text:
Is there any volition or will that I can manage or control?
In Buddha's teachings, all mind-related entities are "not-self" i.e.:

uncontrollable (opposite of controllable = when I want it I can make it happen, I can turn it on and off as I desire)
unmanageable (opposite of manageable = I can make it details how it happen and how it behave)
not possess-able (opposite of possess-able = I own it, it is with me all the time, I can keep it, I can store it in somewhere I want it to be at)
temporary (opposite of permanent/eternal/long-lasting/with one's whole life).

This not-self attribute also applied to will or/and volition.
I found sexual desire has it own physical limitation. It is difficult for me to keep sexual desire and sexual pleasure(effect of sexual desire) to last a single day, two days, three days, four days,... up to seven days (even if I use medical supplementary to keep my will/volition/desire). And another thing I found is sexual desire is not primitive will of man, it usually comes around/after puberty, sexual education, physical development in teenage ages. So if I had never learnt what sexual intercourse is (or I am autism child who does not have any chance to learn/understand sexual education in my whole life) I doubt there will be sexual desire/will happen in my mind.
So I was looking for more self-ness will/volition or desire and I found another will/desire, Gastronomic. This may seem primitive to me since I had breastfeed to bottle-feed since I was born. But even without any physical limitation imposted (I haven't had any food so many hours), sometimes I lost my appetite. I found gastronomic will is also uncontrollable and unmanageable too here. It seems like chemical, environmental and other factors governed gastronomic will/desire. It may seem primitive but I have doubt that I can find self-ness in here.
And I searched for more will/desire which can be self and found a weak will of survival. Everyone want to survive so as mine will and it seem primitive, closer to self to me. (You can tell there are some people who end their life by taking poison to death, yes but I am not looking for universal self, I am just looking for self to me, self to my life, self to individual being.) But on careful consideration, sometimes I crossed the street and nearly to die hitting by a car. If the idea of will to survive is controllable, manageable I can avoid those events by power of will. There should not be other things or will or desire to overcome one will or desire.
So here is my question, is there any will/volition/desire that is controllable, manageable, self (at least for a person whole life if we cannot find eternal, indefinite period of time). If you have personal experience about it, I am glad to hear if it exists. If it is written in somewhere I like to get a reference.

I guess this question relate to the discussion we had with regards to free will here, or at any rate, there are some overlap.
I think the answer to your question is given in Attakārī Sutta

So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?*

Also reads on the notes:

Although the Buddha taught that there is no permanent, eternal,
  immutable, independently-existing core “self” (attā), he also taught
  that there is “action” or “doing”, and that it is therefore meaningful
  to speak of one who intends, initiates, sustains and completes actions
  and deeds, and who is therefore an ethically responsible and culpable
  being.

If only will/volition/desire direct to the path to Nibbana are controllable, all other volition including all bad volition are uncontrolled, and to say this is not wise because it offers a free licence for unaccountability.

The Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta refers to 'uncontrollability' only in relation to the five (conditioned) aggregates. In other words, it does say to the path to (the unconditioned) Nibbana is uncontrollable.
Experiencing Nibbana has the giving up of desire as its primary condition. Therefore, the will/volition/desire that is controllable is the will/volition/desire to give up will/volition/desire.
However, this will/volition/desire that gives up will/volition/desire is not-self (anatta) because it is only a mental phenomena rather than a self-phenomena.
Although the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta equates 'uncontrollability' with 'not-self', it is an error of logic to equate all 'not-self' with 'uncontrollability' or to equate 'controllability' with 'self'.
All dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs. Similarly, all uncontrollable things are not-self but all not-self things are not uncontrollable things.
The path to Nibbana is controllable but is not-self (anatta).

I'm not able to contemplate this "uncontrollability" attributed to the 5 aggregates and Anatta. From Sutras I studies and Dharmas Iearnt (in Chinese) I never have this problem. My insight is many of the English translations borrowed concepts from Christianity (the older translation) and some (recent translation) are borrowed existing convenient English terms therefore produced questions like this. I've not really sit down and read a complete version of Eng works thus I'm afraid my rash opinion may be mistaken.

After I read your answer the 2nd time I start to gain insight to your "uncontrollability". I think you are talking about 無自性. This maybe is the equal term to "uncontrollability". In Chinese this three words: 無=no/empty 自=self 性=nature/attribute/property. Thus it makes sense now that the 5 aggregates and the self is without-self-nature. WSN is not "uncontrollable", it is relational/dependent. Thus this whole issue is not really an issue if the original Pali/Sanskrit word is not translated to "uncontrollability", I think.

"Experiencing Nibbana has the giving up of desire as its primary condition." By the way it phased it seemed this has some misunderstanding in the teaching. Nibbana is not an experience to be experienced, it is a NOT-experience, but a BE. To really be free from desire is not giving up desire, but reach the "emptiness". In emptiness it's all and it's empty, therefore you don't need anything any more. (Desire is a lack therefore created a need).

Nibbana is a conscious "experience" according to the Pali suttas. However, Nibbana is not "being" or to "be" as you seem to have said. Also, Nibbana is defined as the destruction of craving. Self or non-emptiness is born from craving therefore the destruction of craving is supreme according to Pali Buddhism. The point of this forum is not to debate with comments as you are doing. This is not a debating forum. Regards

As I regard you a serious practicioner thus I tried to provide something I learnt that maybe useful, what I offered could be inaccurate/partial/"different school of thoughts" depend on my wisdom and skill. If this gives you wrong impression of debate I appologize. From what I get from the sutras, Nirvana is not an experience, Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment said: 善男子！一切如來妙
T17n0842_p0915c20║圓覺心本無菩提及與涅槃，亦無成佛及不
T17n0842_p0915c21║成佛，無妄輪迴及非輪迴 [l]http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T17n0842_001 [/l] it is the "original-condition" 本來/如來, not "somewhere" that need to take a "voyage" thus an "experience".

There will always be differences between Pali & Mahayana. Regards

From what I have learned,（sexual）desire（s) comes with human, in other words, if you don't have it, you won't come to this world/ become a human (in the case of a sentient being).
I think realise what's 'true self' would help you, and it comes with practice.
Here is a link of a sutra (you can download the PDF version): The Diamond of Perfect Wisdom Sutra

In The Heart of Prajna Paramita Sutra:

Bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara, While deeply immersed in prajna paramita,
  Clearly perceived the empty nature of the five skandhas, And
  transcended all suffering. Shariputral! Form is not different from
  emptiness, Emptiness is not different from form. Form is emptiness,
  emptiness is form. So it is with feeling, conception, volition, and
  consciousness.

(You can also download the PDF, it's wih annotation)
Best wishes.

How does that sutra, or which part of that sutra, helps to answer this question?

It guides people to realise what 'ture self' is, and so does The Surangama Sutra. I can't say which part or explain it because I'm not that high-level. What I can do it's provide the name of the sutras and the link.

@EmmaXL Could you please kindly quote where the "true self" is mentioned in the linked sutra? Thank you

The exact word is not in the diamond of perfect wisdom sutra as I recall, I'm using it only to answer this question. What's also related to this question is The Heart of Prajna Paramita Sutra, I will add it in my answer. @Dhammadhatu

@EmmaXL I'm afraid "true self" is an incorrect, or not accurate translation. I think you refer to 如來藏/ 自性. This is, technically speaking, emptiness. "True self" cannot have the intrinsic value of emptiness, right?

@Bhumishu米殊 I was going to discuss about this with Shifu, when I asked her last time, I used the word "真我”。This time, I want to ask 自性是真我还是无我? 金刚经说“无我相”，是无我还是无相？

@EmmaXL Would be good to know your Shifu's answer :). "真我” as I understood is a Daoist concept and term, thus may render confusion. I just have read 《金刚经》 after read 《六祖坛经》, I benefit a lot in this way, however I suggest it's better you read 《金刚经》 first and tried to get as much out of it as possible, then read 《六祖坛经》 to help understand more. It's better to read the original text of both, not the 白話文 version. No one can express this sophisticated Dharma better than Kumarajiva and 六祖 Huineng ;)

At the 1st sight I'm completely lost in reading the content. After I read and commented on Dhammadhatu's, I begin to understand what this question is about. I think the question resulted is because there is a Buddhist concept being translated to "not-self", since it's "not-self" therefore it's "uncontrollable", thus "I" can't exercise my volition. Would it be Niḥsvabhāva (sanskrit)? Svabhava
If this is as I inferred, then

In Buddha's teachings, all mind-related entities are "not-self" i.e.:
  ...uncontrollable
  ...unmanageable
  ...not possess-able
  ...temporary

is incorrect. It is not "not-self", it is Niḥsvabhāva 無自性 - without-self-nature. That means these are relational and dependent-origin.

Is there any volition or will that I can manage or control?

Volition and will has already the intrinsic value of control.
The 3 examples you listed: sexual desire, eating, survival that you said in them you have a "self" therefore it's not "not-self" therefore you can exercise your volition/will/control? It is not as you understood. It is because the 7th Vijnana conjectured the "self", with information collected in the 8th Vijnana called Ālayavijñāna over eons of lives/time, with the interplay of the 5 aggregates and the 6th Vijnana, to give rise all these activities.
The main point is about all things (not just "all mind-related entities") are Niḥsvabhāva 無自性 - without-self-nature. It is Sunyata 空 empty, thus emptiness  is all phenomena/forms 色. (Don't be into my words, since this is a very sophisticated concept which can't be conveyed accurately with language.)
This Niḥsvabhāva and Sunyata doesn't harm your "self" :) In fact you do have a "self", and you are not able to escape from your "self", even you killed yourself, unless you are enlightened. Thus you can exercise your volition/will to any acts, not only 3, but all, e.g., you can be angry with someone who do good, likewise you can be kind to a bad person. This "self" is like a dust on a perfect mirror, therefore every image in the mirror is tinted. This "self" is also the root of suffering and samsara. This "self" is empty too, since all things are empty; thus Anatta, not-self.
=====
Remarks added:

The 3 examples you listed: sexual desire, eating, survival that you said in them you have a "self" therefore it's not "not-self" therefore you can exercise your volition/will/control?

My misunderstanding of your examples. It's the other way, that these 3 you regarded with the "uncontrollability", thus "not-self"? No. One can choose not to engage in sexual activity; likewise one can over-done with it and die. It's not as purely mechanic/instinct as you described. One can refuse to eat even dying from hunger; one can go burst of over-eating. And what about those who commit suicide? When a car is approaching and hitting does one not have an attempt/idea to escape?
=====
Additional Remarks:
After reading Dhammadhatu's comment I read the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta attentively, not just once, since I really want to know what this issue is about. However, maybe because of English is not my mother tongue thus I can't make sense out of it. I then googled and found a Chinese translation that is the same Sutra:

（三四）如是我聞。一時。
  T02n0099_p0007c14(08)║佛住波羅奈國仙人住處鹿野苑中。爾時。世尊告餘五比丘。
  T02n0099_p0007c15(01)║色非有我。若色有我者。於色不應病．苦生。
  T02n0099_p0007c16(00)║亦不得於色欲令如是．不令如是。
  T02n0099_p0007c17(02)║以色無我故。於色有病．有苦生。
  T02n0099_p0007c18(05)║亦得於色欲令如是．不令如是。受．想．行．識亦復如是。
  T02n0099_p0007c19(00)║比丘。於意云何。色為是常．為無常耶。
  T02n0099_p0007c20(01)║比丘白佛。無常。世尊。比丘。若無常者。是苦耶
  T02n0099_p0007c21(00)║比丘白佛。是苦。世尊。比丘。若無常．苦。
  T02n0099_p0007c22(02)║是變易法。多聞聖弟子寧於中見是我．異我．
  T02n0099_p0007c23(01)║相在不。比丘白佛。不也。世尊。受．想．行．
  T02n0099_p0007c24(02)║識亦復如是。是故。比丘。諸所有色。若過去．
  T02n0099_p0007c25(02)║若未來．若現在。若內．若外。若麤．若細。若好．若醜。
  T02n0099_p0007c26(00)║若遠．若近。彼一切非我．非我所。如實觀察。
  T02n0099_p0007c27(00)║受．想．行．識亦復如是。比丘。
  T02n0099_p0007c28(06)║多聞聖弟子於此五受陰見非我．非我所。如是觀察。
  T02n0099_p0007c29(02)║於諸世間都無所取。無所取故無所著。
  T02n0099_p0008a01(02)║無所著故自覺涅槃。我生已盡。梵行已立。
  T02n0099_p0008a02(01)║所作已作。自知不受後有。佛說此經已。
  T02n0099_p0008a03(01)║餘五比丘不起諸漏。心得解脫。
  T02n0099_p0008a04(04)║佛說此經已。諸比丘聞佛所說。歡喜奉行 雜阿含經卷第二（三四）

My attempted translation to English:
As I heard, at a time, Buddha was staying in The Deer Park of Benares where the deva/sage dwelt. Then, Bhagavam told rest of the five Bhikṣu(s) {如是我聞。一時。佛住波羅奈國仙人住處鹿野苑中。爾時。世尊告餘五比丘}: "Form has no Self (Atman/Atta) {色非有我}. If form has Self, in form should there not be illness、suffering arose {若色有我者。於色不應病．苦生}; also in form can't it be able to intend to make-this, not to make-this {亦不得於色欲令如是．不令如是}. Because form is not-Self (Anātman/Anatta), in form there is illness、suffering arose {以色無我故。於色有病．有苦生}; also in form it is able to intend to make-this, not to make-this {亦得於色欲令如是．不令如是}. Same is for feeling (Vedana), cognition (Saṃjñā/Sañña), doing (Saṃskāra/Saṅkhāra), consciousness (Vijñāna/Viññāṇa)" {受．想．行．識亦復如是}. "Bhiksu, What does it mean? Is form constant, is inconstant (anitya/ anicca)?" {比丘。於意云何。色為是常．為無常耶}. Bhiksu answered the Buddha: "Inconstant, Bhagavam." {比丘白佛。無常。世尊}. "Bhiksu, if inconstant, it is suffering, is [subject to] the law of change." {比丘。若無常．苦。是變易法}. "Well-learnt venerable disciple can he from this take into that this is me, non-me, any quality (lakṣana) in it?" {多聞聖弟子寧於中見是我．異我．相在不}. Bhiksu answered the Buddha: "No, Bhagavam." {比丘白佛。不也。世尊}. "Same is for feeling, cognition, doing, consciousness." {受．想．行．識亦復如是}. "Therefore, Bhiksu, all those forms, as in the past, as in the future, as at now; as the internal or external; as coarse or fine, as good or bad; as far or near, those all are not-me, not my-dwelling. Observes as it is. Same is for feeling, cognition, doing, consciousness." {是故。比丘。諸所有色。若過去．若未來．若現在。若內．若外。若麤．若細。若好．若醜。若遠．若近。彼一切非我．非我所。如實觀察。受．想．行．識亦復如是}. "Bhiksu, Well-learnt venerable disciple in these five aggregations realize the not-me, not my-dwelling, observes as it is, in this world not take-in anything, because not take-in therefore not attached." {比丘。多聞聖弟子於此五受陰見非我．非我所。如是觀察。於諸世間都無所取。無所取故無所著}. "Not attached therefore self-awaken and nirvana-ed. My life is complete,  Pure-doing (brahmacaryā/ brahmacariya) established, to-do has been done, I myself know that there is no cause to return to life [rebirth]." {無所著故自覺涅槃。我生已盡。梵行已立。所作已作。自知不受後有} The rest of the five Bhiksu(s) did not arise any fetters, the mind (citta) was freed. After the Buddha had said this sutra, those Bhiksu(s) heard Buddha's words, happily followed suit.  {餘五比丘不起諸漏。心得解脫。佛說此經已。諸比丘聞佛所說。歡喜奉行}
This is more for my own exercise. I can't ensure the correctness of my English grammar. I notice that in the Chinese version there are:

有我 = has Self
非有我 = not has Self
無我 = not-Self/ non-Self
是我 = is me
異我 = non-me/ others (異 means different)
非我．非我所 = not-me. not my dwelling (非 means no, antonym of 是 yes)

With these words and the syntax, this sutra seems now making more sense to me. However, I'm still stuck that why this sutra will lead to the issue about "controllability". Maybe it is here (my translation from the Chinese version of this sutra):

Because form is not-Self (Anātman/Anatta), in form there is illness、suffering arose {以色無我故。於色有病．有苦生}; also in form it is able to intend to make-this, not to make-this {亦得於色欲令如是．不令如是}. Same is for feeling (Vedana), cognition (Saṃjñā/Sañña), doing (Saṃskāra/Saṅkhāra), consciousness (Vijñāna/Viññāṇa)" {受．想．行．識亦復如是}.

This paragraph in fact denotes that because form is not-Self, therefore "it is able to intend to make-this, not to make-this {亦得於色欲令如是．不令如是}". Is this not the act of volition/will? Why is the issue with "controllability"? A volition/will is the freedom to act, but it doesn't imply the control of outcome, isn't it?
Then I notice that these are phased differently in the Chinese when checked against the Pali-English version. Chinese-English version:

If form has Self, in form should there not be illness、suffering arose; also in form can't it be able to intend to make-this, not to make-this
{亦不得於色欲令如是．不令如是}
Because form is not-Self, in form there is illness、suffering arose; also in form it is able to intend to make-this, not to make-this
{亦得於色欲令如是．不令如是}

However, the Pali translated English sutra phased:

if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus
since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus

If as the Pali-English version phased, the meaning of the sentence is in contradictory because: A) form = self, what is more to be obtained for the self from the form then? It has already declared "form would not lead to affliction". If form does change because "May my form be thus, may my form not be thus" then this self also changes due to "obtain" and since "form were self", then is it still the "self"? Likewise, B) form x= self (unfortunately I can't make sense out of this paragraph in the Pali-English version).
The Chinese version was translated by: 宋天竺三藏求那跋陀羅譯 (Guṇabhadra)
It was translated in the Song Dynasty (about 1500 years ago), by an Indian Monk who traveled and stayed in China for the rest half of his life.

The question about uncontrollability is based in the  Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta, where it begins: "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to disease, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus'...form is not-self...none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

@Dhammadhatu I read the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta, found the Chinese version and discovered that there is a key paragraph that is translated completely in the opposite way. Read my "Additional Remarks" if you are interested.

Another translation: "Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction (illness; disease), and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.'" https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.59

Chinese is here: https://suttacentral.net/zh/sn22.59

You can join this discussion forum and discuss the Chinese version here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/

@Dhammadhatu I quickly glance your linked Chinese version. It is a Modern Chinese, thus must be translated by someone in contemporary. It doesn't state who is the translator neither cited the source. It maybe translated from the English? Which is from the Pali that those versions listed in your other Sutta links?

All of these English and Chinese translations are from the Pali. The translator was http://agama.buddhason.org/

@Dhammadhatu With all your versions newly added the same contradiction between the Chinese version I quoted and the English one still there, which is the complete opposite meaning when dealing with "form is Self/ form is non-Self". Unless there is a reference of the original text such as Pali/ Sanskrit else this is not resolved.

There are 5 Chinese parallel versions: https://suttacentral.net/lzh/sa34  https://suttacentral.net/lzh/t102 https://suttacentral.net/lzh/lzh-mi-kd1#t1421.15c https://suttacentral.net/lzh/lzh-dg-kd1#t1428.32b  https://suttacentral.net/lzh/sa33

The sutta states the theoretical question: "If the body was self, I could be made/controlled this way & that way". The sutta then concludes because the body cannot be made/controlled this way & that way, it is not-self. ........ The sutta is clear to me. I have no problems with it. regards

Whatever is dependently arisen and Nirvana is not self / non self, i.e., all dhamma is not self / non self.
Volition is dependently arisen hence not self / non self. Volition being dependently arisen it is not entirely controllable as arising and passing of volition appears when a conducive condition is present and disappears when the cause ceases.
Volition is not entirely out of our control also. When you experience something pleasant or unpleasant you can react with craving or aversion which is the general pre conditioned response or you can be equanimous and be aware of its arising and passing nature.


text:
Does dreams make sense?
I've watched on t.v that a monk had dreamt that Lama told him a lady will come to monastery and will request him let her with them when this was only for monks though he going to let her with them and teach Dhamma. Next day it happens what he had dreamt about; first he disagreed but later on he remembered his dream last night he had and then she became nun. So does dreams making sense ? I had one on full moon day that I'm crying next Buddha's statue in vihara saying give me power and peace.

Yes and no.Dreams sometimes makes sense sometimes they don't.It's not an isolated event people  sometimes experience dreams that do take place in the future.And it's getting harder to just dismiss it as mere coincidence (Precognitive Dreams).This is just a natural functioning of the mind.Whether dreams makes sense or not is not what releases us from suffering.

Sometimes dreams are just garbage stuff of our mind and sometimes they being unexpected and speechless.

I have experienced if a say "Aum" (long & loud) for couple of minutes before sleep, i don't see dreams.
Buddha also says what we think we become..)

When we are in deep sleep our mind (chitt) doesn't get prana from self(soul, energy) and in result we do not remember anything, just nothingness.
But as soon as we are not in deep sleep, our chitt (which actually has the memory of each and every past lives), which in result gives us Dejavu.
The paradoxical point now is a blind man never saw dreams, a deaf being would never listen in dream(he will only see).
I think it also depends on our perception, i have seen a girl who can see with closed eyes.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Why do i look sad, while doing things consciously?
I have started doing things consciously, i don't want to laugh anymore, i just want to maintain that inner peace felt in doing things meditatively.
But people have started asking that "i am looking sad".
Should i smile or should i go with the flow, i want to follow Lord Buddha.
One more thing i want to know the Essence of Lord Buddha with in few lines, i theoretically know only about focusing on breathing and vipassana meditation(which i am going to attend soon)

It is difficult to be around non-meditative people when you are meditative. Dhammapada 302 states:

Suffering/difficulty comes from association with unequals.

When they say: "You are looking sad", this is a reflection of their own lack of knowledge, their own sadness & their own underlying fear. This has happened to me a few times before, when I used to work in an office.
The Buddha taught that a person accomplished in meditation can in a 'finger-snap' generate metta (loving-kindness).

Monks, if for just the time of a finger-snap a monk produces a thought of loving kindness, develops it, gives attention to it, such a
  one is rightly called a monk. Not in vain does he meditate. He acts in
  accordance with the Master’s teaching.
AN 1:6.3–5

Yes, you probably should smile, say you are fine & offer an easy explanation, such as you are training yourself to work/do things with calmness & without stress.
As for the essence of the Lord Buddha, this was explained in MN 37 as:

Nothing is worth clinging to...

I think you have some ideas collapsed.

I don't want to laugh anymore

If this is actually a goal, I'd like to suggest that you may have wandered off from your true intention.
Mindfulness during daily activity can produce a sense of peace and satisfaction, but if it is so self-contained that it forbids laughter, it becomes restrictive, and won't produce anything lasting.
While concentration is important, mindfulness includes the entirety of your environment, not just the task at hand.  That means mindfulness includes attentiveness to others; to the dog across the street wagging his tail in such a way that you can't help but laugh;  to the non-restrictive space that grants being to all that exists.
A couple quotes:

If you wish to understand yourself, you must succeed in doing so in the midst of all kinds of confusions and upsets. Don’t make the mistake of sitting dead in the cold ashes of a withered tree. - Enyo

and

[Mindfulness] is doing each thing you do as if it is your one and only chance for self-expression, joy, freedom, and peace of mind. - Werner Erhard

Don't get attached to the peace of mind part.  Mindfulness that is overly self-conscious will leave you attached to being 'good at concentrating' or something.   Open yourself to your task and the environment within which the task exists - let the outward expression of joy you find in your practice be a gift to those who are near.

I have started doing things consciously, i don't want to laugh anymore, i just want to maintain that inner peace felt in doing things meditatively. But people have started asking that "i am looking sad". Should i smile or should i go with the flow, i want to follow Lord Buddha.
This is a similar experience i've encountered.When I do things meditatively i usually look like i'm in a trance like state.My eyes are down cast.I don't talk a lot.I keep to myself.I have also observed, i also look quite expressionless.This can sometimes be misconstrued as sad.But i feel enormousness peace.I'm just not animated.
In our society today, everyone has to be constantly talking,reacting,bubbly,hyped,on their phones,smiling,being a running commentary on daily events..Two people have expressed concern about me because i don't seem as interested in many things,since they equate happiness with "doing" things.Travelling,partying,listening to music,adventure,talking about anything under the sun etc.(Accumulating more experiences).
After experiencing peace from meditation my idea of happiness is more of peace and stillness.Instead of smiling,looking happy and experiencing more experiences.

I think being conscious and mindful must make you look sad. Quite the contrary. If you look sad, you might just have attached to much to what you're doing, feeling tense and tightened up. This may become obvious if you feel the tension in your forehead and tell yourself to relax.
There's a strong coupling between the expressions of the body and the feelings. If you are experiencing joy in any form, it's almost impossible to look sad.
As in meditation, when that little sparkle of bliss comes up, there's no reason not to look happy.
Allow yourself to enjoy the work you're doing, smiling and laughing isn't a bad thing. Maybe you find reasons for happiness within the work, as you are content with well it all fits together. There's no obligation to freak out about some superficial video on the internet - there are so many real nice things your mindfulness can observe.

I don't want to laugh anymore

Why? What happened? Why can't you laugh in a situation meditatively?
I myself was like this. Not talking. Being silent. Not involved in/Aloof from the situation.
I think you are misunderstanding the meditative nature a little bit. When you are playing a game, why won't you be joyful or laugh? Or be disappointed if you lose. And still feel that everything is okay.
See, Lord Buddha said, as quoted, I am awake. Which means he would laugh when the situation is so, shed tears when the situation is so, advise people when situation is so.
It seems like you are getting stuck and taking life too seriously. See you can be serious when required and joyful when required. What is the problem?

Buddhism deals with the mind. "Are you sad?" Or "are you sad not?" These are distractions. Distractions keeps one from progressing - one hears others louder than the practice.

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


text:
How should I spend my day, according to Lord Buddha teachings?
According to Lord Buddha teachings, How should a normal employee spend his/her day ?
How much time should one meditate? (annapanna or vipassana) ?
While sitting in office, how should i sit (sometimes i try to sit as straight as possible, but after 10 minutes i am back to ordinary state)
I want to know how to spend all my 24 hours in order to remain all time conscious (what exactly means conscious, suppose i am walking, should i remain aware about my hand and legs moving or my breath) ?
Kindly help

How much time should one meditate? (annapanna or vipassana) ?

2 session of 1 hour each sitting meditation generally works well for many, but this is not the true meditative practice.

According to Lord Buddha teachings, How should a normal employee spend his/her day ?

Real meditation is from awakening to sleep. Be aware of sensation arising and passing either due to posture, bodily sensations, mental activity and thoughts, sensory experiences, etc.
As an employee you should earn your living in the right way and ethically. Meditating or other activity in office which might interfere with your duties might not be ethical.

While sitting in office, how should i sit (sometimes i try to sit as straight as possible, but after 10 minutes i am back to ordinary state)

What every posture that works for you is fine. Over rigid postures may give undue attention of colleagues which might not help.
If you are referring to "crookedness of body" in (Pacetana) Ratha,kara Sutta, this is a figure of speech referring to lax morality.

I want to know how to spend all my 24 hours in order to remain all time conscious (what exactly means conscious, suppose i am walking, should i remain aware about my hand and legs moving or my breath) ?

In short the breath and arising and passing of sensations. Generally when you are waking moving parts have more sensations, but as you progress it is good to look throughout the body.
If the sensations are pleasant you get attached if not averse. This is one thing you have to understand and be aware of. Staying in a particular posure may be present for a little while but becomes painful and the urge to more arises. When you move the new posture becomes pleasant and cycle continues. Similarly for thoughts, memories, and other sensory experiences. Regarding sensory experiences and perceive it as positive or negative or neutral, if positive you experience a pleasant sensation and you get attached to the pleasant sensation triggered by the evaluation and similarly when the experience is negative.

Thanks for the answer sir, at this time in new delhi it is cold.
and i take bath with hot water, i feel good, should i not take bath in hot water ?
i am mean i am confused, am i supposed to be aware that water is hot ? or should i use cold water(so that i don't get attached with hot water bath)

When you move the new posture becomes pleasant and cycle continues
Why body asks for new postures, i am a programmer and have to sit all day

Just to confirm Sir
2 session of 1 hour each sitting meditation generally works well for many, but this is not the true meditative practice.
is the answer to this is in below line ?
In short the breath and arising and passing of sensations.
If the sensations are pleasant you get attached if not averse. This is one thing you have to understand and be aware of

The1 hour sittings is to improve your mindfulness during the rest of the day. It is preparation. Actual mindfulness should be throughout the day.

Thanks Sir, So i guess this is the essence of buddha's teaching

When you say Staying in a particular posture may be present for a little while but becomes painful and the urge to more arises. When you move the new posture becomes pleasant and cycle continues, does it mean to try to sit without moving till the sensation passes or we can change our posture ?

You can try to stay without moving for some time until there a a level of pain you cannot bear. Meditation is not self toucher hence move when there you cannot maintain equanimity any more. The key is maintaining equanimity towards the sensation either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, knowing they are arising and passing away. Same principle applies to your posture. Posture is uncomfortable, but you can maintain equanimity then stay. It is so uncomfortable that you loose the balance of your mind then move.

The Buddha tends to give a different style of teaching for lay people and monastics. Meditation is rarely advised for lay people, they focus on developing merit for a good future rebirth. Lay people are frequently urged to follow the five precepts, to develop right livelihood, and to give dana.
So you are already going beyond what is suggested by the Buddha. You may find his teachings for monks to be more relevant for your practice but don't lose sight of the basics, precepts are an important practice to complement meditation.

You could work vipassana into the workday. It's designed to help us just see what is happening as it is happening, and to catch even our most subtle emotional reactions.
You can also practice meditation that supports the main vipassana practice: like Metta or loving-kindness if too much anger comes, or anapana (breath meditation) if you need to calm down quickly.
One of my favorite teachers, who specializes in teaching people for the working world, is Stephen Procter.
These are videos with the method and the theory:

Mindfulness Meditation Talks - Stephen Procter
Guided Mindfulness Meditation Training

+1 For the Stephen Proctor. Thanks to you I am quite benefiting from his teachings. Best regards,

I think relatively unknown Stephen Proctor has got to be one of the best beginning teachers that I have ever known. Glad you found benefit with him.


text:
Does Buddha bless all human beings?
Unlike all other gods and deities, Buddha blesses everyone on this earth without caring who is believing in his techniques (Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha). But god wouldn't bless someone unless he starts praying.
I read about Buddha and his Dhamma from Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. God wouldn't bless unless you wouldn't pray. God is just like wanting bribe from the worshiper, god examines it's devotee. Also It wouldn't accept a person as his devotee unless he wouldn't convert his religion that god is made for.
But I'm sure Buddha blesses everyone and until now. Is Buddha still blessing us all human beings?

The Buddha's teaching continues to bless us so I suppose the Buddha is still blessing those that discovered his teaching.
The Buddha isn't magic. The Buddha's teaching blesses the one who practices the teaching. The teaching (AKA The Dhamma) isn't magic as well, it's practical and it's sober although magic can happen. Check this out:
Here from the Mangala Sutta are the concise answers given by The Buddha to the question,"What is a blessing"?

Not being around fools
Being around the wise
Remembering the honorable
Having one‘s abode in a suitable place for safe practice
Having done meritorious actions
The pursuit of higher understanding
Being rich in knowledge
Being rich in skill
to be highly restrained ethically
Using only well-spoken words
Supporting one's parents
Caring for the family
Unconfused actions
Generosity
Right living
Caring for one‘s relatives
Refraining from unskillful things
To abhor unwholeseome things
To avoid unwholesome things
To avoid intoxicants
Diligence in righteousness
Reverence
Humility
Contentment
Gratitude
Hearing the Dhamma at the right time
Patience
Compliance
Seeing the monks
Discussing the Dhamma
Self-restraint
A holy life
Seeing The Four Noble Truths
Realizing Nibbana
A heart not trembling, unshaken
A heart not trembling, sorrowless
A heart not trembling, stainless
A heart not trembling, secure
(from Khuddaka Nikaya, Sutta Nipata 2.4)

The Buddha probably does bless even people that have never heard of the Buddha. The good karmic actions of Dhamma practice should have a ripple effect on many people. :) metta

the order from item 13-18 might be switched in positions.  No intention to nit pick, but I want to bring this quality in Buddha most people don't recognize, "organization of words-sukata vinnayo (welldone-order-discipline of words".  When Buddha talked Dhamma, he always say it with some sort of order never in random.  for example, 38 blessings from most basic number 1, to most sophisticated 38.  You can see level of sophistication changes.  Also when he talked about suffering realms, hell, animal, hungry ghost (this gives us idea that tho all bad, hungry ghost is better than animal realms.

things Buddha said were always in some orders.  This is one of great qualities in Buddha.  So when one hears dhamma that is somehow not in order, you can suspect it might not be Buddha's words.  Buddha said he would be mindful of every word spoken and only him had this quality.  Order of words is a subset of "sugato-great speaker".

Thank you! Yes, I think your right. I got this list from "The Complete Book of Buddha‘s Lists -- Explained" and I did a little editing because some things sounded a bit off. I was hoping someone might know a different translation.


text:
Misinterpretation of a Pali phrase - Rupan Jirathi
Yesterday I saw in a funeral banner the following statement.

Rupam Jirati Machanam, Nama Gottam Najirathi

It means, "the body decays but the Name and the Tribe does not". But I have concerns on this.
The first part of the statement is valid but however the second part doesn't for me. If everything decays/dies then how is the name and tribe doesn't? For me this is clearly a misinterpretation and destroys the whole base of the Buddha's teachings.
I also found this article on this topic as well:

The Common misinterpretations of a Pali Verse that states the body decays but the Name and the Tribe does not

Is there any Tripitaka source to this statement? or anything similar? Where can I find it?

This appears in the Najīratisutta ( Najīrati - What does not decay / what does not age; version in Sinhala and English). From what I have heard and learned in this context what is referenced as Nama is reputation and not the mind.
E.g. the some historic people are long gone but they are still remembered for what they were.

Yes, this is a very Buddhist thing to say in a funeral. It sounds like a namarupa sort of thing. The form has changed but the name and memory(concepts of the deceased) stay the same.
Concepts don't really die like with real ultimate moment by moment things, they never existed to begin with in the experiential world.

To understand this one need to understand the definition of Nama and Rupa.
Rupa has the property of 'Ruppathi' or breakability or destructibility.  However Nama according to Abhidhamma represent flexibility or flexing phenomena (Bhikku Bodhi). Nama flexes and rupa breaks. That is why, when we die Nama separates from Rupa but continue to exist, and as long as there is attachment for existence as a being, it gets attached or associates Rupa to continue to form another life (nama-rupa). However, when there is no attachment , nama still exist but without attachment.  This is Nibbhana (Unpolluted chiththa- or 'Phabassara chiththa'. 'Nama Goththan Najeerathi' means the the continuance of 'Flex phenomenon' nama, as a part of Nama-rupa or just Nama.

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


text:
What exactly was the difference between Alara Kalama & uddaka rāmaputta teachings?
Correct me if I am wrong.
Siddharth went to Alara Kalama, who told him to focus on his breath in order to get rid of Feelings, (Buddha achieved Alara Kalama level in 2 months), Now he told his teacher that when he is in meditation, everything is fine but on coming to ordinary state, Negative & positive Feelings again came to him.
Now Alara Kalama told him to go to uddaka rāmaputta, What did Siddharth learn under uddaka rāmaputta ?
Above information is seen in an indian television show "Buddha"
I wanna know what happened in real ?

The two teachers are in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta.
Alara Kalama taught to focus on 'nothingness' and Uddaka Ramaputta taught to enter the 'dimension of neither perception nor non-perception'.
Both meditations are only mental stillness & quiet and do not uproot the causes of suffering. The the 'dimension of neither perception nor non-perception' is very close to unconsciousness. They can only bring temporary peace, which is why the Buddha rejected them. They are not freedom. The Buddha discovered true freedom is having no craving, no attachment and no self.

i feel sad, Buddha promised his wife that he will be back once he find the answers.
Though he went there but now he was not attached to her.
I don't know i am attached or not, but every sun set makes me sad.
Life of Buddha makes me sad.(for his family).
After all like everyone, buddha had to die (consciously).
I do not understand how Buddha was happy when her wife cried in front of her ?

The Pali scriptures do not mention him saying anything to his wife. They only say he left home with tears streaming down the face of his parents. The Buddha was obviously never attracted to his wife according to the scriptures. He obviously rarely if ever had sex with her since he married at 16 and had a child at 29. He must have made an arrangement with his father to bear an heir so he could leave home. His son & wife later became fully enlightened; the best thing. The Buddha saved the world. It was the most happy ending possible. You should celebrate rather than be sad.

Actually, Buddha's wife probably died while giving birth. That's probably why the Buddha sought for enlightment. André Barreau proved it in his biography of the Buddha.

The Bodhisatta learned the perception of nothingness and later feeling of neither perception nor non-perception from his teachers, these are the highest meditative perception & feeling attainments. He later discovered the cessation principle and abided in the meditative attainment which is the cessation of perception & feeling for 7 days & 7 nights and with that entering & emerging he attained Buddhaship.

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


text:
Did Buddha saw his two teachers were born, where living beings did not have physical body?
Siddarth promised Alara Kalama & uddaka rāmaputta that if he ever finds the way, he will come and tell them ?
Is it true that buddha saw them being born in a Universe, where there was not physical body, but only mind ?
And in Buddha's way one must have a physical human body.

When you have no physical form, you do not have ears to listen to the Dhamma.

Siddarth promised Alara Kalama & uddaka rāmaputta that if he ever finds the way, he will come and tell them ?

I am not sure if such promise was made. As far as I know this was not the case.

Is it true that buddha saw them being born in a Universe, where there was not physical body, but only mind ?

I believe it to be true, though I have not seen this for my self.

Sir, if i may ask you.
Are you able to remain conscious 24*7 ?
Doing vipassana have been your sadhna ?

"sampajaññaṃ na riñcati" - continuous awareness 24 * 7. Personally I am not able to do this but this is what the target you should practice to achieve.

I believe this has nothing to do with whether or not these men had ears that could hear. The Devas are able to communicate via reading and projecting thought.
The problem teaching Dhamma in the higher spheres has more to do with the fact that there is no painful sensation experienced there and apparently no memory of past lives such as could provide the understanding of pain as experienced personally.
The Buddha and other bhikkhus do manage to visit some of the lower higher realms such as the Brahma Lokas, so there must be some further explanation.
I suggest without personal experinence that I can recollect that this has to do with the enormous length of life in these spheres. The arahant that lived outside Time could visit (via a wormhole?) these higher realms, but once manifested there, if even for so short a time as it takes to snap the fingers, his return would occur millinia later. It would spoil the Buddha's mission.


text:
What happened to Siddhārtha Gautama wife Yashodhara?
When Lord Buddha's wife Yashodhara also joined Sangha (become bhikkhuni), what happened to her ?
Did she also get enlightened ?
Did his son Rahula get enlightened ?
This, This answers says Buddha can never be a woman

When Lord Buddha's wife Yashodhara also joined Sangha (become bhikkhuni), what happened to her ?

As part of the Bhikkhuni order nothing special or noteworthy incidents through the Buddha acknowledged her past contribution to his enlightenment in realising the Parami.
And like anybody else she aged, decayed and passed away. On passing away she was truly free from suffering as she was enlightened.

Did she also get enlightened ?

Yasodharā achieved enlightenment.

Did his son Rahula get enlightened ?

Rāhula also achieved enlightenment.

... says Buddha can never be a woman

A woman can never become a fully enlightened Buddha. But a woman can achieve enlightenment as a disciple nun. Yasodara became a disciple nun not a Buddha. She was the wife of Prince Siddhartha. She became a nun later in the Buddha's Sasana. Also see: Bahu Dhātuka Sutta

Sir can you explain the edited question

See if this explains it.

A woman can never become a fully enlightened Buddha -- what is this?

See: Bahu Dhātuka Sutta

What's the difference fully enlightenment and normal enlightenment, i thought enlightenment is enlightenment.
Buddha means who realize self (its a simple hindi word).

Nirvana is same for all. A Buddha is one who rediscovers the teaching. A disciple (Sāvaka) is one who learns from a Buddha or another disciple. A woman can be a Sāvaka only. But a woman can aspire to be a Buddha but from the point you get the definite prophecy you would be a male.

(though it should be pointed out that unlike the rest of the Buddha's message, which repeats endlessly in the Pali Canon from different angles, the statement as to female Buddhahood is found once, so it is questionable!)

I do not want to debate this. I will go with what the Pali Cannon says until I have 1st hand knowledge on the matter. I would believe all who debate also do not have 1st hand knowledge so any views are just personal view and perhaps a shot in the dark.

Svâkkhato bhagavatâ dhammo sanditthiko akâliko ehipassiko opanâyiko paccattam veditabbo viññuhiti, doesn't leave room for denying any conscious and reasoned being from discovering the Dhamma by themselves. The ability to teach and also be listened to though, I accept, is influenced by social norms!

'no woman can be a Buddha' is also an Essential line in the sand. This goes against anicca and anatta.

Out of the 3 Characteristics the 1st 2 (anicca, dukkha) pertain to what is conditioned and the last (anatta) to all Dhamma. Anicca does not effect the laws of nature. Laws of nature are not impermanent. If this was the case the Buddha would have said all Dhamma is anicca.

There are at least three suttas to Rahula:
MN 61
MN 62
MN 147
Yasodharā is mentioned as 'Baddha Kaccānā', having great wisdom in AN 1.245


text:
Right way to teaching Dhamma
Buddha said that there is a specific way to teach the dhamma. That for example, if I remember correctly, among other things, it's important to mention the cause and effect in one's teaching. I can't find this anywhere, can someone give me a source for this?
Also, what if I teach the dhamma in a wrong way? Is this causing demerit/bad merit/bad karma? What if I mean to teach it in a right way, but it comes out wrong or even causes the listener to have a strong aversion to buddhism/listening to the dhamma?

One should teach the dhamma for the sake of revulsion, of dispassion, of cessation, regarding:

decay-and-death,
Birth,
Existence,
Clinging,
Craving,
Feeling,
Contact,
The 6 sense-bases,
Name-and-form,
Consciousness,
Decay of Formations,
Ignorance

(Nibbidā) Dhamma,kathika Sutta
The above included:

the 3 good truths (saddhamma);
the 12 links of dependent arising (paṭicca,samuppāda); and
the “revulsion” (nibbidā) formula.

See introduction (Nibbidā) Dhamma,kathika Sutta by Piya Tan
Also the teacher should:

talk on the progressive teaching
teach understanding the context
teach the Dharma out of compassion
teach the Dharma not for the sake of material gain
teach the Dharma without hurting myself or others

(Dhamma,desaka) Udāyī Sutta

what if I teach the dhamma in a wrong way? Is this causing demerit/bad merit/bad karma?

Yes it would.

What if I mean to teach it in a right way, but it comes out wrong or even causes the listener to have a strong aversion to buddhism/listening to the dhamma?

As long as you have been diligent and taught the right way and tries to correct misunderstanding then what can you do? It is not your fault.
Make sure you do not contribute to the disappearance of the Dhamma. See: Sugata Vinaya Sutta, Candûpama Sutta and others which deal with decline of the Dhamma and impure ways to teach.

Thanks a lot - I also found a sutta, explaining five qualities which should be established in a person when teaching the dhamma: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.159.than.html (Udayi Sutta) - so they are the same 5 points your mentioned, just a little bit more elaborated


text:
Proficiency in teaching Dhamma
The more insight one gains by meditation and studying the suttas, does one also gain a higher proficiency in teaching the dhamma?
To put up an extreme example, if someone attains nirvana/full enlightenment, is he as proficient/competent in teaching the dhamma as the Buddha himself was?
I read that there can be Buddhas, which attain enlightenment by themselves, but neither have the fellowship nor the necessary skill to teach the dhamma, is this true?

The more insight one gains by meditation and studying the suttas, does one also gain a higher proficiency in teaching the dhamma?

You could be misunderstanding or misinterpreting your meditative experiences. So meditation on its own does not make you fit to teach. (Many wrong views in Brahmajala Sutta arise due to meditative experiences.) You should have theoretical knowledge also and validating the experience with the teaching. Also you should have good communication skills.

To put up an extreme example, if someone attains nirvana/full enlightenment, is he as proficient/competent in teaching the dhamma as the Buddha himself was?

Dūta Sutta discusses qualities of a good messenger or teacher of some which I glossed over above. Nobody will have skills in teaching compared to the Buddha but if you were to aspire to become skilled what you should cultivate are the analytical skills related to teaching:

connotative meaning
denotative meaning
verbal expression
analytic insight

Mahā Vedalla Sutta, (Saṁyojana) Kotthita Sutta
Also see: THE TEACHING METHODS OF BUDDHA by Piya Tan

I read that there can be Buddhas, which attain enlightenment by themselves, but neither have the fellowship nor the necessary skill to teach the dhamma, is this true?

Yes I believe to to be true. They are Paccekabuddhas.


text:
What to expect from meditation?
First - this is a question directed towards advanced practitioners of mindfulness or similar meditation.
I have been meditating and practicing other transformational work for about 17 years.  Throughout the work, I've had many peak experiences, many "aha" moments, and I've experienced the deepening and expansiveness of my awareness and understanding.
I've learned to be suspicious of any type of insight or experience that presents itself as "the answer" - in other words;  I've had thoughts like "this is finally it!  I got it!" So many times that I pretty much ignore that type of noise as soon as notice it.
Lately while meditating, I've become increasingly aware of  physical sensations (neither pleasant or unpleasant) in my body, particularly around my upper chakras; and the overall - for lack of a better word - intensity of my experience is elevated.
As I allude to - I've never had a transformational experience that I considered "real" that came about with a bang - the worthwhile experiences are usually quite subtle - if fact my sense is that the essence of transformation is increasingly subtle rather than the other way around.
My question is, what do I make of my recent experiences?  It carries with it an intensity that seems well, intense.
I recognize that more information is probably necessary to answer this; but in general terms, is this par for the course?  Is it just something to notice, and let pass?  Is it a symptom of something and/or, is there anything to do about it?

Which type of meditation are you practicing? Anapana or some other type of meditation?

It is essentially Anapana - attention on the rise and fall of my chest.

Is it just something to notice, and let pass? Is it a symptom of something and/or, is there anything to do about it?

Treat the object according to your practice, i.e. for
Samatha meditation:

when mind wanders, bring it back to the breath.

Vipassana meditation:

every object is treated in the same way, there is no discrimination, i.e. no object is more or less important than the other. Note the object and return to the rising and falling of the abdomen.

In meditation you get experience Pīti, Sukha, Passaddhi which can be intense, pleasant and stubtle. If you dwell on these too much you get attached to them and crave to them, causing regression in your meditation. Also if you think this is the final goal you stop short half way.
So do not give much importance to them and continue your practice.
Also see: That "Electric Feel" body sensation during meditation

Pleasant and stubble - I assume you mean subtle?

Yes. This was a typo.

Thank you.  That is the sort of answer is was "hoping" for.

In meditation, you can consider these three:

Mental factors that you cultivate, a bit like a sportsman. For instance, mindfulness, alertness and concentration.
Experiences of yours (that are also mental factors, in fact) that indicate something about the quality of your mind. For instance, Prasrabhi indicate the achievement of śamatha. Each dhyāna has its branches as well. In this respect, each branch indicate something about the quality of one's mind. For instance, if you abide in neither-pleasure-nor-pain, it shows you abide in the fourth dhyāna.
The objects you pay attention to. This is because the purpose of meditation is to get to open one's eyes so as to see things the way they are. Another way of saying is that the purpose is to directly realize the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths.

Ṭhānissaro Bhikkhu and others point out that samatha and vipassana are aspects of the same practice ("practicing dhyānas"). It is impossible to achieve even calm abiding without having contentment, few desire, and ethical discipline, and these three do not come about without a good deal of understanding to start with. Such an understanding comes about through studying, listening to the teachings, and engaging in vipassana. Without understanding, one's practice of samatha will be forceful, fruitless and might even be harmful. In turn, whatever one gets to see with a still and clear might will be more beneficial.
What you experience might indicate the quality of your mind. Either way, you have to get clearer about it, to know what to do with it.

Without understanding, one's practice of samatha will be forceful, fruitless and might even be harmful.  - In what sense could it be harmful?

@user1167442 When there is no joy in applying alertness but one brings the object back to mind in a forceful manner, one can come to feel pressure or pain, usually in the chest. It's like mental strains. In Tibetan, we call it 'lung'. A greater harm is in the case of he who focuses on the breath to suppress or bury things, not to shed light on anything. It's a form of escapism, and everything that's buried will eventually come up...

Experiences of yours...indicates the achievement of samatha This is very dangerous stuff to say. As with the statement about neither-pleasure-nor-pain, you should clarify the technical meaning so that people don't think they have attained realisations that they haven't.

@DavidRawson It is precarious to say indeed, and that's all the more reason for people to study never stop studying. I will take your advise and clarify briefly, adding a reference or two as well.

The title and the question are a little different, but I'll try to address both.  I think of meditation as a way to practice paying attention. When I meditate, I try to focus more on paying attention and less on whether the experience matches my expectations.
Asking "What to expect from meditation?" is kind of like asking,  "What should I expect what I stand outside and listen?".  If you pay attention, you may notice things.  What you notice will depend on your own circumstances. Some times nothing may seem to happen; other times, you may notice something dramatic.
An idea you may hear about in Buddhism is taking refuge in the Three Jewels: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.  In addition to asking questions here, if you're curious about the sensations you notice in meditation, you might consider seeking out a Sangha where you can share your experiences with others in a more intimate way than you can on an Internet site.  I think a Sangha will often have a teacher who can help you investigate what you notice in meditation.


text:
At what stage / step of development do we start to contemplate on non-self?
List below is extracted form Kimattha Sutta noting how skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship.
The question is does skillful virtue require knowledge of non-self or knowledge of non-self is achieved at step 8 when one contemplate on impermanence / conditioned nature of all things including serenity and pleasure one get from virtuous act?

Skillful virtues
freedom from remorse
joy
rapture
serenity
pleasure
concentration
knowledge & vision of things as they actually are
disenchantment
dispassion
knowledge & vision of release
consummation of arahantship

Whatever that is unsatisfactory is not self. Whatever is impermanent is not satisfactory. This is a realisation by direct experience not a form of contemplation. This realisation happens at the stage of "knowledge & vision of things as they actually" which in turn triggers the next stage.

'Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are' is the complete contemplation of not-self (although not-self can be observed in some ways when concentration starts to develop).

An individual who wants to get into the practise Saddhamma in its truest sense needs to be grounded in Sila. Better still is to have sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue), once Saddha (Confidence) is firmly instilled within. The mind never leans towards kusala kamma (wholesome volitional actions) without saddha (faith and confidence. This is true also in the case of effort to achieve sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue), and in the study of the sacred texts.  Sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue) resembles the enclosure  as a defense against outside forces.
One who is established in Sila and comes to Saddha, sees things in their proper perspective. i.e. in the light of Anichcha (Impermanence), Dukka (Suffering), and Anatta (Absence of “I”). This firm basis is a part and parcel of his personality and remains with him all the time.


text:
Length of daily meditation (Soto zen)
Most Soto Zen sources that I've seen advise daily Zazen, preferably when first rising and before going to bed. However, few make reference to a length of time. The only one I remember says half an hour. At this point I feel like 15 minutes would be a serious challenge (I am a beginner). Is this a problem on my end, or could I perhaps start with 15 and work up? If so, at what rate should I increase?

If you have a Sensei or Roshi, ask them. If not, I would recommend you to start with a length which is challenging but not impossible to manage. From time to time you can do a longer meditation. In example, on a weekend sit 4 times 15 minutes with 5 minutes kinhin between. You'll find this a valuable experience. Don't just stay with a specific time without changing: no challenge means no progress. Zen meditation is about interrupting, its hard work. If you feel relaxed, work harder.
There is no official recommendation because every teacher recommends it different. In example Kodo Sawaki emphasizes Zazen and he would most likely recommend stricter practice than modern teachers.
I would definitely recommend you to find a meditation group (sangha) as the sangha is also part of the way. Questions like you asked can't be answered easily, especially by people like me who never met you. Additionally you might get theoretical answers by people like me who are not competent enough to guide you (I am not a sensei, just a student). Remember, zen is a way, not just a quantified meditation block.
However, if you don't have a sangha close (or just crazy people in it) it's better to start somehow instead of doing nothing. So I would suggest the 15 minutes and work up and keep reading old masters. I recommend sawaki specifically to you because of the question you asked.

I'd like to recommend Christian's answer: assuming that "15 minutes is a serious challenge", it might be a good experience to find a teacher and/or other practitioners to practice with.
I find that many activities are much easier in a group: I find it easier to do what other people do, when they do it, and to continue (not stop) because they are continuing (not stopping), and to stop when they stop.

Meditating in a group is definitely supportive, and enjoyable.

There are two types of practices: the formal SITTING and WALKING, and the informal the activities in daily life.
Sit as long you feel comfortable than stand up walk up and down until you feel you can sit again. And so on. During the day find some moments where you do nothing just sitting still, slightly concentrating on the breathing so that the mind has an anchor. The most important meditation is during all your activities. If you cannot be meditative while you are driving a car or answering a phone call your meditation is not worth much. And how to do it? Whenever you can slow down.
Walk slowly, eat slowly, prepare your coffee slowly, even speak much slower than you are accustomed.

Hello. That's some great practical meditational advice. Welcome to the site. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like.

You are free in this choice. I recommend periods from 5 minutes to 40 minutes. It is better to practice 5 minutes daily than 15 minutes only once a week.
If you practice more and the sitting doesn't hurt to much you stretch your sitting time naturally.

Yoga for flexibility and strength, and a good seat, will make sitting much easier.


text:
Did the Buddha said that there is no self there is no soul?
In this article, the writer of the article claims, purports or alleges that Bhikkhu Thanissaro and Bhikkhu Bodhi state that the Buddha NEVER said that there was no self. The Buddha NEVER said that there is no soul.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are  contrary to many response given in this platform, for example response given for one of the most frequently vised question here is described as fatalism and NOT Buddhism.
The question is, is the view presented widely accepted view in Buddhism or is it a new development?

This question was misrepresenting  Bhikkhu Thanissaro and Bhikkhu Bodhi because they did not write the article. I edited to the question to make it clear the views do not  belong to  Bhikkhu Thanissaro and Bhikkhu Bodhi but belong to the author of the article.

Thanks for the correction, I did know that the writes publish the article without the Bhikkhus consent.

In MN 61, the Buddha taught he that tells a deliberate lie, there is no evil he cannot do. Therefore, I would take care with the article.

This seems to have a duplicate here which has answers that may also be helpful.

In Buddhism if you take part by part (organ by organ, aggregate by aggregate, faculty by faculty, the mind or body, the world) there is nothing worth identifying as self or soul. What ever place or part you look there is no self, but also taking the view there is no self is also an extreme. In essence the best way to put this is not self or nonself than no self, as whatever you take is not self.
Any thought or view about a self (including no self) will never be in touch with reality and result craving and aversion ultimately leading to suffering.
Also see: Alagaddupama Sutta

The Pali suttas unambiguously state the entire universe is void of self (SN 35.85).
When the deluded idea of 'self' is born (SN 22.81) in the human mind, according to the Pali suttas, it is not a real 'self' but merely a 'view' (SN 5.10), merely a verbal convention (SN 1.25; MN 98), merely the arising of suffering (SN 5.10; SN 12.15), merely a disease (Ud 3.10) & a cancer (MN 140)  or, in short, neurosis.

This world is burning. Afflicted by contact, it calls disease a 'self.'
This world, overcome by contact, is tormented, It speaks of a disease as the self,
Udana 3.10

Also, it is a mistake to refer to SN 44.10 & insist the Buddha did not take a position on the question of whether or not there is a self. In SN 44.10, the Buddha kept silent because the questioner Vacchagotta was confused & befuddled.

How do your relate your response to Bhikkhu Thanisso description here [link] (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html) he clealry say that the view of no-self should be avoided and the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

Bhikkhu Thanissaro sounds like he is posting his own ideas. I have posted from the suttas. Regards.

This is a very sensitive point for understanding Buddhism imo. The Buddha, through the whole of the Pali Canon, explains in many ways how an Essential 'self' or 'soul' is not evident within perceived experience (Dhammadhatu's post is better for links to this!) - an unchanging constant for 'things' is not evident within what we perceive.
The Buddha also asks, in the Brahmajala Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html), for the follower not to speculate within the 'metaphysical sphere' - speculation beyond that which can be directly experienced.
The combination makes for a delicate point. The Buddha definitively stated that within perceived experience (the 5 skhandas) the Noble Truth of suffering - that each and every construct is impermanent - is imminently evident and true.
However, the Buddha was always careful to warn against speculation, therefore he never explicitly denied the 'self' or 'soul' in whole, if only because that which is beyond experience can neither be experienced nor denied (nibbana doesn't count here - it is to be known by the wise etc).. Experience and evidence (Nagarjuna, science) agree with the Buddha's Noble Truths, beyond that - the thicket of views is all that is left.
(logically then, the answer is a simple yes - because no rational attempt at describing/explaining/analyzing 'that which is beyond experience' is possible!)
Read this for some good insight! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/#NonSel

As I'm dealing with the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta (which caused the issue with not-Self and volition) and the Chinese version of it in another post I noticed the subtle differences between the words applied in the Sutra. Anatta translated as not-Self/ non-Self in English, another concept is "no Self", they are clearly different in the Chinese version. When I'm attempting to translate the Chinese Sutra to the English I found these words related to the "Self" applied:

有我 = has Self
非有我 = not has Self
無我 = not-Self/ non-Self
是我 = is me
異我 = non-me/ others (異 means different)
非我．非我所 = not-me. not my dwelling (非 means no, antonym of 是 yes)

In the Chinese to English Sutra I translated:

Form has no Self {色非有我}
Because form is not-Self... {以色無我故...}
"Well-learnt venerable disciple can he from this take into that this is me, non-me, any quality (lakṣana) in it?" {多聞聖弟子寧於中見是我．異我．相在不}
  this: form
those all are not-me, not my-dwelling. {彼一切非我．非我所}
  those: the attributes of the forms such as coarse or fine, good or bad...
in these five aggregations realize the not-me, not my-dwelling {於此五受陰見非我．非我所}

It appeared that when said "Form has no Self", ie, I do not dwell in form, there is not a part of me that's "mixed" into form, ie, if one of my limbs chopped off, I'm still I'm, intact, although my body is not intact. "Because form is not-Self", ie, since form is not self-existed, independently existed without a subject (me), the rest of the Sutra goes as: "therefore, suffering... I want to make it the way I like..." The other sentences dealt with the aggregations and emphasized the not-me, non-me, not my-dwelling我所 (means objects I possessed therefore are attributes to me, similar to "not mine", but not exactly).
Therefore, I'm more agreed with the article writer. That many of the issues arise because somehow it's misunderstood that not-Self is no Self, and not-Self is used in place that is no Self, or not-me, or non-me, or not mine. Therefore "I" is not-Self since the five aggregations and everything is not-Self... therefore I can't have any volition.
Anatta in Chinese translated as 無我, if "no Self" is "not has Self" it is 非有我, here Self = 自(己)(我), 我 this character can mean "subjectivity", I, self;  自 this character can mean self, imply self-exist, self-dependent, therefore another Buddhist term Niḥsvabhāva (without-self-nature, without-intrinsic-nature) translated as 無自性.

The question is, is the view presented widely accepted view in Buddhism or is it a new development?

As I have read the article and understood, most of it agreed with what I've learnt, excluded the opinion of the Bhikkhus and about the soul I have no comment. I won't say this author discovered a new view since there is no issue as such in my tradition, ie, learnt all my Dharmas from Chinese Classic Sutras and some Chinese articles. Instead I was stuck when reading questions related to not-Self therefore no volition, or "uncontrollability". This kind of question will never come into my mind. I do observe that there is subtle differentiation in the English translation of this Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta that is contradictory to the Chinese version produced the not-Self therefore "uncontrollability" issue. I'm still working on cross-checking the different versions of Chinese Sutras and the English ones.


text:
What did Santideva, the authour of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, say about the realisabaility of Buddhahood?
What did Santideva, the authour of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, say about the realisabaility of Buddhahood? What assurances did he make?

In general, the following positions are accepted by Mahayana tenets:

We can achieve Buddhahood because we can separate mind from afflictive obscurations and knowledge obscurations since neither is in the nature of the mind.
The way to abandon the two is ultimate bodhicitta: the wisdom directly realizing emptiness in the continuum of a bodhisattva. Since we can (a) cultivate bodhicitta and (b) see things the way they are (empty of inherent existence) then we can abandon the two obscurations and actualize the four kayas. There is the following analogy: wisdom is like an ax while bodhicitta is like a strong arm. Having developed both the ax and the strong arm – wisdom and method – one can cut off the tree, the two obscurations.
The mind is empty of inherent existence, therefore it is not inherently one with afflictions (from which it can be separated).

With regard to this, the fourth chapter of the Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, verses 3 – 4 says:

But how can I ever withdraw From what has been examined by the great
  wisdom Of the buddhas and their children, And has been examined and
  examined by myself?
If, having made such a promise,
  I do not accomplish it through action,
  Then by deceiving all those sentient beings
  What kind of rebirth will I take?

Gyaltsab Je says that Shantideva speaks here of "The reasons why it is inappropriate to discard bodhicitta". In addition, Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen explains that:

We increase the capacity of the mind by investigating and
  understanding. [The mind] has the capacity to develop into anything
  possible. The capacity of the mind is limitless like the mind of a
  buddha.

Apart from these verses, Shantideva does not establish that Buddhahood is feasible. He does not expand on any of the previous (three) arguments. Taking them as a given, he shows how to achieve Buddhahood. He does so in a didactic manner. This might be because he addresses people that are already convinced (i.e. in the Mahayana lineage).  The Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra belongs to the genre of Mind Training (Lo Jong). Lojong texts include instructions aimed at cultivating bodhicitta, the cause of perfect enlightenment. This is because according to Mahayana, (1) bodhicitta is the entry door to the Mahayana path, (2) bodhicitta is the main cause of Buddhahood, and (3) Buddhahood is the ultimate result of the Mahayana path. As Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

The Mahayana lineage refers to great compassion, the substantial cause
  of bodhicitta. [And] The ultimate benefit [of bodhicitta] is the
  state of complete enlightenment or Buddhahood.

These notions and these arguments are accepted by most Mahayana texts. Therefore, they do not bother establishing that Buddhahood is feasible. However, if you attend teachings on the Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, or on a Lam Rim text, or on Asanga’s Ornament of Clear Realization, you will probably hear about these arguments (that the two obscurations are not in the nature of the mind, they can be abandoned, that bodhicitta is the cause of Buddhahood, that you need the accumulations of method and wisdom, etc.)
If you want to know more about systematic arguments on the feasibility of Buddhahood, I suggest you investigate other texts. For instance, you could study Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha Nature) by reading:

When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sutra and Tantra. Tsadra Collection.
Great Vehicle Treatise on the Sublime Continuum differentiating the Lineage of the Three Jewels (mahayanottaratantra-ratnagotravibhanga) by Maitreya
Gyaltsap Darma Rinchen's commentary to Maitreya.

As my teacher says “The ninth chapter is on wisdom and it all leads up to the result we search, Buddhahood.” In chapter 9 of the Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, you find systematic refutations of non-Prasangika systems (some Mahayana, some Hinayana, some non-Buddhist). Shantideva explains that one could not achieve even arhatship without realizing emptiness of both persons and phenomena. He dismisses so-called Hinayana tenets such as Vaïbashikas and Sautrantikas. It is as close as you will get to finding explanation of the feasibility of Buddhahood in Shantideva’s Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, but it does not really answer your question.
Concerning “how to achieve Buddhahood”, Gyaltsab Je’s commentary explains that “Buddhahood will not be accomplished by practicing only method or wisdom." The meaning is indeed: one achieves Buddhahood by way of method (bodhicitta and the six perfections) and wisdom (directly realizing emptiness of all phenomena). That is what Shantideva explains.
In terms of view, it is the wisdom realizing the two emptinesses (as presented by Mahayana tenets, namely Prasangika Madhyamika). In terms of method, it is generating the mind of enlightenment as to enter the Mahayana path, cultivate the six perfections, etc. In terms of views, he explains one can not attain liberation is not possible without realizing emptiness of both person and phenomena. Thus, he says that achieving even individual liberation without having directly realized emptiness of phenomena is not feasible. In terms of method, he explains that a Mahayana path is a “virtuous mind conjoined with renunciation and bodhicitta” and that is the cause of buddhahood.

All in all, positing “Buddhahood is not feasible” would imply that we are unable to generate bodhicitta or that bodhicitta is not the cause of Buddhahood (neither is accepted by Shantideva). Or it would imply that we can not accumulate the two collections or that they do not cause Buddhahood (and neither is accepted by Shantideva). Or it would imply that our minds do not have the capacity to abandon all obscurations (that is not accepted by Shantideva). Or it would imply that the mind exists inherently and therefore it is inherently one with the afflicted side (it is not accepted either).


text:
Why is focusing on the breath more difficult than focusing on Mantras, and how important is it before vipassana?
I have been doing mantra meditation for years and saying "Aum" for a few minutes makes me go deeper in meditation within like 10 minutes.
But focus on the breath is difficult compared to the mantras.
What is the difference between the results of breath vs vipassana?
I can hardly do 10 conscious breaths (feeling peace). Any suggestions for betterment?
On the other hand doing vipassana makes me feel very strange (like perceiving vibrations) in my entire body.
In mantra meditation, it feels like something (kind of waves) is coming out of my body.
Am I on the right path or is it hallucination?

When reciting a mantra you have vitakka and vicāra which helps you get close to the 1st Jhana. But this is also accumulation of Fabrications (more particularly Verbal Fabrications) which should be avoided.
Vitakka and vicāra without the constant awareness of arising and passing inhibits the ability to see impermanence. That is why when you are doing Vipassana you become aware of vibration but not when doing mantra meditation.
To aid you breath meditation you can use vitakka and vicāra to your advantage. Be aware that your are aware of breathing then periodically assess whether you are actually with the breath, but at the reducing frequency. Start with even in breath and out breath and when you notice you can stay a while then do it after each breath and then after few breaths and you your mind just sticks to the task then drop it altogether.
Vitakka and vicara in initial application and sustained application. 1st your bring your mind to the breath then this is the initial application followed by trying to keep the breath in mind.

Thanks Sir, can you please explain last line in plain english, it goes over my head.

I updated it. See if you can understand it. It is simple do not get carried away by the Pali words. Another thing I noticed you have accepted some of my answers without upvoting. Wondering how I can improve on the answers. Is it that something you were looking for was missing?

Sir, i have asked these questions without signing up, and when i try to up-vote it, it says to signup or login, when i signup it says this email is already registered, when i login with that account , i see this account as if it is not mine, i am sorry i always wanted to up-vote, can you help ?

I was thinking it was something wrong with what I have wrote. Any way why don't you contact SE with this issue: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/contact

Why is focusing on the breath more difficult than focusing on Mantras?
Mantras are more interesting than the breath.
The breath is much more stiller.Mantras have obvious movement.(Speech or mental verbalisation).The mind easily latches on to mantras.Which is why you can find yourself in a trance like state  (tranquilising state) much more faster.
How important is it (Focusing on the breath) before vippassana?
Very important.If i can't focus on the breath which is gross and physical (at the start) i won't be able to focus on the subtle movements of the mind. Focusing on the breath trains you to develop concentration.You need concentration to practice vippassanna.To what extent you'd like to develop concentration is up to you but generally you need some form of concentration for vipassanna.
What is the difference between the results of breath vs vipassana?
Focusing on the breath develops concentration.Focusing on Vipassanna objects develop insight.You can still use the breath to practice both concentration and vipassanna.Your just focusing on two different aspects of the breath.
I can hardly do 10 conscious breaths (feeling peace). Any suggestions for betterment?
Do 5 conscious breaths.If you can't.Do 3 conscious breaths.Master that.
When you can do 3.Then slowly add 1 conscious breath and then another. Until you reach 8 conscious breaths.don't do 10 conscious breaths that's too long.It's not about the numbers it's about the quality of your attention on each breath.Please feel free to find a number that suits you.
In mantra meditation, it feels like something (kind of waves) is coming out of my body.
This could be piti (rapture).Piti is what makes the mind stay with the meditation object without feeling forced.Because it's pleasurable..Otherwise  you'll have to rely on good old effort (Vitakka).which is why it's easier to do mantra meditation.Piti is generated faster.With breath meditation there is also piti but that "waves coming out of the body" feeling.That is way too agitating if your using the breath.There is a lot more happiness in the stillness of the breath.

you said "You can still use the breath to practice both concentration and vipassanna" ?
How ?

@Ritesh Hi,sorry for the late reply.Concentration is when you focus on a concept.For example just "knowing the breath".Ask yourself am i breathing in am i breathing out.That point or region where you know you are breathing in or out.Focus there. Vipassana is when you focus on reality -So the actual physical sensations of the breath,its warmth,coolness.You have to practice a bit to differentiate the two sides.

I do not recommend to do mantra like what you are saying "Aun". I prefer meditation to mantra since mantra was not recorded in Pali Canon or Tripitaka. In Buddha discourses mantra is not found as far as I read.
Less effort, more natural
Anapana (watching breathing in and out) is more natural to man. You do not need to put any extra unnecessary effort to acquiring concentration. To say "Aun", you need have the following unfavorable conditions.

volition/will to say
making movement of sound producing organs
opening your mouth to produce voice
if saying "Aun" is too long, there could be distraction during producing sound "Aun", if the duration is short and fast (to eliminate distractions during long "Aun"), you can get tired easily.
The sound is danger to Jhana, so you cannot achieve the common fruitful expectation of getting more concentrated mind or sharp mind.
You said your body emitted wave when you did mantra but what it is good about it or you just like the sensation of wave coming out from your body. And definitely, you are detouring from your mantra by getting attention on waves from your body (lost primary focus).
Lack of specific goal in doing mantra. I have read very little about mantra but as far as I found in literature, it is obscure and no specific goal or achievement by doing mantra.

On the other hand Anapana seems legit (we have Buddha discourses about Anapana). Even if you cannot do leverage on Anapana meditation to Vipasana, you can achieve concentration up to some Jhanas. There is some personal experiences (on both web and printed form) that people get more healthy by doing Anapana (need citations here).
The more favorable facts are

It is more natural
Less effort, the breath in-breath out goes even if you do not have any attention or care to do so
It does not make any tiresome extra physical activities (Kaya Sinkhara)
It does not produce any sound, distracting to others and as well as you
If you are trying to build concentration, it is more proper way and easy to do.
You can put concentrated mind to where you like to be at and this could eventually lead to acquire 4 Rupa Jhanas (under favorable environment, Sila and good guidance)

Anapana
For about Anapana and getting focused during Anapana meditation please find my answer in this question here.
This may be a little biased answer to Anapana than your mantra but I can guarantee that if you do properly Anapana you can acquire peaceful mindfulness, and keen concentration by practicing Anapana. That's for sure.

In mantra meditation, it feels like something (kind of waves) coming out of body.

It agrees with my own experience. I just attended a practice led by a monk since 18 now in his 50s. He instructed us to observe the vibration starting from the abdomen spiraling up to the head, chanting "Om Ah Hum". We were a group of few and did it the same time, the mantra amplified in resonance we were all uplifted.
I have no idea about vipassana since personally I don't practice it but I do visualization. Neither am I interested in breathing practice however I read something related which I answered in this post. For breathing practice, the aim is not just about concentration/ awareness, it's also an energy gathering practice - in short; related to the Sacred-Vase-of-Wind 寶瓶氣 and Primordial-Fire 拙火. (The English translations are my inventions not sure if these have proper terms in English).

Hi Bhumishu, on the basis of my experience, i would recommend you to do vipassana, the vibration i am talking about is very strong (but it had happened only once in last 7-10 days), though we are not supposed to get away with it,  How ever it felt good.

@Ritesh Thank you, if I have chance I would. Interesting enough here I don't come across instruction about vipassana, although there are retreats held by the Vipassana - Goenka  meditation group I never attended.


text:
How best to accelerate vast accumulation of merits?
If the requisites for attaining the path of a stream-enterer is to accumulate merits and having favourable conditions, what are the best ways to gain merits and having all the necessary conditions to achieve this?

Ways to earn merits:

Practice the Buddha's teaching.
Practice Dana.
Practice daily meditation and share the merits with all beings.
Support the Sangha or better yet, become a Bhikkhu/Bhikkhuni.

With every wholesome deed one gets closer to Nibbana.
With every unwholesome deed one gains distance to Nibbana.

Perform the Ten Meritorious Deeds..
1.Charity.(Dana)
2.Morality.(Sila)
3.Mental culture.(Bhavana/Meditations)
4.Reverence or respect.
5.Service in helping others.
6.Sharing merits with others.
7.Rejoicing in the merits of others.
8.Preaching and teaching the Dhamma.
9.Listening to the Dhamma.
10.Straightening one's views.
In addition to that,cultivate the factors for stream entry.
The practices leading to stream entry are encapsulated in four factors:
1.Association with people of integrity is a factor for stream-entry.
2.Listening to the true Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry.
3.Appropriate attention is a factor for stream-entry.
4.Practice in accordance with the Dhamma is a factor for stream-entry.
Also here are some things i've observed from personal experiences:
Giving to someone who has greater sila or meditates generally increases one's merit.
Practising metta increases merit (for me).
Giving or performing any good merit towards a noble person increases one's merit substantially.

Accumulation of merit will only give favorable conditions. If you are born and able bodied person and the ability to access the dhamma this purpose is already served. If you miss this opportunity the conditions perhap many not be as favorable again for a long time. So practice hard to achieve the final goal. This effort will not be in vain as if you miss the goal in this life your most likely be in a more favorable position to practice and also your past practice will help with help mastering the teachings and technique easily.


text:
Buddhism and fornication
Most of the people follow the 3rd precept of lay buddhism without knowing the actual meaning of it. Personally, even I don't know the actual meaning of it. Most of the people including me understand it as, "not practicing adultery outside marriage". But I know there's more than that. I simply don't know what.
Can you give a clear answer for this two questions.

What is the actual meaning of the 3rd precept?
What does it(the 3rd precept) say about "fornication"?

Hi Akila and welcome to Buddhism SE. I edited your question a bit in order to increase readability. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

There are four conditions for wrong conduct in sexual pleasures.

There must be a man or woman with whom it is improper to
have sexual intercourse.
There must be intention to have sexual intercourse with such a
person.
Action must be taken to have such an intercourse.
There must be enjoyment from contact of the sexual organs.

With reference to the first condition, there are twenty kinds of
women with whom men should have no sexual relations. They can
be divided into three groups, namely:

women under the
guardianship of parents, family members, relatives and authorities
charged with their care;
married or betrothed women;
bhikkhunis and religious women observing the Holy Life.

For all women,

a man forbidden by tradition or
under religious rules

is prohibited as a partner.
If someone is an unwilling partner, who is drugged or forced to
have sexual intercourse under threat of violence or coercion,
conditions (2) and (4) exclude them from having violated the precept.
Source: FIVE PRECEPTS (PACASILA) - urbandharma.org
It is also sexual misconduct when one engages a partner at an inappropriate time, such as when a woman is pregnant, or when she is nursing. It is unethical to take the mother away from the baby for sex. It is also misconduct to have sex at inappropriate places, such as at places of worship.
Source: The Third Precept: Abstain from Sexual Misconduct
Also it is sometimes considered Poya / Uposatha is in appropriate time to have sex.
In addition, outside the bedroom is considered an inappropriate place in some interpretations.

As for the question about fornication: if the partner belongs to a category you should not have sex with, then you break the precept.

Precepts are originally designed for monks. So, a monk would totally abstain from sex. However, for the laity Buddha simply said that the average person should avoid sexual misbehavior. Sexual misbehavior is simply sexual conduct which is socially unacceptable. One example is adultery. Another might be beastiality. Another might be homosexuality. It largely depends on the culture.

The 3rd precept was spoken by the Buddha at a time in social/cultural history where it was a social/cultural norm for parents to arrange the marriage of their children. The Sigalovada Sutta advocates this is a duty of parents towards their children. Therefore, the 3rd precept should be considered in this social context. In other words, the 3rd precept when literally read may be inadequate for modern Western society/culture.