text:
Is intention and purpose the same?
Given that there are 'intentions' (cetanā) which lead (if they're not neutral) to either wholesome fruits or unwholesome fruits -- then is the same also true for 'purpose' (sankappa), i.e.:

Are there wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral purposes?
Which purpose could be 'wholesome' (if there is a purpose that fits that description)?
What is the difference between a 'wholesome' and 'unwholesome' purpose?
How could a wholesome purpose look like?

Definitions:

'Purpose': objective, agenda, goal, target (outwardly, 'more or less', 'near and far', 'time and place').
'Intention': state of ceto in action (inwardly)

Samples:

If your purpose is to accumulate (material things, a state of becoming): is it possible to maintain wholesome intentions?
For example: you like to have a monastery be built, you like to have a medi-community to grow, to be maintained.

If your intention is wholesome, is it possible to strive after a non beneficial purpose?

If your purpose is to let go (of material things, states of becoming): is it possible to maintain unwholesome intentions?
For example, you have buliding material and you are willing to let go of it, you have time and you are willing to let go of it.

If your intention is unwholesome, is it possible to strive after a beneficial purpose?

The wholesomeness and unwholesomeness and neutrality is decided by what you would perceive when you experience or feel the result. This is the differentiation between them.
Generally aversion are painful when doing and so is when you get the result.
Generally clining based acts are pleasant when doing and also when you get the result.
Generally neutral sensations are when they are neither the above but still with the root of ignorance.
The motivation associated with the purpose decides what is the result. This also has some sensation associated with it. This can be used decide what is wholesome or not when the volition is formed as detached observer as sometimes these minds spontaneously arise. (All 121 Citta has sensation associated hence any through arising is Dukkha - Dukkha Dukkha, Viparinama Dukkha, Sankhara Dukkha - whatever the sensation.) There are 7 roots which are Ahetuka (only enlighten person experiences this), Loba, Dosa, Moha, (unwholesome) Aloba, Adosa, Amoha (wholesome). When minds rooted in the above arise the Dukkha (painful experience, pleasant experience - unsatisfactoriness of change is pleasent experience, neutral experience - fabricated existance) or sensation associated with the roots are there also and you experience unsatisfactoriness in a subtle way. The sensation can be used to identify what the volition behind a purpose when the classification of the roots are not clear cut.
Though the action is same this might be might be motivated by different intentions or purposes in which case the results and wholesomeness will differ based on the motivation and what roots are present. Hence the Dukkha when volition forms and the Dukkha when the results do manifest will also differ accordingly, but distinction is from the Dukkha you experience or type of sensations. E.g. the purpose of a surgeon cutting a person is motivated to save the life but in the case of a robber it might be greed and aversion to kill and rob, but the action is same but the purpose is different. Also you maybe donating something to a allied country motivated block import of the same from another country hence indirectly economically sabotage another country, in which case you seemingly doing good but the purpose is not. With the volition you experience the sensation associated the root and many more times amplified when you experience the fruit.
Intention, action and result decides the karmic formation. Sometimes good intention may not result in positive outcome nevertheless the though does bear fruit perhaps not as weighty as a rebirth linking Karma. If you have the intention but not follow though you still have a weak Karma. If you have intention and follow through and the desired result happens then this is a more intense Karma. Whatever the case motivation decide the feeling associated resulting experience and also see it when the volition forms. The taste of the fruit you take and plant will have the same taste and the fruits the tree would bear. Intention is the initial fruit from which you take the seed to plant.

To do not disturb the moderator purposes and SE purposes, discussion and comments can be found here and continued if wished (comments have been deleted here).

It seems I don't know, don't understand, or don't agree with your definitions (of cetanā and sankappa).
You start by assuming that there is wholesome and unwholesome cetanā: and then you ask whether there is wholesome and unwholesome sankappa.

Firstly so far as I know there is definitely wholesome and unwholesome sankappa. I say that because Right Resolve (samma sankappo) is the second of the eight path factors in the Noble Eightfold Path:

The definition
"And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve."

And the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta defines "wrong resolve" as the opposite of this: "Being resolved on sensuality, on ill will, on harmfulness".
The "Right Resolve" page referenced above also quotes six other suttas.
And I think that "right" and "wrong" resolve can be understood as "wholesome" and "unwholesome".

Secondly, I don't know whether there is such a thing as wholesome cetanā.
I say that because Karma is intention (cetanā), good actions lead to good rebirths, bad actions lead to bad rebirths, however I thought the goal (or a goal) was for there to be no more becoming at all: to stop karma, which I think means stopping cetanā.
I admit that there are fruits (phala) defined, but still.
Don't the suttas on the subject of cetanā suggest that it's best to have no cetanā at all?

Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will (AN 11.2)
For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.
[...etc...]

Cetana Sutta: Intention (SN 12.38)
[...etc...]
But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress.

Cetana Sutta — Intention (SN 27.7)
"Monks, any desire-passion with regard to intentions involving forms [or any of the 6 sense-objects] is a defilement of the mind.

Note that the definitions of Right Resolve involve negatives or absences:

Renunciation (i.e. non-covetousness, non-desire, non-attachment, non-sensuality)
Freedom from ill-will
Harmlessness (i.e. non-injury)

I think that fits with it being right to have an absence of intention. And so does the goal, of being 'unbound' and apada (and similar 'negatives').
There are (as well as these 'absences' or 'negatives') also a couple of 'positives' -- quoted from the "Right Resolve" reference above:

"abundant, exalted, measureless in loving-kindness, without hostility or ill-will"
"one who practices for both his own benefit and that of others is, for that reason, to be praised"

Perhaps (I guess) these are "binding" resolves rather than "unbinding" resolves, and (perhaps) these have corresponding wholesome cetanā, and perhaps these are why later ("Mahayana") schools began to emphasize the Bodhisattva way.
There are texts (e.g. Dharma talks) which talk about kusala and akusala-cetana but I don't know of a sutta in the Pali canon which says that cetana is wholesome.

Thirdly, you ask whether a monastery can be built, or whether you can grow a medi-community, with wholesome intention?
I think the answer is "yes"; because:

The Buddha (for example) grew or accumulated such (or was instrumental in their growth, or allowed them to be accumulated), and I suppose that his intention and/or resolve was wholesome
Right resolve includes non-covetousness, but I think that doesn't not have to preclude there being a community: because "practice for self and others" is also part of "Right Resolve"; and for example because of e.g. the Upaddha Sutta (and kalyanamittata etc.)
Maybe the concept of upaya (i.e. teaching aids) allows the accumulation of such things or states
Maybe it's a matter of balancing or alternating between conventional and ultimate, between action and meditation, between "right resolve" and "not intending".

Is intention and purpose the same?, if wished since it developed into a discussion which might be not the purpose of SE or the team.

According to Mahayana (Yogacara) Abhidharma, cetana is connected with traces and dispositions (samskara) left by previous actions and experiences. (What follows is my understanding based on my study and practice. Not official but I did spend some time contemplating this stuff, and I think I've got some insights) Like you said, cetana can be kusala or akusala (healthy or unhealthy). It is like having healthy habits or unhealthy habits. Our habits define our directionality of mind and our tendency to act or react. The concept of cetana is part of the model in which everything happens by itself, there is no person who intends - instead, if your habit is e.g. to indulge in negative thoughts, your attention will keep getting drawn to imperfections - even if there are many other potential objects. Cetana is impersonal and automatic.
Sankappa (samkalpa) or aspiration is part of a different model. It is what you want, you're trying to achieve with your behavior, what you're going after. So samkalpa is a lot more personal, it is not happening by itself, it is what you are driving at. Now, sometimes (actually a lot of time for the untrained people), we don't actually act with a clear purpose in mind. Oftentimes we simply let our traces and dispositions drive us. We act out our opinions, preferences, aversions, desires etc. without thinking of consequences that much, and not even having a clear goal of what we're trying to achieve. So what Buddha meant with his "samyak-samkalpa" (I'm using Sanskrit spelling here) is acting with a constructive purpose in mind, trying to make things better - not just puking out our predispositions.
By now you should have an idea that cetana and samkalpa are kinda different in one sense and kinda two sides of the same thing in another sense. In one sense, cetana is how your tend to act "unconsciously", whether you're paying attention or not - whereas samkalpa is what you think are trying to achieve "consciously". In the second sense, samkalpa is really just a manifestation of cetana at a higher organizational level. In yet another sense, both are manifestations of samskara (imprints, traces).
All models have limits though - this becomes apparent when you try to connect these two models (impersonal and personal) together: can we say that healthy predispositions always manifest as wholesome aspirations and vice versa? Not so much!
One example is when we force ourselves to act against our (bad) habits. Should we say that in this case our cetana is unhealthy but our samkalpa is wholesome? Or should we say that in fact some positive change of cetana has already happened, although at this point it is only a partial/superficial change? Another example, is when we have wholesome aspiration (e.g. to attain Nirvana) out of an unhealthy cetana (e.g. aversion of the world). Should we consider an unhealthy cetana as healthy when it drives a wholesome aspiration?
From Mahayana perspective, this is an example of Emptiness kicking in - this makes it clear that cetana and samkalpa are not truly existent entities that are strictly in one state at a time. They are merely simplified designations for a large number of samskaras responding to various stimuli. Things only look concrete when you look at them from the distance. Once you step in closer, they split into multiple components that work by their own rules.
So does it mean cetana and samkalpa could be kusala or akusala independently of one another and there is nothing useful we can learn about them? Luckily, that is not so bad. The general rule we can extract from this, is that our mind exhibits the quality of inertia: Having an aspiration for something does not automatically mean we have changed deep inside. Sometimes we may ourselves not realize the hidden agenda behind our action, which can come from unhealthy predispositions and be in fact unwholesome, egoistic etc. We have to apply right view, right effort etc. over a long time in order to overcome the inertia and have dharma become our second nature. As one of my teachers explained, the transformation is complete when our acts are spontaneously wholesome without any effort needed from our side.
For a teacher on the path, this inertia can be used as upaya - motivating the student by taking advantage of their illusions/attachments/aversions. For a student on the path, this inertia can manifest as a form of hypocrisy - when the student is superficially a Buddhist but in essence is still full of grasping, negativity, conceit, us/them thinking etc.
To get to your examples:
If your purpose (samkalpa, aspiration) is to accumulate (material things, a state of becoming): is it possible to maintain wholesome intentions (cetana, habitual tendencies)?
Yes. The purpose/aspiration "to accumulate" is not necessarily unwholesome. It could be wholesome (kusala) at mundane level but not conducive to liberation (sasava, not anasava). A householder aspiring to accumulate wealth to provide for well-being of the family and community is a wholesome aspiration, just not a liberating one. So one can totally be a good householder aspiring to accumulate things while maintaining healthy cetana.
Now, if you are asking if one's aspiration "to accumulate" could be a compatible with the Path (anasava) - the answer is, provisionally yes and ultimately no. On the initial stages, the task of the practitioner is exactly "to accumulate". To accumulate what? Merit (good karma) and knowledge (of the basic teaching). This is why such stage is called The Path Of Accumulation. However if one gets stuck on this stage for too long, it can turn into Spiritual Materialism, when we accumulate goodness and knowledge as a way to feed our ego - instead of deconstructing it.
Buddha recommended the right aspiration (samyak-samkalpa) to be the aspiration towards progressive improvement, which on initial stages is identical with accumulation of mundane wholesome qualities but on the advanced stages becomes distinct as we get to stalking our ego/attachments, practice non-abiding (baselessness) etc.
For example: you like to have a monastery be built, you like to have a medi-community to grow, to be maintained.
Dreaming about monastery sounds like a typical case of spiritual materialism. Instead, someone should focus on non-abiding (baselessness) - which includes letting go of the raft. Once the first bhumi has been achieved, and there is no longer aspiration to attain Nirvana, one can build monastery etc. and it won't longer be an obstacle.
If your intention (cetana, habitual tendency) is wholesome, is it possible to strive after a non beneficial purpose (samkalpa, aspiration)?
Yes. There are two cases here. One is like I said, you could be mistaken about your intentions (predispositions). You could think you're a Buddhist while in fact being a regular sloppy person who just happens to know a lot about Buddhism or a regular grumpy person etc. Second case, your predispositions could be healthy but because of the change in your environment you could be forced to act with unwholesome aspiration in mind. This depends on the supporting condition of ignorance. An example of this is a well-brought up child of a good family who gets into a bad company. The natural instincts (cetana) of such child are still good but the environment provides negative motivation, which effects the wrong view, which drives unwholesome aspiration.
If your intention (cetana, habitual tendency) is unwholesome, is it possible to strive after a beneficial purpose (samkalpa, aspiration)?
Yes, like I said, because of the inertia you may have habitual tendencies (cetana) that go contrary to your aspirations. You can have unhealthy predispositions (cetana) while aspiring towards a more healthy vision.
If your purpose (samkalpa, aspiration) is to let go (of material things, states of becoming): is it possible to maintain unwholesome intentions (cetana, habitual tendencies)? For example, you have building material and you are willing to let go of it, you have time and you are willing to let go of it.
It's not like our goal is to let go of everything for the sake of letting go. Then the poorest person would be the Buddha - this sounds like the extreme path of renunciation, not the Middle Path. In Buddhism our goal is Unbinding, which is about not getting stuck - not about avoidance/isolation.

Two questions, if I may: one is, perhaps I don't understand the paragraph with "upaya" and "taking advantage of their illusions" (maybe that's obviously true by definition for as long as the student isn't "trackless", but it might be clearer with some example[s]); and your mentioning "bhumi" and "path of accumulation", Google finds Wikipedia as the first reference for those words, but you could optionally cite a reference other than Wikipedia for those terms/doctrines.

Good questions. I'm hesitant to expand the answer further as it's already gotten too long - but briefly, an obvious example of upaya would be that episode in Life of Milarepa when he wants to become a sorcerer to revenge his uncle and meets a Buddhism teacher who promises to make him just that, while in fact teaching him Dharma. There can be much more subtle examples of the same basic principle as you can imagine. For the second one, added a link to wikipedia.

How should we understand the saying ..."for a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will"
Is it not right to say that a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue the person's act of will is one with Dhamma.
I think the answer lies within "Ayacana Sutta: The Request", but I'm in the dark and don't yet understand why the Blessed one only surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened one after request by Brahma Sahampati to teach the Dhamma.
HE.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. Could you add a reference to the sutta you mention and preferable explain why you think the answers lies in this sutta. Thank you.

Hi Lanka, I was responding to the Sutta ChrisW quoted above.

Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will (AN 11.2)
For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.

In Ayacana Sutta we read that the Blessed One, although inclined to no action when self-awakened, he consent to teach the Dhamma out of compassion for beings.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn06/sn06.001.than.html

Because this isn't an answer to the original question, so it shouldn't be posted as an answer. It questions my answer so a good place to post it would be as a comment, under my answer; however it's a bit too long for a comment, and I doubt I could answer it ... so I'd like to suggest that you post this as a new question. It's questioning the meaning of a phrase in a quotable sutta, so it would work fine as a new/stand-alone question.


text:
Buddha as "lord" and Buddha as "choosing" his followers
The following section in the Modernist poem The Waste Land is often linked to Buddhism, in the academic literature.

Burning burning burning burning / O Lord Thou pluckest me out / O Lord
  Thou pluckest // burning

It ends section three, The Fire Sermon.
I wanted to ask

How common is the term "lord" for Buddha?
Would the followers of any of the Buddhist traditions ask the Buddha, who gave the fire sermon, to choose them, or pluck them out?

I'm just a little skeptical that it is about the Buddha, despite the title to that section.

Was your question more about Buddhism, or was it more about whether The Waste Land references Buddhist literature? If it's the latter then a better title might be something like, "Did Eliot reference Buddhism when he wrote The Waste Land?"

i don't think that title would fit cos i'm asking about one specific section

How common is the term "lord" for Buddha?

People use it about 150 times in posts on this site.

Would the followers of any of the Buddhist traditions ask the Buddha, who gave the fire sermon, to choose them, or pluck them out?

I don't think so (it implies there's a 'me' and implies that I'm not responsible for my own salvation).
This is the closest I've heard to that "being plucked" (e.g. it mentions "an effort of calling to Amida for salvation"), yet this says that Eliot studied Pali.
Beware that the Wasteland was published in 1922, which I think was relatively early in the history of Buddhism in England.
This says that "Burning burning burning burning" is a quote from the (Lord) Buddha's Fire Sermon, but that "O Lord Thou pluckest me out" is a quote from Saint Augustine's Confessions.

thanks,, especially for the st augustine quote! i feel that he retained the christianity of it

I agree; but fwiw but he was also "under the influence of [the] Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam" at one time, and (studying the Classics) he must have been introduced to 'pagan' (i.e. pre-Christian) thought as well; and he knew e.g. Kipling's work, in summary maybe not exclusively Christian. Furthermore "Theosophy" was a thing at that time, and influenced the way in which some people then interpreted Buddhism.

Anyway those are the author's own explanations there, in the notes.

"Lord Buddha" is used all the time ". Translations from Pali would often use language from the Bible, at least in earlier translations.
Sounds like appreciation to Lord Buddha for plucking one out of the fire of sensual desire.
Many people asked to be taught the teachings in many ways, some misunderstood the teachings before they asked and some understood at least what they were basicly about but in the above I think perhaps they are using poetic licence.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Did anyone equate the tathagatagarbha with the past?
This question may sound strange, but in my secular frustrations, I'm thinking about "the past" as some kind of womb which has nourished and given birth to "me" now.
Do Buddhists, of any sort, have a name for the past? How does it feature in any doctrines of Buddhist salvation?
Does anyone equate the past with the womb of the Tathagata?

this is probably my fav. quote from any sastra: "He should observe that all that had been conceived in the past was as hazy as a dream, that all that is being conceived in the present is like a flash of lightning, and that all that will be conceived in the future will be like clouds that rise up suddenly"

None identify buddha nature with the past. Generally speaking and regardless of the school of thought, buddha nature points to you having (at present) the potential to achieve buddhahood.
Cittamatrin identify buddha-nature to the mind-basis-of-all (alaya vijnana) while Madhyamika identify it to suchness with defilements, that is the emptiness of the mind of a sentient being. The Lankavatara Sutra equates tathagatagarba with mind-basis-of-all.
In his commentary to Maitreya's Sublime Continuum, Gyaltsab Je (Madhyamika-Prasangika) writes:

Suchness with defilement is the basic element not liberated from the
  obscurations of mental afflictions, and is known as tathagata essence (Skt. tathagatagarbha).

Madhyamika-Svatantrika speak of emptiness of true existence while Madhyamika-Prasangika speak of emptiness of inherent existence. The Madhyamika idea is basically that if your mind was not empty, it would not be dependent, no change could occur in it, it could not be subject to transformation, it could not be separated from the obscuring factors, it could not come to be endowed with the two purities, would not be suitable to transform into the bodies of a buddha, and so forth.

Some of the terms I can think of:

Kamma:

'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir

ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) -- the answers to this topic suggest that's a description of how Karma is stored in the mind (in the Yogacara "mind-only" school of Buddhism)
See also Tathagatagarbha and Alayavijnana, which is too muddled to quote but which says that some schools relate these concepts (i.e. karmic seeds from the past, and Buddha-nature).

There's also Kālika (meaning "related to time") and Akalika ("not related to time"): it's the latter which is given as an attribute of the Dharma.

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


text:
Ultimate existence and the self in Mahayana
I was reading the SEP article on the two truths
According to the abhidharmakosa:

An entity, the cognition of which does not arise when it is destroyed
  and, mentally divided, is conventionally existent like a pot and
  water. Ultimate existence is otherwise

The article adds that:

For a thing to be ultimately real is for that thing to be
  “foundationally existent” (dravya-sat / rdzas yod)

Does any Buddhist school claim that what arises when it is divided or destroyed, whether or not that exists etc., is the self?

According to Tibetan system of tenets, the Vaibhāṣikas so-called 'Hinayana school of tenets' defines an ultimte truth as:

A phenomenon such that an awareness apprehending it is not cancelled
  if it is broken up or mentally separated into its individual parts.

Illustrations of ultimate truths are:

directionally partless particles, temporally partless [moments of]
  consciousness, uncompounded phenomena, any of the five aggregates.

Mahayana tenets assert that Vaïbashikas do not posit selflessness of phenomena, but merely [a grosser] selflessness of persons. Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen writes:

A selflessness of phenomena is not accepted because it is accepted
  that if it is an established base it is necessarily a self of
  phenomena.


text:
What does the Buddha mean by this quote? "There is no punishment for anger. It is the anger which will punish you."

There is no punishment for anger. It is the anger which will punish you

I pondered on this for a few hours now but can't understand the meaning.
Tnx for all the help

"You are not punished for your anger, you are punished by your anger." ... "Holding onto anger is like holding onto a hot coal and expecting the other person to get burned"

tnx for all the answers!

There's an explanation of it here, on the Fake Buddha Quotes web site: “You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.”
It's not a quote from the Pali canon.
Buddhism probably does have things to say about "anger": but maybe not that. :-)
If I had to make sense of it I'd guess it's saying that anger is unpleasant and thus a kind of punishment (the consequences of angry behaviour might not be good either).
According to Buddhism, anger might be associated with aversion and perhaps with an unwise view of 'self'.

According to Bodhipaksa one of the earliest versions of this quote (from a non-Buddhist source) is,

They teach that he who hates shall be hated, and that the one who gets angry shall be punished by anger, and that all sin is punished by it and not for it. This is correct.

I guess this might also be Christian-like in origin, e.g. it reminds me of the aphorism, "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword."
Another original version of the quote is from a book about the Hindu (non-Buddhist) Bhagavad Gita,

Even more intriguing to me is the karma of our health. Again, let me illustrate one or two kinds of connection. For one, the Buddha says that we are not punished for our anger, we are punished by our anger. In other words, anger is its own karma.

Note the absence of quotation marks. Eknath is not quoting the Buddha, but paraphrasing his teachings on anger and karma.

So it's talking about, trying to say something about, karma.
That (karma) is something which the Buddha will have talked about; however starting here from a fake quote (a mis-quote) about anger probably isn't the easiest start to explaining karma, a difficult subject.

Anger or hatred is one of the two main blinding affects ("avarana-klesha" - the other one being lust aka strong obsessive desire). When the mind is affected by anger it can't understand things properly, it confuses what's a wrong action and what's a proper action in this situation. So that's what we mean by saying that you are punished by your own anger or your own weakness for pleasure - that we go temporarily insane and do stupid things, and then suffer the consequences.

Peace to all....anger is the punishment for the lack of acceptance of that which cannot be controlled. Undeniably anger is a state that consumes understanding which leads to ignorance. And ignorance is not bliss....to simple?

It is very simple: he was saying there is no external god who will punish you, but the person or thing (ie a thief, the weather, your brother who hit you) you are angry at may not suffer at all, only you will. If someone steals from you, how will anger help the situation? Will it hurt the thief (unlikely). Will it bring back the stolen goods? (not necessarily) Will your anger change the fact that in life bad stuff just happens, and there is no reason for it and often no fix for it (of course not). Anger causes YOU agitation, so YOU suffer. Your anger doesn't hurt anyone else, as much as you may want it to!

As someone who has learned (after experiencing huge violence at the hands of others) to let go of anger, to forgive not only others but myself, it became clear that anger is a destructive and toxic energy that can only harm.  the saying "help ever, harm never" is to be taken to heart in how we treat ourselves and others.
There is a native american story regarding this philosophy wherein an elder tells a child, "there is a battle in my heart between two wolves; a wolf who is anger and fear, and a wolf who is compassion and love." the child asks, "which wolf will win?" to which the elder replies, "the one I feed."  (https://vimeo.com/152432001).
Two more quotes from The Buddha regarding anger: "holding on to anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die," and, "let go of anger, let go of pride.  when you are bound by nothing, you go beyond sorrow."  one way to begin this is through mindfulness, simply acknowledge your negative emotions (anger, jealously, fear) instead of feeding or fighting them.  look at them as cars of a train, watch them go by.  this process takes practice, but will give you the gift of freedom.  i am still practicing...

The quote means that no one is going to punish us for our anger, those hellish fiery sensations which arise on our body are the punishment itself. Thus it is the anger which will punish you.
Another quote on anger makes it more clear 'Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned.'

I think that's a fake quote too (I hope you don't mind my saying so).

May be...But it seems to be Buddhist...Anyways thank you

i apologize for downvoting your answer, but we need to be wary of quotes given without reference to their source.
i will be happy to undo that once the misguided part is removed, let me know

Regardless of the quote's authenticity, It sounds authentic to me.
It just means there is no punishment for anything. Karma is just cause and effect. No one is to blame by anyone but our own actions punish us as we do them. I know I can kind of feel the punishment when I get all angry and especially after I calm down.

What does Buddha mean by this quote?
"There is no punishment for anger. It is the anger which will punish you".

It means that when one is identifying, attaching and taking ownership of phenomena, then one gets tossed around. If one simply notes them and observes them with objectivity they will arise and cease on their own accord.
When we interfer with phenomena they tend to get sticky and grow in size and intensity.
My teacher once likened this to picking up an ember from a bonfire. If you take the ember and hold it in your hand, you will get burned. But if you take the ember and lay it on the ground, it will glow for a while and then fade out.
Its the same with anger. If we identify with the anger by saying "I'm angry" we tend to suffer a lot more. Anger and all other phenomena are impersonal and do not belong to anyone. They arise and cease on their own.
Go practice insight meditation and experience this for yourself. Only then you will truly know what the Buddha was talking about.

The leading verse of the Dhammapada says (in, say, the P. Lal translation),"We are what we think, having become what we thought. Like the wheel that follows the cart pulling ox, sorrow follows an evil thought. And joy follows a pure thought like a shadow faithfully tailing a man. We are what we think, having become what we though."
Probably I have misquoted a bit as I am reciting from memory, but I think anger can be equated as an "evil thought" in this context--.

You're not wrong (i.e. you are accurately quoting the P. Lal translation); but "What you think, you become" is listed as another 'fake Buddha quote' ... the "P. Lal translation" is presumably a bit loose.

Anything which is a byproduct of unconscious choice is Karma. If you are agitated mentally or emotionally you are unconscious. Therefore you accumulate Karma. Consequence of Karma accumulation is re-birth (pain and misery once again!!!) which is in itself a great punishment. If you are angry you are accumulating Karmas which will lead to re-birth. Karma theory is pretty much convoluted in West but in East you imbibe it as part of your upbringing.
Anger leads to various Heart ailments. It also effect your other organs. Lot of research has been done to establish effect of mental and emotional upheavals on health. That too can be taken as punishment.

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

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
No aim. No perspective. Begin of 30y. Scared about political-decisions. Paranoid. What should I do?
Please make sure you read the whole text before giving me an answer.
I'm very serious about this and search a very good advise, something I didn't think before.
This year I'll become 30 years and I'm standing in the middle of nothing.
My boss fired me and all in all I feel I quitted more jobs in my life than changing my underpants.
I've no motivation to do something cause I've no aim for something.
When I started to do something (no matter what) I concentrate on it for a few days / weeks / months and than I left it and do something new or nothing, cause everything makes me bored from time to time or stressed me to much.
Then there are times I decided to do something very cool. These are the times I started to do something new for a particular time. But when I'm into it and I don't "throw it away" I think about all the political decisions (internationally) and get paranoid of a world war 3 or something like this. That's the reason why I don't want to do anything, cause I think "When I do something and the worstcase comes over us, there was no need to learn / do it."
I'm very deep in conspiracy theories and work sometimes hours, days, weeks and month to find out "the truth".
That's the reason why I think like I mentioned above.
And that brings me to another fact: I seriously hate this system of life.
I've the opinion we are not on this planet to work and pay taxes. In my point of view, both are waste of time --> Working for money, to make a low life - never become that successful, that I don't have to worry about the most money-cases.
In my opinion we are here to find a higher self.
Now there are 2 possibilities:

I want to stay in a monastery. Become a monk. But I can't cause of my girlfriend.
(But I think her thinking is right as well: "You just want to flee from everything".)
I don't want to build a future with making decisions with/for her when we broke up anyway someday.
(That's just my thinking)

My girlfriend is telling me, I should concentrate more on myself than on her.
I should do more what I want, not what she want or what is "best" for a common future. (Yes, she really loves me - no sarcasm here)
I've a handful of friends more or less but nothing I can work with for my personal life. It's not cause of them, it's cause of me, cause I don't like to talk about the most things.
And I've less than a handful of leisure activities.
I had no plan in the past and I don't have one right now.
In my carreer I developed a photography-eye so my references in photography are remarkable.
But I hate to stress myself out to search for some work for it (freelance) and I don't like to work with people at all (commercial studios who work for quantity, not quality).
The second thing I can do very well is solving computer problems of all kinds. Even when I've to search in the www for solutions I can solve every problem since I'm a child. Hardware & Software. No matter which kind of operating system. Just doing it like I never did anything before.
My actually situation is: I've safed a little money to survive for the next 1 - 2 month.
I could search for another job, but the possibility I really hate it is very high and will quit anyway.
And I feel myself is to old to do something totally different and become SO good in it, that I become very successful with it.
So what should I do generally?
I feel like "I just want to quit life and try something else." (if you understand what I mean)
Cause everything I do is making me bored.
Everything I aim on is not SO special (in my mind), that I would spend my life for it. (For example: Become a programmer: Oh no, it's not THAT cool ... and on and on)

<3 ........... <3 ^_^

Getting bored of everything, not interested in anything.

I've had my fair share of this feeling in life and would like to share some thoughts here that will help you reassess your life over a period of time with more perspective.
Let's face it. Most stuff in life is boring. It will interest you in the beginning and then it fades.
So first of all, my advice would be to accept this life as it is and be grateful for it. We need to be more accepting of the outside situation, whatever it may be and really face it. I can't stress this point enough. Live it consciously. Don't run away from it. Don't pay heed to your mind at those times. This is very important because if you are not conscious of your thoughts then you just get driven off the edge without you making any clear choices in your life. Please learn to value your life and do things consciously, as they ought to be done and not judge. You seem to be constantly living in your mind's complications, not living life for what it is.

In my opinion we are here to find a higher self. Now there are 2 possibilities:

Now, I am not here to encourage any goal of yours or anything. But I have a request. Do you really know what is this higher self you speak of? Do you truly know what it takes or what are the practices to reach that from where you are currently? Please don't bullshit yourself.
Again I'd like you to see your mind's pattern here. It may seem harsh but your mind loves to create these things out of nowhere, send you reeling in one direction and then drags you back down to nothing.
To be honest, you don't even want to take the time to respect/appreciate your gifts and your life, simply because it is "boring"? It takes good amounts of calm, discipline and commitment to do ANYTHING. Please see that I am not mentioning "enthusiasm or passion".
You said it yourself. You're just running away/fleeing from everything. How about you try not fleeing (or not judging and just do things as they are) for a change? Think about valuing your girlfriend. And do some small things for her now that you love her so much. Don't make life complicated because of something you read from somewhere. You wake up in the morning and brush your teeth. Why aren't you running away from that? Isn't that also boring? Or do you have reasons why you're not? Life is also not that complicated. It takes a certain nature of being. It will make itself available to you if you're available to it.
A couple points about your Fear. Fear is about something that may happen. Your fear is about something that has not happened yet. Your fear is of something that does not exist. And when you start fearing something that does not exist, then... I don't know really what to call that clinically. Over here, I'd like to say, let that happen to you. Let's get out there and face it. Be life affirming. What's a life without any problems or troubles? "Boring" right? ;)
As you're doing this questioning to yourself over a period of time, I would like you to try sitting on a chair or on the floor cross-legged, whichever you are comfortable with and just be there and breathe. Just watch your breath go in and out of you. Just sit peacefully and spine-erect, without your mind bothering you incessantly. Can you do simply do that much for 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? Congrats and keep going. You'll gain more perspective from 10 minutes of solitude than from my rant here.
Unfortunately, I won't come to everyone's favorite topic ;) monkhood here but first things first, assess your priorities. Calm down, get some perspective and start living life consciously. When you really understand death, you'll start to value your life. Moments of life and your breathing that link you to life as it is, tries to tell you something, but you don't want to listen. You're just tuned out from life because your mind is busy making all the noise. Don't trust me. Just practice living life consciously without judging.
Over the course of the answer I have made a few bolded out words. Pay heed to those as they are important for each and every moment of your breathing since it connects you to life.

please explain the downvote :)

it's not me, but i think the reason would be 'aversion'

I think I see your karmic situation very clearly. You have a very strong predisposition to become a serious Buddhist. As they say these days, "you are a natural".
At the same time, you're kinda late in your cycle being in your 30s. If you start now you may not finish by the end of this life -- and in a next life, while major karmic and mental dispositions carry on, the conceptual knowledge and practices have to be restarted from scratch.
My advice to you is to not go to monastery at this age, and instead do a 100% watertight saint-type practice in your daily life. I believe this is your only chance. Then by the time you're ~50 you'll hopefully make the breakthrough and still have enough time and energy left to take care of future lives.
The gist of the practice is, you have to be perfect. I'm not joking (you wish I would). Obviously, life is an optimization game against many mutually competing variables but in every daily situation there is always the point of best balance. Which means, for next decade or so, you have to remove yourself from the equation and focus on achieving the best objective outcome in every situation regardless of your personal feelings. That's all there is to it: remove yourself from the equation, be impeccable, optimize every single situation as perfectly as you can.
This obviously includes your sense of self-worth (connected with praise and reward). Part of removing yourself out of the equation includes dropping all worry about how you look in the eyes of others. Your sense of the right must not depend on praise and blame of others. When you act like a de-facto saint (externally AND internally -- including not having negative thoughts about others or self-praising thoughts), then you know you are 100% right so you don't need to depend on others' opinions anyway.
Does this make sense? It's a very simple practice conceptually, the only difficulty is to be sincere with yourself - in order to make it watertight. From what you told us I see that this should work very well for you, if you have the guts to follow it through.

I agree with the 100% watertightness. That's what I mentioned with the "not judging" and hence living consciously .

it seems to me the guy doesn't have samvega and a spiritual call so spiritual path may weigh him down and bore as much as everything else in life. one must see purpose, sense and meaning in spiritual life to be drawn to it and to benefit from it.
what he describes could be symptoms of psychological problems and disorders

According to the Buddha, Nibbana can be reached within 7 days, when practicing proper sati. I find your statement 'At the same time, you're kinda late in your cycle being in your 30s' very misleading.

Sometimes a little perspective would help. The truth is for anyone in your situation right now, there're hundreds others around the world who are suffering much worse. Just imagine, while you're sitting in a cozy home contemplating about directions in life, there're men in Syria, Aghganistan, Africa, etc.. frantically trying all they can to stay safe from the horror of wars, famine, natural disasters, diseases, etc. And a Buddhist shouldnt' be surprised, for suffering is one of the Three Characteristics inherent in life.
As you contemplate more on this truth, your thoughts will become clearer and more focus, which in turn allows you to make the proper decision for your life. The path of monkhood is the noblest and most conducive to the goal of ending suffering. Just notice it's not an easy path and certainly is not for the faint of heart. Then there's the path of lay life with its own challanges, like the many duties for one has to fulfill for his family, relatives, and society in general. By choosing this path, you simply can't just do whatever you want for you'll need a steady income to make sure your family have food to eat and shelter to stay. Afterall your situation is not unique. I'd think any good Buddhist would probably have similar thoughts at some point in their life. It's not easy and it'll take lots of contemplation and wisdom. So take your time to do the homework and wishing you all the best..
PS: check out Ven. Brahm's wonderful essay "Joy At Last to Know There Is No Happiness in the World" if you haven't read it.

You simply have to stop trying so hard to please this 'I'. Focus on being helpful to others. Focus on doing good deeds and gaining merits. Stop looking for new things to entertain yourself. Instead, keep looking for ways to help others, including your girlfriend, parents etc. Don't expect entertainment out of your job. Do it to earn money and use that money to do good.
Whenever boredom arises, meditate on it. Don't react. Boredom is simply a feeling(aversion) that rises and passes away. Boredom is neither you nor your's. So why be a slave of boredom?

My thought would be to conquer your mind through your action. It is difficult to control the mind whereas it is relatively easier to conquer the action. I will say what you need to DO.
The first step is becoming a morning person. May seem to be unrelated, but Lord Buddha has preached that the best way for a person to deteriorate is to get up late. So get up early, a two or three hours before you can see the sun rays. It will make you a way more proactive giving you more control over thoughts and actions. You can get to bed early to get an enough sleep such that your mind is calm when awaken. After getting up early, you can study your domain or you can even read some sutta.
For being paranoid about political decisions, do not think much on politics, economics etc. Spend lesser time on them. Spend more time with the circle of friends and relatives, go for news just to have a grip. Politics and economics are having a downward trend although you may see random positive instances, that is what we are having, all of us are having, so do not think much on that. Lord Buddha preached about that deterioration. http://www.thebuddhism.net/2012/07/08/the-sixteen-dreams-of-king-pasenadi-kosol-and-their-interpretations-by-the-buddha/ Now as You know such bad politics are inevitable, you need to remove that variable from your life.
Socially, spending the time with the girlfriend and your parents can give you a boost. As a leisure activity, maintaining a little garden is fine in many ways, it can give enough physical exercise, can help the mind to stay focused and calm, and can give you tiny financial returns meanwhile. As you are good at photography, it can also be used as a hobby giving happiness and financial returns.
Job and personal finance, as it seems you have put enough hours on studying software and hardware. I think you need to get settled as a programmer or so, it can give you fine money. It can give you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukha#Anana_Sutta four kinds of happiness a householder can get. I believe as you sound to be valuing personal freedom, independence etc, doing something entrepreneurial or getting self employed on what you know also can be great. And on personal finance, you need to save more!!!
"There we find advice to householders on money, friendship, sex, drinking, working, saving, popularity, family responsibilities, and so on. The advice on money boils down to this: One should divide one's wealth or earnings (since the Buddha's audience asking about these things was often often the merchant class) into four equal divisions:
With wealth acquired in this [harmless] way, a layperson fit for household life in four portions divides such wealth: thus will one friendship win:
The first portion is used for one's wants.
The second portion is spent on business needs.*
The third portion is also spent on producing more wealth.
The fourth portion goes into savings for times of need."
Taken from,
http://wisdomquarterly.blogspot.com/2010/08/4-steps-to-buddhist-money-management.html
You do not need to be in something special to be happy. The important things are mentioned in this verse.
"Health is the greatest gift, contentment is the greatest wealth, a trusted friend is the best relative, Nibbana is the greatest bliss."

30 is young and baby.
You need to meditate.
How? Under the proper guidance with rIght method.
You don't need to abandon your life or your girl friend.
If you have enough money for 1 to 3 months.
Go to South Korea temple (I know Kwan um internattional zen ceter or Musang sa offers some sorts program) or somewhere in USA temple where short retreat of 1 to 3 months are offered  to public.
1 to 3 months is not long time. Its just short time like a morning dew considering you will have 50 or more years to live.

Please make sure you read the whole text before giving me an answer. I'm very serious about this and search a very good advise, something I didn't think before.

Let me try to offer some advice then, but beware it's from my past experience.

Scared about political-decisions. Paranoid. What should I do?

Don't watch the national or international news:

... on TV,
... which people post (e.g. on Facebook or wherever),
... on google.com/news

IMO you should also switch off your connections to Anonymous and/or any other groups that are interested in politics or focused on conspiracies.
Why? Because they feed paranoia (see the story of Two Wolves).
How? Sometimes I edited the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_(file) on my computer to null-route a web site that began to take too much of my time.
Local news might (or might not) be useful. Good news might be worthwhile.

I'm standing in the middle of nothing.

Easy to say, but that reminds me of this story: Nothing Exists
People aren't immune from feeling hurt, from hurting other people; conversely they can help other people.

My boss fired me and all in all I feel I quitted more jobs in my life than changing my underpants.

That's hard to diagnose based on the limited information you gave. Do you have trouble with drugs, drink, sleep? Depression? Attention? Do you have a doctor? An employment agent? Can you look for better jobs? Stick with the job you have and try to work well?
I've heard that some people specialize in temporary / short-term jobs, but I don't know about that.
If you don't need much money then maybe part-time or self-employment could work for you (however beware of being 'self-employed' but having no customers and no income ... perhaps you shouldn't be self-employed except with a partner, e.g. if it's a good idea perhaps you could persuade someone to help and vice versa).

I've no motivation to do something cause I've no aim for something.

I guess my motivation is not to be a financial burden on other people, i.e. to "earn a living" of my own, to help "support" me and other people.

When I started to do something (no matter what) I concentrate on it for a few days / weeks / months and than I left it and do something new or nothing, cause everything makes me bored from time to time or stressed me to much.

I was fired from one of my first jobs (which was reading and sorting tax forms) because my mind found it so boring that it wasn't able to concentrate on the job for hours and days on end, and therefore made too many mistakes ... even though I wanted to have the job and keep the job. Another time I enjoyed (and kept) a job as a courier, delivering mail, because that was walking around and saying "hello" to people and left my mind free.
Since then I have worked as a software developer: and I've been bored or stressed sometimes. Part of learning to do the job is learning how to cope with that: e.g. how to work (with software and with people) in ways which minimize stress; how to stay motivated (e.g. for me that means keep a time-sheet and be interested in completing deliverables and not lying); how to fend off boredom (learn new things, repeat an activity I enjoy, take new responsibilities or challenges, take breaks and go for a walk when you can't concentrate, have other interests too other than only work).

I think about all the political decisions (internationally) and get paranoid of a world war 3 or something like this.

Well, try and cut it out: it doesn't sound helpful.
On a separate subject, if you were going to be a gardener for example you'd have to be interested in growing plants, even though you know that winter is coming.

I've the opinion we are not on this planet to work and pay taxes.

Really? There's a saying that, "We should eat to live, not live to eat." Does that help?

Working for money, to make a low life - never become that successful, that I don't have to worry about the most money-cases.

That's a definition-of-success problem. Maybe a low life is better than a high life.
Becoming rich (having enough savings that you wouldn't need to work any more) might take a lot of work and time. Until then, financial wealth might be defined as the ability to earn more than you spend. I kind of enjoyed this definition of success:
"People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita)."

I don't want to build a future with making decisions with/for her when we broke up anyway someday (Yes, she really loves me - no sarcasm here)

Hmm.

I had no plan in the past and I don't have one right now.

Sometimes people feel awful being between jobs, and being fired is a set-back. Sometimes people advise that you should treat "looking for work" as a full-time job in itself -- get your CV right, etc.
I'm not sure I should tell you what to do with your life though.

Cause everything I do is making me bored.

It sounds like some kind of classic addiction.
Sometime[s] in the past, have you been not-bored? Did that change your perspective on what is 'boring', so that other things seem boring in comparison? Are you attached to that experience?
Are you suffering from a combination of thirst (for excitement or non-boredom), aversion (to boredom), fabrication (of pseudo-problems like WW3), ego (I'm too good and/or too bad to do this), identity-view ("Who is the 'star' of your narrative"), and ignorance (lack of insight into disatisfaction)?

Become a programmer: Oh no, it's not THAT cool

Being able to support youself seems pretty cool to me (but so does becoming a monk though, fwiw, although I won't presume to advise that).
Part of Buddhist practice (and of working) is apparently learning how to concentrate or focus on a task. There's a topic here about the experience of software development. Part of that experience was the ability to discard distracting (or chaotic) thoughts and emotions.

Well after i recovered from couple of life threatening health situations i felt the same way like you do now.
I was also not interested in common person's goals and i did not saw any importance in those stuff either. I was finally able to come over those things and these are my ways of getting over this situation. I hope this helps...

I think you feel like......

Life is going nowhere!
Reason :- Being lost among different pursuits
Answer :-
Stop, and now see what looks good at this moment and immediately you will see less favorable things and count them out. Now you are left with some good ones. Now it is time to sit down and go back to your memories of innocence, go to your childhood and see the world like that child for few minutes.
You will start to see how you and your wishes has changed and how some dreams have died while some still stays strong & hidden waiting to be chased.
What you feel is a direct outcome of not going after the things you actually wanted and feeling lost because you are not where you wanted to be.
If we let the "Rebel" inside you go to sleep for a while and see,i think we would see that child or that ambitious young man again. He might have a  much clear vision for the future.
I was a big fan of "Anarchy" or "Social evolution" some time ago too but then i learned some history. I saw how time and time again the system has failed and every time the people who pioneered the revolutions did everything to reach that social and economical "Promised land". After all i realized that "Rebooting the system" is nothing new and each time it has ended up being a "Lost cause". That realization is the very reason that made me walk away from "Conspiracy theories" and become a good Buddhist.

Am i choosing Myself vs Love
Reason :-What you want to be is who you are, this is yet to sink in.
Answer :-

If you want your Love you should choose your Loving partner
If you want just Peace then you should choose a monastery
If you want both look at option 3 (Keep reading.it is down there)

Make a choice and then go for it. If you are not sure this is what that will happen.
  You will loose your girl because as you said you are stuck & you will be going further into this dilemma.

Option 3
Well, no one said a good Buddhist can't be a "lay person" (a householder).
  Start again and don't look back. Stop resenting the years that you feel like wasted.
Know this that growing up is not your body growing old, it is your mind maturing. So if you look back and recent the time you have used to come to this point in life. You are wrong. Because today you are more mature than ever before and you already know many ways that you can fail. Use this to your advantage.
Drop the stupid theories about "Conspiracies", let someone else deal with that business. Go on with your life. Because the world will do just fine with you or without you.
As you see now it is all about bringing yourself to make decisions & and being brave enough to say that "I was once wrong" and move on with that knowledge. Do not be afraid to fail,be afraid to not to do anything while everything that you are is about to fall apart.
So my friend choose!

"I just want to quit life and try something else."

this gave me a good laugh, really, but that's impossible because outside of life there's... normally another life
i don't know how long you've been feeling this way, but since you mention your age i'll take a risk to guess that it could be an age specific crisis, which for some comes about at around 29 years of age, when all aspects of a person's astrological map has come a full circle
so maybe as a first measure it would make sense to check with a competent astrologist, just to find out where you stand right now

I gave negative mark. Are we really on Buddhist stackexchange? What it has to do with astrology??? Sorry for being hard.

the person asks for help, and i think this is what can help him, i'm not going to lie to him and give cookie-cutter or flowery answers, i don't see how Dhamma can help him and find all other answers inadequate
aversion is one of three poisons
please downvote it to -509 )))))

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Faintness of Object of Meditation
I started meditating recently formally, after a while of non-formal meditation, and I'm realizing that the objects I meditate on, either the breath or an image, are extremely faint. In the case of the breath, I barely can tell whether I'm on the breath or some other object, and it is hard for me to switch my attention to the sensations at the nostrils. In the case of an image, it is extremely faint and hard to distinguish.
My questions are as follows:
1) Should I continue with the breath, hoping it will become clearer despite not knowing if I'm truly focused upon it, or should I switch to a visual imagined object?
2) Should I keep meditating despite the faintness of these objects of focus or is there a way to dispel this dullness outside of formal meditation? Are there any tips or techniques to do so?
Thank you in advance.

Edit: Added line-spacing and paragraphs. Please roll-back if not agreeable.

As far as I've been taught (specifically by Richard Shankman), it's fine to pick a place where the breath is strongest for you (for example the rise and fall of the chest), rather than one proscribed by a certain teacher or text. Also, from Joseph Goldstein's Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening: "For myself, I always appreciated the pragmatism of Munindra-ji, my first teacher, who said to observe the breath wherever it is easiest, wherever you feel it the most clearly."
And in general, I wouldn't worry too much about things being "faint." As long as you can feel it most of the time, patience and practice are more important than idealized technique. It's normal for the breath to disappear, so to speak, on occasion.

... I'm realizing that the objects I meditate on, either the breath or an image, are extremely faint ...

You should move your mind to the object and then you should retain your mind on the object. As a beginner if you do not pratice the latter then the object will be less prominent. You should retain the object of meditation by continuously reviewing if your mind is with the object and regardless of whether it is or has gone to another object you should continuously redirect your mind to the object. After a while you will be able to retain the object and feel the object without issue. With regard to reviewing with the intention of retaining see p35, Knowing and Seeing 4th Ed by Ven. Pa-Auk Sayadaw

... it is hard for me to switch my attention to the sensations at the nostrils ...

For somebody starting out it does not matter if you feel any sensation or not as long as your attention is with the object. More you pratice the object becomes clearer and clearer.
This is like taining to be an athlete. You cannot be Olympic medalist the 1st day on training. You pick up endurance and stamina as you go along with your training. So is meditation.

...
1 )Should I continue with the breath,

Yes.

... I'm truly focused upon it,

As long as your mind is directed at trying to feel the object, i.e., sensation round the mouth you are doing OK.
Once you start feeling the sensations prominently try looking closely at the object, i.e., sensations, until you can see arising and passing of sensations.

or should I switch to a visual imagined object?

This will not develop Vipassana hence it is best to stick to the above.

2)Should I keep meditating despite the faintness of these objects of focus

Yes.

or is there a way to dispel this dullness outside of formal meditation?

Try to retain the object by continuously and persistently trying to retain the object and continuously review if the mind is with the object.

Are there any tips or techniques to do so?

If you are tense and not released then this becomes and issue. So relax your body and mind actively looking at tense or tight sensations that arise looking at arising and passing within them.
Though not related to this the content and references of my answer to this question has further information: How to balance an attitude of "effortless non-striving" with proper posture?


text:
Why did Dr. BR Ambedkar convert to buddhism?
Me text-book and dad(historian + buddhist) told me that the father of the indian constitution converted into buddhism towards the end of his life.
Can anyone please tell me why he did so?
Tnx for all the help

i think Wikipedia articles on the man and on the Dalit emancipation movement give some insight into his reasons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar#Conversion_to_Buddhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit_Buddhist_movement#B._R._Ambedkar
they appear to be primarily socio-political rather than existential and spiritual

Ok, tnx for the facts

In his Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Ancient India, Dr. Ambedkar states: The history of India is nothing but a mortal conflict between Buddhism and Brahmanism. As Ambedkar saw it, the crucial conflict was not between Brahmans and non-Brahmans, nor between Aryans and non-Aryans, nor was it a conflict between the Vedas and the rest of Indian tradition. Rather it was between two world views, both generated within India itself.
“It was not within my capacity to be born in a particular religion. but though I was born as Hindu, I will not die as a Hindu.” This was the declaration of Dr. Ambedkar made by him as early as 1935 at Yeola in Nashik district in Maharashtra. He made this declaration after his dis-illusion of Hindu reforms due to experiences with the Satyagraha at Mahad to drink water from the public lake, burning of Manusmruti, Kalaram Temple Satyagraha for temple entry and treacherous behaviour of Gandhi at Round Table Conference and subsequent coercive Poona Pact.
It was Maha Thera Bhikkhu Chandramani Thera, the Most Senior Buddhist Monk in the country, who gave deeksha to Dr. Ambedkar. He was of Burmese origin but was resident in India for 40 odd years. After his own conversion, Babasaheb converted all the rest of half a million people by Trisaran, Panchasila and 22 vows.
This was a historical event in more ways than one. Never in history half a million were converted to any religion at one time and never had conversion been effected by a lay Buddhist and never ever the Hindu Gods and goddesses were denounced by 22 vows which became the inseparable part of rite of conversion to Buddhism in India, and never before it was declared that all and every Buddhist lay person was authorised to convert other willing person. There used to be rite of Upasampada for conversion as a Bhikku, but for lay Buddhist there was traditionally no rite. Ambedkar started this, as he believed one of the reasons of disappearance of Buddhism from India was absence of such a rite.
If one could ever call someone a Bodhisatva, it is Dr. Ambedkar. The next Buddha due to appear is said to be Maitreya (Skt; Pali: Metteyya), a bodhisatta currently residing in the Tusita heavens. It is said that at a  time in future when human lifespan is 80,000 years, once the teachings of the current Buddha have long been forgotten, he will be reborn as a human being, rediscover the Four Noble Truths, and teach the Noble Eightfold Path once again. This is mentioned in the Cakkavatti-Sihanada Sutta (DN).


text:
How to avoid Tattling
Hurting someone physically, Mentally, Verbally is a sin according to Buddhism. As I believe no matter we love or hate each other, anyhow we don't have any ownership of any others lives.

So how about Gossiping or the tattling about others lives ?
How does Buddhism explain specifically about TATTLING ??
How one should practice not to Gossip about others lives ?
In the other way how one should practice to face others Gossiping about
himself/herself ?

Please note: I'm here referring gossiping about personal life, Not in business environment.

Abstain from people who are not in the sphere of kalyanamitta which requires to become one by one self. heaven and hell even approve and disapprove.

but unfortunately we have to deal with the non-kalyanamitta too in our day to day life. Dealing with them is very hard though have understanding of them. :(

Why is it hard not to response if people like to talk this or that?

yes that's hard. And now I think that's because of our attention on them. If we can improve our attention on some meaningful thing by practicing samatha meditation, then I think we can avoid lots of such situations.

So how about Gossiping or the tattling about others lives ?

You are wasting your time and others time. Talk that is productive towards betterment of oneself, which lacks proper reasoning (mud slinging), if you are monk not connected with the goal, the pratice, the Dhamma or Vinaya.

How does Buddhism explain specifically about TATTLING ??

If it is to divide people then it is not right speech. Also it should not be with malice, but say you are a witness of a wrong doing then perhaps might have a social or legal or moral obligation to report it but even this case some aversion arises as you are averse to the fact that something does not fall to your moral, social or legal idea but in society, work and as a householder you have to do these things sometimes.

How one should practice not to Gossip about others lives ?

If it can be an example to others then maybe it is OK. Otherwise change the topic to something productive or something you can learn from.

In the other way how one should practice to face others Gossiping about himself/herself ?

If you can learn something from it then try to. Sometimes in Business and Work situations you have to promote or market yourself and also engage in chatting to a maintain cordial relationships. This is not unproductive endeavour or killing time by chatting.
Even in a personal situation you what you have to see if the chatting is directed at achieving something productive to yourself and listeners. Does it help you understand something better. Is there something listener can lean by a situation some one else has been in. If it is wasting time try changing the topic or move on it it is not inappropriate or rude. For a householder trying to build relationships, networking and friendships is productive and endeavor, even at a personal level, hence may not be idle chatter.

Thank You Sir for your ideas :)
regarding last question:- I'm expecting an answer regarding personal life, Not in professional (Business) environment please.

I edited my answer see if the additions address your question


text:
Betraying People
Today people are betraying each other in different levels without considering relationships and bonds.
For example scenarios:

Children betrays parents and ignore them
Boy/Girl cheats on Girl/Boy due to bad friends and bad intensions
Betrays who were in need when got succeeded and forget them

I can't understand how people do these kind of very simple to understand misdeeds. Even a dog wags it's tail when we gave it some food just ONE time.
Then why does these humans do this inappropriate acts without giving any values to relationships, bonds ???
Lord Buddha did 'animisa lochana puuja' to the Bo Tree as it helps Buddha to get Enlightenment. Can anyone explain in practical scenarios that how can we teach our loved ones not to betray anyone in life with the guidance of Buddhism ?
How can we teach our friends Betraying is bad ?
AND most importantly How can we make our mind when someone Betrayed ON us ??

What are you loyal to, really loyal? And how many times a day you betray the Buddha Dhamma Sangha? So that about how we can we understand what we see outwardly but not when it hits us again and again.

But that does not mean to be now comfortable. It give just the right place to work against it rather to save the world.

"How can we teach our friends Betraying is bad?". Start by understanding their motivation and intent. You don't have any right to judge someone without seeing through the circumstances.

yeah, that's true since everything has a reason(s) behind. But still there are some moments that it's crystal clear that the betraying was not the only option..

Your observations are quite correct in a capitalist mould. Survival of the fittest and stepping on your neighbor due to ambition or desire to achieve something is quite common.
We cannot, quite simply, get out of that mould in a day or even in a week. This is due to the mental model we have created for ourselves and the world around us. We are quite literally aping the animals because their environment is a survivalist mould and can only do so much for their species. Having said that, there are a few animals who are sensitive and capable of compassion and love. Dog is one such being you mentioned.
There is a human core or collective consciousness in us, that is empathetic and capable of kindness and compassion. This is by realizing the fact that we are all capable of feeling and emotions and need not hurt or lie to each other for perceived success. Of course, doing what you must, as a duty in daily life to achieve some goals is important, but definitely not at the cost of others.
I would go further and state that this consciousness need not be human alone. This includes all sentient beings, including animals and insects.
In metta meditation, we visualize the well being and happiness of every sentient being starting from our inward "happy" core and spread the vibrations of goodness to every living being on the planet including trees and plants.
In all this, it is important to recognize the ego (mental model of a "fixed, permanent being") in our reactions to any happening. For example, you creating a dent on my car in some way may hurt me mentally, even though it is only the car that has been damaged in some way. We don't recognize the fact that our mind, our body, our possessions, our relatives, are all ever-changing and impermanent. The solid core, that is the created ego, is capable of changing a man into a monster. He is perfectly capable of calmness in every situation. But he changes into a monster because his ego perceives something did not go as per his desire.
Betrayal is not the only scenario. It is part of the whole sphere of emotions that we are beset with in contemporary society. We are quite simply slaves to it.

How can we teach our friends Betraying is bad ?

If the mind of a person is more open or broad, it would take in the aspect of human consciousness among us all and work toward well being of oneself as well as honor good relationship with other beings. Simply recognizing the fact that we are all human and together on this earth, feeling the same things, positive and negative, should open up the person's "intrinsic goodness". Even better if it is toward animals and plants also.

AND most importantly How can we make our mind when someone Betrayed ON us ??

Any "perceived" attack on me is my ego telling me, "Hey! He/She hurt me! Look what he/she has done! Do something about it! Hurt them back!". The ego always acts in self-preservation. It is something that is a creation with no truth in it. And this is why we practice mindfulness and awareness, so that we can capture moments like this "perceived injustice" in our mind, recognize the ego, think clearly and work more constructively toward a solution rather than blindly reacting and worsening any situation.

This is really helpful!!! Thank You so much :)

Is this purely from your mind or have you gathered this from sources? If so, may I see them? Thank you!

It is from a mixture of reading and experience. I haven't read much. I have read parts of a good book called "Cutting through spiritual materialism" by Chogyam Trungpa. The practice of meditation helps observe the mind and ego at work. I also listen to talks by Buddhist monks available on YouTube like Ajahn Brahmavamso for instance.

Then why does these humans do this inappropriate acts without giving any values to relationships, bonds ?

This is the nature of Samsara. People do this. Since things like this happen it is one motivation to leave Samsara. If things were more rosy there is no reason to leave Samsara.

how can we teach our loved ones not to betray anyone in life with the guidance of Buddhism ?

This is the most difficult to do. Buddha would have made everyone understand the 4 Noble Truths if you can easily teach others. Most what you can do is try.

How can we teach our friends Betraying is bad ?

In certainty you cannot. But you can approach this in 2 angles by pointing out people are less likely to accept and deal with someone who do not have any scrules and also mention about the Karmic retribution

AND most importantly How can we make our mind when someone Betrayed ON us?

As you say this is the most important thing and what is relatively in your control. Best is to do Vipassana to make your mind. In doing this one thing to keep in mind is betrayal is a perception arise in your mind and why do not like it there is unpleasantness associated when you perceive something negatively. This is the Dukkha in this.

Thank You so much Sir, The last part is really valuable!! I haven't done Vipassana yet. Will try it for sure :)

A logical analysis suggests that being betrayed is history and now unchangeable; painful only if you let it bother you; and difficult only if you need to remain friends.  it may not be worth your mental effort to remain friends.  after being betrayed, this becomes a lot harder.  of course, the magnitude of betrayal matters, as does the degree of friendship.  focusing yourself elsewhere is the easy self-interested solution, and often quite appropriate.
however, from a social perspective, there is the more difficult question of justice and incentives to prevent this person to repeat betrayals on others.  it is a form of compassion to care, not towards the betrayer but towards these others.  is it sufficiently important (to you) to bother with this?  how much harm will (s)he do elsewhere?

yes that's true we should move on without sticking in past. But since I have done nothing wrong these questions comes into mind AUTOMATICALLY suddenly with past memories.
1.) why am I got betrayed ?
2.) why that person doesn't get any punishment by karma ?
3.) how can that person even not understand how wrong he/she is ? etc


text:
Love versus Hatred
I think Hatred and Love comes together.

Sometimes people hate each other due to misunderstandings. But when the misunderstandings vanished they start to regret and Love each other.
Other way sometimes we love each other due to misunderstandings. But when the misunderstandings vanished we starts to again regret and Hate each other.

In both these Love and Hatred what we finally get is Suffering as I see. So is there really a connection between Love and Hatred according to Buddhist Teachings ?

Love and hatred is rooted in craving and aversion. In essence they are related as they take opposite polarity or dualism like the 2 sides of the same coin. It is so easy that things you crave for turns into aversion and vis versa. Generally is it people who were once close and deer who become foes as their shortcomings hurt the most. Also when foes to reconcile they are more friendly as they have an inclination to make up for the past. When you do not get the thing you love the most you get the most upset.
Both these are roots are associated with negative consequences, i.e., suffering follows. The methods to address this is to you have to cultivate non attachment and non hatred and finally let go of them also. Non attachment and non hatred led to positive consequences but still you are in Samsara.

Attachment <-------->     Averse
  |                            |
  |                            |
  |                            |
Non Attachment <----> Non Averse

I think they are connected -- at least according to Tibetan Buddhism, and perhaps according to other schools of Buddhism as well (1) -- and the connection is, as you said, misunderstanding.
Wikipedia's description of the Three Poisons says ...

Of these three, ignorance is the root poison. From ignorance, attachment and aversion arise.

... and gives several Tibetan Buddhist references for that sentence.

(1) "at least according to Tibetan Buddhism, and perhaps according to other schools":

I think that the "three poisons" (including both desire and aversion) are an important or central part of the doctrine of Tibetan Buddhism ... and, that "ignorance" (perhaps what you called "misunderstanding") is seen as the "root" poison from which condition the other two.

That may also be true of other forms of Buddhism too, but I'm not sure. The "three poisons" are in Theravada suttas (sometimes also known as "three fires") but maybe they emphasize craving more than aversion. For example in this Theravada respresentation of the Wheel of Life, the "three poisons" aren't at the centre and in fact "aversion" isn't shown at all. Instead there are several conditions or causes: including ignorance but also desire, attachment, fabrication.
Actually "aversion" seems to be in Theravada as one of the defilements (kilesa) rather than as one of the causes (nidāna).

Returning to the Pali suttas, something like the Vipallasa Sutta: Distortions of the Mind (AN 4.49) warns what the misunderstanding (or ignorance) might be about: that fundamentally it might happen at three levels (perception, thought, and view), and on three four characteristics (impermanence, dukkha, and anatta, and subha).

what is the e.g. Tibetan Buddhism: that you have mentioned ?

I rewrote my answer slightly to try to clarify what I mean when I wrote, "e.g. Tibetan Buddhism".


text:
Do the scholastic sects say that chan practice is something separate from themselves?
Dogen famously said that there are no Buddhist schools, and the idea there is [this or that Buddhist school] is the creation of demons, etc. [Dogen's Eihei Koroku, discourse 7.491, reads:]

The Buddha Dharma fundamentally has no outer name or form. Later
  people falsely established many random names. Althogh facing the wall
  at Shaolin resembled [dhyana], do not call it Zen School and misguide
  sentient beings.

First, is Dogen saying that Zen [which is misguiding] is nothing separate from scholastic "sects", and if so, is he right?
Second, what do the more scholarly schools - whether Theravada, Mahayana or Vajrayana - say about Zen?

The "famous saying" can be found near the beginning of the Butsudō chapter of his Shōbōgenzō.

Answering might be easier if you had only one question.

@TenzinDorje Can you edit the question into a more answerable form?

@ChrisW I just did according to you suggestion. I didn't go so far as to remove the second question, though, but I still think the OP is more likely to have an answer he separates them.

Remember the concentration division of the Eightfold Noble Path consist of Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, Right Concentration.
The Noble Eightfold Noble Path did not specify a particular practice for obtaining mindful concentration as long as long as they are consistent with the teachings. You can obtain Right Concentration from Sitting Meditation "Zazen" or you can chant sutras, or you can do walking meditation. In fact for the Chan/ Zen practitioner they aspire to maintain Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration in every moment, in every thought. Some  practices are easier than others to obtain concentration however, that's why sitting meditation is generally fundamental since it avoids distractions.
To summarize:
Right Effort

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

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vayamo/index.html
Right Mindfulness

"One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right
  view: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
  resolve: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
  speech: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
  action: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
  right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness..."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-sati/index.html
Right Concentration

"Now what, monks, is noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions? Any singleness of mind equipped with these seven factors — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, & right mindfulness — is called noble right concentration with its supports & requisite conditions."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/index.html
As long as the Noble Eightfold Path is being practiced, mindful concentration is possible and therefor the Jhanas also known as Chan or Zen is possible. Therefore the myriad practices of Buddhism lead to the same thing and there is no separation. You can scrub clean the floor and have mental concentration to experience Joy and Peace in your heart. Or you can chant sacred scriptures while performing complex mudras.
In theory, the Noble Eightfold Path must be practiced by every school of Buddhism and hence 'Chan/Zen' is practiced by every schools of Buddhism whatever their names maybe. However, as it tends to happen there are monks and schools who don't know what they are doing and spend their time debating philosophical concepts in the scriptures or running a temple like a business and not cultivating themselves and not practicing the Dharma. Even within the Chan/Seon/Zen school in China/Korea/Japan there are people who lost sight of what 'Zen' actually means and engaged in pointless philosophizing. As long you know how it work you can see the practices everywhere and not be confused by surface appearances.

It is highly unlikely that Dogen's statement was critical of a scholastic Chan/Zen school, because there was none at the time. It is most likely that Dogen's statement was critical of (1) sectarian and (2) elitist positions of those who made 'following in the footstep of the Buddha' a sectarian matter. This include so-called masters whose awakening he doubted. At least, this is Steven Heine and Dale Wright's position, as I will quote later.
To come back on scholasticism, it never really took within the Chan tradition (contrary to Tendai etc.), probably partly because Chan is a late tradition. As such, Chan rested on established conclusions without having to establish them. These conclusions were established by other Buddhist schools by way of debates, contests, etc. Such conclusions are for instance the notion of 'one final vehicle', 'dharmakaya, all-pervasivenness & omniscience', 'the third turning of the wheel as teaching the final view', 'the Avatamsaka sutra being the first turning and the final view as well', and so forth. It is hard to find any Chan scholastic work outside Zongmi's and Yanshou's, and even these discuss Tenets more than they do the turnings of the Wheel. Moreover, Zongmi and his disciple are not always considered as 'Chan teachers' presumably because of it. In addition, when you study the lists of both 'Chan genres of texts' and 'Types of Chan masters', you find no reference to scholasticism.
Heine, Steven; Wright, Dale (2010), write in Zen Masters:

In Eihei kōroku 3.207, Dōgen criticizes Yunmen and the whole notion of
  the autonomy of a “Zen school,” which should not take priority over
  the universality of the Buddha Dharma:    It is said that after [the
  Ancestor] Upagupta, there were five sects of Buddha Dharma during its
  decline in India. After Qingyuan and Nanyue, people took it upon
  themselves to establish the various styles of the five houses, which
  was an error made in China. Moreover, in the time of the ancient
  buddhas and founding ancestors, it was not possible to see or hear the
  Buddha Dharma designated as the “Zen school,” which has never actually
  existed. What is presently called the Zen school is not truly the
  Buddha Dharma.

And:

At times he is pansectarian in citing masters from all Chan schools,
  as well as nonsectarian in that he also denies the existence of an
  independent “Chan sect” altogether.

Is Dogen saying that zen is nothing separate from scholastic "sects"
If I can summarize the Butsudō from which your quote was taken, I think that what he's saying is that:

The Teaching is personally transmitted from Dharma heir to Dharma heir ... the Buddha Dharma lives by being authentically transmitted.

These were no sects in general (and no "Zen sect" in particular) in Shakyamuni Buddha's time, so it can't be right to say that there are different sects now. The Buddha and the Ancestors didn't talk about "the Zen sect", that kind of naming is wrong.

Any method of training that's different from the methods used by the Buddha and the Ancestors is non-Buddhist.

Not only shouldn't they be talking about "the Zen sect" people shouldn't be talking of different sects within Zen:

My late Master, an Old Buddha, once ascended the Dharma seat and
addressed his assembly, saying, “People nowadays just talk of there being separate
traditions and customs, such as those of Ummon, Hōgen, Igyō, Rinzai, and Sōtō,
but this is not the Buddha’s Teaching, nor is it what Ancestors and Masters say.”

The disciples of Shakyamuni Buddha didn't want to miss any of his teaching, and neither should we.

When Shakyamuni
Buddha was in the world, His disciples were apprehensive lest they should differ
from Him by even a hair, or lest they should miss even one jot within the hundreds
of thousands of myriad points of His Teaching, for they wished to experience the
joy of realizing the Truth which they had chosen as their inheritance, and they
would not go against It. Thus, we should vow to seek and serve the Buddha and
hear His Dharma over the course of many lives. Those who would deliberately go
against the transforming Teaching that the World-honored One gave while He was
in the world and give rise to sectarian names are not disciples of the Tathagata nor
are they offspring of the Ancestral Masters.

Thee are three schools of Japanese Zen, however many Chans in China, stretch that thought through 1300 years, and your picture of Zen becomes less singular. In that it seemingly emphasises anapanasati over vipassana meditation, it is closer to the original texts imo - which itself is  a reformatted memory of the Buddha's words. In any case, I think almost all buddhist monastic orders follow the Nikayas or Agamas, the Patimokkha and Vinaya, so there isn't much really to separate them.