text:
Did Gudo Wafu Nishijima claim that there will be no pain for anyone after death?
Gudo Wafu Nishijima (incidentally Brad Warner's teacher) the soto monk, claimed that sentient beings in pain are just in hell, and hell is a supposition.
I take this to mean that pain occurs without rebirth, already in this life, andt hat we cannot know that we will suffer pain after death: so I'd conclude that rebirth that isn't painful. What I think I'm adding to his exact words is just that facts like suffering are all or nothing, nothing real is incomplete.
That may seem crazy, but I like it. I'm highly skeptical that we need to experiecne more pain to experience the dharma. Even if sentient beings do (and do not!) experience the result of their evil acts.
Is there any basis in the sutras? Not to my conclusion, but his claims about pain.
I've read that zen teachers are often ambivalent on their students belief in rebirth, but I mean something more than that, that to experience the result of bad karma is either in this life or not what we usually mean by "painful".

First off, the concept of death and rebirth in Soto Zen (Nishijima was a Roshi of the Soto school) differs from the general cosmology during the Buddha's lifetime.
The Buddha's world-view was greatly influenced by Hinduism, the dominant world view in his region during his lifetime. The original Buddhist concepts of karma, hells and rebirth are basically a facsimile of these concepts in Hinduism and were taken quite literally during and after the Buddha's lifetime.
The Mahayana view on hells and rebirth is not necessarily taken so literally. For example, one hell is populated by constantly angry beings, another by constantly hungry beings with very small mouths, so it's impossible for them to quench their hunger. In several Mahayana schools, it is suggested that humans go through these realms of hell every waking day when feeling angry, hungry, etc. In Nichiren, this is called "Three thousand realms in a single moment of life". You should read Nishijima's statement in this context.
Also, in Mahayana Buddhism, "death" does not necessarily refer to physical death. Reaching a single moment of Kenshō is referred to as "the Great Death".
Lastly, on the concept of "pain". Eastern teachers will often use this word to refer to Dukkha which can be translated as pain in the Pali canon, but is also translated as "uneasy, uncomfortable, unpleasant, difficult, causing sadness". It refers to the unsatisfactoriness of daily life caused by the five Skandhas. This is the cause of traversing "Three thousand realms in a single moment of life".


text:
Why did Buddhism declined and then almost extinguished in India?
I am currently exploring why Buddhism declined in my country India. Most of internet sites tell me that it was because of islamic invasion, but then hinduism survived it.
In my opinion, it is easy to follow Hinduism where you just have to worship a diety for material gains. However to understand Buddhism itself you need certain amount of intelligence and life experience. So the Indian kings must have found it easy to back Hinduism to reign as it bolsters desires to rule and perpetuate.
What is your opinion on this?

The religion which has committed greater sacrifice for the humanity will always come on the top. Good Karma never dies. Moreover we believe in the cycles of period. This period belongs to Christianity. May be next will belong to Hinduism and then may be Buddhism will come. In this era the things are happening exactly the way it should. Only a fool will believe that Greatest religion now will remain the greatest religion forever because Sabbe Dhamma Anatta.
Buddhism declined the way it should have declined for the conditioning of this era. Give up these mental fabrications. These are not good for Anatta.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
"The not finding (the mind) is the finding"
American Buddhist teacher Joseph Goldstein says1 that in order to cut through identification with consciousness, or the knowing mind, that Zen traditions say that in looking for the mind, there is nothing to find.
He gives the following Zen dialogue to further this point:

Huike said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.” To
  which Bodhidharma replied, “Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.”
  Huike said, “Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.” Bodhidharma
  then said, “There, I have pacified your mind.”

I do not have faith in that saying, and in Buddhism, faith comes from clearly seeing, not blind belief. Can someone give a logical argument for why this Zen saying must be valid?
And, if the body can be found, do we identify with it?
1 in his book, Mindfulness: A Practical Guide to Awakening

Old saying: "Mind is not Buddha. Knowledge is not the Way."

Could you please update your link behind the word "says" in your first sentence with a reference accessible for us all? ;-) It currently refers to a file on your local host.

@mle Thanks for noticing. I replace the hyperlink with a citation, because I guess the book in question is copyright and not freely available.

Zen traditions say that in looking for the mind, there is nothing to find.

It's not just Zen traditions. Tibetan Buddhism have the same exercise, usually placed at beginner-to-intermediate level, right after the teaching on six realms and karma and before "real" meditation.
The idea is that most beginners have this unexamined idea that "I" or "mind" is some thing inside our heads. Trying to examine that thing, locate it in space, and describe its shape and characteristics is the first attempt at introspection that the student takes on. Eventually, the student is supposed to realize that what they call "I think" are just thoughts automatically coming from memory in response to a stimulus, and learn to disidentify from the thoughts.

And, if the body can be found, do we identify with it?

I appreciate your sarcasm. It's not that "not finding"
makes it easier to disidentify, it's seeing that mind is not "one thing" and that "I" is just something we literally imagine.

Huike said to Bodhidharma, “My mind is anxious. Please pacify it.” To which Bodhidharma replied, “Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it.” Huike said, “Although I’ve sought it, I cannot find it.” Bodhidharma then said, “There, I have pacified your mind.”

The Huike story, although seemingly about the same topic, is actually a reference to another principle of Buddhism, the principle of "immediacy".
The problem with most students is that their minds focus on Buddhist theory while ignoring their immediate state of mind, with its deep-lying conflict. Even the quest for Nirvana is a state of conflict, as we identify "this" as "wrong" and Nirvana as right. No amount of theory helps until the student admits this conflict in their own mind. So turning the student's mind to the present moment, to help it see its own conflict is THE core principle of Zen. This is why Zen is called "the school of direct pointing, beyond theory" (or something like that)
That's why Bodhidharma says, "There, I have pacified your mind." - this last phrase is the "pointing directly at mind". At that moment Huike must have turned his attention to his own mind, and saw how grasping (the frustrating and hopeless act of trying to pinpoint the mind) was the very act that created his suffering, and how letting go of that grasping was letting go of that specific instance of suffering -- which was the stream-entry moment for him.
The same principle is at work behind koans, when the act of letting go of the impossible problem leads to realization of the Third Noble Truth.

So  my understanding now, is that Buddhism acknowledges the (conditioned) existense of mind and self, but none of it can be called "I" or "mine". The "I"/"mine" is an illusion.

Seeing the mind is empty of any independent existence is the "not finding".

I think you're still talking from theory, while Zen is talking from direct experience... Not finding is not finding in any specific location, impossible to describe.

You are correct. I am trying my best to understand no self through dry insight, an intellectual understanding, as I have not been able to see no self through direct experience (i.e. meditation).

I wonder, how long does it take most people to see no self through direct experience versus an intellectual understanding?

It probably varies wildly, it really depends on intensity of one's efforts. One person may spend entire summer doing nothing but reading and introspection - and another person may have a job and family to support... I would imagine 3-5 years of practice and meditation should be enough to get some direct insights...

I have a question on part of your answer as follows, "The idea is that most beginners have this unexamined idea that "I" or "mind" is some thing inside our heads. Trying to examine that thing, locate it in space, and describe its shape and characteristics is the first attempt at introspection that the student takes on. "
...
Some students with a Western education might say that "thing" is their brain. Why would they be incorrect in their "finding" of the mind?

We are talking about localizing the experience and shape of mind. Brain exists in the conceptual space of one's education, not in the space of one's direct subjective experience. If you shake your head you may feel something moving inside your skull, conceptually you know that's your brain, and you were taught that's where mind comes from - but all these are things you remembered from someone else's words. What about your direct experience? That "thing" that we're used to be calling "I", the innermost subject of all experience, where is it? What is its size and color?

In your answer, did you say that the "mind" is imagined, or just the "I"?

The subject is imagined. There's no subject apart from object. But traditionally the question speaks about mind, not I nor subject.

According to Joseph Goldstein here at ~31:30, the purpose of the exercise in (not) finding the mind is to see the empty, selfless nature of the mind. That there is no self-existing thing that is "mind". I think this may be what your answer was getting at, and since I can undersand this much, further questioning could be unnecessary.

The subject of experience, that which experiences the experience of an object.

The purpose of Buddhism might be described as "cessation of suffering", but another summary is "purification of mind" -- so, ending defilements and hindrances.
Anxiety, and being conscious of anxiety, is an example (of an afflictive emotion).

I read the story you quoted as a bit of a joke.
Imagine if you were talking about physical pain, for example:

I feel pain.
Show me the pain.
Now I can't find it.
Problem solved, then!

It's partly an example of how ephemeral consciousness is. Imagine you can see into the water of a pond. If a frog jumps in then the water is disturbed, the surface is broken, and you can no longer see what's in the pond (you can only see the disturbed surface). Similarly I think the question ("Show me your mind") was a surprise, and a new mental object of consciousness, which disturbed or replaced the previous object of consciousness (anxiety). It's nothing permanent.

Continuing the analogy, if the water in the pond is still and undisturbed, you don't see the water itself -- what you see is what is in the water.
Similarly perhaps1 you can't find the mind, you can only find what's in the mind (e.g. whatever the mind is conscious of) -- e.g. you simply see "a mountain", or "weeds in the pond", etc.
I think that Zen describes the consciousness of a mind without defilements as "seeing a mountain as a mountain".
I suppose that's the intent of this poem about a mirror -- i.e. keep it clean or undefiled so that it shows things as they are.
Then I think the next poem ("originally there is not a single thing") must be about fabrications.
1 I wrote "perhaps" because people do try to distinguish between, for example, "mind" and "consciousness"

And, if the body can be found, do we identify with it?
No: because I think we're warned that identifying with things, e.g. identifying with the aggregates, or holding to a view-of-self, is a cause of suffering.

I am not sure whether I got your question completely. But finding means you are anxious, aren't you. You keep looking when you find something. But when you focus on right now.. live in the moment.. you stop finding and you will no longer have that anxiety. You are at peace and you let the finding find you. Everything comes to you at the perfect time and you keep calm and accept rather than chasing things...

It was never about blind belief. It is about faith in the direction of the path.
By the time you reach the path's end, faith is not required, because you already know.
Without faith or belief, you would be on your foot, forever questioning about your own belief, without taking one step for eternity.

Find the mind! mind is the creator of every thing. even "mind" is a creation of mind. what ever you precept using mind with the help of other facilities like eye, ear, nose, skin and tongue. mind is a phenomena of nature which you can't find it's true nature. Only you can do is watch the brain scan how mind behaves and functions inside brain or monitor how neurons fire to maintain "mind stream".

What about your eyes?
You can use it to see all kinds of things in the world, like chairs, trees, houses, birds, clouds etc.
But can you see your own eyes? No.
You might say that you can use a mirror or a lake to see your own eyes, but still "No", because that's only the reflection of your eyes that you're seeing, and not your eyes directly.
Similarly, your mind can comprehend a concept of itself, but it cannot find itself.

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


text:
Difficulty with Posture
I am noticing some pattern in my recent practice. I find that mental exertion, as directing attention to the breath, is quite easy for me; yet, when it comes to devoting an amount of time to formal practice, or even sitting formally and upright, I have trouble. For example, I will tend to meditate in a slouched or even lying position.
EDIT: There is no pain, or specific problem when I meditate upright, just a sensation of general discomfort, or an unpleasantness. But, I feel maybe it is more of an aversion towards sitting upright than an actual physical problem.
My question is: How can this resistance best be explained? What is the best way to counter it?
Thank you.

What's the difficulty/trouble/resistance, what are the symptoms -- does it hurt somewhere, do you get restless and distracted, does it interfere with breathing somehow ...?

The experience of discomfort and unpleasantness themselves can be great meditation objects, and it is mindful that you are distinguishing them from pain. Some traditions and buddhist communities expand their conception of formal sitting to include sitting in chairs with back support and lying down, so if it is of interest, know that there are paths that provide such options.
As to how the resistance can be explained, it may be fruitful to consider how your mind and body have been conditioned to relate to sitting and the time you are devoting to sitting (i.e. saṅkhāra meditations can help). For many people, such explorations illuminate habits and valuations that can themselves be fruitful meditation objects.
In terms of counter acting the experience, you'll probably find most teachers encouraging you to grow more curious about the experience. For example, if discomfort is arising from the experience of the stillness, you can examine the nature of the stillness. For instance, you might begin to noice that the posture is not really a static pose, even when you remain quite still. Blood is coursing through your veins. Air is moving in and out of your lungs. Electrical impulses are happening throughout your body. I would encourage you to examine the nature of your discomfort and allow that to guide some portion of your meditation practice.

I had this problem and was told this happens due to lack of exercise.
Simple activities like walking or jogging before meditation should help.
Also, try doing qigong-style improvisations before meditation.


text:
No self and individual responsibility
If there is no self, no "mind" or "I" that can be found, then what does Buddhism call that faculty which exercises personal responsibility?

There is mind. Mind is not the same as self or I.

There is such a thing as a self, but it is not independent and standalone.
Please see this answer for details.
The Buddha used the analogy of a lute. There is such a thing as music, but if you break down the lute into its constituent components, you will not be able to find music. Music only arises out of the inter-working of the different parts of the lute, when it is assembled, constructed and tuned correctly.
There is music, but it does not exist standalone or independently of other things. The self similarly arises virtually from the interplay of other phenomena. To say that the music or the self do not exist at all, is incorrect. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means in all phenomena, there is no self, just as in all constituent parts of the lute, you cannot find something called music.
And there is also the mind.
"Sabbe sankhara anicca" means all conditioned things are not permanent. The mind and the self are not permanent. They are always changing, ceasing and arising, dependent on other things. Anicca does not mean that they do not exist.

I think I am starting to see. Even that faculty which exercises personal responsibility is itself conditioned, impermanent, changing and dependent on other things, and so "Whatever is not yours, abandon it". We do not identify with it as self, since to do so would be a form of "craving for becoming".


text:
Can Buddhism be called as Atheist, Agnostic or Theistic?
I am reading this book currently called Buddhism without beliefs. In this book the author claims that Buddhism is Agnostic. Now Agnosticism is a claim that you are ignorant, or not sure whether God is there or not. I am sure that Buddhist suttas mention several gods, like Brahma etc. Also most modern scholars promote Buddhism as Atheistic, as there is no central creator. What's your take on this?

Yes, it can be called any of these three things; and it is called different things by different people, for the reasons you described.
Three further comments:

The terms (like "atheist") were originally invented and used by other cultures for other religions; for example, Socrates was (legally) accused of atheism and condemned (to death) for it -- so the distinction (between "atheism" and "non-atheism") mattered. I'm not sure how or why the distinction matters in Buddhism, unless it affects practice etc.
Buddhism as I understand it doesn't deny there are Gods (it doesn't say "there are no Gods") so it isn't atheist. But it also doesn't say "God can save you" in the way that Christianity does, or that "The purpose of life is to obey God" etc. The importance of Gods is de-emphasised, people are responsible for their own karma and their own salvation, so it isn't exactly like a Theistic religion either. The story of Siddhartha's going forth and so on is told (at least n the West) as a more-or-less human story.
Bhikkhu Bodhi's book In the Buddha's Words has chapter titles, "The Human Condition", "The Bringer of Light", "Approaching the Dhamma", "The Happiness Visible in This Present Life", which are this-worldly and human rather than other-worldly and Theistic.
Calling Agnosticism "ignorance" is a bit confusing when it's applied to Buddhism. "Agnosticism" means (etymologically) "without gnosis" or without knowledge (of God).
I might describe myself as "agnostic about God" if I have no personal knowledge, no personal experience, of God.
In the West people use "Agnostic" as a middle way between theist and atheist: "theist" means, "I believe in God"; "atheist" means, "I believe there is no God"; and "agnostic", "I neither believe nor disbelieve, I have no personal knowledge of it." (I probably wouldn't say that I'm "agnostic about Antarctica" -- I believe it exists although I haven't experienced it personally).
"Ignorance" is a term which features in Buddhism too: Avidyā (Pali: avijjā). Avijjā too means "without knowledge".
In Buddhism, though, it isn't used to mean "ignorance about whether God exists" (because, IMO, whether God exists isn't the important question). Instead it's used to refer to ignorance of dhamma, ignorance of right view, ignorance about topics like anatta (i.e. whether the self exists), anicca, and dukkha, and so on.

I haven't read Buddhism Without Beliefs and my answer isn't trying to comment on that -- only trying to answer the question asked.

No, your answer makes sense...I understood what you say...I am just confused about this book which repeatedly maintains its stance that buddhism is agnostic...now this particular author has few books on Buddhism...so was just wondering what to make out of this...in my opinion if i have to choose between the three i will call buddhism as atheist...as we dont believe in some creator god whom we have to worship...

The Top customer reviews on Amazon say the book/author misrepresents Buddhism. I gather (from other topics on this site) that the author claims to be atheist, denies "rebirth", and is associated with "Secular Buddhism".

The book had 5 stars and so many reviews...its a terrible book...some kind of new age art of living...its so difficult to pick up a good book...

Look up for Buddhadasa. He has a lot of pdf datas free for download. Just google him. Many researchers use him to gain knowledge into Buddhism. He has a no non-sensd approach and refutes literal rebirth. For that you can also look up the User Dhammadhatu. He is also familiar with it.

@ChrisW there is no reason why one needs to believe in literal rebirth. It is a worldly teaching. Even in right view it is only mentioned in mundane right view.

@Val Actually, there are reasons to believe in literal rebirth. See "Does DN2 and MN36 provide an irrefutable statement on the fact of rebirth?" and "What would be the secular interpretation for the Assu Sutta and the Mata Sutta?".

@ruben2020 After I read the answers to this question I thought I should be agnostic about rebirth -- neither believe nor disbelieve. See also e.g. Then where did the concept of “rebirth” come from?

@BodhiWalker What kind of book[s] are you looking for? What sort of information, perhaps what school?

You may have heard of "sabbe dhamma anatta", the Buddhist teaching that "all phenomena is not-self". A complete discussion on the topic can be found in this answer.
Basically, there is a self, but it is not standalone or independent. Rather, it is changing, arising and ceasing, dependent on other conditions. There is no permanent eternal self.
Buddhism can be considered theist, if you take into account the teachings on the existence of beings called devas and brahmas in the higher realms. Also see this question.
However, Buddhism can be considered atheist, if this refers to the non-existence of a permanent eternal God, because that would imply an unchanging permanent eternal self.
Also, Buddhism can be considered agnostic, if you are looking for an explanation on the origin of the universe and samsara. Was the universe and samsara created by someone or did it appear on its own or was it always there eternally? This is not commented on in Buddhism (see the Acintita Sutta and the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow).


text:
Reference request: the ways of the world
I am looking for sutta text where the Buddha says something like...

The ways of the world will never be finished find your own salvation
  with diligence...

Meaning, all the politics, hatered, war in this world will always continue you need not heed them and instead you should work towards your own salvation...

See also "work out your salvation with diligence".

"The affairs of the world will go on forever. Do not delay the
  practice of meditation." - Milarepa

Possibly Pupphavagga or Lokavagga or Jesusvagga.

178. Better than sole sovereignty over the earth, better than going to heaven, better even than lordship over all the worlds is the
  supramundane Fruition of Stream Entrance.

There are some (famous) lines in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta (DN 16)

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

And

Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!

These don't quite match, "The ways of the world will never be finished"; but they are a good (maybe the best) match for, "find your own salvation with diligence".
There are various English translations, e.g. it's often translated "diligence" instead of "earnestness".


text:
How do I get rid of ill will?
People who have done wrong to me remain in my memory and continuously stay in my mind. I have feelings of ill will and hatered towards them...to revenge...how do I get out of the feelings of ill will...

Vitakkasanthana Sutta (MN 20)
Please keep in mind that one's effort should be of ardency and urgency. You have to act like a hero and free yourself from these. You need to have wisdom about defilements, otherwise you will find excuses and dwell in them even further.
1) "Divert your attention to something more skillful". Now, this doesn't necessarily mean to change one's ill-will to compassion via metta meditation, since the ill-will has too much energy and your thoughts are therefore distorted and won't let good thoughts in so easily. Therefore attend to something skillful but nothing unrealistically positive, for your current state of mind ( ill-will in that case) is too strong. You can try to give self compassion to yourself, i.e.that you are quite angry and that you are not feeling well (treat yourself like a little child). After that, once you feel better you see that other person might also get angry so that you have a sense of not being alone with that problem and you then send metta to these people.
2) Repeatedly scrutinize the benefits of letting go of negative mind states and the benefits of positive ones (both for you and how it contributes to other people as well)
3) Step 3 in the sutta mentions: "Paying no mind to thoughts". Since not thinking of a thought or even aversion to it doesn't really eliminate it, my adive is to always accept the presence of the thought and then distract myself and do something else (or just curiously observe it and see its impermanence). At best, I would always employ a cognitive technique like Step 2 and a behavioral one (like standing up and doing something else while keeping the drawbacks and benefits in mind)

"Relaxation of thoughts". Basically "cooling off", for example via breathing and internally saying: "I'm breathing in sensitively.. breathing out sensitively". "Anger only makes matters worse.. both for me and for others" (connected to step 2)
Clenching one teeths. Now I don't  know how this one is to be understood, but surpressing thoughts in the sense of "don't think of xyz" doesn't work. I recommend contemplating the Buddha's strengths like energy and determination etc. and follow the steps above.

"There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme. He should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. When he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a skilled carpenter or his apprentice would use a small peg to knock out, drive out, and pull out a large one; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme, he should attend to another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. When he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a young woman — or man — fond of adornment, would be horrified, humiliated, and disgusted if the carcass of a snake or a dog or a human being were hung from her neck; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to this other theme, connected with what is skillful, he should scrutinize the drawbacks of those thoughts: 'Truly, these thoughts of mine are unskillful, these thoughts of mine are blameworthy, these thoughts of mine result in stress.' As he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a man with good eyes, not wanting to see forms that had come into range, would close his eyes or look away; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is scrutinizing the drawbacks of those thoughts, he should pay no mind and pay no attention to those thoughts. As he is paying no mind and paying no attention to them, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts, he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts. As he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as the thought would occur to a man walking quickly, 'Why am I walking quickly? Why don't I walk slowly?' So he walks slowly. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I walking slowly? Why don't I stand?' So he stands. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I standing? Why don't I sit down?' So he sits down. The thought occurs to him, 'Why am I sitting? Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. In this way, giving up the grosser posture, he takes up the more refined one. In the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is paying no mind and paying no attention to those thoughts, he should attend to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts. As he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
"If evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. Just as a strong man, seizing a weaker man by the head or the throat or the shoulders, would beat him down, constrain, and crush him; in the same way, if evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with desire, aversion or delusion — still arise in the monk while he is attending to the relaxing of thought-fabrication with regard to those thoughts, then — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he should beat down, constrain, and crush his mind with his awareness. As — with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth — he is beating down, constraining, and crushing his mind with his awareness, those evil, unskillful thoughts are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

Regarding the fifth point in the Sutta: Sometimes there is also the word "surpressing" mentioned (or at least Ajahn Sona in one of his videos said "surpression"). However above, the Buddha says "constraining and beating down with one's awareness."
 Is someone familiar with this sutta? Does it really mean awareness? I wouldn't personally interpret that as "don't think of xyz" (since it doesn't work), but rather about forcing one's mind to concentrate on an object and thereby "crushing" one's thoughts. Now I don't know how the fifth method would differ then from the fourth. Any ideas? I think the difference would be the emphasize, that is: the urgency and ardency to rid oneself from these defilements.

Knowing some teachings or techniques intellectually is one thing, experiencing and using these is another. The thing is to have sati (rememberance) of these steps.

There's some commentary on the fifth point, on the first two pages of Piya Tan's translation. He translates it "mind" not "awareness". All three English translations on SuttaCentral give "mind".

(this is 100% based on my first teacher's instructions, not my personal interpretation)
Ego. All these thoughts come from the ego. Ego wants to destroy anything that hurts it.
You should develop a habit to recognize thoughts that come from the ego.
When you have an attachment that you strongly identify with, and someone acts against that attachment, your ego is hurt. When the ego is hurt, first you feel pain, then you feel desire to stop that pain, and then that desire turns into ill-will.
When you see this pattern, you should say to yourself: "This is the Ego trying to protect itself. Doing this will not be to my benefit, nor to the benefit of others."
Then you should see the attachment that triggered this reaction, and try to look at the situation objectively, as if from above, like a neutral observer. Then you should do the best thing possible, based on this neutral objective perspective.
Ill will comes from the Ego. Never let Ego defend itself. Always act from the objective perspective, for the greater good.

Excellent answer, very profound.

The answer given by Val is excellent. In addition to all the methods mentioned in the first answer , it also helps to contemplate on the states of the lower realms such as hell realms and animal realms. But it can be scary and if you have misunderstood the teachings of the Buddha on these realms its best not to do so. There is an excellent Dhamma teaching on this by Ven.Thubten Chodron which is very motivating. You can contemplate in two ways to motivate you to get rid of ill-will.

If you do well ,you will achieve a higher re-birth.
If you do badly and let your afflictions overtake you , you might get reborn in a lower realm such as that of an animal.

Example: Why is one born in the animal realm? Because of stupidity and ignorance. Your thinking in the animal realm will be dull and foggy there is no way that you can practise Dhamma. Also animals suffer a lot. Imagine the state of animals in the meat producing industry.
This helps me a lot , by generating fear of being born in lower realms , I motivate myself to practice and control myself from doing harm.
Here is the link to the teaching : http://thubtenchodron.org/1991/09/unfortunate-rebirth-causes/

If you're refering to literal rebirth I would say it's not a skillful motivator. Well, depends in how much you're convinced in literal rebirth (check out Buddhadasa or Dhammadhatu) but it's an extrinsic motivator. Intrinsic motivators like: well being of oneself, of others, harmonious relationships are healthier motivators and actuall empirically observable -in the here and now- . If you refer the birth in mental states then that is fine (it's connected to one's well being mentioned above). Point is: Seeing the harms of "evil" thoughts and deeds and learn from mistakes & forgive oneself.

Yes , this method does depend on your belief in rebirth . Definitely the intrinsic motivator is more effective.


text:
Dealing with Contempt and Social Comparison
I have been experiencing greater calm lately, yet at some moments I seem to judge others, as in public places or in general. I understand this as contempt, though I don't really believe it; I don't believe I am better or that people are worthy of contempt, but the thoughts arise anyways and I try to just observe them with equanimity. Often, I experience quite a few of these thoughts, and this impedes my calmness.
What is the best manner to deal with contempt, or just comparing oneself with others in general?

Does metta help, and what kind?
Should I watch the thoughts with equanimity or alter them?
Is there some other meditative technique that would help?

Thank you

See also How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

May I suggest a book: Only don't know by Zen Master Seung Sah. It is not directly related to your problem, but I think its title provides an answer to your problem.
The way I deal with these sort of judgmental thoughts, is by "not knowing". 99% of these judgements are based on our superficial assumptions about these people's lives, based on a few signs we can observe. If you think about it that way, it becomes clear that we construct an idea of these people in our heads, and then we judge that idea! We think we are superior or inferior than an idea we ourselves constructed. Isn't that funny?
In Buddhism, one of the key elements of applying Dharma in practice is becoming good friends with ambiguity. Normally we are used to clarity and the confidence that comes from clarity but in Buddhism we recognize that this clarity is illusory. In fact we know very little about the world, may be 5%, and the rest we infer ourselves. From this inference, which most of the time is not very accurate and sometimes outright wrong, come all kinds of problems. So one of the essential skills in Buddhism is remaining open, unconclusive, ambiguous with regards to people and the world. This is known as "beginner's mind", and is what's referred by Zen Master Seung Sah as "only don't know".
Thanissaro Bhikkhu at some point gave a very good talk (I listened to it in recording, it must be available online but I can't find it at the moment) on Ego and Egolessness. The gist of his message was that, basically, Ego is a giant overgeneralization that we make, a horrific simplification about ourselves. We create this caricature of who we are, and then struggle to fit that with (again) a caricature of the world that we likewise created. Instead, the Buddhist approach is to be free from generalizations, free from the caricatures. 99% of our judgemental thoughts come from these sort of generalizations or caricatures - of either ourselves or others.
So the main technique to overcome these thoughts of contempt and social comparison, whether in your favor or not, is to learn to challenge your own assumptions and generalizations. Perhaps talk to some people and try to really understand their personal world. It may not be the happiest world but in my experience it is almost always a world that has its own logic, its own sense of goodness, honesty, pride. It will usually have some samsaric elements to be sure: attachments, Ego, side-taking, karmic tangles - but within that setting there is always a sentient being that is doing their best to be good. The definition of "good" may be skewed in their system of coordinates, due to traumas and all kinds of karmic situations, and their level of skill and motivation may vary - but they always want something good and try to achieve that within their limits.
When you stop creating caricatures of people, and try to see the world through their eyes - nothing but compassion arises.

Instead of judging others or looking down at them in contempt, you can use this opportunity to cultivate the brahmavihara of compassion (karuna).
Why are they the way they are? For e.g. if your grandmother who has senile dementia lashes out at you in anger or doesn't behave like normal people do, would you be judgemental or contemptuous against her? No. You would be compassionate towards her, because you understand that she has senile dementia.
Similarly, you can generate compassion by trying to understand that other people are suffering and there may be genuine underlying reasons for their suffering and condition. It could be their life situation (e.g. poverty or undergoing divorce) or even mental states (e.g. ignorance, or clouded by anger or other negative emotions).
By tending to your own renunciation, you may be feeling more calm, but by cultivating compassion, you can create the balance needed in dealing with others. Renunciation and equanimity is how you deal with your own suffering. Meanwhile, compassion is how you deal with others' suffering.
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote in "The Balanced Way":

Like a bird in flight borne by its two wings, the practice of Dhamma
  is sustained by two contrasting qualities whose balanced development
  is essential to straight and steady progress. These two qualities are
  renunciation and compassion. As a doctrine of renunciation the Dhamma
  points out that the path to liberation is a personal course of
  training that centers on the gradual control and mastery of desire,
  the root cause of suffering. As a teaching of compassion the Dhamma
  bids us to avoid harming others, to act for their welfare, and to help
  realize the Buddha's own great resolve to offer the world the way to
  the Deathless.
Considered in isolation, renunciation and compassion have inverse
  logics that at times seem to point us in opposite directions. The one
  steers us to greater solitude aimed at personal purification, the
  other to increased involvement with others issuing in beneficent
  action. Yet, despite their differences, renunciation and compassion
  nurture each other in dynamic interplay throughout the practice of the
  path, from its elementary steps of moral discipline to its culmination
  in liberating wisdom. The synthesis of the two, their balanced fusion,
  is expressed most perfectly in the figure of the Fully Enlightened
  One, who is at once the embodiment of complete renunciation and of
  all-embracing compassion.
Both renunciation and compassion share a common root in the encounter
  with suffering. The one represents our response to suffering
  confronted in our own individual experience, the other our response to
  suffering witnessed in the lives of others. Our spontaneous reactions,
  however, are only the seeds of these higher qualities, not their
  substance. To acquire the capacity to sustain our practice of Dhamma,
  renunciation and compassion must be methodically cultivated, and this
  requires an ongoing process of reflection which transmutes our initial
  stirrings into full-fledged spiritual virtues.

Metta or mudita (sympathetic joy) might help but wisdom is of paramount importance.
In short?
• Reflect on the shortness of life
• Reflect on kamma (long term consequences what condemnation will give you)
• Reflect that they too will eventually lose family, friends and material possessions
• Reflect that they are subject to aging sickness and death
Long answer?

There are these five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. Which five?
"'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' This is the first fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
"'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.' ...
"'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' ...
"'I will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to me.' ...
"'I am the owner of my actions,[1] heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ...
"These are the five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.

AN 5.57 https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html


text:
Judgment, Stereotyping, and Empathic Compassion
I am somewhat curious, following an answer to a previous question of mine, as to why understanding a person's background might inhibit judging them in a stereotypical way. I perceived this in my  practice and I have found it somewhat effective in my own case, but I am unsure why this is so. I feel as if such awareness of background is a bit superfluous, yet then again I feel empathy is less frequent when we don't understand a person's motivations.
Consequently, I wonder:

Why is understanding motivations effective against judging others according to Buddhism?
How can this idea be best applied in meditation? For example, how would meditating on the causes of suffering--to arouse compassion--be achieved?

Thank you

The answer to this questions points to an idea that is central for achieving Buddhist Enlightenment. This is the idea that mind has a built-in tendency for reification, stereotyping and overgeneralization; that all our suffering and confusion comes from this tendency; and that liberation from suffering and achieving clarity requires liberation from that.
Mind has this intrinsic function to delineate entities. As it observes the facts, it tries to connect them and create a consistent picture, a story, a model that explains the cohesion behind the facts. I suppose doing so has an evolutionary advantage, because constructing a model gives us a way to predict the model's future behavior.
However, this method has its flip side - which is, we tend to equate our models with reality. Indeed, outside of models there is no experience of the world. So, naturally we tend to assume our models are correct, and as long as they come from experience and have some forecasting power, we tend to attach to them. This gives us a quick way to make decisions about the world. We see something, we recognize it as one of the previous things we have seen, we classify it, and based on that automatically pick the reaction. It's a very efficient mechanism, great timesaver. Imagine if we had to reevaluate everything from scratch every time we saw things.
At the same time, assuming our models are reality gives rise to a sort of perceptual blindness. We end up seeing with our brains, not our eyes. We jump to conclusions. We become stubborn. We are judgmental. We are superficial. We are tone-deaf and blind to nuances.
So getting more details for our models - any details really - increases the chance to get some evidence that will uncover the holes in our model-building. This shows up in your example above, when getting a sense of persons's background, facts from their personal history, can helps us see beyond our mind-made model of them, and into the real person.
Buddhist Enlightenment is to go beyond models. Realization of "Emptiness" is seeing that all our models are mind-made. Buddhist tolerance, total acceptance, humbleness, is the social application of this realization. Buddhist suchness is the emotional state we get when we learn to live in a non-stereotyped inner world, not dragging any models from the past. Buddhist meditation is to see into our modeling process, and learn to go beyond that. Buddhist liberation is to liberate from the oppression of models.

If you judge someone or if someone does something to you we tend to look only that event. We do not see the bigger picture. There must always be a preceding cause for someone to think or act in a certain way. If you consider that we're all in the same boat and all have to face existential problems (the questions I mentioned in your last question) then a sense of empathy arises. This perception needs to be put to the fore via sati (recollection or mindfulness) and with this recollection the perception gets stronger and stronger.
If you are condeming a person there must be a preceding cause for that to arise. Maybe you were angry which resulted in a negative state of mind, which further gets strengthend by indulging in more negative thoughts, or you are telling yourself that you shouldn't think or feel in a certain way because you are a spiritual person etc. Every state of mind (whether wholesome or unwholesome) filters out unfitting information. I hope this makes somewhat sense? Don't believe this, look for yourself next time you feel good or bad and how the subsequent thoughts will be. When you feel positive how is your outlook in regards to life?
To answer your second question: You don't need to do formal meditation to do this, it can always be done via recollection in daily life but in formal sitting it's most effective. You just consider the basic predicaments which every human has to go through. Asking questions is more effective than just telling your mind certain "truths" , "teachings", "drawbacks". Whenever we pose a question our brain is forced to think (remember school?). Just reflect on causes and conditions that weren't developed just now. Every human being has to cultivate skills/behaviours, emotions and mental states. Whether wholesome or unwholesome. If one was raised in a negative environment and had no insight into cause and effect etc he is not to be blamed because he is a fallible human. This is equanimity and compassion.

Why is understanding motivations effective against judging others according to Buddhism?
I think that's human nature ... perhaps it's a truism of human nature ... but is not Buddhist doctrine.
Instead Buddhist doctrine is maybe about understanding or overcoming your own attachments and egocentricity, rather than trying to understand other people's motives. Sorry!
For example, there's a famous saying (in English) that "To understand all is to forgive all" -- that's listed as a Fake Buddha Quote. Usually the author (Bodhipaksa) would give passages from the suttas which are at least similar to the quote ... but he doesn't in this one, saying,

The Buddha doesn’t seem to have talked much about “forgiveness.” He talked much more about letting go of anger ...

Even so perhaps the cause ("why it's effective") is clear if you consider an invented example:

Someone steals something from your shop
You're angry at the loss, and blame the thief for being greedy and disrespectful
If you find they stole because they were hungry, perhaps you are then more inclined to forgive them (perhaps because it's selfless, i.e. their hunger didn't necessarily involve "yourself")

I suppose that "understanding motivation" is a type of, or a cause of, compassion.
And I think that "compassion" is a feature of Buddhism -- not exactly 'doctrine' (e.g. that "you should feel compassion"), more like an 'axiom' (e.g. "do this because of course everyone feels compassion, it's human nature"), some kind of "Golden Rule"-like thinking, for example,

All are afraid of the stick, all fear death. Putting oneself in another's place, one should not beat or kill others.

How can this idea be best applied in meditation? For example, how would meditating on the causes of suffering--to arouse compassion--be achieved?
My personal experience is that it doesn't work like that.
For example if I'm in conflict with someone because we both want something, or want different things, you might hope that my understanding their motive would make me more compassionate.
And in theory, intellectually, understanding the motives of the other person, and understanding our situation, works to some extent, sometimes ... but it's impermanent, not really stable ... because even if I understand or forgive them, I still can't get what I crave ... which fuels conflict ...
... so the more stable cessation of dukkha coincides with a cessation of my own craving, and cessation of fuelling own craving ... possibly replacing that craving with compassion ... but the generation-of-compassion alone (i.e. understanding other people's motives, without considering or reconsidering own motives such as craving) isn't enough.


text:
The "conventional" self - in what way can it be accepted?
Buddhist writers, such as Joseph Goldstein and Thupten Jinpa, say that although the self is not intrinsically real, that we still accept the "conventional" idea of self. For example:

If we arrive at the knowledge that the self at which we grasp is empty, we may imagine this means that we as individuals with personal identities do not exist.
  But of course this is not the case--our own personal experiences demonstrate that we as subjects and agents of our own lives, we certainly exist.
  So how then do we understand the content of this insight into absence of Self?
  What follows from this insight?
  We must be very clear that only the self that is being grasped as
  intrinsically real needs to be negated. The self as a conventional
  phenomenon is not rejected.
  This is a crucial aspect of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness.
  Without understanding this distinction, one cannot fully understand the meaning of no-self.

If we believe anatta, then how, specifically, can the "conventional" self be accepted? Do they mean we only pretend that the illusion of self is real in order to talk to people in everday language? Or is there some part of the concept of self that even Buddhism cannot reject?

The quote says "negate the self which is grasped as intrinsically real" and "self as conventional phenomenon is not rejected". Therefore I edited the title of the question, to say "accepted" (not rejected), rather than "real".

Immediately after that (quoted) passage in Essence of the Heart Sutra: The Dalai Lama's Heart of Wisdom Teachings by Thupten Jinpa, it says, "Later on, as we get more deeply into the discussion of the Heart Sutra, I will elaborate on this point in greater detail."

@ChrisW Thank you for the clarifying edits.  Essence of the Heart Sutra seems a bit over my head, and I was hoping that someone like yourself could help me (quote) "understand this distinction", in simple terms.

It now occurrs to me that Buddhism must recognize the existence of self in the conventional sense to even have a discussion of no self. Or is this incorrect?

This question is answered in Insight into Emptiness where an analogy is given that was helpful to my mind. The following is my paraphrase from the example given by this book.
The President of the United States is a self that exists conventionally, but is not the slightest bit intrinsically real.
This is a label that we designate on the basis of an individual person using human rules and customs. In order to use this label correctly it is necessary to have a valid basis of designation that everyone agrees upon. There is a specific context in which this labeling is valid. Outside of this context - the community of humans and our associated traditions - this label is meaningless. It is only within the context of human speech and human political/cultural traditions that this label has any meaning.
It is an agreed upon label by convention according to definite rules and customs. For instance, if I went around declaring myself to be "President of the United States" and then tried to assume some power of the President it would not work. So it is clear that just because something exists by convention does not mean that it does not exist at all. Nor does it mean that we can just magically label anything whatever we want.
In what way can the President of the United States be said to exist? When we say that the President of the United States is not intrinsically real, what do we mean? There is no permanent independent thing that is universally understood by all inhabitants of the universe that is "President of the United States" by means of its own inherent power. It exists only by convention and depending upon human rules and conditions.
Like this, all phenomena are said to exist conventionally without even the slightest bit of intrinsic reality. This goes for persons as well as generalized phenomena.

I found the book reference (I'll check it out!) and the concluding two paragraphs to be very helpful. While it is clear to me that just because something exists by convention does not mean that it does not exist at all, what did not make things clearer for me was the next sentence on how we cannot label things as we want. It seems  necessary only to understand that when something exists by convention as with all phenomena, it exists, but empty of any independent existence.

The part about labeling things as we want was included to rebut a common objection. The example above was from the viewpoint of the Prasangika, but another tenet system is the Svatantrika. A common objection the Svatantrikas give when Prasangikas posit that all things only exist conventionally without the slightest bit of intrinsic reality is that this would mean we could just give any thing any label willy nilly. In other words, they believe that positing this is akin to nihilism: the belief that nothing exists. The President of the United States is a counterexample to this.

So going further with the U.S. President example - even Donald Trump, with the ego and illusion of control he has, is empty of independent existence. I found Joseph Goldstein's remarks on emptiness helpful here, "We experience the meaning of emptiness when we realize that things are ungovernable by our own will; there is no self that is controlling the world.”

IMO this directly answers the question on how the conventional self is accepted - it is understood as the self that is not intrinsically real.

The usage of the word 'self' in a conventional sense is the same as the usage of the word 'chair'. There's nothing intrinsic in the material it is made of that makes a chair a chair. But the usage of concepts are useful in day to day life for the purpose of identifying functions.

It feels like I'm working through the hindrance of doubt here, but from the short answer, I have difficulty seeing that a chair (or the self) is not real, particularly when trying to see this wisdom in daily life, where, just saying it's not intrinsically real doesn't quite get me to me see through the illusion of chair. Similarly, I'm trying to see the wisdom of no self in day to day life, which is where the teachings of Buddhism are of value to me, not the meditation cushion.

If the chair is real, when you take it apart it should still be a chair. Not a pile of wood or metal. If the chair is real, it should be a chair to an ant crawling on it too. But it's not. It's a floor to an ant.

It seems somewhere we still admit the existence of a chair, however. If the chair is not real, then why do Buddhists still refer to it as chair? If "no chair" (or no self) is true in the ultimate, unconditioned sense, then why can we not talk in everyday language with "no chair", and not have to refer to the false sense of chair?

We use the labeling system to identify things that appear as real for practical reasons. Those with less ignorance know that labels don't refer to reality. Those with much ignorance cannot see through the labels. It's like people who still believe that the earth is flat because it appears that way.

I'm not confident I can predict what the Dalai Lama was trying to say (and I haven't read the book you referenced), but here are some examples of what "this distinction" means to me.
Vices and virtues
The Zen story "Nothing Exists"

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

... implies that the self, the sense of self, conceit, identification (with form but also self-importance), is manifested as or associated with defilements and obstacles, fetters (for example, anger).
I guess this is what people mean when they talk about "the ego", being "egocentric", "selfish", etc.
The story may be, also, a reminder of social conventions: be polite (not boastful), don't attack people (be gentle), be skillful (appropriate interaction with the right person at the right time), etc.
I think that uprooting "defilements" is one the main aims of Buddhism, isn't that so?
Still, if there are bad deeds and afflictive emotions, there's also skillful virtue -- including generosity, for example, being a good friend, even avoiding bad friends -- which may lead to the next topic.
Social roles
If you look at the five skandhas, you can't (or shouldn't) look at them and say "that's me, that's mine, that's permanent" -- a body for example, or any single/specific thought, is more-or-less transient, impermanent. You might say, "That's me", but maybe you won't want to: because clinging to impermanent things like that is (or would be) a cause of suffering.
Socially though, in society, people exist -- with names and so on. As well as the five skandhas, there are also (or one might say, "people also have") names and relationships, duties, jobs, families, skills, assets (like a house or money), etc. These too are temporary, severable -- and may be dissatisfactory, a cause of suffering if you cling to them or identify with them.
Even so, society, human life, couldn't exist with them -- without parents, for example, or without children, and so on. One of the definitions of "wrong view", in the suttas, goes,

"And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

I think that this is an important part of the conventional self -- it's relative -- there's a "this world" because there is (or was) "another world", there's a "next world" because there's a "this world", there's a "mother" and "father" because there's a "child", etc.
"Relative" also implies "conditioned" -- A exists because B exists, A and B are related, A is conditioned by B -- and anything conditioned is impermanent (A ceases or changes when B ceases).
Although these relations exist, they're impermanent (so shouldn't be taken to be a permanent self), yet they exist (to deny they exist would be wrong view).
Salvation
We're told to consider that,

‘I must be parted and separated from all I hold dear and beloved.’ …
I am the owner of my deeds and heir to my deeds. Deeds are my womb, my relative, and my refuge.
I shall be the heir of whatever deeds I do, whether good or bad.’

... where "deeds" is kamma in the above.
So perhaps "I am" (the owner) and "I have" (the fruit or result of good and bad actions), until I am able to "end kamma".
The Dhammapada says,

You yourselves should make the effort; the Tathagatas (Buddhas) only can show the way.

I guess this might be the kind of message which the Dalai Lama had in mind, when he was quoted as saying, "our own personal experiences demonstrate that we as subjects and agents of our own lives, we certainly exist".
Speaking of "refuge", I think the "island" passage from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta implies some agency or responsibility:

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

I think of that as a defining characteristic of Buddhism, perhaps unlike some other religions where worshippers might expect another agent (God) to be an instrument or agent of their salvation.
I think that other schools of Buddhism (e.g. Tibetan) might have slightly different doctrines, though, so, again, this is just how I understand the "distinction", based on the suttas (not the Heart Sutra nor the Dalai Lama's teachings, especially "a crucial aspect of the Buddha's teaching on emptiness").

By the way, even though this appears to emphasise "you" (or "self") as agent, it's also possible to describe the process (of following and/or not following the way, the dhamma) using a non-self kind of metaphor: as important as the conventional self is, it doesn't or needn't override a non-self view.
If you'll forgive my introducing it, here is one of the parables of Jesus (note Christian, not Buddhist):

"Listen! A farmer went out to plant some seeds. As he scattered them across his field, some seeds fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate them. Other seeds fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seeds sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. But the plants soon wilted under the hot sun, and since they didn’t have deep roots, they died. Other seeds fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants. Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand."

The parable/metaphor there is:

Farmer "scattering seeds" = "giving dhamma talks"
"Unfertile ground" = "some people hear the talk but the dhamma doesn't take root"
"Fertile ground" = "some people hear the talk, and practice appropriately as well as spread the word"

Further to that metaphor you could argue that (notwithstanding what I said above about being the owner of or heir to the fruit of kamma) there is still no self and maybe even no "free-will" -- there's just ground, fertile or unfertile.
Curiously the last sentence of that quote ("Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand") is rather similar to the Buddha's "beings with little dust in their eyes":

Open are the doors to the Deathless
to those with ears.

Ajahn Brahm calls the sense of agency, the "doer", and that sense of self disappears during meditation. Then consciousness, or the "knower", disappears soon thereafter.

Geshe Thubten Jinpa is a Gelug-pa, and a translator of H.H. the Dalaï-Lama. His view is that of Madhyamika Prasangika as presented by lama Je Tsongkhapa. In this tradition, we hold that Buddhapalita, Candrakirti, Aryadeva and Shantideva are Madhyamika-Prasangika. I will answer from this viewpoint.
Whatever is an existant (1) does not exist ultimately but (2) exists conventionally. This includes conventional and ultimate truths: even emptiness exists conventionally.
The issue here is that 'self' has two meanings:

It refers to persons, and persons exist. Persons are objects of conventional valid cognizers. A valid eye-consciousness sees a person... a valid tactile consciousness touches a person, etc.
It refers to inherent existence, a mode of existence that is utterly non-existent. Persons and phenomena are empty of possessing such a self... they do not exist by way of their own characteristics... they are not established from their own side... they are not truly existent... they are not real...  they do not exist inherently. From a Prasangika viewpoint, all these are synonymous.

Self, in the sense of the person, do exist conventionally. Self, in the sense of inherent existence, is utterly non-existent. To put it another way: the person is an object apprehended by a valid cognizer while inherent existence is perceived by a cognizer that is not valid... a cognizer that is a wrong consciousness. The wrong consciousness apprehending inherent existence is called ignorance. This ignorance is the first of the 12 links of dependent-arising and it is the root of samsara.
The ignorance that is the conception of self of the person apprehends the self (in the sense of the person) as possessing a self (in the sense of being inherently existent). From a Prasangika viewpoint, the eye-consciousness in the continuum of an ordinary being apprehending a person is (1) valid with regard to the entity of the thing (i.e. apprehending a person as a person) but (2) is wrong with regard to the mode of existence of the thing (i.e. apprehending the person to exist inherently).

Once you understand the "non-duel" concept, the answer to this question becomes very apparent.
When we observe reality around us, our normal state is one of concepts.  Whenever we attempt to understand anything, we form a concept of what it is we are attempting to understand. What is a fish? How we conceptualize a fish is through the word "fish". Maybe a mental picture of the form of a specific fish we have seen in our lives. The thoughts of stories about that fish. (eg: A fish is a living creature. A fish lives under water. All of these things make up my personal concept of a fish.)
We also use the realm of concepts to describe ourselves. For example, I have many thoughts that make up the concept of who "I" am. (eg: My name is Alexander. I am a man. I have a mental image of my body. This experience is a part of the concept of self.) The trick of understanding comes here: Although there is a concept of self that can exist, there is nothing that can be identified as self. This conceptual understanding of "you" is what is meant by your "conventional" idea of self.
When I say "there is a concept of self that can exist", I mean there are thoughts that occur that make up a concept of a separate, permanent self. In reality though, if you are able to observe non-dual existence, you will find that all that exists is experience and Nirvana. Experience is fleeting and is born and dies through Nirvana. Nirvana is not observable, and experience is, hence the labeling of non-duality.
Initially, we conceptualize self as body, mind, experience. But under close inspection, body and mind are nothing more than experience. Experience is fleeting, constantly arising and passing, so therefore can not be self.
The bottom line is:

If we believe anatta, then how, specifically, can the "conventional"
  self be accepted?

It is possible for there to be nothing that can be identified as a self, while still acknowledging the fact that thoughts can occur that can create a concept of self.

Do they mean we only pretend that the illusion of
  self is real in order to talk to people in everday language?

The illusion of self is very real. It is the cause of all our suffering. Once non-duality is understood and the illusion is broken, the concept/thoughts of self are used as a tool to talk to people about your experience.

Or is
  there some part of the concept of self that even Buddhism cannot
  reject?

Thinking in concepts helps us understand our reality. The Buddha taught the Dharma as a path to help us discover our misconceptions. Believing in the existence of permanence, satisfaction, and a separate, permanent self are incorrect. There will always be a concept of self. What we need to break ourselves from is the belief that a concept is something that can be protected, harmed, bound, freed, birthed, killed, etc.

Namo Buddhaya. As far as I a understand there is no conventional self. The residual self which is present due to clinging, leads to existence of what you may call conventional self.
The 'I' which you read in the sentence above is due to clinging to one , few or all the aggregates.
The following sutta(SN 22.47) will help you understand better:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who regard
  anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five
  aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them. What
  five?
“Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling, who is not a seer of the
  noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who is
  not a seer of superior persons and is unskilled and undisciplined in
  their Dhamma, regards form as self, or self as possessing form, or
  form as in self, or self as in form. He regards feeling as self …
  perception as self … volitional formations as self … consciousness as
  self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in
  self, or self as in consciousness.
“Thus this way of regarding things and the notion ‘I am’ have not
vanished in him. As ‘I am’ has not vanished, there takes place a
descent of the five faculties—of the eye faculty, the ear faculty, the
nose faculty, the tongue faculty, the body faculty. There is,
  bhikkhus, the mind, there are mental phenomena, there is the element
  of ignorance. When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a
  feeling born of ignorance-contact, ‘I am’ occurs to him; ‘I am this’
  occurs to him; ‘I will be’ and ‘I will not be,’ and ‘I will consist of
  form’ and ‘I will be formless,’ and ‘I will be percipient’ and ‘I will
  be nonpercipient’ and ‘I will be neither percipient nor
  nonpercipient’—these occur to him.

There is no residual self. "The notion of self" is just an ignorant feeling/thought/view.

This site is Anatta. Your answers are Anatta. Why are you identifying with it ? You are confusing Anatta with no soul. No soul is an Annihilation view. Wrong view. You are because of craving and clinging. You are because of ignorance.

Wrong again! Annihilation view is the belief that 'self' ends at death.

Sorry for the mistake.Little weak on terminology. I meant to ask whether you are suggesting that 'self' never existed ? If that was so then why didn't Buddha say it. If Self never existed then what use is giving the punishment and to whom? If Buddha said 'self' or 'himself' never existed then please quote him. Thanks.

The notion of a self is nothing more than just a notion. It's just a false belief that is removed when one attains the Sotapanna stage.

300 years ago many people thought that the earth was flat. Now we know that it is spherical. When people believed that earth was flat, do you think it was really flat or was it just a ignorant belief?

Honestly I believe Earth is flat but is made spherical in the consciousness. However that belief is debatable. What Buddha said is eternally relevant.Doubt is one of the five lower fetters.

Do you believe that the sun goes around the earth as well?

@SankhaKulathantille It may or may not be true. But I know the fact that sun and the earth are Anatta. Therefore any Truth made up of Sun and Moon are Anatta too.

The Anatta nature does not forbid you from learning how things work

It does not forbid but it is not a supreme thing to learn. Dhamma is the supreme thing to learn and practice. And remember things will not always work the way they are working even if it is quantum mechanics.

Its not about superiority. That was meant to be taken as an analogy. Just because people believe that the sun goes around the earth does not mean it is that way. In the same way, just because people believe that there is a self, doesn't mean that there is.

@SankhaKulathantille If there is no self then can I cut your finger or your arm ? You will say no because you will feel pain. You will feel because you identify yourself with feelings. Self is as real as that.

Injuring another person intentionally usually involves aversion unless it's a doctor doing a surgery. That is bad karma for you. Karma does not require a 'self' to work as I had mentioned in another post.

@SankhaKulathantille In which other post did you mention that karma does not require a 'self' to work?

@ChrisW It was in an answer/comment in another question by Dheeraj to a similar argument. I can't remember which.

@SankhaKulathantille Thank you. Maybe it was this comment.

Yes, maybe just that one if there isn't another like it. Thanks!


text:
What do ethical conduct (sila) and compassion have to do with the cessation of dukkha?
As I understand the Third Noble Truth, the cessation of dukkha is brought about by ending craving. I can see how, for example, practicing renunciation, or seeing no self, assist us in achieving this, but how do ethics and compassion practices like lovingkindness lead us to achieving the end of craving?

Dukkha comes not just from craving, but from unsatisfied craving, in other words from inner conflict between "is" and "should".
Sila, Prajna, and Samadhi are three methods to remove and prevent that conflict: coarse, middling, and subtle conflict.
Sila helps remove and prevent coarse behavioral conflict, like obvious conflicted states of Obsession, Negativity, Egoism, - and their real life results, which manifest as various kinds of conflict.
Prajna helps remove and prevent middling intellectual conflict, through analysis of dharmas, understanding how things work, understanding Three Marks of Existence, and Emptiness, understanding the limits of mind's models and perspectives.
Samadhi helps remove and prevent subtle emotional conflict, like states of negativity, unsatisfaction, craving for a different life etc.
So to answer your question, it helps by reducing, removing and preventing conflict between "is" and "should" which manifests as Dukkha.

Not sure if this should be a new question, but, is compassion necessary for Sila?

Yes, I think so. Sila is about your behavior with regard to the world and other people, and how can you optimize your behavior without understanding how it affects them? So in order to practice Sila you need a sense of empathy or compassion.

The reason I ask, is that it that an arahant is one fully liberated without the compassionate wish that a bodhisattva has to benefit all sentient beings. To me, that sounds like realizing nirvana without compassion, without sila. AFAIK, the Buddha did not teach a path without Sila. So I was thinking of opening a discussion on this, but not sure, since a very similar-looking question is asked here in the OP.

Well, it seems a stereotypical Arahant has enough compassion as to avoid harming people, but not enough compassion to actively help them. I think it's a difference in degree, not an absolute one.

Thank you for kindly answering my questions so far. If I need to extend the discussion, then I'll open a new post.

@avatarKorra I think that, according to some doctrine in the Pali tradition, compassion isn't the difference (or it isn't the only difference): an important difference is Buddha's being a more capable teacher -- not only from knowing Dhamma but also ten powers of a Realized One, e.g. knowing the results of karma, understanding the diverse beliefs and faculties of sentient beings, stages and factors of the way, etc. ... being able to adapt the teaching to the audience.

It is interesting to note that compassion is in fact part of Right Thought, and falls under Prajna (wisdom), too.

These classification schemes are artificial constructs, don't worry about them too much.

Kimattha Sutta (AN 11.1) explains the relationship of skillful virtues (sila) to Nibbana:

Ven. Ananda asked: “What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?”
The Buddha's answer:
“Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
  and freedom from remorse as their reward.”
“And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?”
“Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of joy? What is its reward?”
“Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of rapture? What is its reward?”
“Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of serenity? What is its reward?”
“Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of pleasure? What is its reward?”
“Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its
  reward.”
“And what is the purpose of concentration? What is its reward?”
“Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are
  as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as
  its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of knowledge & vision of things as they
  actually are? What is its reward?”
“Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment
  as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward.”
“And what is the purpose of disenchantment? What is its reward?”
“Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its
  reward.”
“And what is the purpose of dispassion? What is its reward?”
“Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose,
  knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

yes, I'm starting to notice, with yours and this answer that the purpose of Sila, Samadhi, and Wisdom are to remove defilements, leading to the ending of craving, and then nibbana.

Sila(morality), Samadhi(concentration), Panna(wisdom) is the way to cessation of Dukkha. Sila disciplines bodily and verbal actions. Without that discipline you cannot discipline the mind, without disciplining the mind, you cannot cultivate wisdom.

There is a strong aspect in the training by the Buddha to achieve some self-analysis, some self-liberation.
But there is also another one, not often discussed but it occurs in some suttas (don't have the actual reference at the moment). This might be called a social one which introduces something like "reciprocity" or "echo":
If you've taken the vow that you won't kill - and the people around you can trust you, then the people around you need not fear getting killed, they can themselves feel more free and secure, and this is not only a good athmosphere for them but shall echo back to yourself and your freedom to move between them - and in general for the common social environment.
If you've taken the vow that you won't take what is not given - then the people around you need not fear that their things shall be taken away. When they know you are of that type you might walk through the fields (if it is a rural area) with much less things to be taken care of - so this again shall echo back to you - and in general for the common social environment (I really loved such a free- and trusting feeling when I wandered through the south of France, it was really new to me grown up in urban Germany...)
Think about the other vows - it should not be too difficult to image analoguous examples.
So, your keeping-the-silas and generating-trust-in-this improves an environment of freedom and - one shall even find out- of generosity and other good mental states and routines, thus reducing dukkha on both sides in such reciprocal process.

(If I can remember the sutta I've read on this I'll add the reference later)

Namo Buddhaya. One very important aspect which has not been said in the answers so far is that cessation of Dukkha can not be achieved if the Kamma has not been exhausted.Suffering can not affect those who have done no bad deed. By developing loving kindness,compassion,altruistic joy and equanimity one can liberate the mind from past kamma. It leads to non-returning or Nirvana.
I quote the following sutta to support the answer:

“This noble disciple, bhikkhus, who is thus devoid of longing, devoid
  of ill will, unconfused, clearly comprehending, ever mindful, dwells
  pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with loving-kindness,
  likewise the second quarter, the third quarter, and the fourth
  quarter. Thus above, below, across, and everywhere, and to all as to
  himself, he dwells pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with
  loving-kindness, vast, exalted, measureless, without enmity, without
  ill will. He understands thus: ‘Previously, my mind was limited and
  undeveloped, but now it is measureless and well developed. No
  measurable kamma remains or persists there.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth were to develop the
liberation of mind by loving-kindness from his childhood on, would he
do a bad deed?”
“No, Bhante.”
“Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?” “No, Bhante. For
on what account could suffering affect one who does no bad deed?”
“A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by
  loving-kindness. A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when
  they go. Mortals have mind as their core.
“The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the
  past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will
  not follow along.’ When the liberation of mind by loving-kindness has
been developed in this way, it leads to non-returning for a wise
bhikkhu here who does not penetrate to a further liberation.
“This noble disciple, bhikkhus, who is thus devoid of longing, devoid
  of ill will, unconfused, clearly comprehending, ever mindful, dwells
  pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with compassion … with a mind
  imbued with altruistic joy … with a mind imbued with equanimity,
  likewise the second quarter, the third quarter, and the fourth
  quarter. Thus above, below, across, and everywhere, and to all as to
  himself, he dwells pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with
  equanimity, vast, exalted, measureless, without enmity, without ill
  will. He understands thus: ‘Previously, my mind was limited and
  undeveloped, but now it is measureless and well developed. No
  measurable kamma remains or persists there.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, if a youth would develop the liberation
  of mind by equanimity, from his childhood on, would he do a bad deed?”
“No, Bhante.”
“Could suffering affect him if he does no bad deed?”
“No, Bhante. For on what account could suffering affect one who does
  no bad deed?”
“A woman or a man should develop this liberation of mind by
  equanimity. A woman or a man cannot take this body with them when they
  go. Mortals have mind as their core.
“The noble disciple understands: ‘Whatever bad deed I did here in the
past with this deed-born body is all to be experienced here. It will
not follow along.’ When the liberation of mind by equanimity has been
developed in this way, it leads to non-returning for a wise bhikkhu
here who does not penetrate to a further liberation.”


text:
Addiction and Suffering
I have experienced minor addictions lately, such as overeating or social media; these topics have been addressed on this site previously.
I now have a more general question. I am wondering: which is more important between tolerating negative emotions and aspiring to healthier positive emotions and activities?
Currently, both are quite difficult for me. Any suggestions as how to tolerate negative emotions, to let them arise, are welcome. Similarly, any suggestions about ideal ways to generate joyfulness and positive emotions would be useful as well.
Thank you.

How te hell is addiction different from suffering?

I now have a more general question. I am wondering: which is more important between tolerating negative emotions and aspiring to healthier positive emotions and activities?
Any suggestions as how to tolerate negative emotions, to let them arise, are welcome. Similarly, any suggestions about ideal ways to generate joyfulness and positive emotions would be useful as well.

It really depends on the tradition/method that works for you.
When negative feelings or thoughts of ill-will arise, they can be substituted with wholesome thoughts/feelings, e.g. by practicing Loving-kindness meditation.
In Vipassana traditions, one tries to observe unwholesome phenomena passively and objectively, in order to prevent the mind from falling into liking or disliking, thereby slowly changing the habits of the clinging mind.
The general approach is explained in the noble path factor of Right Effort (Samma Vayama). In SN 45.8 - Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path, the Buddha teaches:

“... 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 ...".

To sum it up, one needs to:

abandon or dispel already arisen unwholesome states of mind.

to guard against or prevent unarisen unwholesome states of mind from arising.

to cultivate unarisen wholesome states of mind.

to main already arisen wholesome states of mind.

Wholesome states of mind are e.g.; Serenity and insight, the four foundations of mindfulness, the eight path factors and especially the seven factors of enlightenment.

Normally in Buddhism we don't "tolerate" negative emotions. We tolerate negative experiences, but negative emotions is something we would like to eliminate.
Joyfulness and positive emotions is something we are taught to generate, starting from coarse and then progressively finer, until we arrive at pure suchness, which is not an emotion at all.
Generally speaking, negative emotions arise due to all kinds of (mental/emotional) attachments. A standard technique probably taught by all schools is to see attachment/preconception/overgeneralization behind the emotion and to let that go. If emotion is particularly strong it may help to first learn to localize it as psychosomatic experience somewhere around the body image, and to reduce it with psychosomatic methods (breathing, moving, relaxation, visualizations). Some teachers suggest massaging or tickling the air in the area where emotion is felt, or tapping the body at that spot. In any case, psychosomatic methods are secondary. The primary technique is to learn to pacify the inner conflicts through control of conceptual fabrications. I've heard many descriptions of this: learning to construct wholesome narratives, learning to switch perspectives at will etc. but they all boil down to the same principle: tapping into brain's evaluation mechanism.
The same principle is at work for generating positive emotions. The basic skill is to control one's perspectives and the personal narratives that come from it. It is the same technique most people unconsciously use to maintain their ego: finding reasons to congratulate oneself, and reinvesting the joy that comes from that into further effort in the same direction. The only difference here is that Buddhists use it consistently with Ethics, and with perfect awareness of Emptiness, so they don't get lost in their own fabrications and don't create unwholesome results.
To boil this down to one principle: it is all about "The Given" and "The Ought" or simply "Is" and "Should". A mismatch leads to negative emotions, a match leads to positive emotions. Everything we do in Buddhism, regardless of how a particular school presents it, serves only one goal: to minimize the mismatch, to fabricate a match, and to eventually transcend the dichotomy altogether.


text:
How to get rid of thoughts of grandiosness?
By practising the eight fold path and meditation I have been able to get over lot of suffering as a result of my past created by my mind. I am able to get over self pity, hatered, anger by following the advise of friends in this forum...
But now that I am over the past my mind has started playing new game...it starts painting pictures of grandiosness...like it presents me with illusions like i will be as great as the Buddha...I will be the Buddha and have followers...i will have super powers...i can fly etc etc...
Its getting difficult to control these thoughts in meditation...its a kind of hindrance I didnt read in any book...
I want to attain silent present moment awareness...is there any sutta which can help me with overcoming this maya of my mind?
Is there any help?

Can you please share how do you  practice maybe I will find smth really helpful

Hi D.'s, I do the silent sitting meditation....I practise as per given Ajahn Brahms book Mindfulness bliss and beyond...I kind of do Samatha meditation...sit and try to be aware of my thoughts and try not to ha e any thoughts.

with open or closed eyes?

With closed eyes....but seriously does that really matter...open or closed problem is out of control thoughts...but may be you know better...

Yes it matters,your closed eyes make you loose reference::Any teaching which teaches one to do meditation with closed eyes and teaches that the experience one gets by closed eyes is the final one, should be buried down the earth”.Vallalar .

Satipattana meditation is what you should practice. If you are feeling proud, simply note it until it goes away. Ex: Proud... proud... proud... or expecting... expecting... expecting... or thinking... thinking... thinking...
If you start to get worried, do the same: worrying... worrying.. worrying...
You just need to keep noting using a word that best describes what is happening at the present moment

from my own experience with mindfulness meditation over past 10 months (and a slightly longer interest in zen buddhism and Jungian psychology), I can understand what is your struggle.
Accepting and understanding my own self pity, hatered and anger was a big step for me, yet it has opened me to a completely new set of aspects of my personality that were hiding in the background, undeveloped and a little bit scary at first.
But frankly, is there something that worries you about your thoughts of becoming something greater? Is it possible that you are not used to be someone better? Or that you are angry about these thoughts? That you pity yourself because your progress was undermined by these new emotions?
For me it was exactly this. So I took a step back because I found myself in the power of emotions I was originaly trying to understand.
The great thing about mindfulness meditation is that we are able to notice all of these emotions and thoughts (even grandiosness), understand why they appeared, cherish them for a short time and let them go.
I wish you a lovely day!
Martin

May be your psychoanalysis about why I dont want them is right but more importantly these new thoughts are now hampering my possibility of being here and now. Earlier i lied in past...now this is fantasies of future...they are both futile...

This is interesting, because it reminds me about the presentation (on the personal growth) I was present at just 3 weeks ago. It was mentioned there that people that are used to lie to their bosses about the amount/quality of work they are doing, should at first focus on this area of their lives, because it is possible that after they quit their job (to become a freelancer) they will continue to lie to themselves and (sadly) fail in pursuing their dream. Have you ever considered a psychoanalysis before? It helped me personally to deal with the shadows of my past a lead me to mindfulness.

I dont have psychoanalyst where I live...I will see what I can do...may be search online...

Dear BodhiWalker, maybe this post on Quora will be of some help to you (I assumed area based on your profile), it mentions also some online sessions. https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-find-a-good-psychologist-in-India#

It's nothing :) Have a nice day!