text:
When to delight and when not to delight?
Namo Buddhaya. During various discourses , monks after hearing Buddha delighted or did not delight.  This is one discourse in which Monks did not delight at the end. In almost all other discourses , monks delight at the end.
There are various places in which Buddha has given directions to the monk on when to delight and when not to delight.
For example: One should not delight in sensual pleasures,One should not delight in any form. etc.
Modern day Gurus like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar say one should always delight or be always happy.
Honestly I take delight in posting to this forum.But should I take delight?
My question is : Is there any direction given to Monks by Buddha on when to delight and when not to delight ?

I am only aware of one sutta, namely, MN 1, where the bhikkhus did not delight in the Buddha's words, as follows:

Na te bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṃ abhinandunti

na
(negative particle) not; no; nor; neither

abhinandati
rejoices at, welcomes; approves of; is pleased at.

Bhikkhu Bodhi comments:

The bhikkhus did not delight in the Buddha's words; apparently because the discourse probed too deeply into the tender regions of
  their own conceit, and perhaps their residual brahmanic views.

Bhikkhu Thanissaro comments:

The Buddha taught that clinging to views is one of the four forms of clinging that tie the mind to the processes of suffering. He thus
  recommended that his followers relinquish their clinging, not only to
  views in their full-blown form as specific positions, but also in
  their rudimentary form as the categories & relationships that the mind
  reads into experience. This is a point he makes in the following
  discourse, which is apparently his response to a particular school of
  Brahmanical thought that was developing in his time — the Samkhya, or
  classification school.
This school had its beginnings in the thought of Uddalaka, a ninth-century B.C. philosopher who posited a "root": an abstract
  principle out of which all things emanated and which was immanent in
  all things. Philosophers who carried on this line of thinking offered
  a variety of theories, based on logic and meditative experience, about
  the nature of the ultimate root and about the hierarchy of the
  emanation. Many of their theories were recorded in the Upanishads and
  eventually developed into the classical Samkhya system around the time
  of the Buddha.
Although the present discourse says nothing about the background of the monks listening to it, the Commentary states that before their
  ordination they were brahmans, and that even after their ordination
  they continued to interpret the Buddha's teachings in light of their
  previous training, which may well have been proto-Samkhya. If this is
  so, then the Buddha's opening lines — "I will teach you the sequence
  of the root of all phenomena" — would have them prepared to hear his
  contribution to their line of thinking. And, in fact, the list of
  topics he covers reads like a Buddhist Samkhya. Paralleling the
  classical Samkhya, it contains 24 items, begins with the physical
  world (here, the four physical properties), and leads back through
  ever more refined & inclusive levels of being & experience,
  culminating with the ultimate Buddhist concept: Unbinding (nibbana).
  In the pattern of Samkhya thought, Unbinding would thus be the
  ultimate "root" or ground of being immanent in all things and out of
  which they all emanate.
However, instead of following this pattern of thinking, the Buddha attacks it at its very root: the notion of a principle in the
  abstract, the "in" (immanence) & "out of" (emanation) superimposed on
  experience. Only an uninstructed, run of the mill person, he says,
  would read experience in this way. In contrast, a person in training
  should look for a different kind of "root" — the root of suffering
  experienced in the present — and find it in the act of delight.
  Developing dispassion for that delight, the trainee can then
  comprehend the process of coming-into-being for what it is, drop all
  participation in it, and thus achieve true Awakening.
If the listeners present at this discourse were indeed interested in fitting Buddhist teachings into a Samkhyan mold, then it's small wonder that they were displeased — one of the few places where we read of a negative reaction to the Buddha's words. They had hoped to hear his contribution to their project, but instead they hear their whole pattern of thinking & theorizing attacked as ignorant & ill-informed. The Commentary tells us, though, they were later able to overcome their displeasure and eventually attain Awakening on listening to the discourse reported in AN 3.123.
Although at present we rarely think in the same terms as the Samkhya philosophers, there has long been — and still is — a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" — the entirety of our sensory & mental experience — is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes.
Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard
  this discourse.
Translator's Introduction

I am going to assume you meant "chanda" when you say "delight" in your question.
From my best recollection, delight (chanda) in Iddhipada 4 should be cultivated.  Chanda is a very interesting word Buddha used because he used in both contexts of good and bad.   Chanda in 5 sensual cords is definitely not a good thing.
Also in meditation states, tho Buddha did not say directly to take delight in such, he said in many suttas that monks should cultivate them.  Also for Noble (ariyan) followers, those who take delight, accumulate, stay in, expert in, and maintain the ability (of such meditation) in time of death, they will reappear in Brahma's world upon the break up of body and after that will become non-returners.  So I put it together that delight in meditation is not necessary a bad thing.  Might even be good.

delight in iddhipada 4 is a good thing.
delight in 5 sensual cords,  5 hindrances is a bad thing.
delight in meditation state. (my own conclusion- good thing)

I think it's abhinandati (not "chanda") when it's used in a phrase like "the monks delighted in his words".

is abhinandati derived from abhi (great)+nanda (rejoyce)?  if so, i have never seen it used in good context, just bad one. Like you quoted, Nandi is often used in words (with 5 sensual cords).  Now it got me thinking if Buddha ever used it in medtation states or for Brahama world.

For example it's used several times in MN 9 including the last sentence, "Attamanā
te bhikkhū āyasmato sāriputtassa bhāsitaṃ abhinandunti.". The PTS dictionary says it's "abhi + nandati". Yes in the "Nandana Sutta" it's used in a negative context. As you said I expect that whether the delight is wholesome depends on what has occasioned the delight (e.g. the Buddha's words as mentioned in the OP).

yea.  Nandi is probably one of the most under-rated Buddha's words in Suttas, even though it appears probably 4th of 5th most often, next to dukkha, Anicca, anatta. Very interesting word of choice.  Something worth doing a thesis on (if not has already been done).

in my last tab about meditation, we might often hear from contemporary teachers that it is some thing to let go, but Buddha said opposite.  They should to be cultivated, collected, practiced.  .   strictly my point of view, meditative state, which technically a Bhava which is a fetter, and must be let go for full liberation.  It is an issue for those with super high pay grade (anagami) -my opinion.


text:
How is one reborn as a chakravartin?

Chakravartin (Sanskrit cakravartin, Pali cakkavattin) is a Sanskrit
  term used to refer to an ideal universal ruler who rules ethically and
  benevolently over the entire world. Such a ruler's reign is called
  sarvabhauma.

How does one achieve such a venerable state ?

I think that what is taught to children about a "universal monarch" -- together with The Legendary Account of the Four Sights, in the Introduction to the Jâtaka -- is that the prince Siddhattha might have been one (and that his father wanted him to become a ruler), and that he chose not to be:

Seven of these raised two fingers each, and gave a double interpretation, saying, "If a man possessing such marks and characteristics continue in the household life, he becomes a Universal Monarch; if he retire from the world, he becomes a Buddha." And then they set forth all the glory of a Universal Monarch.
But the youngest of them all, a youth whose clan-name was Kondañña, after examining the splendid set of marks and characteristics on the person of the Future Buddha, raised only one finger, and gave but a single interpretation, saying, "There is here naught to make him stay in the household life. He will most undoubtedly become a Buddha, and remove the veil of ignorance and folly from the world." For this Kondañña was one who had made an earnest wish under former Buddhas, and was now in his last existence. Therefore it was that he outstripped the other seven in knowledge, and saw but one future; inasmuch as a person possessed of such marks and characteristics would never stay in the household life, but would undoubtedly become a Buddha. So he raised only one finger, and gave that interpretation.

So at least one of the requirements for that "achievement" is to "stay in the household life".

Wikipedia says,

The first references to a Chakravala Chakravartin appear in monuments from the time of the Maurya Empire (322–185 BCE), dedicated to Chandragupta Maurya and his grandson Ashoka. In Buddhism, the Chakravarti came to be considered the secular counterpart of a Buddha.

I guess that the conceit (of comparing "universal monarch" and "Buddha") might have been consolation and/or flattery for the emperor, or perhaps just good advice for the emperor.
The biographies (including birth, achievements, etc.) of Chandragupta Maurya and of Ashoka are also linked on Wikipedia -- see especially Conquest of Kalinga & Buddhist conversion but also Buddhist kingship.

good answer, thanks, though i assume it doesn't answer how to be "reborn" as a universal monarch, unless we just assume that's the same as for a buddha in the next life

Just double checking, you asked how one is reborn to... right? now how one accomplish such task?
In Sankharupapatti sutta, though it does not say exactly "cakkavattin", Buddha talked about causes for one to become whatever he/she wish: from human world, heavenly worlds, all the way to liberation.  If he poses/accomplishes in

faith (saddhā),
virtue (sīla),
learning (suta),
charity (cāga),
wisdom (paññā).

Interestingly, if you look at 5 qualities above, it is above quality of a stream enterer.

I marked this answer down for equating the ridiculous ideas in MN 120 with stream-entry. MN 120 is an example of a ridiculous & questionable sutta, which illogically describes bhikkhus aspiring for worldly things.

i sense that you have some hostility towards me, may be this is a time to bring kindness into practice ? :-)  now could you be specific.? Have i not shown to you that i have been known to rescind my ideas and answers when I felt they werent so  great after a dicussion?  could you tell me why it is ridiculous because  your information is not enough for me to reflect on it.

at the end of the MN 120, Buddha talked about "does not
reappear anywhere at all".  You don't feel that teaching about births in different worlds and locations over and over all the way to "the end" of all rebirth is not an effective way to teach one to be tired of having to be reborn?

DN 26 states Cakkavatti was achieved as follows:

He had over a thousand sons who were valiant and heroic, crushing the armies of his enemies. After conquering this land girt by sea, he reigned by Dhamma, without rod or sword.

More brief reasons for this 'rebirth' or 'becoming' can be read in AN 3.14.

i've upvoted all these answers. you're right that it does seem quite bloodthirsty etc., though as an ideal it seems highly worthwhile, especially without celestial bodhisattvas

I might be questionable Buddha spoke these things. Possibly King Ashoka commissioned some monks to the write these suttas.

i just think that what you are questionable about should be your own business. cheers

Chakra-vartin ("wheel-turner") is, by definition, a ruler that turns the wheel of Dharma. The wheel of Dharma is a metaphor for tradition of wisdom and virtue, passed from generation to generation. As the wheel keeps going in the established rut, an established tradition keeps getting passed from generation to generation of people.
So the chakra-vartin is an epithet of an ideal ruler that preserves and maintains the tradition of wisdom and virtue as the mainstream principle and paradigm during the time of his rule.
As described in DN26, the way a ruler becomes a chakra-vartin is by

upholding the primacy of law
providing justice and security to all people
protecting the animals
supporting the poor
consulting with the sages on questions of ethics

The key requirement seems to be consulting with the sages vs. ruling according to one's own ideas. In other words, to become a chakravartin one needs to educate oneself on ethics and consistently implement those principles in one's rule.
Generally speaking, over many lifetimes, it is "doing what's skillful" is what culminates as rebirth of a chakravartin.

DN 26 also suggests it's good to be born the son of such a monarch, in order to continue the wheel-turning.

Yup, I guess it's easier to keep the wheel rolling in the same rut than to start it anew. Or as my first teacher said, karma exhibits some serious inertia.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Any living teachers claim to be able to attain vajrasamadhi?
Are there any living teachers who claim to be able to attain vajrasamadhi? Apologies if looking for a guru questions are off-topic here. Is there any way to verify if they have done so, according to the sutras etc.?

vajrasamadhi translates as "adamantine absorption"(http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Vajrasamadhi). as (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrasamadhi-sutra). According to buddhist scholar Buswell, the Vajrasamadhi-sutra is regarded to be an "apocryphal scripture". The problem with Buddhism is that practitioners are not recommended to speak about their different types of samadhi experience in public cause it can lead you to unskilled clinging to such experience. Try visit local Chan/Zen centres and ask sensei about it.

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

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


text:
How to make my thoughts non influencial on my happiness and presence?
I feel like I am ruled by my mind and it's illogical behaviour what to do. Thanks

Could you explain with more details?

This what Buddhist practice is for.

There are several Sutta that deal with this namely;

Dvedhavitakka Sutta: Two Sorts of Thinking
Vitakkasanthana Sutta: The Relaxation of Thoughts

They are very self explanatory
There is another Sutta that will be helpful -- this one in particular will help understanding the cause of the particular thoughts you are having:

Tanha Sutta: Craving

If you want to take it to the next level yet study "the 18 mental explorations" and "the 36 states of attachment", mentioned in this sutta:

Salayatana-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Six Sense-media

These are to be studied and remembered, they are quite easy to understand and i recommend just writing them down. This will be very useful in shedding light on how the mind works in general.
If you are having obsessive thoughts that are making you restless you might also consider these things ;

Settling your quarrels

Avoiding restless people & seeking out calm people

"Monks, when the mind is agitated,[3] that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of investigation-of-states, of energy, of rapture. Why? An agitated mind is hard to calm through these factors.
  "When the mind is agitated, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factors of tranquillity, concentration, equanimity. Why? Because an agitated mind is easy to calm[4] through these factors.
There is quietude of mind; frequently giving wise attention to it — that is the denourishing of the arising of restlessness and remorse that have not yet arisen, and of the increase and strengthening of restlessness and remorse that have already arisen. — SN 46:51
Six things are conducive to the abandonment of restlessness and remorse:
  1. Knowledge and pondering of the Dhamma;
  2. Asking questions about the Dhamma;
  3. Familiarity with the Vinaya (the Code of Monastic Discipline, and for lay followers, with the principles of moral conduct);
  4. Association with those mature in age and experience, who possess dignity, restraint and calm
  5. Noble friendship;
  6. Suitable conversation.
  (List from commy to satipatthana sutta)

Practice not getting involved in conflicts and restraint of speech leading to much discussion

Moggallana, should you train yourself: 'I will speak no confrontational speech.' That is how you should train yourself. When there is confrontational speech, a lot of discussion can be expected. When there is a lot of discussion, there is restlessness. One who is restless becomes unrestrained. Unrestrained, his mind is far from concentration. (Nodding sutta)

Lower your expectation in regards to being liked or being attended
to properly by others

"Furthermore, Moggallana, should you train yourself: 'I will not visit families with my pride[3] lifted high.' That is how you should train yourself. Among families there are many jobs that have to be done, so that people don't pay attention to a visiting monk. If a monk visits them with his trunk lifted high, the thought will occur to him, 'Now who, I wonder, has caused a split between me and this family? The people seem to have no liking for me.' Getting nothing, he becomes abashed. Abashed, he becomes restless. Restless, he becomes unrestrained. Unrestrained, his mind is far from concentration.

Training supportive mediations such as ie Metta, even if done very briefly will snowball and be of great benefit.
Mindfulness is always useful. Choose wisely which thoughts and themes you let stay in charge and where effort is directed.
Gl

Thank you for answering. Incidentally the last list is formatted as a block quote (using >) but I guess it's your own words, your own advice or paraphrase (not a direct quote i.e. not a copy-and-paste from an external reference), so IMO it would be clearer without the >.

@116PYC Thank you very much. This answer is very useful to me.


text:
Lack of objective thinking in Buddhist practitionners
My meditation practice is hindered by doubt.

First of all I see that the framework of the noble eightfold path (to which I adhere) does not seem to matter much, to so many gurus with repulsive behavior, and to the buddhist websites like Tricycle and Lion's Roar which continuously publish the writings of someone like Chogyam Trungpa. And I certainly can't see in the Dalai-Lama a personification of the Buddhist teachings, let alone his  former friend Sogyal Rinpoche.
Secondly I am very disturbed by the situation in Myanmar (Burma): a 90 percent Buddhist country, with criminal monks and a public opinion dramatically gone astray!
Third, the very lucrative "mindfulness¨ industry selling Buddhism, like just any commodity, not without some  harmful and dangerous consequences.

The question is: do Buddhist teachings downplay the role of reasonable, objective thinking?
Buddha is supposed to have said, "Place no head above your own". In some way it is akin to the motto of Western enlightenment by Kant (who certainly cannot be accused of having a "monkey mind"): "have the courage to use your own reason".
But some Buddhists speak and act as if all thinking was "mind wandering". Or don't you think that to abandon the capacity to think, and minimizing the role of the factors which foster that capacity, like education, can have dramatic consequences? And that a fake buddhism isn't one of those consequences? If naive Western women could "think", would they be abused by pathologically narcissistic gurus? If the 90 percent Buddhist Burmese were less poor and more educated, and more apt to think objectively, would they behave as they do?
Please do help me to practice, by answering to these somewhat disturbing questions.

https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/place-no-head-above-your-own/

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

I am unclear how your doubts have anything to do with your meditation practice? Also, your descriptions of not very rational living are true of almost all people everywhere, not just Buddhists. Do you expect at calling oneself a Buddhist will instantly improve one's rational thinking?

Look up the five hindrances in Buddhism, the fifth one is doubt.

... so many gurus with repulsive behavior, and to the buddhist websites like Tricycle and Lion's Roar which continuously publish the writings of someone like Chogyam Trungpa. And I certainly can't see in the Dalai-Lama a personification of the Buddhist teachings, let alone his former friend Sogyal Rinpoche.

This is your projection and your interpretation, isn't it? Based on your (limited?) knowledge of Buddhism and the people you mention. And based on your own understanding of ethics. Assuming you are not Enlightened, I would not be surprised if your perception and interpretation were biased.
If you knew what is "Spiritual Snobbism" and "Spiritual Ego" and why they are extremely dangerous, you would appreciate why some teachers go a loooong way towards shedding off any traces of that, even at the expense of hurting their public image (Trungpa) and making fools of themselves (Dalai Lama). Scandalous behavior is part of a longstanding and very respected tradition called "Crazy Wisdom" that aims to "transcend the dualistic view of repulsive and nonrepulsive" in student's mind and melt the spiritual ego.

I am very disturbed by the situation in Myanmar (Burma)

The situation in Burma is extremely complicated. However, there are little reasons to be "very disturbed" by it. As any situation, it arose from objective causes and conditions - and when you understand and appreciate these objective causes, in other words when you think about it rationally, you should see exactly what's going on, why it keeps on going, and why it is rather difficult to rectify. Sentient beings have a tendency to reify & overgeneralize => identify with => attach => take sides => create conflict. This ignorant tendency can take any form, up to and including turning Dharma into adharma. Watching this play out in Burma should only increase your faith in True Dharma, not feed your frustration with humans ;)

Third, the very lucrative "mindfulness" industry selling Buddhism, like just any commodity, not without some harmful and dangerous consequences.

I don't think there is nearly as much money made on "mindfulness" as on alcohol, videogames, porn, and weapons. So I would not characterize "mindfulness" industry as "the very lucrative". Yes, there are some people who make living on helping others, and some of these people are charlatans - but it is far from being as "harmful and dangerous" as for example the glamour industry, or Hollywood etc. In fact, if mindfulness improves some lives, and/or serves as gateway into more real study and practice, it will pay off its debt to Buddhism to which it owes its existence.
Finally, you should always remember that Buddhism is about YOUR state of mind, not the minds of others. It is your negativity, your frustration with the world, your spiritual ego, and your attachment to high ideals and its inverse projection onto the reality your mind creates, that you should worry about and work with. Once you got some of that through, you can start helping others who deal with the same problem, since you will now know it first-hand. That would be the most rational thing to do.

Tantric Buddhism  is not for me, thank you. I choose as exemples monks like Ajahn Chah whose wisdom I certainly don't put on an equal footing with gurus suspected with sexual abuse. Scandalous behavior is scandalous behavior, point. Thank you though for one sentence which I find just and enlightening  in your answer: its when you say that Buddhism is about one's own state of mind , not the mind of others.

I like this answer. We are so good at creating boundaries, we have even created a boundary for what enlightenment should and should not be. And how an enlightened being should and should not be. Teacher putting forth this "test" on student is according to me one of the hardest test!

Buddhism does not teach about blind faith. Refer to the Kalama Sutta, which says teachings should be independently examined for if they lead to suffering or non-suffering; harm or non-harming.
In MN 38, it is reported the Buddha said to not merely believe what he taught but to verify his teachings for oneself.
In MN 95 (Canki Sutta), it is taught a student should examine a monk or teacher for any greed, hatred & delusion before having faith in that monk or teacher.
In Buddhism, right thought means thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will and thoughts of non-cruelty (refer to MN 19 & SN 48.5) and also thoughts leading to liberation & to the deathless (refer to AN 9.14).
For example, if Chogyam Trungpa and Sogyal Rinpoche often did not act with right thought & right actions; it is best they be ignored as examples of Buddhist practise, despite the possibly usefulness of their teachings.
If a person sincerely aspires to practise Buddhism, they should focus on the path & forget about the rubbish heap because life lasts not long.

Thank you for your answer. It will help me to focus on the path

I think that many or most people are simply not capable of entertaining complicated ideas especially the ideas that are conflicting with their established values, bias, opinions or the ideas that would immediately affect their position of perceived relative advantage in the society.
However the Doctrine is so comperhensive and versatile that people can still pick and choose what they can accept and can simply ignore the rest or even proclaim it as fake.
There is a good amount smart-shaming among people and Buddhist circles are no exception. There is no immediate punishment for being stupid & irrational and this irrationality, this stupidity can be hidden from others by smooth rhetoric and a veil of authority and from oneself by ascribing it to non-omniscence, lack of development or mere negligible cognitive dissonance.
There is not much one can do about this other than finding the smart people and alligning oneself with them. Overcome doubt by inquiry, balance skepticism with conviction and conviction with skepticism.
Nowadays i would say try and find the most intelligent people who are also known as or alligned with the best of the meditation-monks in particular, i think that is the best starting position.
There are several ways to learn and develop in the Doctrine as i see it. There is the analytical part of the teachings dealing with the theory, there is the disciplinary guidelines, there are analogies and similes which are semi-analytical and there is the poetry, the Gathas which will appeal to the emotional individual.
Sometimes i think that people just don't like to admit that they do not know things.

The problem, as you would acknowledge, is the difficulty for some of us at least to find these "smart people¨

perhaps one could try asking direct questions and check out the likely suspects, then go forward using your best judgement and placing conviction into those that seem most developed in things that you would like to develop in yourself.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I read your question as follows.

When I read the world news (about Buddhists), and when I read Buddhist web sites, I find disagreeable news:

Gurus behaving badly, and doctrines from badly-behaved gurus being published
Badly-behaved (violent) lay society (and military), and criminal monks
Modern pseudo-Buddhist doctrines from non-gurus being published

When I complain, people tell me this is my "mind wandering". But what the hell, aren't I supposed to be thinking? Shouldn't we all be thinking?

So ...

For a start, I guess you're not wrong in your observations:

News is that there are or have been (some) gurus with scandalous, abusive, and/or controversial behaviour.
The behaviour and speech of specific monks, and communities of monks, has been (to put it politely) less than might be ideal; not to even mention war and ethnic cleansing etc.
There is a lot of not-explicitly-Buddhist "mindfulness" doctrine being taught, more or less well.

The fact that there is adhamma doesn't mean that dhamma is bad, though, and it does mean you might want to carefully distinguish between dhamma and adhamma.
For example, many people would consider the doctrines in the suttas to be "dhamma"; and it's expected that you need to be careful, for example from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:

The Four Great References
In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve.

MN 24 for example explains that "knowledge and vision of what is and is not the path" is one of the (several) stages of enlightenment.

I suspect (though it's difficult to describe well) there is a certain "non-thinking" quality to meditation.
If you consider physical/muscular effort, though, at least as an analogy, it's important (healthy) to have both exercise (contraction) and rest (relaxation), perhaps at different times ... or simultaneously.
Perhaps something similar is true of "thinking", i.e. it's good to do both (thinking and non-thinking).

I suppose that thinking isn't necessarily always supreme, always good. Instead thinking might be judged, according to (for example) whether it's skilful or wholesome.
I think that according to the suttas you might judge "thinking" on the basis of whether it is or isn't conducive to suffering. On that basis it's possible that the kinds of thoughts which you outlined in the OP might be unskillful -- because if you stay with those thoughts, they might cause you to suffer. Or it's possible that they're skilful: because clearly seeing that something is not dhamma may be necessary. In any case, I think it may be reasonable to try to control (e.g. to discard, not attach to) what you think about (including what kind of news you read), and what "views" you form, just as it's fair to "guard the senses" (guard what you see and hear).
I'm not sure but another way to judge or to assess, to weigh, something might be on the basis of whether it's conducive to the suffering of others. On that basis too the thoughts you outlined may or may not be skilful: I suspect that by themselves they don't help anyone, but maybe they could be an example of seeing the suffering of others in a way that helps you or leads you to alleviate their suffering.

Thank you for your answer. As you say, I think at times I will do non-thinking, especially when meditating, and at other time thinking, especially where some kind of logical  reasoning is indispensable, always without hurting others. Kind of a middle way, right?

Yes. And Tai Chi practice (which isn't Buddhist, but maybe it's easier for me to understand or to describe a physical practice than a mental one) is meant to be relaxed or soft ... for example because your posture is upright or straight (on your bones), balanced, your muscles can relax. Maybe a Buddhist analogy would be to have (to be supported by) good sila (morality).

In Buddhism there are concepts that are so complex that transcends beyond common reasonable, objective thinking.
Therefore to your question, the answer is obviously "No".
The question instead should be: Does common 'reasonable and objective' thinking downplay the depths of true Buddhism teachings? This will eventually guide you through your doubts.

I would say that "conceptual¨  is  not  an appropriate term for qualifying "the depths of true Buddhism teachings" in your words. For instance, we can of course say that "enlightenment " is a Buddhist concept in so far as we are talking and reasoning about an idea or a mental image (definition of a concept)But I gather that the experience of enlightenment is neither an idea nor a mental image, it is rather a state of being.

See Ajahn Brahm : "Buddha's faith is faith supported by reason ¨https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdg2GHVpbgc

Enlightenment is a state of being <-- Agree.
Buddha's faith is faith supported by reason <----- Hence I mentioned "Common" reasonable/objective thinking. Because level of reasoning changes as you understand, analyse and evaluate more complicated concepts. Faith would grow stronger as your 'state of being' progresses. It's a bit like getting lost in a jungle, but your faith in believing your current way-out path can only grow stronger as you see more promising indicators. And different people has different challenges in realizing the indicators....so to speak.


text:
Mindfulness of Breathing vs Mindfulness with Breathing
I just read somewhere by Dhammadhatu's posts that it is Mindfulness with Breathing. Can someone explain the difference? So I don't pay attention to the in-and-out breaths? I'm now quite confused. Sati means to keep something in mind and now in the case of Anapanasatti the breath is something which must be held in mind as well as the other three objects, correct?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
Which Buddhists denominations agree with the difference between pain and suffering as in many DBT texts? Which disagree?

'Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.'

I'm not sure I like the adjective 'optional' because I think it's insensitive to tell someone who's been injured that their suffering is some switch to easily flip (I don't have an issue with the nouns). I think 'not' is better than 'optional'.
Anyhoo, many Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT) texts seem to distinguish pain and suffering in other ways such as:

Psychology Today: The Dialectic of Pain: Synthesizing Acceptance and Change

Pain in life is inevitable, but suffering and misery are not. These can result from the way we respond to pain. The more we fight against it, the more likely we are to experience negative emotions, such as anger, hopelessness, and despair, and the harder it becomes to identify changes that can help. Like those Chinese finger-trap toys, the more forcefully we tug to release our index fingers, the more tightly ensnared they become. Calming down and taking stock of the situation opens the means to escape.

Wikipedia: Marsha M. Linehan (this quote has no source as of this writing)

Marsha M. Linehan (born May 5, 1943) is an American psychologist and author. She is the creator of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT), a type of psychotherapy that combines behavioral science with Buddhist concepts like acceptance and mindfulness.

And so on.

Generally speaking, "Buddhism is like Christianity" - in the sense that it has many different schools and sects that have their own practices and disagree on interpretations.
However, when it comes to suffering vs pain, most Buddhist nominations should agree with that statement. In fact I suspect this entire idea was taken by DBT from Buddhism. Suffering is not the best word for dukkha though, hence your confusion/resistance. Dukkha is the painful feeling we have when things are wrong and we can't do much about it.
If that makes you feel better, here is the same phrase in some alternative renditions:

'Pain is inevitable. Unhappiness is optional.'
'Pain is a part of life. Frustration is up to you.'

The idea is that external circumstances are not in our control, even our state of mind is not always in our control... but our attitude - our deep inner peace - is entirely up to us. Even if we're in pain and dying, we can be at peace an die gracefully, can't we? Let alone when we have normal difficulties.
This idea is slightly more palatable than telling someone their suffering is self-inflicted, but even this may be hard to accept for someone used to being in the victim consciousness. We're very used to explaining our unhappiness in terms of the circumstances. But as my Zen Master used to say, keeping our mind clean from unhappiness is like keeping our kitchen clean from the cockroaches. It is entirely our responsibility. In fact, rather than feeling pity for ourselves for being unhappy - we should be ashamed of not keeping our "kitchen" clean.
This is Emotional Intelligence 101, and a lot of it comes from Buddhism. Consider the Four Right Efforts:

... monks, you should apply effort toward:
  - non-arising of bad, pathological states of mind that have not yet arisen.
   - abandonment of bad, pathological states of mind that have arisen.
   - arising of wholesome states of mind that have not yet arisen.
   - maintenance and development of wholesome states of mind that have arisen.

Even the Noble Truth itself is a form of the same principle. The core idea is that dukkha (unhappiness, frustration) comes from an inner conflict. Conflict between how things "should be" and how they "are" - both sides modeled by our mind. The Buddhist path leads a person to the ultimate state of peace called "suchness" (tathata) - the state when "is" and "should" is no longer in conflict. This is achieved through a combination of objective (behavioral) changes in one's lifestyle and subjective (attitude) changes in one's psyche.
Buddhist Nirvana is the culmination of this path from conflict to suchness.

Well of course it was taken from 'buddhism', but I want to know what exactly is meant by 'buddhism'. I mean is it over 50% of Buddhism? Is it the 3 big denominations? Etc. Anyhoo thanks Andrei Volkov (is that from the TV series chuck? Been awhile). I'll read more later

Btw, I don't really like the adjective 'optional'. I don't have an issue with the noun 'suffering' (I thought Buddhists would be the ones with the issue!). I think I like 'treatable'. To me, 'optional' is something lacking empathy. Like you tell a grieving person or something like 'Hey, it really sucks that your loved one died, but lying in bed all day drinking alcohol is optional.' I mean yeah it's true, but it seems very unhelpful, unconstructive, unempathic, etc. :(

Stylistically, "optional" is an Americanism. They like downplaying important things and sounding super-casual. In American mainstream culture they're a bit afraid of heavy topics, admitting troubles, sounding negative, etc. so they try to joke them off. "Optional" makes it sound easy, like "hey, that crap is optional, just let it go dude" - I think that's the intent, whether it comes across that way is a separate question. But yeah, in this case "optional" means "you're in control" - so maybe "Frustration is up to you" or something.

ooooooohhhhhhh!!!!! Thanks!!! You can answer my question on English stackexchange if you want XD

Buddhism views suffering as coming from 8 different forms, as below:
Suffering of birth;
Suffering of old age,
Suffering of sickness,
Suffering of death,
Suffering of getting what you don't want,
Suffering of not getting what you want,
Suffering of getting what you want while not being able to hold onto it forever,
and then there is the most mysterious one of all, which is all pervasive suffering or misery.
Therefore, in mainstream Buddhism, it is widely accepted that "Suffering is inevitable" so long as your are still in the wheel of re-incarnation. (Un-enlightened). The core of Buddhism teaches about treating suffering (4 noble truths) through enlightenment (8-folds path). Hence, from the above list, there was no further dissection of pain vs suffering, because that would be redundant and further complicate matters.
In comparison, it seems DBT basically replaced the word "Suffering" from Buddhism's context, with the word "Pain" in DBT's context. Not saying DBT is less comprehensive, after all it is a researched therapy with Buddhism flavors.
I believe it's probably more useful and easier to be accepted to treat those people with different conventional/religious backgrounds.
Always be mindful that - Suffering and pleasure are two sides of the same coin.

'In comparison, it seems DBT basically replaced the word "Suffering" from Buddhism's context, with the word "Pain" in DBT's context. ' --> That was my initial thought, but I didn't want to say it out of fear of pain/suffering of being wrong or being told I'm wrong or bodily response to being told...something. Anyhoo thanks user13190! I'll read more later.

Wait so you/r source disagree/s with @ruben2020 who says pain and pleasure at opposites?

Does mainstream Buddhism agree with the above?
Yes I think so.
I don't know any DBT except what you quoted, so by "the above" I assume you mean the first quote, about "negative emotions" and  "finger-trap".
The "negative emotions" are a subject of Buddhism, see e.g. Kleshas (Buddhism) where they're translated as "Afflictive emotions". The different schools enumerate them differently (depending on how you analyse them there may be 2, 3, 6, or 50 of them), but I think that all schools agree they exist and are a problem.
Some schools might suggest there's only one way to solve the problem -- i.e. "the Noble Eightfold Path" (which is the fourth of the "Four Noble Truths") -- or perhaps all schools agree with that.
I think that user13190's answer is a summary or paraphrase of  the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.
Even so, different schools have different practices and so on.
When you get into details of how to solve the problem, what the solution is,  I suspect that Buddhism probably differs from DBT -- otherwise wouldn't DBT be Buddhism, indistinguishable?
Assuming you may find the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta difficult, another popular snippet might be this from the Dhammapada:

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

I think that (i.e. whether an afflictive emotion like "hatred" is "stilled" or not) is reminiscent of the "finger-trap" you mentioned.
The first two verses:

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

... imply that the mind (e.g. it whether it harbors or doesn't harbor such thoughts) conditions (creates conditions for, is followed by) suffering or happiness -- maybe (I don't know, but I guess) DBT says something along those lines.

Oh -- the title of what you quoted, "acceptance and change", sound a bit like Buddhist doctrine too -- Buddhism teaches that things are impermanent (change), and I think it teaches (e.g. in the second of the four noble truths) that being attached to things is a cause of suffering -- see also for example Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?

Buddhism is kind of complicated though; people might resist it for various reasons, including the one you mentioned -- or for an opposite reason, e.g. that people don't want to see "suffering".
Also I might have given have an opposite reply, and said that everything is suffering (or is, at least, unsatisfactory) -- sabbe sankhara dukkha -- that too is hard to explain, and even that is a topic which different schools of Buddhism may summarise differently, see e.g. Differences between the tilakkhana and the Dhamma seal

It's not clear what you mean by "pain" in the question.
I assume that maybe you don't mean physical pain -- see e.g. Experiencing physical pain -- so maybe you mean something metaphorical.
In that case you'd asking whether there's a difference between "metaphorical pain" and "suffering", which I think is quite vague.
The Pali word that's translated as "suffering" is Dukkha (maybe we should define the dukkha and suffering tags to be synonyms).
And actually dukkha doesn't mean exactly the same as suffering (so much so that people prefer to refer to it as "dukkha" instead of as "suffering"), so that's another way in which the question is inherently imprecise.

Reading the quote "... a type of psychotherapy that combines behavioral science with Buddhist concepts like acceptance and mindfulness" reminds that I have had one second-hand (i.e. hearsay) experience of a DBT practitioner: which was, as a treatment for PTSD (the trauma of having been assaulted), being advised to be "mindful" of the present environment.
For example, when you're taking a shower, instead of having "flashbacks" (i.e. reliving the experience of being assaulted), to "remember" where you are at the moment, e.g. in the shower, feeling the touch of water, hearing the sound of water, and so on.
That is not unlike some practice Buddhist practices, where "mindfulness" is a meditation and or part of the doctrine -- see e.g. What does sati mean? but see also Where is the suttas is 'sati' defined as present moment awareness?

OP: 'Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.'

I am quoting the viewpoint of the Theravada school which agrees with this statement, and I've never heard of another school disagreeing with this statement.
According to Itivuttaka 44, enlightened ones can still feel pain and pleasure:

"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life
  fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released
  through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain
  unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element with residue left.

However, the enlightened ones don't suffer, even when they feel pain or are deprived of pleasure (from DN16):

And soon after the Blessed One had eaten the meal provided by Cunda
  the metalworker, a dire sickness fell upon him, even dysentery, and he
  suffered sharp and deadly pains. But the Blessed One endured them
  mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

Also see this answer.
In the Nakulapita Sutta:

"So it is, householder. So it is. The body is afflicted, weak, &
  encumbered. For who, looking after this body, would claim even a
  moment of true health, except through sheer foolishness? So you should
  train yourself: 'Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will
  be unafflicted.' That is how you should train yourself."

Pleasure is the opposite of suffering rather than pain then?

Pain and pleasure are the opposite of each other. Suffering from pain is when you experience pain and react to it. Suffering from pleasure is when you experience pleasure, and then be deprived of it, and react to it, similar to snatching delicious food from a hungry person who is enjoying it.

Oh I misread (or mis-skimmed). Thanks. I'll read more later.


text:
Best meditation techniques (mindfulness,vipassana,yoga,zazen,TM,etc) to beat behavioral addictions (food,sex,porn,gambling,internet,videogames,etc)?
For a layman who wants to overcome behavioral addictions (i.e. any "addiction that involves a compulsion to engage in a rewarding non-drug-related behavior – sometimes called a natural reward", such as food, sex, pornography, gambling, internet, video games, etc.):

Which meditation techniques are the most recommendable?
Additionally, given the fact that an average layman cannot afford going full-time monk, what would be a recommendable frequency (in terms of minutes/hours per day) to see palpable results in a reasonable time?

Furthermore:

Is a single meditation technique enough to overcome behavioral addictions? Or would it better to practice multiple meditation techniques at the same time? Or maybe different meditation techniques for different situations? For instance, are there any special meditation techniques to handle strong, compulsive urges in the presence of addiction cues/triggers?

Finally:

Is meditation as a whole enough, or would one need to complement it with other non-meditative practices or measures? For example, positive affirmations, hypnosis, or maybe going to a therapist, exercising, sleeping 8+ hours, etc. I'm just throwing some ideas around.

OP: For a layman who wants to overcome behavioral addictions, ...
  which meditation techniques are the most recommendable?

Please see this answer about a video talk by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu on addiction to pornography and addiction in general. That answer also states:

The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and
  observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically
  insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter
  entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".

I believe this technique can be applied to most, if not all, addictions.

OP: Additionally, given the fact that an average layman cannot afford going full-time monk, what would be a recommendable frequency
  (in terms of minutes/hours per day) to see palpable results in a
  reasonable time?

Please see this question for good answers.

OP: Is a single meditation technique enough to overcome behavioral addictions? Or would it better to practice multiple meditation
  techniques at the same time? Or maybe different meditation techniques
  for different situations?

One way suggested by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu to overcome sexual addiction is to mentally take apart and analyze the parts of the body (the so-called contemplation on unattractiveness or asubha). You can find some info in this question and this question. But also see this answer - this type of contemplation should be replaced with the mindfulness of breathing if it triggers negative thoughts of suicide.
The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".
So, here you have two techniques for sexual addition.
Regarding food addiction, you can try the insight method above, or the gradual food reduction method in this answer.

OP: Is meditation as a whole enough, or would one need to complement it with other non-meditative practices or measures?

The practice of the five precepts and virtue (sila) with heedfulness (appamada) is recommended. In addition, eating, sleeping, consuming entertainment and socializing should be done in moderation.
You can find this in the "Daily Life" chapter of Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's booklet "How to Meditate":

Meditation is meant to cultivate clarity and understanding, free from
  addiction, aversion, and delusion, and therefore free from suffering.
  Since certain bodily and verbal acts are intrinsically tied to
  negative qualities of mind, they are considered ‘contraindicative’ to
  the meditation practice; they have an effect opposite to what is
  desired, cultivating defilement instead of purity. Meditators who
  insist on engaging in such behaviour will face great difficulty in
  their practice, developing habits that are detrimental to both
  meditation practice and personal well-being. To ensure the mind is
  perfectly clear and capable of understanding reality, certain
  behaviours must be taken out of one’s “diet”, so to speak.
First, there are five kinds of action from which one must refrain
  completely, as they are inherently unwholesome:

One must refrain from killing living beings. In order to cultivate one’s own well-being, one must be dedicated to well-being as a
  principle, refraining from killing any living being, even ants,
  mosquitoes and other living beings.
One must refrain from theft. In order to find peace of mind, we must grant it to others as well; stealing is a denial of this basic
  right to security. Further, if we wish to be free from addiction, we
  must be able to control our desires to the extent of respecting the
  possessions of others.
One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to
  others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a
  cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind.
One must refrain from telling lies. If one wishes to find truth, one must avoid falsehood; intentionally leading others away from the
  truth is harmful both to oneself and others and incompatible with the
  goals of meditation.
One must refrain from taking drugs or alcohol. Any substance that intoxicates the mind is obviously contraindicative to meditation
  practice, as it is the antithesis of a natural, clear state of being.

Complete abstention from these activities is necessary if one wishes
  for meditation practice to be successful, due to their inherently
  unwholesome nature and the invariably negative effect they have on the
  mind.
Further, there are certain activities that must be moderated or they
  will interfere with meditation practice. These are activities that are
  not necessarily unwholesome in and of themselves but will nonetheless
  inhibit clarity of mind and lessen the benefit of the meditation
  practice when undertaken in excess.
One such activity is eating; if one wishes to truly progress in the
  meditation practice, one must be careful not to eat too much or too
  little. If one is constantly obsessed with food, it can be a great
  hindrance to progress in meditation since not only does it cloud the
  mind, over-eating leads to drowsiness, both in the body and mind. One
  should eat to stay alive rather than stay alive simply to eat. During
  intensive meditation courses, meditators eat one main meal per day and
  suffer no negative physical consequences as a result; whereas the
  positive effects of such moderation are clarity of mind and freedom
  from obsession over food.
Another activity that interferes with meditation practice is
  entertainment – watching movies, listening to music, and so on. These
  occupations are not inherently unwholesome but can easily create
  states of addiction when undertaken in excess.
Addiction is a form of insobriety in a sense, since it involves
  chemical processes in the brain that inhibit clear thought and clarity
  of mind. Since the pleasure that comes from entertainment is momentary
  and unsatisfying while the addiction and obsession carry over into
  one’s life, a serious meditator should determine to make the best use
  of their short time in this life by cultivating peace and contentment,
  rather than wasting it on meaningless activities that don’t lead to
  long term happiness and peace. If one wishes to find true happiness,
  one must therefore moderate one’s engagement in entertainment.
  Socializing on the Internet and similar activities should be
  undertaken in moderation as well.
The third activity one must moderate is that of sleeping. Sleeping is
  an addiction that is often overlooked; most people don’t realize how
  attached they are to sleep as a means of escape from reality. Still
  others become insomniac, obsessed with the thought that they are not
  getting “enough” sleep, leading to increased stress levels and further
  difficulty in falling asleep.
Through the meditation practice, one will find that one needs less
  sleep than before since one’s mind will become calmer. Insomnia is not
  a problem for meditators since they are able to meditate even in the
  lying position and keep their minds free from stress. People who have
  difficulty falling asleep should train themselves to watch the stomach
  rise and fall, noting “rising”, “falling”, all night if necessary.
  Even if they are not able to fall asleep (which is unlikely, given the
  calm state of mind while meditating) they will find themselves as
  rested as if they had slept soundly through the night.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that to truly gain results in the
  meditation practice, a meditator should set aside at least a period of
  time to remain entirely celibate, not just avoiding immoral sexual
  activity, since all sexual activity is invariably intoxicating and
  will be a hindrance towards attainment of mental clarity and peace.

Thanks for the links. Do they cover all my sub-questions in my post?

Is insight = vipassana? If that is the case, then should I practice vipassana as teached by Goenka?

Yes. Vipassana is insight. Regarding Goenka's vipassana, you can read two interesting questions here and here.

One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct.- This must be corrected as sensual misconduct. E.g one's intensive crave to chocolate or food and overeating is sensual misconduct.(violate third precept) sexual misconduct is narrowing into one aspect.

@danukashewantha The third precept is about sexual misconduct, not sensual misconduct.  The text I quoted is from Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu - it's not my own writing.

"Kame-sumichchachara" here "kama"  means not about sexuality. It means  the involvements of six sensual facilities. e.g; nose for odors,eye for colours, tongue for taste etc... you are narrow in to sexuality is wrong. I suggest you to verify it again.

@danukashewantha See Trouble understanding “sensual misconduct”

in addition i recommend taking a look at these two Sutta; Removal of distracting thoughts + Two types of thoughts. It is going to take a comprehensive practice but is very doable.

See also e.g. here for some "non-meditative practices or measures".
Also, "food" is difficult and a separate category: because you can't just cut it out completely. Instead you should eat moderately, measuredly -- see e.g. Sariputto Sutta (SN 35.120) which mentions guarding the sense-doors, and which says,

And how, friend, is one moderate in eating? In this a monk takes his food properly considering,2 not for sport, for intoxication, for adornment or beautification, but purely for the maintenance and nourishment of this body, for keeping it unharmed, as an aid to the practice of the holy life, thinking:

"I shall put an end to the old feeling,3 and not produce any new feeling.4 Thus I shall keep going, incur no fault, and live at ease."

That, friend, is how one is moderate in eating.
2 With due attention (yoniso)
3 Of hunger.
4 Of greed.

The Buddhist path has four right efforts, namely:

Effort to prevent
Effort to abandon or cure
Effort to develop
Effort to maintain.

The question & some answers (such as the video of Yuttadhammo) are about efforts to abandon rather than effort to prevent.
Prevention is better than cure. Prevention uses reasoned thinking about the harm & danger of these addictions. The objects of addiction should be viewed is the same way as reasonable people view drugs like heroin. Pornography, for example, destroys the lives of women, for example:

Jenna Jameson (born Jenna Marie Massoli; April 9, 1974) is an American entrepreneur, webcam model and former pornographic film
  actress, who has been called the world's most famous adult
  entertainment performer and "The Queen of Porn".
Jameson announced in August 2008 that she and Ortiz were expecting twins in April 2009.On March 16, 2009, Jameson gave birth to twin
  boys, Jesse Jameson and Journey Jette. Jameson and Ortiz split up in
  March 2013. Ortiz was granted full custody of the twins
As of 2014, Jameson has undergone extensive tattooing, almost completely covering both of her arms in sleeve tattoos. In 2013,
  self-proclaimed socialite and writer Britney Markham became Jameson's
  personal assistant after having met on Twitter. In a 2014 interview
  with LA Weekly, Markham claimed that Jameson would make requests for
  drugs. Markham posited that the pills of choice were Xanax, Ambien and
  Suboxone along with alcohol. At the same time, Markham denied that
  Jameson had been taking Oxycodone, in spite of previous rumors.
  Markham stated that she was assaulted and battered by Jameson
  following an incident in a hair salon in Los Angeles in 2013 when
  Jameson punched Markham in the stomach with a brass knuckles iPhone
  case. The blow was so severe, Markham claims she vomited blood and was
  hospitalized.
On August 5, 2016, Jameson announced that she and her Israeli boyfriend, Lior Bitton, were expecting their first child together. On
  April 6, 2017, they welcomed a daughter, Batel Lu.
On November 11, 2016, Jameson announced on her Twitter feed that she completed her conversion to Orthodox Judaism with a Haredi rabbinical
  court in Upstate New York. Having been raised Catholic, in June
  2015, Jameson announced that she was converting to Judaism, in order
  to marry Bitton. In October, an Israel Channel 2 reality
  television series was announced, which would document Jameson's
  conversion.

Pornography is a charade, lie & deception, which is upheld by the false view or false idea that the women in pornography are happy & having fun. If a person has right view & has compassion for women, they will not be tempted to view pornography because they understand pornography harms women (as well as men).


text:
How does a forest-dwelling dhutanga practitioner get food?
According to "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" by Bhikkhu Ariyesako:

The Buddha suggested that the basic source of food for bhikkhus was
  that received on the morning alms round (pi.n.dapaata). This daily
  dependence on alms food reminds both the bhikkhus and the lay devotees
  of their interdependence and prevents the bhikkhu from becoming too
  isolated from the lay community. He 'meets' them every day and eats
  the food that they share with him. Several important rules are
  concerned with this as well as a major section of the Sekhiya Training
  rules.

On this page, āraññika dhutaṅga refers to:

"the one who has the habit to dwell in a country side lodging remote
  from villages", that is to say the one who lives remote from inhabited
  areas.

And the ukkaṭṭha āraññika, the noble practitioner of the āraññika dhutaṅga is defined as:

The bhikkhu who is a noble practitioner of the āraññika dhutaṅga is
  resolved to dwell and dwell into a forest monastery (remote from
  inhabited areas) a all the time, during the three seasons of the year
  that are summer (from March to June), the monsoon (approximately from
  July to October) and winter (approximately from November to February).

The "The Bhikkhus' Rules: A Guide for Laypeople" also states:

In the Buddha's time some ladies were ambushed and raped on their way
  to give food to bhikkhus living in a dangerous jungle area. Their
  family criticized the bhikkhus for not warning them of the hazards. If
  lay people intend to give food to a bhikkhu(s) in such a danger zone
  then they must announce that to the bhikkhu(s) beforehand so that the
  bhikkhu(s) has a chance to warn them or reduce the threat.
The rule can be summarized: "Eating an unannounced gift of staple or
  non-staple food, after accepting it in a dangerous wilderness abode
  when one is not ill is [an offence of Acknowledgement.]"
  (Paatidesaniya 4; BMC p.488)

So, how does an ukkaṭṭha āraññika get his food? Only from lay people who dare enter the potentially dangerous forest area to give them food or can they eat food that they can find in the forest like fruits?
If they eat fruits etc. in the forest, wouldn't that be a violation of another rule requiring the monk to get his food from alms?
Here, I assume that an ukkaṭṭha āraññika does not go to inhabited areas for alms, by the very definition of "ukkaṭṭha āraññika".

The page you linked for āraññika dhutaṅga seems to already have an answer:

A "forest monastery" is a monastery situated at least 500 (curved) bows lengths from the doorstep of a house situated on the remotest spot of a village.

This sounds like only a few miles away, so totally within walkable distance.

The bhikkhu who practises the āraññika dhutaṅga must fulfil several daily duties, such as performing his food collection by means of his bowl.

...

When the time has come to go collecting his food, the bhikkhu conveniently closes his robe, takes his bowl and proceeds to a neighbouring village in order to receive his daily meal. Before proceeding to the village, he puts into order all that which remains outside of his lodging and properly shuts down the door. If the path leading to the village is rough, he can tread it with his feet dressed in sandals. However, he must remove them and set them aside just before crossing the entrance of the village. He must minutely observe all sekhiyas. He enters in houses with attention and manages remembering his own location (in order to trace back the house of a dāyaka who invites him to come collecting his food at his home), he avoids entering while not collecting food or in case of emergency. He avoids being too slow or too fast while entering and going out of houses. When he waits standing with his bowl, he stands still neither too near, nor to far from the house. He never waits too long in front of a house. When his collection is completed, he doesn't go to people's house, without good reason. He doesn't waste his time into idle talk. He enters his forest monastery without delaying.
When he enters back his forest monastery, he conveniently performs all allotted domestic duties, such as the storage of drinking water for various uses, or sweeping. When darkness already came down, he lights up some oil lamps. So as to avoid any danger caused by animals, he catches up a stick for protecting himself. He tries to trace back the location of the stars and the four directions (South, East, North, and West) so as not lose himself. He pays attention to the calendar (regarding uposatha days, etc.)
If a bhikkhu who lives in a forest monastery has an unhealthy instructor or preceptor and the monastery doesn't receive any medicines (or medical materials likely to heal the later), he must take him to a village monastery, where he will easily receive all necessary cares. By doing so, the bhikkhu who practises the āraññika dhutaṅga should leave the village monastery before dawn so that he will have reached the forest at dawn time. If the state of health of his instructor or preceptor has worsened, he must remain in the village monastery for the sole task of looking after him. In this case, no worries for his dhutaṅga. The state of mind being the main element, the dhutaṅga is not broken.

So it sounds like visiting the village is allowed (and even required!) for food collection, and staying in the village overnight is allowed for emergencies.

I think (I'm not sure) I agree with Andrei's answer.
For example, Meetings with a Remarkable Monk doesn't say "dhutaṅga" but it does say "ascetic" several times. His dwelling place (a hut) is dangerous (with poisonous snakes and so on around).

He was single mindedly bent on persuing the life of a reclusive ‘hermit’ monk following the outline and details of the Dhamma-Vinaya of the Buddha.

And:

This meeting took place during his normal morning pindapata (alms collecting) routine. He walked two kilometers through the scrub jungle from his cave kuti at the base of a hill, to a designated spot where the village people also had to walk one kilometer. There he sat on a chair covered with the traditional white cloth. The villagers paid their respects to him and offered him some rice gruel to drink. Then they offered him the meal in his alms bowl which he would afterwards carry back to his cave kuti to partake of it in solitude. After he received the alms food in his bowl I came up (with two Sri Lankan monks who had brought me), paid my respects, etc.


text:
Is overthinking violate third precept?
I have noticed most of the time third precept is interpreted as sexual misconduct or adultery. But third precept emphasize all the misbehavior and misconduct using all six sensual spheres. "Kamesumichchara" in here kama means involvement of all six sensual spheres.
E.g in this answer;  One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind.
My question is how fair or correct to narrow third precept to sexual misconduct or adultery?
Does over-thinking violate third precept because its a misconduct of mind due to uncontrollable and misuse mind?

In my (Mahayana) interpretation, Kamesu-micha-cara means "Behavior incorrectly motivated by desire of sensual pleasure". This pertains to any pleasure associated with any of the senses.
The core idea of the precept IMO is that "desire of pleasure" is "wrong motivation". It is not that sensual pleasure in and of itself is bad. It is that receiving pleasure is an invalid goal. Instead, behavior should be motivated by a valid goal, such as health, well-being, harmony, peace, and Liberation.
Since mind counts as one of the senses, any activity "motivated by desire of MENTAL pleasure" should count as violation of the precept. This would pertain to indulging in all types of mental pleasures such as idle conversations, games, fantasies, philosophizing and others.
There is a fine line here though. An activity would only be a violation of precept, if its sole motivation was receiving (mental) pleasure. If activity has benefits such as development of mental faculties, reduction of pathological mind states, and increase of wholesome mind states, then it should count as constructive activity of useful nature.
For example, if someone is depressed, and is engaging in meditation aimed at increasing motivation and generating positive mind states, this should not count as indulging in mental pleasure - even though it involves deliberate generation of joyful mind states.
So I think the main criteria here is, whether we are indulging for pure pleasure, or doing it deliberately with a wholesome goal in mind.
And yes, in this interpretation "overthinking" or more precisely "indulging in thinking and philosophizing for the pure pleasure of it" would count as violation of third precept.

This is good answer. I know practically how over-thinking increase our stress and steal our happiness. Addiction to thinking create over-thinking which is totally uncontrollable. Also I suggest to participators of this site (not you Andrei) that don't narrow third precept to sexuality because it will convey wrong message about Dhamma to readers. Thanks for your verification. This proves how broad the third precept is. Metta!

It is a very dangerous thought to extend the 'Third precept - Refrain from sexual misconduct' to something beyond 'sexual misconduct'. You need to be careful with your wordings and the message you want to convey.

I am not refuse sexual misconduct and it partially and superficially convey the meaning of third precept as per contemporary literature. Third precept is so broad and it cover all the addictions due to all sensual spheres. It has to be understood very carefully. Over-thinking is violate third precept when you concern the criteria. I just show the different aspect of third precept.

The precept is defined in the suttas as "sexual bodily action":

And how is one made pure in three ways by bodily action?... Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by
  their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their
  relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail
  punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man.
AN 10.176

Since the suttas (DN 31) also teach parents must arrange the marriage of their children and also teach the taint of woman is sexual unchastity, the precept of sexual misconduct also includes sex outside of marriage, i.e. sex without commitment, without compassion, motivated only by lust.
As for sensual pleasures in general, there are many suttas, such as MN 75 and MN 54, which describe the negative aspect of sensual pleasures however these suttas do not appear to use the term "misconduct":

So too, Māgandiya, formerly when I lived the home life, I enjoyed myself, provided and endowed with the five cords of sensual pleasure:
  with forms cognizable by the eye…with tangibles cognizable by the body
  that are wished for, desired, agreeable, and likeable, connected with
  sensual desire and provocative of lust. On a later occasion, having
  understood as they actually are the gratification, the danger, and the
  escape in the case of sensual pleasures, I abandoned craving for
  sensual pleasures, I removed fever for sensual pleasures, and I abide
  without thirst, with a mind inwardly at peace. I see other beings who
  are not free from lust for sensual pleasures being devoured by craving
  for sensual pleasures, burning with fever for sensual pleasures,
  mn.i.506 indulging in sensual pleasures, and I do not envy them nor do
  I delight therein. Why is that? Because there is, Māgandiya, a delight
  apart from sensual pleasures, apart from unwholesome states, which
  surpasses even divine bliss. Since I take delight in that, I do not
  envy what is inferior, nor do I delight therein.
2“Suppose, Māgandiya, there was a leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by worms, scratching the scabs off the
  openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterising his body over a
  burning charcoal pit. Then his friends and companions, his kinsmen and
  relatives, would bring a physician to treat him. The physician would
  make medicine for him, and by means of that medicine the man would be
  cured of his leprosy and would become well and happy, independent,
  master of himself, able to go where he likes. Then he might see
  another leper with sores and blisters on his limbs, being devoured by
  worms, scratching the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his
  nails, cauterising his body over a burning charcoal pit. What do you
  think, Māgandiya? Would that man envy that leper for his burning
  charcoal pit or his use of medicine?”
“No, Master Gotama. Why is that? Because when there is sickness, there is need for medicine, and when there is no sickness there is no
  need for medicine.”
“So too, Māgandiya, formerly when I lived the home life…as in §12…Since I take delight in that, I do not envy what is inferior, nor
  do I delight therein.
MN 75

Householder, there are these eight things in the Noble One’s Discipline that lead to the cutting off of affairs. What are the eight? With the support of the non-killing of living beings, the killing of living beings is to be abandoned. With the support of taking only what is given, the taking of what is not given is to be abandoned. With the support of truthful speech, false speech is to be abandoned. With the support of unmalicious speech, malicious speech is to be abandoned. With the support of no rapacity and greed, rapacity and greed are to be abandoned. With the support of no spite and scolding, spite and scolding are to be abandoned. With the support of no anger and irritation, anger and irritation are to be abandoned. With the support of non-arrogance, arrogance is to be abandoned. These are the eight things, stated in brief without being expounded in detail, that lead to the cutting off of affairs in the Noble One’s Discipline.
MN 54

In simple terms: Precepts = refraining from actions.
My understanding is that the 5 Precepts not only helps us from creating negative karma (Kamma = intention + actions) but also helps us in cultivating a foundation to release our attachment to the 5 Skandhas. (Actions being external factors of attachments.)
To your question:
[My question is how fair or correct to narrow third precept to sexual misconduct or adultery?] <--- I do not see any bits of "unfair" or "incorrectness" to limit sexual misconduct to the third precept. No matter in Theravada or Mahayana, they have given numerous examples and conditions on what is considered as Sexual Misconduct and inappropriate actions. And the range of stuff is very wide.
[Does over-thinking violate third precept because its a misconduct of mind due to uncontrollable and misuse mind?] <--- No. The 5 precepts corresponds to actions only. Over-thinking is addressed through training the mind.
A method of training one's mind is to observe how they arise from the 3 poisons: Greed, Hate, Ignorance, and then apply respective antidotes (Generosity, Loving-kindness, and Wisdom). This training is obviously the core teachings of the Buddha, i.e. the 4 noble truths and 8 folds paths.

No it doesn't! And it's certainly not about doing something too much. It's about having a sexual relationship with someone else's wife, husband etc. Otherwise getting addicted to music, cakes, chocolates etc. would break the 3rd precept too.

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


text:
Should I do what I don't want to do?
Namo Buddhaya.
For my survival I work but I do not like the work. I am always thinking of escaping it. But if I escape from it then how will I eat ? It is my only source of income.
My question is : Should I do what I don't want to do especially if it is required for survival ?
Should I start clinging to my work ? Or Should I start loving my work?
If I should start loving my work then will it not automatically create clinging to the work ? In other words will I not miss the work when the work is gone ?

As my teacher explained, living with the feeling of wrongness is the very essence of samsara.
This constant feeling that you don't like your work, don't want to do it, and are forced to endure it only for survival - is NOT a normal condition. You should not force yourself to live like this year after year after year.
When you have inner conflict, you don't live your life authentically - and because of that non-authentic living you keep creating and maintaining situations that force you to maintain that inner conflict. This works like a vicious circle!
To quit this job in the hope of finding a better job is not an answer. My teacher called that "The Hunting-Dog Mind" (chasing after birds). Simply changing jobs will not help -- as long as you still have inner conflict, your mind will keep recreating pathological situations anywhere you go. Instead, the answer is to remove the inner conflict and learn to live authentic life, to be truly yourself. When you are truly yourself, the actions you choose, your reactions with people, etc. they all create your own path step by step - that may take you to a different job or connect you with entirely different people etc. And because every step of this path is made authentically and without inner conflict, it does not lead to new inner conflict - it leads to maintenance and development of inner peace and strength.
The main exercise to remove inner conflict is meditation. When we meditate we connect with our true nature, beyond attachments, thoughts, and judgements that we picked up during the course of our life. Of course, there is also the foundation of basic sila - five precepts, ten parami and so on - because we can't be authentic and spontaneous until we have eliminated major sources of conflict like the lust for material pleasures, for fame, for success, all kinds of overgeneralizations, identifications, side-taking, and hatred based on that, the defensiveness of the ego and so on. So the function of sila is to remove the gross source of conflict. And then the function of meditation is to remove subtle conflict.
Once we reduced inner conflict enough, we must start practicing authentic living in our daily life. This is a somewhat scary moment - because we should build up enough courage to be true to ourselves even if our new behavior can completely change our life situation. For example, we may end up quitting our family or our job. Or we will stay in our family and/or job, but we will stop tolerating certain things that we always hated, and will openly talk about them with other people (with wisdom and tact, assuming we worked on our sila and meditation). Or we may accept everything as is, because we may realize that our rebellion was only due to attachment to some mental image. Or we accept some things, confront others, and abandon third. In any case, authentic living means being true to ourselves and living without inner conflict.
This authentic living without inner conflict is understood by (some) Zen and Vajrayana schools to be the real essence of Buddhist liberation.

This is a beautiful answer. In order to appreciate it I had to reread it after reading about mindfulness and meditation.

You don't have to love or hate your work. If happiness arises while at work, be mindful of it and if aversion arises while at work, be mindful of that too.

Feeling happiness and bliss with a job is good for the mind, body, and heart.
However, to generate this, it is not needed to attach to it.
For example, the 1st jhana is filled with bliss, joy, and one-pointedness. However, this was not arrived at by attachment but by proper focus.
No job however is always happy. Therefore try to be aware of the suffering and maintain the equanimity and onepointedness, cultivating jhanic factors through your job or any activity for that matter.

I have the very same feeling. Also, I work in the IT field and there were many times I have felt like I should be living in a forest or at least doing a more human-related job like social work/ nursing/ caretaker, etc. However, recently I have realized that being patient while living in the moment is the key. For example, when I am at work and think of living in the forest was the problem. I am slowly training myself to stop that and live in the right moment having a neutral mind without worrying. If there is anything that should happen, it will happen at the right time...

Work is merely part of life, not all of it.
Recognize that this current society is ruled by people who designed money, material, etc...which is why we have to work for money to ensure a certain quality of life and 'keep the wheel rolling'. Remember, work is merely a tool for income to support life.
Instead of hating work, it is better to think of how you could spend your life and make it meaningful ! Through work and your job, it is merely your stepping stone to achieve a higher goal.
Putting Buddhism teachings aside, a common reason why people do not like their job is mostly because of the people and work nature. Think about what's causing the trouble, and make suitable solutions for it.

See your body as a donkey in service of you to attain a higher goal.
Yes, you have to work for survival, but the question is why are you surviving? are you surviving just to note the happiness and hate of the donkey? or are you surveying to approve the authenticity of the donkey's work?
You should survive to trade your way out of samsara. Don't waste too much time entertaining the donkey asking question what your donkey like or not like. Just use your body as you would use a donkey to fetch water.

Interesting. But is there any scriptural reference to the simile ?

You can consider mendicancy. But, one can also cling to mendicancy. What can I offer that cannot be clung to?

Abandoning that which is not mine will definitely lead to happiness. But that doesn't seem to be a practical advice as I am still not clearly comprehending the meaning of Anatta.

How can you know what route will lead to happiness when happiness is the manner in which you travel the route?

That sounds like https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/there-is-no-path-to-happiness-happiness-is-the-path/

@ChrisW Apologies. I never intended to imply I was quoting anyone. It is however, similar to the Thich Nhat Hanh quote, “There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way.”