text:
How comes that praising oneself and blame others is unskillful but the teacher of it does?
Coming from a closed, probably ill-intended and insulting question, or not, but anyway it's root is actually good to investigate:
How comes that praising oneself is unskillful but the teacher of it does?
There are many places in the teachings, where the Buddha speaks in "glorification" of the "Buddha".

`(Mv.I.6.7) [11] Upaka the Ājīvaka saw the Blessed One traveling on the road between Gayā and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing him said to him, “Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?”
(Mv.I.6.8 ) When this was said, the Blessed One replied to Upaka the Ājīvaka in verses:
“All-vanquishing,
  all-knowing am I,
  with regard to all things,
  unadhering.
All-abandoning,
  released in the ending of craving:
  having fully known on my own,
  to whom should I point as my teacher? [=Dhp 353]
I have no teacher,
  and one like me can’t be found.
  In the world with its devas,
  I have no counterpart.
For I am an arahant in the world;
  I, the unexcelled teacher.
  I, alone, am rightly self-awakened.
  Cooled am I,
To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma
  I go to the city of the Kasis.
  In a world become blind,
  I beat the drum of the Deathless.”
(Mv.I.6.9) “From your claims, my friend, you deserve to be an infinite conqueror.”
“Conquerors are those like me
  who have reached fermentations’ end.
  I’ve conquered evil qualities,
  and so, Upaka, I’m a conqueror.”
When this was said, Upaka said, “May it be so, my friend,” and—shaking his head, taking a side-road—he left.` (The Discussion of the Group of Five)

As this sample shows, such can lead to not benefical situation for one, thinking "how arrogant".
Lowering others, praising oneself... yet teaching that such is not good...
Broad believe is that the Dhamma teaches generally not so speak about ones good qualities and skills, which seems to be paradox when facing such and lead possible to questions like:

Was his mind defiled (polluted) with self-conceit; narcistically believing he was better or superior than others? Was the Buddha polluted by the fetter of conceit (mana)?

So what is that all about with this paradox?
How to explain that his disciples propably blame all others in certain ways and prais just the Buddha and his Dhamma, and his disciples with whole heart?
Just a "Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, or how should this statement be understood in a Dhammic way, so to posible do not react foolish like Upaka the Ājīvaka did?
[[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

The "I" the Buddha is attributing all these virtues to is not the ego/illusion of self (atman) but the non-self (anatman), the no-soul or no-self doctrine. American-born Zen masters sometimes call this "Big Mind".
It is this non-self that speaks to the atman (in the form of Mara) in the Buddha enlightenment story:

Mara appeared in front of Buddha and said ” you, who go where no one
  else will dare, will you be my guardian” and Buddha said “architect,
  finally, I have met you. You will not build your house again”. Mara
  said, “but I am your house, and you live in me.” Buddha said, ” oh
  lord of my ego, you are pure illusion, You do not exist.”

How comes that praising oneself and blame others is unskillful but the teacher of it does?

The difference is that the teacher is a fully enlightened Buddha - the only one of his kind in this Aeon.
A fully enlightened Buddha has uprooted all defilements. There are absolutely no traces left of any defilements. Its impossible for a Buddha to create Kamma.
What might seem like praise or blame from the perspective of a non-Buddha is vastly and completely different from the perspective of a Buddha.

There are two things going on here:

A Buddha is a completely enlightened being who has perfected all the virtues
For us non-Buddhas, there are many virtues that can be cultivated by rejecting praise for oneself

It can stop or combat the improper arising of arrogance
It can be a practice in the perfection of truthfulness and honesty
It can stop the arising of lust for worldly reputation
It can stop the arising of the self-cherishing attitude

It can easily be seen that Buddha's are by definition completely perfected and have accomplished the perfection of all virtues. Therefore #2 is unnecessary and irrelevant for them.
To be really clear, the problem with accepting praise can be that it is not warranted OR that it causes improper or non-virtuous thoughts to arise. Or both. For someone who is on the path and has yet to perfect themselves, praise - even if it is truthful - can be problematic as it can act as a cause for the arising of arrogance and all the non-virtues mentioned above. That is why you see highly, highly, highly accomplished masters who reject praise for themselves. When you see HHDL and Lama Zopa Rinpoche rejecting praise ... well, how on the earth can such a lowly being as I accept it.
For lowly beings like myself, praise can be a really hard thing to skillfully handle. It causes definite arrogance to arise for me so I really don't want it. For a Buddha, there is no such problem.

Remember that popular "Knights and Knaves" puzzle? The Knights can only say the truth. Otherwise he'd be a Knave. Similarly, the Buddha only said the truth and He'd be a Knave otherwise. For us worldlings who are trying to walk the path, we can't praise ourselves 'cuz we'd put ourselves on the Knaves camp if we do. Simply answer honestly those questions in Mv.I.68: are you all-knowing? ended all cravings? have no counterpart? rightly self-awakened? beat the drum of the Deathless? conquered all evil qualities?


text:
Lack of Pleasure and Joy
I noticed aside from gross sensory pleasures such as eating, or sometimes writing, I don't feel much pleasure or joy. It is as though the emotional spectrum of joy and pride, and other such positive emotions, is limited in myself.
This considered, is there any likelihood of success to any meditations or practices given I am doing things without happiness and joy?
I feel like I'm trying to move forwards while something is inherently lacking.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Also, what are the wholesome pleasures and joys usually implied in the Buddhist path?
EDIT: I would like to say that it feels as though such positive emotions are unFELT, but not unSOUGHT. Basically, I am drawn to positive situations and joys, e.g. listening to music, but the FEELING seems absent. Anyone have any idea what is going on?

my 5c: I'd say that you may be suffering from a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anhedonia - it's a medical/psychiatric condition that can have multitude of underlying reasons, many of them strictly somatic (e.g. serious hormonal imbalances due to gland disfunctions/tumours) - I'd be more focused on getting you to properly feel positive emotions again, than to focus on Buddhist path ATM. I'm not saying it's always the best choice, but sometimes it's best to heal the body before healing the spirit.

Sounds like you are looking for positive emotions from entertainment (e.g. music). That is one way to get positive emotions... not necessarily invalid but rather superficial and not lasting.
Another way to get joy is through setting challenging goals and achieving them. When you can overcome your weakness / limits, you will feel rewarded, and worthy of self-respect.
In Buddhism the challenging goal we set is Right Bodily Behavior, Right Verbal Behavior and Right Mental Behavior. When we overcome our bad habits and achieve certain level of perfection, we can truly congratulate ourselves and that gives the special type of joy. (And then the joy of Completion, which is the highest.)
But even on mundane level, you can set challenging goals, like sport, raise yourself to challenge despite pain and weakness - and then congratulate yourself. Try it, it really does work ;)

The proper themes of meditation for beginning and to provide joy: What should one meditate upon as a beginner?
To have joy in something, it requires devotional practice: Respect, Confidence and Patient
And yes, without joy no headaway, going forth.
One needs a "star" or to see good attributs of real stars in one self.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other gains in the world]

You are stiffled. You think that you are not allowed to enjoy life, enjoy women and pleasure in life because of clinging and craving and dukka and death and the danger in sensual pleasures.
But you are not a monk. You don't meditate as much as a monk would do, who would enter jhana and be content with robe, bowl, medicine.
You don't have to stop following the red thread, enthuziasm, that will make your life worth living and enjoyable.
Do the things that make you enthuziast. If you don't know them find them. Let yourself express the life in you. Take dance classes. I do and it helps.
Get involved in social circles. Expand them and meet new people constantly. It is the joy of life.
You can have a break with meditation until you will be enthuziastic at the thought of sitting. I do so and it helps my meditation.
Don't rush things, be patient. Be outcome independent, don't do things having expectations, do them because you enjoy being yourself doing them. Results are bound to come.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Tackling Addictions Directly VS Meditation
I gathered some ideas from different previous replies, but I thought I'd synthesize these ideas into a question.
Is it (1) more sensible to cut down on addictive behaviours in order to liberate one's time for meditation, or (2) meditate despite addictive behaviours present as to cause their diminution.
In other words, will addictive behaviours diminish naturally from a meditation practice? Or, will diminishing addictions and procrastination and such enable meditation?
Personally, I feel my attempts at diminishing attachments have generated very few effortful and beneficial behaviours. It seems the other way around: meditation, exercise, reading all lead to more efficient time-spending.
If this is so, then it seems to imply diminishing all attachments is less beneficial than tackling gross aversion to effort. Any thoughts?
Thank you.
(Extra thought: can we say expending effort involves a process of becoming, given there's an investment producing effects? In this sense, effortful activities like those I mention have a karmic -- i.e. efficient -- effect, while detachment involves removing oneself from karma. For example, I could exercise and produce a good result, but by avoiding junk food I am avoiding negative consequences. Just a thought!)

The hindrence here is Sceptical doubt (vicikiccha), which is the cause of not taking on the right practice.
For the purpose of release: Not-knowing (right) is the cause of addiction, tanha, Eggmann.
By reminderless up-rooting of this very not-knowing (avijjā), there is the end of suffering, the end of grasping after this and that.
And how is the path for up-rooting this very root of suffering? Just this Noble eightfold path, with right view as it's for-runner.
And what is the prerequisite to develop right view?

Faith

Association with People of Integrity

Listening to the True Dhamma

Appropriate Attention

Practice in Accordance with the Dhamma

Not released now one might think: "I know, but..." In that case there there was the case of improper attention by not having had admirable association out of lack of devotion, out of lack of faith. In that case, if not willing to uproot this by approaching the Juwels in the right way, find access to them by lowering, by giving up, by seeking refuge, there is no way, no short cut that right view could be developed, right release be gained. For such as "knowing" and still doubt, such can not be.
That was why it was sad: "For the purpose of release: Not-knowing (right) is the cause of addiction, tanha, Eggmann."
And what is the cause, what is the reason for faith? Suffering, being confronted to give up, to seek for release, is the reason why one takes on faith.
For one havving gained right view, had attended proper, listened proper, seen and reminds the Dhamma, just then:

The Tree Pulls Itself Down
Craving and desire lead us to suffering. But if we contemplate, our contemplation leans out from craving. It contemplates craving, and it pulls on the craving, shakes it up, so that it goes away or lessens on its own.
It's like a tree. Does anyone tell it what to do? Does anyone give it hints? You can't tell it what to do. You can't make it do anything. But it leans over and pulls itself down. When you look at things in this way, that's Dhamma.

So focus on gaining right view, it's pre-requisites. For it is not pleasant to be sooner or later confronted with suffering, when sickness, death, lose of beloved, gain of pain... arises and one does not find the way to release, does not know, have not discerned, seen before, here and now.
Asking: Tackling Addictions Directly or Meditation:
Respect, Confidence and Patient as prerequisite means for release from addiction, when and before is effects come into be.
And what are the obstacles,
the Hindrances for devotion, for lowering, Individually?

Sensual Desire

Ill-will

Sloth and Torpor

Restlessness and Remorse

Doubt

May all beings find the way to end suffering by themselves with ease!

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

I think it is a combination of both. Obvious unwholesome & dangerous addictions can be overcome directly, without meditation, because the mind should ideally discern these addictions are very harmful & very dangerous.
But with more subtle & ordinary addictions (such as eating wrong & too much food, watching lots of TV or even sex), meditation can provide the alternative source of pleasure to replace these sensual addictions.
In Buddhism, it seems clear that people need pleasure or happiness and that one of the benefits of meditation is it can provide a stable source of non-sensual pleasure.

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


text:
Meditation and Pleasure
I have three simple questions relating to pleasure. I have tried meditation many times without generating pleasure. Thus:
1) What level of skill permits meditation to release pleasure? How advanced must one be for this effect?
2) Is focused meditation -- i.e. shamatha -- the only meditation conducive to pleasure? Are there meditations more conducive to pleasure?
3) Is there still attachment when we want the benefits of pleasure not for themselves, but for an altruistic or wider goal?
These are my questions,
Thank you.

1) What level of skill permits meditation to release pleasure? How advanced must one be for this effect?
Ability to enter and abide in 1st Jhana is needed for deriving pleasure from meditation. This involves gaining access concentration (upacara samadhi) and then shifting focus to a pleasant sensation in the body or smile etc.
This is one of the simplest guides I've found for entering jhanas:

Instruction for Entering Jhana (by
Leigh Brasington).

You can also refer to:

9 Jhanas -- The First Jhana: Pleasant Sensations
The Jhanas in Theravada Buddhist Meditation --
Part 2: How to Enter the Jhanas

From the first link:

You watch the breath until you arrive at access concentration, and then you let go of the breath and shift your attention to a pleasant sensation. There is not much point in watching the breath that has gotten extremely subtle or has disappeared completely. There's nothing left to watch. Shift your attention to a pleasant sensation, preferably a pleasant physical sensation. You will need a good bit of concentration to watch a pleasant physical sensation, because a mildly pleasant feeling somewhere in your body is not nearly as exciting as the breath coming in and the breath going out. You've got this mildly pleasant sensation that's just sitting there; you need to be well-concentrated to stay with it.
The first question that may arise when I say "Shift your attention to a pleasant sensation" is "What pleasant sensation?" Well, it turns out that when you get to access concentration, the odds are quite strong that some place in your physical being, there will be a pleasant sensation. Look at this statue of the Buddha: he has a smile on his face. That is not just for artistic purposes; it is there as a teaching mechanism. Smile when you meditate, because when you reach access concentration, you only have to shift your attention one inch to find the pleasant sensation.

2) Is focused meditation -- i.e. shamatha -- the only meditation conducive to pleasure? Are there meditations more conducive to pleasure?
I don't know about all the meditation techniques available, but out of vipassana and shamatha, shamatha is conducive to gain pleasure and tranquility. Some times you get pleasure out of vipassana as well, but it is not conducive for that, the objectives are different.
3) Is there still attachment when we want the benefits of pleasure not for themselves, but for an altruistic or wider goal?
Like for practicing for eightfold path and liberation? Then no. If it is for mundane or daily activities, it is easy to get attached to the pleasure.

So another try to find a shortcut of your(s) (defilements)... :-) at least you give others chances to enjoy the effort of doing merits. If even they would see fruits of answering your questions for you, such as success by your's would be great.
Well then: read, and pay close attention, Eggman, Atma will write and link.
What level of skill permits meditation to release pleasure? How advanced must one be for this effect?
See again the answer to similar question of yours: Lack of Pleasure and Joy.
To have in the objects of reflection, the devotion for them need to be developed.
For having joy in reflecting about ones generosity, moral conduct, virtues like Devas, certain amount of such successful deeds of merits that such is present in one, need be done in faith, in advanced.
It's not possible to gain without having given a cause, having sacrified first. Like no corn if field-work has not been done. Dhamma does not work on borrow, taking first.
Is focused meditation -- i.e. shamatha -- the only meditation conducive to pleasure? Are there meditations more conducive to pleasure?
To gain the pleasure sukkha, reflect again:

The depending co-cessation
[What's the benefit of devotion/gratitude/generosity/moral virtue?]
"Freedom from remorse, Ananda."
"And of freedom from remorse?"
"Joy, Ananda" (pāmujja)
"And of joy?"
"Rapture, Ananda" (pīti, better satisfaction)
"And of rapture?"
"Tranquillity, Ananda." (passaddhi)
"And of tranquillity?"
"Happiness, Ananda." (sukkha)

"And of happiness?"

"Concentration, Ananda." (samādhi)
"And of concentration?"
"Vision and knowledge according to reality."
"And of the vision and knowledge according to reality?"
"Turning away and detachment, Ananda."
"And of turning away and detachment?"
"The vision and knowledge with regard to Deliverance, Ananda."
*see Upanisa Sutta: Prerequisites

One can gain pīti (satisfaction) by turning to asubha, unbeauty objects, yes.
You might look at the answer on What is the logic behind visualization meditation
But since you nature is an aversive, especially starting by lack of compassion to yourself, it's not recommended, given your seek after pleasure, and the insight that aversion migh not be conductive as well.
Again, aside of Dukkha, it seems as if the is not much base for now, so rather to focus on building a palace in a swamp, focus on virture and much, much generosity, = reducing consuming but giv, give up, serve...
Is there still attachment when we want the benefits of pleasure not for themselves, but for an altruistic or wider goal?
Seek after sensual pleasure kills, sensuallity is the reason for killing and wars in this world: How can there be any alturistic be included in such?
But, to do not understand wrong: the pleasure gained by Jhana is said to be outside the sphere of the five strings and such pleasure does not cause remorse if enjoyed.

Don't be afraid of this pleasure!
""...Simply from my eating so little, if I tried to ease my body by rubbing my limbs with my hands, the hair — rotted at its roots — fell from my body as I rubbed, simply from eating so little.
"People on seeing me would say, 'Gotama the contemplative is black.' Other people would say, 'Gotama the contemplative isn't black, he's brown.' Others would say, 'Gotama the contemplative is neither black nor brown, he's golden-skinned.' So much had the clear, bright color of my skin deteriorated, simply from eating so little.
"I thought: 'Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones. Could there be another path to Awakening?'
"I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, but that pleasure is not easy to achieve with a body so extremely emaciated. Suppose I were to take some solid food: some rice & porridge.' So I took some solid food: some rice & porridge. Now five monks had been attending on me, thinking, 'If Gotama, our contemplative, achieves some higher state, he will tell us.' But when they saw me taking some solid food — some rice & porridge — they were disgusted and left me, thinking, 'Gotama the contemplative is living luxuriously. He has abandoned his exertion and is backsliding into abundance...
"So when I had taken solid food and regained strength, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, I entered & remained in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the fading of rapture I remained equanimous, mindful, & alert, and sensed pleasure with the body. I entered & remained in the third jhana, of which the noble ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain....
Maha-Saccaka Sutta: The Longer Discourse to Saccaka

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

2) Is focused meditation -- i.e. shamatha -- the only meditation
  conducive to pleasure? Are there meditations more conducive to
  pleasure?

Every meditation conducive to pleasure, except 5th-9th lokiya-jhāna and 5th lokuttara-jhāna.

3) Is there still attachment when we want the benefits of pleasure not
  for themselves, but for an altruistic or wider goal?

Samatha practitioner meditating to avoid just kāmadhamma-attachment, such as color-attachment, etc. So, the practitioner should not worry about pleasure-attachment in samatha meditation, because teacher will teach you to meditate insight-meditation to remove pleasure attachment in samatha, again, after you attain jhāna. Therefore, just meditate follow the meditation sequence.


text:
Meditation for Stress and Anxiety
I have read much about meditation and stress and anxiety, but I'd like to have an experiential perspective from people on here.
1) What's the Buddhist view about stress? What are the solutions to stress? [I don't mean suffering as in dukkha but the physiological reaction of stress linked with cortisol, or just the feeling of being stressed.]
2) Same thing, but with anxiety.
3) How much are stress and anxiety, or their exacerbation, barriers to spiritual practice?
Thank you.

How much are stress and anxiety, or their exacerbation, barriers to spiritual practice?

Stress can be broken up into mental and physical phenomena such as thoughts, emotions, muscle tension, pain etc. They are just impersonal phenomena arising and ceasing on their own accord.
Anxiety is a variation of the 4th Hindrance of restlessness and worry (uddhacca-kukkucca). The hindrances are barriers that block one from progressing on the Path, unless one practices to understand and overcome them.
In Vipassana meditation one treats all objects the same. No object is more or less important than the previous or next object.
Just note the phenomena a couple of times and return attention to the abdomen (Burmese Method).

They are prerequisites: seeing "suffering/stresd" as it is, outwardly, and then inwardly reflected, or inwardly and being aware. Which causes "anxity", seeing no possibility to escape. (samvega)
Having come accross a seldom birth as human (possible not stupid...) and access in meeting the Dhamma, remembering it, if heared/read, if known, faith , or called pasada gives way.
Again the Depending Co-Cessation:

Upanisa Sutta: Prerequisites
birth has becoming as its prerequisite, stress & suffering have birth as their prerequisite, conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite, joy has conviction as its prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite, serenity has rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as its prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite, dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its prerequisite.

See also: Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada
But since one possible still seeks refuge in an next birth, another question, or hopes that with end of this birth suffering will have be disappeard, does neither came in contact with the Dhamma of the Experiant one, the unexceled Trainer of those ready to be taimed, or his following discioles, or is by hindrences not capable to reflect not foolish what has been said, suffering and anxity might arise again, and a gain, followed by death and anothers question birth, and in the case that there is no suffering and anxity, to develop right view, since it will come, would be wise.

What's the Buddhist view about stress? What are the solutions to stress? [I don't mean suffering as in dukkha but the physiological reaction of stress linked with cortisol, or just the feeling of being stressed.]

Dukkha is Dukkha. Feeling of stress are all three kind, caused by not-knowing.

pañcavaggiyakathā
(Mv.I.6.19) [14] “Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
(Mv.I.6.20) “And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming—accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there—i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
(Mv.I.6.23) [15] “Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: ‘This is the noble truth of stress.’

“… ‘This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended.’
“Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: ‘ … has been comprehended.’

Same thing, but with anxiety.

Dame ss for Dhukka: why anxity?

How much are stress and anxiety, or their exacerbation, barriers to spiritual practice?

In as far one has a unfortune rebirth: not meeting, listening/hearing, reflecting, comprehending the Dhamma: therefor not developing the path.
Or if not seen Dhukkha, having heard...comprehended the dhamma, hoping when death or real fear approches to remembering it, the known Dhamma.
Still no fear? Still no suffering? Or still not read, reflected, comprehend the good Dhamma? Just await here the next birth in an another answer then. Some like to make merits and that gives possibilities for those with faith in it.

Meditations for Stress and Anxiety e.g. support of developing samvega

-- Reflection on death
-- Reflectikn on the (parts) of the body
-- Reflection on (one of the 10) corpse
-- Reflexion on the uglyness of food
Best possible to see suffering if one leaves the palace, the secure home and inspects the world outside a little: hospitals, cemeteries, slayer halls... might be possible near.
Or reflective listening to certain lyrics of Iron Maiden, Metallica... reflective, not singing, delight in sound and stressed bang the head...
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Tolerating Sensations VS Diminishing them
I was wondering something. Basically, I was wondering whether sensations, such as suffering:
(1) naturally occur within the person, as pleasure and pain, or happiness and suffering, and it is their exacerbation which people call, for example, suffering. So, a person in mundane life experiences a plethora of sensations which, when a single feeling dominates, becomes joy, suffering, etc.
Here, suffering and sensations always exist.
or (2) involve an underlying neutrality which is the absence of sensation, and experiencing suffering or happiness generates a corresponding feeling.
Here, suffering and sensations cease.
So, (1) implies a variety of different and co-existing sensations, while (2) implies a neutral basis wherein sensations arise and dissipate.

This might seem like a metaphysical or trivial question, but I think its quite significant.
In (1), diminishing suffering might involve tolerating its presence, more and more. In (2), the ideal is neutrality, and suffering is diminished by elimination.
So, I think this question wonders whether Buddhism advocates (1) the existence of sensations and phenomena, positive or negative or neutral, but the equanimity towards them. Or, does it advocate (2), the equanimity towards sensations as in their diminution, and the return towards neutrality?
Does Buddhism experience suffering with tolerance, or diminish suffering by elimination?
Thank you.

Eggman. Might be possible good to change the titel, since its a total different topic then the detail after. What about: "Approaching suffering (unpleasant feelings) with tolerance, or diminish suffering by elimination, or something else?"

Does Buddhism experience suffering with tolerance, or diminish suffering by elimination?
What ever Buddhism could do, does, should, even experiences... The Buddha told, and such is it recited:

"Eggman!"
"Yes," the householder replied.
The Monk said, "Eggman, the ending of the fermentations is for one who knows & sees, I tell you, not for one who does not know & does not see. For one who knows what & sees what? Appropriate attention & inappropriate attention. When a monk attends inappropriately, unarisen fermentations arise, and arisen fermentations increase. When a monk attends appropriately, unarisen fermentations do not arise, and arisen fermentations are abandoned. There are fermentations to be abandoned by seeing, those to be abandoned by restraining, those to be abandoned by using, those to be abandoned by tolerating, those to be abandoned by avoiding, those to be abandoned by destroying, and those to be abandoned by developing.
...
"[4] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to tolerate these things do not arise for him when he tolerates them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating.
[5] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspool, an open sewer. Reflecting appropriately, he avoids sitting in the sorts of unsuitable seats, wandering to the sorts of unsuitable habitats, and associating with the sorts of bad friends that would make his knowledgeable friends in the holy life suspect him of evil conduct. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to avoid these things do not arise for him when he avoids them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by avoiding.
[6] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence.
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will...
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate an arisen thought of cruelty...
Reflecting appropriately, he does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to destroy these things do not arise for him when he destroys them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by destroying.
Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

I'm not sure I follow your vocabulary (e.g. you distinguish dukkha, anxiety, suffering, sensations, etc., which I'm not sure I do or can).
a person in mundane life experiences a plethora of sensations which, when a single feeling dominates, becomes joy, suffering, etc.
Subjectively it seems to me that a lot depends on memory (or train of thought):

If I remember something sad (i.e. a time in the past when I felt sad) then I momentarily feel sad again!
If I remember something happy (a time when I felt happy) then maybe I feel sad because that time is past or passing!! :-)

I think that equanity includes:

Whatever it is (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral) don't become attached to it (and don't think of it as "myself")
If present experience is pleasant then don't rejoice in it or relish it "too much", or without some mindfulness; or view it with dispassion, or even Nibbida
If it's unpleasant then don't "shy away from it", so that you would avoid knowing it (and knowing its cessation too)

Also according to this the brahma-viharas are "the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings " which "provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact" -- I'm not sure how that applies to equanimity, specifically, except that much restlessness seems to me to be associated with (or a residue from) social contact.

I dunno if we are allowed to answer our own question this way -- someone may inform me -- but I think my answer can provide some clarity on this topic. I realized after asking that my emotional reactions are immensely blunted, while also occurring immensely strongly in rare instances. For example, I will have no compassion, then feel a burst of immense compassionate feeling, and even cry sometimes.
This leads me to suppose my feelings are bottled up, filtered. The idea of a bottle, which has pressured contents, causing it to burst, is this phenomenon: I would think, perhaps, emotions and feelings -- and experiences -- function this way.
This leads me to question if the way I studied Buddhism and other philosophies was not totally misguided, and ultimately caused me to filter feelings in an avoidant way.
I feel Buddhism advocates feeling rather than avoidance, it makes sense to me now.
I think this answer has some use in that the bottled up phenomenon seems to suggest something about my mind, or emotions themselves, or provides a good example for what not to do in Buddhism.
If such answering is not well received, then merely delete it, or notify me.

Most other SE sites explicitly welcome answering your own question, but on this site please don't make a habit of it.


text:
Self-Compassion and Wisdom
I have questions linked with wisdom and self-compassion.
(1) Does self-compassion arise from wisdom?
(2) Does self-compassion imply accumulating joys and happiness in a context of detachment and non-craving? I.e. what is the nature of the wise person's self-compassion?
Thank you.

In Buddhism, wisdom means discerning suffering & freedom from suffering (SN 48.10). Therefore, self-compassion certainly arises from true wisdom; just as faith in the Buddhism path for the purpose of self-compassion arises from the wisdom of discerning suffering (SN 12.23).

Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for
  faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply. SN 12.23

Therefore, if the freedom, peace & happiness from detachment & non-craving is discerned with wisdom; self-compassion certainly includes accumulating joys & happiness from Dhamma practise.
There are four right efforts in Buddhism, which summarize self-compassion, namely: (i) the effort to prevent suffering; (ii) the effort to abandon suffering; (iii) the effort to develop non-suffering; (iv) the effort to maintain & accumulate/increase non-suffering.

 (1) Does self-compassion arise from wisdom?
Yes! And out of compassion for all others. An all included wisdom & compassion.
➱ 1th stage of wisdom, serious honesty:

 Rājan Sutta: The King
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that occasion King Pasenadi Kosala had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace. Then he said to her, "Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"
"No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?"
"No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself."
Then the king, descending from the palace, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Just now, when I had gone with Queen Mallikā to the upper palace, I said to her, 'Mallikā, is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, she said to me, 'No, great king. There is no one dearer to me than myself. And what about you, great king? Is there anyone dearer to you than yourself?'
"When this was said, I said to her, 'No, Mallikā. There is no one dearer to me than myself.'"
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
Searching all directions
  with your awareness,
  you find no one dearer
      than yourself.
  In the same way, others
  are thickly dear to themselves.
  So you shouldn't hurt others
      if you love yourself.

➯ 2nd Stage:

 Piya Sutta: Dear
At Savatthi. As he was sitting to one side, King Pasenadi Kosala said to the Blessed One: "Just now, lord, while I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'Who are dear to themselves, and who are not dear to themselves?' Then it occurred to me: 'Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct are not dear to themselves. Even though they may say, "We are dear to ourselves," still they aren't dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as an enemy would act toward an enemy; thus they aren't dear to themselves. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct are dear to themselves. Even though they may say, "We aren't dear to ourselves," still they are dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as a dear one would act toward a dear one; thus they are dear to themselves.'"
That's the way it is, great king! That's the way it is! Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct are not dear to themselves. Even though they may say, 'We are dear to ourselves,' still they aren't dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as an enemy would act toward an enemy; thus they aren't dear to themselves. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct are dear to themselves. Even though they may say, 'We aren't dear to ourselves,' still they are dear to themselves. Why is that? Of their own accord, they act toward themselves as a dear one would act toward a dear one; thus they are dear to themselves."
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:
If you hold yourself dear
  then don't fetter yourself
          with evil,
  for happiness isn't easily gained
      by one who commits
      a wrong-doing.
When seized by the End-maker
      as you abandon the human state,
  what's truly your own?
  What do you take along when you go?
  What follows behind you
      like a shadow
      that never leaves?
Both the merit & evil
      that you as a mortal
      perform here:
  that's      what's truly your own,
          what you take along when you go;
  that's      what follows behind you
      like a shadow
      that never leaves.
So do what is admirable,
  as an accumulation
      for the future life.
  Deeds of merit are the support for beings
      when they arise
      in the other world.

.
 (2) Does self-compassion imply accumulating joys and happiness in a context of detachment and non-craving? I.e. what is the nature of the wise person's self-compassion?

➯ 3rd stage, supramundane wisdom: real compassion with all
It's already given under one, but maybe a ballade give wisdom for success of being really dear to oneself and so naturally to every being by leaving the states of demerits as well as merits behind:

 The Ballad of Liberation from the Khandhas
Once there was a man who loved himself
  and feared distress. He wanted happiness
  beyond the reach of danger, so he wandered
  endlessly. Wherever people said
  that happiness was found, he longed to go,
  but wandering took a long, long time.
  He was the sort of man who loved himself
  and really dreaded death. He truly wanted
  release from aging & mortality.
  Then one day he came to know the truth,
  abandoning the cause of suffering &
  compounded things. He found a cave of wonders,
  of endless happiness, i.e., the body... ❋

➯ 4th stage: the practice out of compassion:

 Sedaka Sutta: At Sedaka
The Blessed One said, "Once upon a time, monks, a bamboo acrobat, having erected a bamboo pole, addressed his assistant, Frying Pan: 'Come, my dear Frying Pan. Climb up the bamboo pole and stand on my shoulders.'
"'As you say, Master,' Frying Pan answered the bamboo acrobat and, climbing the bamboo pole, stood on his shoulders.
"So then the bamboo acrobat said to his assistant, 'Now you watch after me, my dear Frying Pan, and I'll watch after you. Thus, protecting one another, watching after one another, we'll show off our skill, receive our reward, and come down safely from the bamboo pole.'
"When he had said this, Frying Pan said to him, 'But that won't do at all, Master. You watch after yourself, and I'll watch after myself, and thus with each of us protecting ourselves, watching after ourselves, we'll show off our skill, receive our reward, and come down safely from the bamboo pole.'
"What Frying Pan, the assistant, said to her Master was the right way in that case.
"Monks, a frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after myself.' A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after others.' When watching after oneself, one watches after others. When watching after others, one watches after oneself.
"And how does one, when watching after oneself, watch after others? Through pursuing [the practice], through developing it, through devoting oneself to it. This is how one, when watching after oneself, watches after others.
"And how does one, when watching after others, watch after oneself? Through endurance, through harmlessness, and through a mind of kindness & sympathy. This is how one, when watching after others, watches after oneself.
"A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after myself.' A frame of reference is to be practiced with the thought, 'I'll watch after others.' When watching after oneself, one watches after others. When watching after others, one watches after oneself."

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose and other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]


text:
Supposed one could give you Cockayne, would you strife for Nibbana?
Thought there is a great Guru, displaying personally the joy of abundance and teaches the attaining of Cockaigne, would you still seek for Nibbana?
Yes? No? If, or if not, why?
He doubts you have any argument against it, you just don't know the way!
"Don't get it wrong!"Hesays:
"Thereis endless sense pleasure,
 for all strings,
    no aging, no sickness,
         no death.
Eating the whole day
         without belly pain...
Cockaigne is not temporary.
Your favorit food, pleasure
as long as you like,
chaning it as you wish.
By abundance
Detached from any stressful'
    no consequence,
non-dual
        in that sphere!"
who seek rel-ease
        from IS

What are you talking about? Nibbana is Cockaigne.

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

I can only answer from my perspective, but the answer is a straightforwards yes; I would still strive for nirvana given I had come in contact with Buddhist teachings. There are many reasons for this:

Karmically speaking, what occurs within that temporary land is irrelevant. What truly matters is what will happen to me in the vaster perspective. I think of this as a temporary versus long-term benefit type of thing.
From a perspective of wisdom, I would still be suffering by engaging in those pleasures, they would merely hide or distract me from true happiness. Such a happiness might entail equanimity arising from perceiving reality.
From a compassionate point of view, there are people suffering, and with such a selfish attitude I would not be able to develop myself in a way conducive to helping others. It would be a completely narcissistic choice.

I think in my answer I expressed the three dimensions involved in the Mahayana Buddhist path: aspiring to liberation, bodhicitta, and the insight into emptiness.
I think, in fact, that we even conceive we'd be happier shows us the nature of delusion. We can imagine we'd be happy with intense pleasures, but the reality is otherwise, showing the discrepancy between our perception and reality. Nothing within this world shows us this discrepancy, and the proof is that many people do live in this way, seeking pleasures. Only the transcendent understanding from insight provides immunity from this misapprehension, and dealing with reality in a worldly way -- as in with your example of Cockaigne -- will hinder such insight.

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

Nibbana is not cockaigne, because its said that there is no want in Nibbana and that is bliss!
Even here in Samsara wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants, So if you are aiming to have fewer want you are following the true path.

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

You are asking about five strength of a being ; Conviction (saddhā),Energy (viriya), Mindfulness (sati), Unification (samādhi), Wisdom (paññā) which impossible for none other than Buddha to see.  If one poses these five strength enough, he would seek deathlessness. Five strengths is what makes one strive for Nirvana, however we need to see if the environment he is in, such as Cockaigne, affects any of those 5????
i can think of reading sutta of what can be credited to Buddha's words about Uttarakuru country. It is the closest to Cockaigne I can think of.  None of them make any progress in Dharma. Buddha compared Uttarakuru country to us and tavatimsa deva in that world; 1)  No pain, 2) no jealousy, 3) fixed life expectancy.   And yet, no one in that world strives to make progress toward Nirvana.
In general, if you want to know drives or motivation and ability to strive in Nirvana, you need to look at being's five strength.
IMO, causal of Five Strengths in a being is both from Nature and Nurtured.

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


text:
Pattern of Strong Aversion
I noticed that when I engage in a task I am very able until I reach my limit, namely the point where I had enough, where effort and suffering kicks in. I noticed:

When I reach that point I lose energy, thinking becomes more difficult, confused. With something I enjoy it is the opposite.
When I reach that points demotivating thoughts as "This is worthless," "What's the point of doing this?" occur.

Even in meditation I am able to go a long time without effort or difficulty if I feel like it, but when there is resistance I fall asleep or want to do something else.
My question is: how can one increase their tolerance to physical pain and effort, suffering, etc. -- all the things linked with aversion to negative states? (Keep in mind that when I meditate at the wrong time I fall asleep or encounter difficulty).
Thank you.

Is it about ill-will (e.g. torward an object, person) or just lack of pleasant feeling at this stage?

Not ill-will, just aversion to negative states, e.g. displeasure, effort, pain.

Toward feeling? Who's feeling?

Given the psychological nature of sankhara (schemata), you have very understandable and intelligent reasons for having a “pattern of strong aversion” in terms of past experience. In other words, past experience in this lifetime and probably in previous lifetimes has given you substantial reasons to experience strong aversion today. Circumstances and experiences of the past have caused you to adapt to the world with aversion as a strategy for dealing with hardship. There is no blame here, but it is difficult to revise or unlearn strong patterns of adaptation. In Theravadin Buddhism, the classical remedy for modifying aversion is the development of bliss experienced during full samadhi. There are several Buddhist meditations that lead to full samadhi. Indeed, your own Bodhicitta will direct you towards full samadhi. It is important that you do not push yourself to the point where aversion kicks in. You might consider a full retreat in some beautiful countryside meditation center. I wish you well.


text:
Meditation's Effect on Strong Attachment
I have a straightforwards question: does meditation decrease attachments -- e.g. to alcohol or social media -- by increasing willpower, or by other mechanisms? I would think shamatha increases willpower in the long-term, but does it produce some other effects that decrease attachments?
Thank you.

Meditation can result in samatha (tranquility & joy) and vipassana (insight).
On a very basic or crude level, meditation can provide an intimate insight into how addictions & habits disturb, trouble & enslave the mind, which can help the mind develop a distaste or dispassion towards these more coarse/gross addictions & habits.
As for samatha, if well developed, it provides an alternate, more healthy & free source of pleasure.
All minds require 'pleasure' however some sources of pleasure are more healthy than others.

Is it valid, as mentioned in previous questions, that pleasure from shamatha arises mostly when one reaches jhana? Is there no pleasure previous to this?

Very few people on the internet are discussing real jhana. There are three levels of concentration in Buddhism, namely: (i) momentary/prepatory concentration; (ii) neighbourhood concentration & (iii) jhana. Neighbourhood concentration is sufficient for non-sensual pleasure. Stream-enterers, who have eradicated so much suffering (refer to SN 13.1), have only developed neighbourhood concentration. For example, the Anapanasati Sutta is about neighbourhood concentration. As long as the mind can continually stay with the breathing in a meditation session, samatha should develop adequately. Regards

When you concentrate out of alcohol, you are not attaching alcohol that time. The distance between you and alcohol will increase. This can be meditation, if your concentration concentrating samādhi object or vipassanā object continuously and  improvely. But, if not, it is  just a sīla, precept, if you just deny to drink an alcohol, because alcohol denying is just a precept in 5 precepts, so it is just meditation base, but it still not meditation.
Sīla-training stop whole physical attachment, not just alcohol. Sīla is base of meditation, but it is not meditation because mental attachment still able to arise. When any unwholesome mind, such as attaching mind arising, that time is not meditation, because the meditation is training  continuously and  improvely.
Samādhi-continuous-training stop whole present mental attachment.
Vipassanā-continuous-training extirpate whole future attachment.

Shamatha can be viewed as an off-shoot of the traditional Theravadin practice of mindfulness meditation. Its purpose is to establish “calm abiding” in which calm objectivity and common-sense understanding are extended to establish a meditative awareness of one’s state of mind, thoughts, and emotions. From a Theravadin point of view, the establishment of calm abiding is a good beginning but not an end in itself. Nonetheless, a calm and objective mind automatically corrects perceptions, feelings, beliefs, desires, and “attachments” that do not make sense to your common-sense mind. This is the mechanism that causes MBSR therapy to work. In this way, certain types of problematic sankhara (schemata) are revised. However, there are deeper and more problematic sankhara that cannot be corrected in this manner. The next level of mindfulness meditation consists of meditating on “the body in the body,” which is similar to the process of focusing developed by Eugene Gendlin. The more advanced levels of mindfulness meditation engage the Bodhicitta and require a lot more explanation. If you want to know more about these more advanced levels, you can read my book on how mindfulness meditation works.


text:
Priority of Meditation
I'm wondering whether one would have much success quitting addictive behaviours BEFORE having a meditative practice. Is this just wasteful/pointless? Would meditation allow a much easier relinquishing of bad habits?
In sum, should meditation come first?
Thank you.

Bad physical habits are stopped by adhi-sīla, physical observe.
Then, bad mental habits are stopped by adhi-samādhi, concentration-meditation.
Then, whole, future, bad habit's root-causes, avijjā-root & taṇhā-root & dosa-root, are vanished by adhi-paññā, insight-meditation.

Does sila work without some degree of concentration-meditation?

Yes, before-step can do without after-step. Sīla can arise without adhi-samādhi, but adhi-samādhi cannot arise without adhi-sīla.

The Buddha did not generally teach meditation to lay people but the Buddha did extensively teach about the danger, harm & destructiveness of addiction to lay people. Therefore, it appears meditation is not a method in Buddhism for overcoming addiction. Instead, discerning with wisdom the harm, danger & destructiveness of addiction is probably sufficient. This said, meditation would probably help discern the harm of addiction because craving symptoms of addiction would arise more prominently in meditation.

I would think some addictive tendencies' destructiveness can only be established with definiteness (for more subtle addictions) with meditation or wisdom?

Sure. On a more subtle level of habit, I would agree with your comment.

I'm wondering whether one would have much success quitting addictive behaviours BEFORE having a meditative practice. Is this just wasteful/pointless? Would meditation allow a much easier relinquishing of bad habits?

You could try out all 3 options and see what works best for you, i.e.:

Quitting addictive behaviours before meditation practice
Undertaking meditation practice before quitting addictive behaviors
Attending a retreat where both external reality is limited (rules and regulations for the retreat, such as Noble Silence, Eating 1 time a day etc.) and meditation is practiced in tandem.

Namaste
We are all addicts.
What difference does it make if you need power, fame or money to get high or you need drugs?
Yes, drugs destroy your body but desire, greed destroys your soul.
Meditation is a wonderful practice. It benefits all no matter of your status, age, health or religion (beliefs)
 I do it every night before going to sleep.
 Would you go to bed without brushing your teeth? What about your mind?
 Unfortunately a lot of people go to bed without cleaning the mental pollution of the day and meditation is just a good mental hygiene practice.
 Of course when you get into Buddhism meditation becomes more than that but for now don't worry about that, just start doing it

I mostly agree with your first statement, but I think it is important not to be dogmatic about it. Former wife used to get on my case about me drinking coffee (note the past tense). She said it made me 'dependent' on an external thing. I said I would for sure give it up if I didn't also need to eat, which I had no desire to do and found it annoying. So, if I was not already 'addicted' to sleep, food, water, air sunshine, and so on, then I would just do my nearly obsessive meditation practice instead. She had no reply to that. Middle Way.

The practice of traditional Theravadin mindfulness meditation is designed to help you unlearn “bad habits” and acquire insights into the causes of “addictive behaviours.” The traditional answer to your question is to do both. Please allow me to explain why this is the case. The reality is that “addictive behaviours” have deep karmic roots. I suggest you find a very kind and very OLD meditation teacher who has had a lot of life experience. If you have a strong background in modern psychology, then you might consider reading my book on how mindfulness meditation works. The key to understanding Buddhadharma is to know that understanding causality (through insight acquired in meditation), as revealed in the concept of sankhara (schemata), is “the only way” to the cessation of suffering and to Enlightenment. For example, addictive behaviour is probably caused by how you adapted to threatening situations in early childhood. By recalling the actual decisions (karma, mental action) you had to make at that time, you get to see one of the causes of your addition and you get a chance to revise or correct that cause, thereby removing the unconscious cause of a specific emotional compulsion or emotional need. Hence, from the point of view of Theravadin Buddhism, the only way to really deal with your addictive behaviours is to acquire through mindfulness meditation the insight needed to understand and undo the sankhara that cause those behaviours. In other words, you need to do both so that meditation helps you quit your addictive behaviours.


text:
Orgasm and Virya
I am aware of Indian spirituality associating orgasm with a loss of energy. This conception is present in other cultures as well.
However, it is conspicuously absent from Western culture. Why isn't there more rigorous evidence of orgasm -- and sexuality in general -- and lack of enthusiasm and vigour? How can one perceive such an association if it exists?
Thank you.

There is e.g. Christian doctrine on that subject, though: perhaps it's not "conspicuously absent from Western culture" -- see Concupiscence for example.

Unless relatively deep/refined samadhi & tranquility have been developed, it is difficult to perceive the loss of energy & loss of mental clarity due to orgasm. Instead, to the undeveloped mind, the temporary relief of organism is something ordinary & normal. This is probably why the Western religious traditions probably don't comment much about orgasm because the true purpose & fruits of celibacy appears to have never been clearly articulated or understood in European Christianity.


text:
Balancing the Five Powers
I have a while ago seen a diagram or explanation on this forum. It was about the way in which the five powers interact in meditation. After reading a comment by ven. Yuttadhammo, I gathered there's such a thing as too much concentration (and in the case mentioned not enough effort). Can anyone explain the interactions of these five powers in daily life and meditation?
Thank you.

I think it is more accurate to refer to "wrong concentration" rather than "too much concentration" because right concentration is a factor of the path. Wrong concentration is pushing the mind with too much effort/craving. Where as right concentration is lead by right understanding (per MN 117).
Is like have some rocks near a cliff that need to be disposed of. Wrong concentration & wrong effort are taking a hammer & smashing up the rocks. Its hard work. Where as right effort is simply pushing the rocks off the cliff and right concentration is watching the rocks fall off the cliff.
Right effort is the effort to let go, which arises from right understanding of & faith in the four noble truths, which explain letting go is the way to end suffering. Right concentration is the clear stable aware mind arising from letting go. Of course, there must be the constant mindfulness (non-forgetfulness) to engage this path of letting go.
This is how the five faculties interact in noble path meditation. SN 48.10 states:

The noble practitioner develops concentration & attains jhana by making letting go (vossagga) the meditation object.

It is too easy to understand, but it is very hard to done.
The example in concentration meditation:

If you have too much trust to concentrate on focus, you will over
hurry to sit and to meditate. That hurrying maybe make you miss to
concern, smart & wisdom, the meditation's situation and environment,
such as it maybe too hot temperature to develop concentration
meditation. So, your meditation will not grow up.
If you have too much effort, you will too much concern the
meditation's situation and environment, then you loss the
meditation's focus. So, your meditation will not grow up.
If you have too much concentration on focus when you still being
bore, you will sleepy. But you will not decide to stand up and go to
do caṅkama, walk meditate, to avoid sleepy. Because you miss to
concern, smart & wisdom, the meditation's situation and environment.
So, your meditation will not grow up.
If you have too much smart and wisdom, you will too much concern the
meditation's situation and environment, then you loss the
meditation's focus. So, your meditation will not grow up.

Etc.
For more information, I recommend you read whole of path of purification especially in pathavīkasiṇa-niddesa and in maggāmaggañāṇadassaṇavisuddhi-niddesa. There are many explanation and many tools for the balancing inside there such as 7 sappāya, 10 appanākosala, etc.


text:
Which consciousness/es are involved in meta-congnition (thinking about thinking)?
Which consciousness/es are involved in meta-congnition (thinking about thinking)? And can the skandhas exist without them?
I'm asking because I'm interested in whether animals without metacognition have skandhas.

1. mana-āyatana is 7 viññāṇa-dhātu (7 mana-āyatana) that is dvāra of mano-viññāṇa
In tipitaka of theravāda-buddhism, viññāṇa in mano-dvāra are called thinking.
Viññāṇa generally translated as "consciousness" in english-tradition. This is a terrible translation, because when we compare viññāṇa with english in sense article, viññāṇa is not just the consciousness, but consciousness is the part of viññāṇa. There seem to be:

Six viññāṇa, such as seeing, etc. = Six sense, not just
consciousness, however consciousness is included  in the part of
sixth viññāṇa, too.
Six dvāra, such as eye, etc. = Six sense-organ.
Six object, such as color, etc. = Six sense-data.

The sixth dvāra called mano, that is enumerated to 7 viññāṇa/mano in 18 dhātu, such as cakkhu-viññāṇa/mano, etc. for describe mano in 12 āyatna. A cakkhu-viññāṇa arises at eye-dvāra to see a color-object. But when mano-viññāṇa will arise to think about that color-object, which was saw by that vanished cakkhu-viññāṇa, mano-viññāṇa will not arise at the eye-dvāra. Because the dvāra of mano-viññāṇa is not the cakkhu-dvāra, but the pāli said that mano is  dvāra of mano-viññāṇa. So, when mano-viññāṇa thinking about a color-object, it thinking at cakkhu-mano, cakkhu-viññāṇa. So, first viññāṇa at mano-dvāra is called mano-dvāra-āvajjana. And so, mano-viññāṇa is called "mano"-viññāṇa. Therefore,  Mano-viññāna is a thinking about a saw color, a heard sound, a smelled smell, a tasted taste, a touched touching, and a thought thinking.
So, in abhidhamma said that mano, viññāṇa, manoviññāṇa are the synonym. But they are used by buddha in difference function in each pali context, for avoiding the  confusion of homograph and for briefing the word, such as 7 viññāna-āyatana brief to mano-āyatana, to make new word "mano-viññāṇa-dhātu", buddha is very intelligence!
Another, there is someone maybe teach consciousness is not thinking, because he has a weak pāli skill and never listen anyone around him. Especially, he never recite tipitaka, follow buddha's order, in A.N. Pañcakanipāta, to recite the teaching. This case often happen with the western professor, because they have a superego in their mind, so they always close their ear and their mind to learn the others' views. So, he never notice this pali's relationship. And he just always told that consciousness is not thinking, although consciousness is one part of mano-viññāna.
However, this case also happen to thai tipitaka translation, too. So, I often remind everyone to recite tipitaka in pāli, especially before teaching something.  Especially when you listening the translate version of tipitaka, especially, from the western professor.
2. Asaññā-satta an nirodha-samāpatti-attaining-person can live without any viññāṇa.

"Asaññā-satta an nirodha-samāpatti-attaining-person can live without any viññāṇa" Sure? What's required for life?

In Buddhism, consciousness does not think. However, mind-consciousness (mano-vinanna) is required for 'thinking about thinking' because the mind must 1st be conscious of a thought before it can think about that thought.
This said, Buddhism does not teach the other khandhas exist dependent on consciousness but teaches the opposite, namely, the arising of consciousness is dependent upon the other aggregates (SN 22.53; MN 38; etc).

what do you mean "consciousness does not think"?

can you explain? :)

When the mind sees or hears something, this seeing & hearing is not "thinking". Similarly, when mind when the mind is conscious of a thought, this is not "thinking".

From MN 18: Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about...... Dependent on intellect & ideas, intellect-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html

so what is thought? i find it strange to translate 'perception' as the ground (?) of thought, as i link that word to sensation much more strongly, i suppose you could be right

It's the sphere of a-rupa, where mind get's only entertained by mind. No touch, better attention, to the five "material" sense, that mind nurishes on minds objects. Yet, such as objects are still subtile present, like if throwing out the water of a glass, one might say that it is empty of water. Now still, taking a towel, one would see it's still wet.
So it should not be mixed with the "consciousness without surface", or the seventh one.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
Instability of Mood
I noticed that when I am in a good mood, namely when I have enthusiasm, I am likely to practice meditation and avoid unwholesome behaviours. When I am in a bad mood, with low enthusiasm, I almost always succumb to some kind of unwholesome behaviour.
How would Buddhism go about remedying such emotional volatility? It doesn't seem like these moods are actually caused, but merely arise in a fluctuating way.
Thank you.

Very good question, one of the key ones.
At the student level:
According to my teacher, emotional volatility comes from relying on other people and on random ideas for your confirmation, for your system of values. As opposed to relying on one teacher and one dharma. When you have one dharma, all your actions and circumstances are evaluated against single set of rules, which gives stability.
At the enlightened level:
When you completely internalize Emptiness, when you clearly see and know there is no absolute reference point whatsoever, and when you stop clinging to emotional security of an absolute reference point, you enter suchness (tathata), the true nature of enlightenment. In suchness, there is not only no mismatch between external "is" and "should" due to the absence of clinging, there is also no mismatch between "I am forced to be such" and "I wish I could be such instead" - due to the cessation of maintenance of ego. Your actions are spontaneous and free of inner conflict.
So that's the twofold answer to your question: emotional stability is achieved 1) by taking refuge in one consistent Dharma as one's highest authority vs letting other peoples' opinions sway your mood by their judgements and 2) by eventually taking refuge in Emptiness, the ultimate insecurity of tathata.

Part 1 is great advice, I really appreciate it, but part 2 makes me wonder: even if behaviour is ego-less, there are things to be done. Stability is necessary for these goals. Isn't ACTUAL stability nevertheless desirable?

In enlightenment, as things change/evolve, one stays in sync with how things are at any given point. One does not fall behind (=clings to past), one does not run ahead (=wishes), things are as they are, as you go towards your goal - whether you fail or succeed, you do what needs to be done at any given point, given how situation evolves, but you don't cling to your ideas or someone else's ideas - this is emotional stability by accepting ultimate insecurity.

There is always a cause. Moods are often caused by something physical. Unrestful sleep, toxins circulating in the brain, lack of certain hormones/nutrients etc. You can eat healthy, exercise, meditate, but ultimately these moods will come and go.
You succumb to unwholesome behaviours, because of the force of habitual tendencies, reacting a certain way towards these moods. Since there is no ''controller, persona, immutable self'' we cannot simply make them go away at will.
In this case ''a bad mood'' will lead to ''grief'' if not observed objectively. Patiently enduring the mood, not trying to push it away, not reacting towards it. To rest with things as they are, regardless of conditions.
''Ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and grief for the world.''
As confidence in the practice grows, so will ardency.

According to Theravadin Buddhist psychology, moods are caused by sankhara and there is no such thing as an uncaused event of any kind. One remedy for dealing with “emotional volatility” is the development of calm through the development of full samadhi. Such calm allows a person to stay with the state of upacara samadhi, a state in which a person retains their full intelligence before moving into full samadhi. Unlike full samadhi, upacara samadhi is conducive to acquiring psychological insight, including insight into the causes of mood.


text:
Questions About Pleasure in Visual Senses
I'm wondering if Buddhism has any notion of visual defilement. What I mean is that in Christianity, there are notions of one's purity or person corrupted by pornography, lustful gazing, etc.
Is there an equivalent in Buddhism? Also, if a person perceives pornography or gazes lustfully, is this sufficient to be a kind of attachment if there is no action or consequence?
I.e. What is the consequence of visual pleasure without further action? What is the consequence of perceiving a pleasurable sight without intention, e.g. mindfully?
Thank you.
PS: What is the scope of such pleasure compared to say orgasm or eating? Is there a pleasure specific to vision, e.g. one becomes accustomed and insensitive to visual pleasure specifically with overuse? (But not, say, other sensory pleasures)

In Buddhism, there are three types of kamma (action), namely: (i) bodily; (ii) verbal; and (iii) mental; each of which have results. Therefore, habitually merely visually observing pleasurable objects will making craving, addiction & the resultant restlessness grow. Thus, the Jesus teaching is similar to Buddhism; because viewing a woman with sexual objectification both grows craving, enslavement & is an error of moral-view (lacking of compassion & not considering harmful consequences).

Buddhism is the path to get Nirwana (End the cycle of life). According to my knowledge Buddhism is not restricting any activity but teaching how it will affect to the path of Nirwana. If someone obligate with something which make affection to life, Buddhism describe it as not to do. For an example lust will make affection to this life cycle. So if someone has lust for someone or something, he/she will not able to understand the impermanence of life.


text:
Concentration Meditation and Alertness
I am wondering how concentration meditation (i.e. shamatha) compares with other techniques or remedies for awareness and alertness. Does anyone know whether meditation increases alertness more than exercise, or nutrition? Or perhaps, I mean to ask how efficient -- if this is a measurable aspect -- focused meditation is at sustaining alertness?
Thank you.

According to AN 11.2 below, it says that skillful virtue (sila) leads to freedom from remorse, which leads to joy, which leads to rapture, which leads to pleasure, which leads to concentration of mind.
It says that there is no need to will for this - it arises out of the very nature of being endowed with virtue and consummate with virtue. This to me is a statement of the efficiency of the use of virtue to lead one towards concentration. Furthermore, I think it is far more efficient to start with the cultivation of skillful virtue and skillful thinking, rather than struggling directly with the five hindrances in meditation.

"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.
"For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.
"For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture
  arises in a joyful person.
"For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my
  body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person
  grows serene in body.
"For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person serene in body experiences pleasure.
"For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things
  that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.
"For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act
  of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees
  things as they actually are.
"For a person who knows & sees things as they actually are, there is
  no need for an act of will, 'May I feel disenchantment.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person who knows & sees things as they
  actually are feels disenchantment.
"For a person who feels disenchantment, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May I grow dispassionate.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person who feels disenchantment grows dispassionate.
"For a dispassionate person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  I realize the knowledge & vision of release.' It is in the nature of
  things that a dispassionate person realizes the knowledge & vision of
  release.

Namaste
This is a common misconception that meditation is a form of concentration.
Have you ever witnessed a scene of natural beauty, such as an amazing sunset, and for a moment felt one with the universe, only to lose that state as soon as your mind tried to analyze what was going on?
That experience is called a spontaneous enlightenment, the best-known of them being the "near death" experience.
That would be the easiest way to understand what enlightenment and meditation are.
Enlightenment is a state of mind where we are shading off the Ego and reunite the self, the "I" the soul, spirit or whatever you want to call it with the infinite wisdom of the universe.
Meditation then would be the process of removing the "Ego", of escaping the prison of reason.
There are many forms of meditation but at the base of every form of meditation there is one principle:
The "reason" can only process one thing at the time. If you think that you can do more than one, try to do any mental activity while counting backward from 5000 to 1 - (Automatic reflexes that do not use reasoning, like driving a stickshift car do not constitute a mental activity.)
So whether you are "focusing" on your breathing, a candle flame a chant or a mantra you are basically keeping your mind from the usual continuous chatter "rumination"common to an unenlightened state.
The reason meditations do not work is because the practitioner doesn't understand the purpose of meditation and believes that "Focusing" is the desired result.
A good meditation is the one that gives you enlightenment not focus

Does anyone know whether meditation increases alertness more than exercise, or nutrition?

In the path of purification concentration preparation chapter, the concentration practitioner must has well enough self managements, such as exercise, nutrition, friend, etc, before to make the meditation growing up.

When you cultivate samatha, you cultivate the three factors:

Concentration
Mindfulness
Alertness

And you establish the two aspects of (1) clarity and (2) stability which oppose (1) laxity and (2) excitement respectively. The cultivation of samatha is not merely the cultivation of the concentration mental factor.
We usually compare the mental factor of 'alertness' (or introspection) to a spy that checks the state of one's mind and what the mind is doing. At the beginning of each meditation session, it is suitable to ask oneself "Is my mind heavy or light? Is it excited or calm? Is it bright or dark? Is it sleepy or awake? and so forth" because that will enable you to cultivate alertness. Then, in the context of meditation, every time you lose your object, do not run after the object that distracted you, but identify the consciousness to which it appeared. If you lost your object of concentration because of a sound, identify "ear-consciousness", etc. This also helps you to cultivate alertness.
Cultivating samatha is helpful in that, by trying to stay with an object, your learn how your mind reacts in relation to it. However, with cultivating samatha, there is the risk of bringing attachment into meditation, clinging into your object of meditation, taking a lack of concentration as a failure. This is the reason why vipassana might be more suitable. In the context of Vipassana, you can tell yourself "Concentration is not my purpose... my purpose is to understand how and why I lose my object. So my object of concentration is just an anchor". A fully qualified samatha is a union of calm abiding and special insight. Therefore you must practice both alternately.
Ethical discipline is the root of mindfulness and alertness. When you are about to break a vow or when you just broke one, the spy of alertness knows you have erred. The vows are thus a very good way of cultivating mindfulness (keeping virtue in mind) and introspection (checking where you find yourself). Non-introspection leads you to break your vows. In 'A Necklace for Those of Clear Awareness Clearly Revealing the Modes of Minds and Mental Factors' a texts on minds and mental factors by Yeshe Gyeltsen, it says:

QUESTION: What is non-introspection? RESPONSE: A wisdom that is
  concomitant with afflictions and engages unknowingly in activities of
  body, speech, and mind. It has the function of acting as a support for
  infractions.


text:
Dealing with Anger and Criticism
I noticed I sometimes feel anger when someone treats me unjustly, or criticizes me or one of my works. I know Buddhism advises waiting, or not acting upon anger. However, every time someone irritates me this way I am extremely tempted to say something mean, or when I get criticized I often delete my works or remove a comment. In a sense, these are respectively fight and flight responses.
What would Buddhism advise to avoid reacting to anger in either way described?
Thank you.

related question: What does Buddhism teach about anger?

here's a short video that might help: Ask A Monk: Criticism and Insults

One of my early teachers suggested:

Externalize the core of anger within yourself as "not me". Meaning, you say to yourself "this is my ego getting angry", "this is my ego feeling hurt", or "this is my ego wants to feel superior" etc. Blame it on the ego, then discipline the ego like a misbehaving child.
identify the source of anger in an attachment. You say to yourself: "looks like I assign too much importance to X" or "looks like I'm overgeneralizing Y" or "looks like I stereo-typically identify A with B while in fact they are not always the same". As you identify the attachment, you know it's not you who's angry, it's your attachment that is angry (ego is made of attachments). Let go of the attachment and the anger will subside.

My root guru also taught a more advanced technique:

See your anger directly as somatic energy overlayed on the body-image. As you look at it directly you can transmute it from whatever it is to pure energy, or in the worst case to regular headache :)

The first step in dealing with anger is to have a clear understanding of the psychology of anger.
Anger can be defined as an emotion that has the function of giving overriding importance to addressing a perceived injustice in an energetic and focused manner. The perceived injustice can take many forms. As with all emotions, the mental process of addressing an issue in this way is not an intentional action. Instead, it is motivated by a spontaneous and unconscious decision-making process. Usually, the injustice addressed is personal in nature, largely because more abstract injustices are addressed intentionally under selected circumstances. In many cases, anger is imposed upon the perpetrator of the injustice with the purpose of correcting his or her behaviour. Another attribute of most emotions is the engagement of an extremely narrow frame of reference.
The problem with anger, of course, are its unwelcome or harmful consequences. The reality is that anger seldom has valuable consequences. In many cases anger is inappropriate. Although getting angry “when someone treats me unjustly” sounds appropriate, it is laden with potential consequences that can be harmful. This is due to two facts:

your anger is based entirely on your perception, understanding, and assessment of the motives of another person; and

you are certain you are correct in your assessment. This assessment may include dogmatic beliefs about that another person.
Through your anger, you confront that person with your beliefs about them and you do so with force and with no possibility of dialogue on the issue. Chances are the other person views the situation differently and you do not care. You can end up losing a friend or being viewed as a narrow-minded, self-centered, or even potentially dangerous person. In the meantime, you walk away feeling good that you have successfully addressed an injustice.

The answer to your question: Do not act on your anger, by counting to ten if you have to. And study your anger after it has passed. Consider the possible harm you may have avoided by not acting on your anger. If your anger is violent or out of control, then find a good psychotherapist to find the unconscious causes of your anger.

Thank you for the edit ChrisW. By far the greatest harm done by anger is parental anger that causes children to lose contact with their own love, awareness, and innate wisdom. Such anger undermines the emotional development of children for the remainder of their lives. Such anger is the greatest cause of human suffering. This fact is not an "amorphous blob" Dr. Storr.

I think reflecting on how you yourself suffer when overcome by ‘negative’ off any emotion that causes you suffering. Realize and see, understand how you yourself suffer from this anger. You find a way to end it, simply because it’s better for you, not to mention others too. But, of course, you have stop the fight back impulse initially, and then examine how that anger makes you feel. You might find some common theme from the past in there,

The Chachakka Sutta - The Six Sets of Six has been useful for me when noticeable unwholesome, wholesome or neutral  states arise. It is an easy and deeply useful Sutta to memorize and I find its wisdom of great assistance while working to develop a still mind.
With Metta

Here's a sutta about an ideal way to respond to being "abused and criticized in foul and harsh words, reviled":
Akkosa Sutta: Insult
I think I interpret it literally, i.e. if someone uses harsh words I see it as a statement about their state of mind.
You can maybe take it too far, e.g. if I irritate you and you tell me so, it may be wrong of me to assume that irritation is all your fault.
Nevertheless I think's it's a good sutta.
I'm rather struck by one of the statements in it, though:

Knowing that the other man is angry,
  He mindfully maintains his peace
  And endures the anger of both,
  His own, as well as of the other

I think that's saying that when you converse with someone who is angry, then you yourself will feel some anger. I'm not sure why that's so, whether it's a selfish reaction ("how dare he?!") or a sympathetic reaction.
In summary:

Try to behave toward others in a way that doesn't occasion their anger
Keep to this kind of behaviour:

Even so, brahman, you are abusing us who do not abuse, you are angry with us who do not get angry, you are quarreling with us who do not quarrel.

And avoid engaging in this kind of behaviour:

When, brahman, one abuses back when abused, repays anger in kind, and quarrels back when quarreled with, this is called, brahman, associating with each other and exchanging mutually. This association and mutual exchange we do not engage in

If you feel anger then mindfully maintain your peace and endure it.

He alone wins the battle hard to win.
  He promotes the weal of both,
  His own, as well as of the other.

Practice the Eightfold Path.
Practice metta and compassion for short term relief of anger.
Practice some form of mindful meditation for permanent relief of anger and suffering.
Maybe you already know but just in case anyone doesn't know, it's good to practice the Dhamma as opposed to just looking at it and studying it intellectually. The Dhamma is something to do, to make good karma with and let go of bad karma.
Practicing the Dhamma is like driving a car to Nirvana City.
If you admire cars,  don't start the car and just learn how it can move on the road then that is like only studying the Dhamma. At the most it is like pushing the car to a better place but not clear to Nirvanaville although anything is possible but it would be a very rare occurrence so it wouldn't be wise to count on not practicing and only studying.
That's what I have been taught and what my experience tells me so take it as my opinion as always.


text:
Willpower in Buddhism
I don't see any other questions, in the suggestions of the site, linked with this precise topic.
What is the equivalent of "willpower" in Buddhism? How is it developped?
Thank you.

The term is padhana - effort, exertion, striving, as in The Four Right Exertions.
Another term is vayama, The Right Effort step of the Eightfold Path.
Another word is chanda - will or intent.

There is the case where a bhikkhu generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for ... [specific practices]

"Generates desire" is an important phrase here.
According to my root Guru, the key to effort is joy. If effort gets you what you're looking for, it makes you happy, then you're motivated to practice more. So the key is not as much to force oneself, but rather, to find the right narrative or frame of reference in which you feel motivated.
So in Buddhism willpower is not as much just sheer force, as it is ability to control one's attention and concentration, to not let external influences change one's frame of reference from position in which the motivation exists naturally.

See also this answer -- I'd guess these two answers are related.

So, if I understand correctly, in this view something generating both joy and effort (e.g. reading, or exercise) might be more effective than something simply effortful? And, also, something one feels like doing at a given moment (i.e. subjectively interesting) might be more effective as well?

That's right. As ChrisW pointed out, this is a Vajrayana-flavored approach. Like in Aikido, we use student's preexisting inertia and desire as fuel for practice. (Of course Buddha Gotama did this all the time too.)

What is the equivalent of "willpower" in Buddhism? How is it developped?

Here are 3 aspects where "willpower" can be experienced and developed.
Practical Aspect - Meditation:

Vitakka & Vichara: Applied and Sustained Thought.

Vitakka means to apply the mind to the object. Vicara means to continuously keep the mind on the object.
Vitakka is like striking a bell once.
Vicara is like striking a bell continuously with a little pause between strikes so the bell sounds have a balanced and continuous flow.
Five Spiritual Faculties:

Energy (Viriya) Faculty: Right Effort (Samma Vayama); Four Right Efforts

In SN 45.8: Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path, the Buddha teaches how to deal with unskillful, unwholesome states of mind by practicing the factor of Right Effort:

"... And what, bhikkhus, is right effort? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu generates desire for the nonarising of unarisen evil unwholesome states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. He generates desire for the abandoning of arisen evil unwholesome states…. He generates desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome states…. He generates desire for the maintenance of arisen wholesome states, for their nondecay, increase, expansion, and fulfilment by development; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. This is called right effort ...".

The Ten Paramis:

The Ten Paramis;
The Adhiṭṭhāna Parami, meaning "resolution, determination".

The perfection of determination should be reviewed thus: "Without firmly undertaking the practice of giving (and the other paaramiis), maintaining an unshakeable determination in the encounter with their opposites, and practicing them with constancy and vigor, the bases of enlightenment — i.e., the requisites such as giving, etc. — do not arise."
-- A Treatise on the Paramis, by Acariya Dhammapala

I attended a Goenka retreat a while back. In this tradition, Goenka taught "Adhiṭṭhāna meditation", which is a meditation where one makes the resolution to not move for the duration of the meditation session. On the retreat the duration were set to 1 hour. If not moving at all is too difficult, one can choose to only move e.g. 3 times. The result of this is a strengthening of ones determination on the Path.

The question head refer to western psychology's willpower, right?
Tipitaka is teaching about the best willpower for receiving the 6 profit: this life profit, next life, nibbāna profit, own profit, the others profit, and social public profit (atthattha, parattha, attāparattha, diṭṭhadhammattha, samparāyikattha, and paramattha).
Target of every teaching in tipitaka is just nibbāna profit, if not, it is not buddha's teaching. It is just the other religious teaching, although that religious member can attains wholesome jhāna (añña-titthiya/diṭṭhi in V.N. Mahavagga Mahākhandhaka).
But the path to enlighten nibbāna profit, is an  eightfold path, path with eight element, so the practitioner who ้heading to nibbāna must manage and dedelop/meditate eightfold path's elements.
These eightfold path's elements is the cause of nibbāna profit and the other 5 profits, too. Also, buddha taught to meditate eightfold path. So, tipitaka is teaching about the best willpower.
For more explanation:
You avoid your gift for monk by giving monk gift, to receive the higher gain from that monk such as  adhi-sikkhā teaching, higher class study, more than just drunk in that gift, lower class.
You avoid your hell view physical happiness by observe the adhi-sīla, to receive the meditation-chance.
You avoid whole your present physical happiness by meditate concentration meditation, to receive the insight-meditation-chance.
You avoid whole your future happiness by meditate insight-meditation, to enlighten nibbāna.
The received chance is fruit that come with the other 5 profits, too.
So, tipitaka is teaching about the best willpower.

Will Power also same as normal definition of it. To achieve Nirvana people needs strong will power. simply its mean the idea of "I will definitely do till i get result (Nirvana) and not giving up".

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