "self", now can it ever stop being "reborn"?
"Jati" ("birth") itself means "egoism'. "Jati nirodha" happens when egoism stops.
The only way to reach Nibbana is stopping egoism.

If Bhava is egoism, then what is attavādūpādānaṃ?

the start or initial mental conception of egoism; which is then developed (bhava) and fully formed (jati).

Oh! So bhava is the existence of egoism inevitably arising from the concept, contact, feeling,  craving and grasping of egoism thereby leading inevitably to that mess of suffering.

I think that, according to Ananda in SN 51.15, the holy life is "give up or abandon desire" -- perhaps also (my paraphrase) "aiming towards [[being in] a state of] non-craving".
Having reached that state (of non-craving) then the desire is calmed.
Perhaps it's obvious that's not the same as craving for annihilation.

Dhammadhatu's answer mentioned chanda iddhipada which is analyzed e.g. in SN 51.20.
In both these suttas, 51.15 and 51.20 (and actually all of the SN 51.xx suttas describe the Iddhipada), Ven Sujato translates chanda as "enthusiasm" rather than "desire".

Ah right - cessation of craving is different from annihilation - that should be obvious! Probably got confused on how not being reborn is different from non-existence - similar-looking but different motivations I suppose.

yes having a compassionate wish or enthusiasm to be free of craving does have a  different feeling than an aversive desire to not exist.

And also that's a helpful first point, that the holy life is "give up or abandon desire", an attitude of letting go and dispassion (nibbidā), rather than the kind of desire with craving.
MN 22.29 The Simile of the Snake:
Being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It is liberated.’ He understands: ‘Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being.