text:
Is practising mindfulness ever a bad idea?
Are there ever situations where practicing mindfulness is not recommended during Buddhist practice. Could it ever have undesirable side effects or cause hindrances on the path. Or is it always the case that the more one practices mindfulness the better?
The motivation for this question comes from my own practice. I've really felt recently that mindfulness can have a negative effect on me. Perhaps swelling the ego and a lot of time contemplating what my emotions are, what I am doing and what I am thinking. This has ultimately seem very inward looking and counterproductive.
I don't really expect or want someone to diagnose my own particular quirks (you can have a go if you really want). But I do want to know if there is general advice from established teachers about the possible negative side effects of mindfulness practice and when it might be contraindicated.

Are you practicing mindfulness as described in the Satipattana sutta?

@KaveengaWijayasekara the practice is mindfulness of breathing so more anapanasati - well derived from it i guess

practically anapanasati is instructed to be practiced in a stationary sitting or perhaps even standing position. I would think it would be dangerous to practice it while say driving or walking, where other forms of mindfulness are required.

However suitably applied the diverse practice of Sati is said to be always beneficial unlike the other 4 faculties of saddha samadhi viriya panna which need to be applied at suitable times and balanced with each other.

It feels like this thing we call "Mindfulness" is just a fad of the modern world. Like a marketing buzzword. It's just another mental concept that I personally felt needs to be thrown in the garbage bin. The less concepts we create the better it is for peace of mind. Let it be whatever it is.

Yes, practicing mindfulness can be a bad idea.
When one practices mindfulness, he opens his eyes and comes to see more and more things that were previously unnoticed. That is the reason why beginners tend to think "When I sit on a cushion, there's a fireworks of thoughts, images, etc. coming to my mind. It seems like an endless waterfall of thoughts, etc.". This is a mistaken conception, though, since these "fireworks" were actually already present, but merely unnoticed. Thus, cultivating mindfulness (along with vigilance) helps one understand better what delusions are the master of him. He also comes to feel that he is enslaved by these afflictions (which is a necessary step in Dharma practice, since it leads to generate the wish to abandon afflictions, recognizing them as the origins of suffering).
All this is painful and stirs the mind quiet a lot. Through cultivating mindfulness, we exhume "demons" that we might not be able to face yet, or to understand. We might shed the light on things we are not able to look at yet. That is one of the reason it is necessary to rely to a teacher who gives you practical (and boring) exercises and with whom you have interview every so often. Moreover, opening one's eyes is necessary but not sufficient. We have to change what we pay attention to and the way we pay attention to them (these are usually part of the exercises). This is difficult because karma drives us to pay attention to always the same things that feed our deluded mind more and more. In addition to relying on a teacher, one must study, because by way of studying the teachings of the Buddha, you will come to know what to pay attention to, where to look, and how.

Thanks you very much for this answer. It feels pertinent as (for various reasons) I have stopped attending my local Buddhist centre and thus have no current contact with anyone who would fit the description of 'teacher'. So the necessity for that kind of regular contact is a welcome reminder. Thank you

Mindfulness isn't about self-diagnosis but it can easily lead to self-criticism if one isn't careful.
It is about being present and objectively being aware of what it is without judgment.
This is rarely a bad thing.
Even if you are out partying, you can be mindful of your wacky dance moves and so long as you do this correctly (without judgment) it will not necessarily interfere with your ability to have a good time.
Even with the most worldly examples, everything is in its right place when mindfulness is practiced correctly: making love, playing video games, eating, etc. It can be nice to stop even in the midst of enjoyment to be detachedly mindful... it often produces great insights.
Moresoover, the non-worldly activities are helped through mindfulness as well.
The problem is when people use mindfulness to stack thoughts on top of thoughts due to self-judgment. Mindfulness is not about that.
If one enters a state where one cannot stop one's thoughts and one cannot calm oneself, one should practice samatha not vipassana (mindfulness)... or just try to force oneself to go to sleep.
Proper mindfulness always leads to an effective course of action but one should always hold more important an attitude of self-acceptance and non-attachment as the heart of mindfulness.

I really love this core idea --  "one should always hold more important an attitude of self-acceptance and non-attachment as the heart of mindfulness"

for others who are also new to these terms -- [samatha vs vipassana] http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/3547/what-exactly-differentiates-vipassana-from-samatha-meditation

from above link: "samatha means tranquility - it is a necessary aspect of any wholesome meditative practice."

"vipassana means seeing clearly or in a special way - it is a quality specific to Buddhist meditative practice."

Look up satta bojjhaṅgā or 7 Factors of Enlightenment.
From Aggi Sutta, example of the wrong time  to cultivate 3 of 7 Factors of Enlightenment (tranquillity, concentration, equanimity)

At such times, monks, as the mind is sluggish, that is the wrong time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of tranquillity, the enlightenment-factor of concentration, the enlightenment-factor of equanimity. What is the reason? A sluggish mind is hard to arouse by these factors.

“But mindfulness, bhikkhus, I say is always useful.”
  -- SN 43.56

Sadhu! Excellent correction here.


text:
Where can I learn more about 孔明點將?
A relative of mine did some kind of praying ritual in front of a Buddha where she had a canister of 100 or so sticks, and on each stick there is a Chinese number from 1 to 100.  My relative started shaking the canister and eventually stick number 9 fell out.  My relative and I both do not speak or write chinese.  But apparently, she is supposed to read about 孔明點將, which is related to stick number 9.
Where can I get an English description/story of stick 9 孔明點將 ?
Also, we do not know anything about Buddhism. So if you can recommend any brief literature that might help with the context of stick 9 孔明點將 , that would be great.

Google translates it as "Ming points"

@SankhaKulathantille there's supposed to be a whole story behind it. The google translator and chrome translator does a really poor job explaining and giving context.

I found the translation here:
http://accesschinese.com/divination/guanyin/your-lot.php?tile=9
Now that I read it, I don't think it has anything to do with Buddhism

This is essentially from a Chinese divination ritual, in many Chinese shrines and temples, believers often have personal questions needing answers from the divine and one 'solution' to getting an answer is to perform a 'divination ceremony' through random chances by shaking a canister of sticks until one falls out. Each one is labeled with a number and you find your corresponding slip of message. (Similar divination rituals such as the I Ching utilize chance for the same purpose). The canister one is essentially a simple version of that. Basically 'Buddhist' fortune cookies.
As we can see, the messages found in these are generally wisdom that are applicable across a whole range of situations, and therefore it is essentially a way of self reflection.
From John's link:
"Yield not to greed and hate; cast them aside. Let conscience be your only guide. Your heart will be open, pure, sublime and bright. Just like the full moon that shines high in the sky."
So this is essentially a form of skillful means to preach the message of Buddhism to the simple often desperate masses.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does the Maha Parinirvana Sutra acknowledge the existence of eternal spirit/soul?
The Buddhist scholar Sallile King has the following interpretation made from the Mahayana Maha PariNirvana Sutra:

[I]t is obvious that the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not consider it impossible for a Buddhist to affirm an atman provided it is clear what the correct understanding of this concept is, and indeed the sutra clearly sees certain advantages in doing so.

What I basically want to know is in the context of mindfulness meditation (anapanasati): Is it okay to have the usual hindu belief in eternal aatman for the practice of anapanasati, or is it necessary to have the buddhist belief in non-existence of aatman in order to practice anapanasati?

The second part in the posting below attempts to give an answer to your question stated in the title; the second question I can only comment with subjective view in the first part

1) I think there is no "restriction" or prerequisite (like for instance a system of permits) for mindfulness-meditation. Just try and see how far you come.
However, the Buddha said, (and it is quite reasonable for me) that for the full liberation from the attachments to emotions and mental figurations, and for the true emancipation from (and eradication of) tanha , the illusion of an inherent, eternal, unchangeable Self atma has necessarily to be dissolved.

2) I copy&paste some excerpt from the Mahayana-Mahaparinirvana-Sutra (taken from links found at Dr. Tony Page's site). The following are the last couple of paragraphs from the third chapter.
I find it a bit strange to say the least, for instance that a man like we know it as the Buddha from the palicanon comes to be a doctor to "subdue the tirthikas" ...
If I understand that excerpt correctly, then it is suggested, that the concept of no-self, of "an-atman" is only teached in the framework of concurrence of the "doctors" and "... because of this,(...)" and it is continued, that it had also been said, that there is a self, namely "... it is not that they [the dharma/the phenomena] are completely devoid of a self".
The text is suggesting, that the Buddha did not teach the non-existence of the self simply because of the non-existence (what would be the natural assumption) but because of didactical reasons (and actually means something else)!
Below now the excerpt, emphasis added by me: source

Chapter 3
   (... final paragraphs)
"Know, O you Bhiksus!
The same is the case with the Tathagata, the Alms-deserving, the All-Enlightened-One, the Unsurpassed Best Trainer, the Teacher-of-Heaven-and-Earth, the Buddha-World-Honoured One. He comes as a great Doctor and subdues all tirthikas and bad doctors. In the presence of kings and all people, he says: "I shall become the King of doctors and subdue tirthikas."
Thus we say: "There is no self, no man, no being, no life, no nurturing, no knowing, none that does, and none that receives."
O Bhiksus! Know that what the tirthikas say is like the case of a worm that eats upon [a pie-ce of] wood, from which, by chance, there appears what looks like a letter.
Because of this , the Tathagata teaches and says no-self.
This is to adjust beings and because he is aware of the occasion. Such non-self is, as occasion arises, spoken of, and it is [also] said that there is the Self.
This is as in the case of the learned Doctor, who knows well the medicinal and non-medicinal qualities of milk. It is not as with common mortals, who might measure the size of their own self. Common mortals and the ignorant may measure the size of their own self and say, 'It is like the size of a thumb, like a mustard seed, or like the size of a mote.'
When the Tathagata speaks of Self, in no case are things thus.
That is why he says:
'All things have no Self.'
Even though he has said that all phenomena [dharmas] are devoid of the Self, it is not that they are completely/ truly devoid of the Self.
What is this Self? Any phenomenon [dharma] that is true [satya], real [tattva], eternal [ni-tya], sovereign/ autonomous/ self-governing [aisvarya], and whose ground/ foundation is un-changing [asraya-aviparinama], is termed 'the Self' [atman].
This is as in the case of the great Doctor who well understands the milk medicine.
The same is the case with the Tathagata.
For the sake of beings, he says "there is the Self in all things"
O you the four classes! Learn Dharma thus!"

hmmm very good :) I like this answer

@AndreiVolkov - thank you very much :) I had some years ago a one-or two-week controversy in the german buddhist newsgroup where I have first time met the MPNS and that controversy immediately fell deeply into my heart. --- So it is nice to see even some late reflection of that, and moreover a positive one...

The core practise of anapanasati is defined as follows:

"the monk on that occasion remains...ardent, alert & mindful —
  putting aside greed (liking) & distress (disliking) with reference to the world."

Therefore, giving up positive & negative judgments does not require giving up belief in a 'self', 'soul' or 'aatman'.
Just make the mind non-judgmental & let it naturally connect with the breathing. When anapanasati has been well-developed like this, the mind will eventually become deeply peaceful, radiant, concentrated & free (and in this deep samadhi, insight into anatta may occur, naturally, by itself).
Buddhism is not about 'belief' or 'blind faith', including blind faith in 'anatta'. The Buddha taught the path begins with giving up craving, which is the condition for samadhi to develop.
The Buddha taught:

For a person whose mind is concentrated, there is no need for an act
  of will, 'May I know & see things as they actually are.' It is in the
  nature of things that a person whose mind is concentrated knows & sees
  things as they actually are.
Cetana
  Sutta

I don't think that that would be considered a valid interpretation because selflessness is one of the three marks of existence and therefore stating that any phenomenon had an enduring self-nature would be something to investigate more deeply and with an open-mind.
That said, we all have Buddha Nature, which is precisely what the maha pari nirvana sutras speak of because sentience in its most natural and un-inhibited form is actually pure enlightened nature in manifestation and pure manifestation in nature.  it is not something that is easily understood because it completely challenges the entire notion of a separate self that is the benefactor of our experiences.
that is to say, it is not that we lack autonomy -- we have the ability to steer our ship, and as it is stated in many places with epithets such as "mind over matter" or in the opening verses of the Dhammapada, the mind is the king.  Mind is the fore-runner of all phenomena.  In this way, we can talk about an "enduring substance" but it would be folly to assume that we could actually "grasp" onto it or hold it still for a second, because this is actually the Experience and not the Object of experience, as it were.
So consider that we all have Buddha Nature, that there are countless Buddhas actually walking around among us, and that our whole experience is actually a continuous process of enlightenment, however it is very important to share knowlege, honor teachers, and grow together because this trip is far more far out than any individual aspect could understand, so in short I simply want to add that mind is indestructible and continues forever, however it is not a "soul" because a soul would have some sort of limitations obscuring omniscience.  Buddha Nature is the uninhibited mind in manifestation and can only be realized through a mind founded upon the notion of renunciation, because belief (firm belief) in the notion of an enduring existence or situation is precisely what causes the evolving cosmos cramps.  "They are growing pains" is something some zen masters say, and knowing life situations in this way can be truly helpful and liberating.
So during anapanasati meditation, the whole focus is the breathing, single-pointed focus on the rhythm of breathing, it's a dynamic flowing event stream, so try and stick with it.  Ideally you start with a support, and the breath is wonderful because the breath is nonconceptual -- it is something you can directly feel and experience without labeling it that or this.
Please ask any questions, I am happy to share what I have learned so far on this path.  May this help.

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


text:
Heaven and Hell in Buddhism
I need to understand some concept about Buddhism.
Does Buddhists believe on after live of Paradise and Hell? What are the belief of Buddhists regarding this?

I think the important thing is that these words describe a state of mind. Everything beyond is just concept (Like there is no such thing as 'this life' in ultimate reality). Because actually you don't know what happens when you die.

Yes, there are 31 realms of existences.
From top to bottom:

4 immaterial realms
16 fine material realms
6 heavens
human realm
Asura hell
ghost hell
animal hell
Niraya(hells of unimaginable suffering)

Life spans of each realm varies, but there are no ever lasting places of existence. Yes, you will keep being born in these places again and again according to your Karma, every time you die, until you attain Nibbana and end the process.

So according to your reply I understood, there are heaven and hell. We will keep being born in these place again and again. So even If I go to heaven, I will die there and born again. Is it?

Correct! But there are many heavens and hells. Not just one. Once your life span runs out or if it's cut short, you will die and be born again

so, once someone born in a heaven, he will enjoy the life. As long as there are no sin in the heaven, he will keep being born in heaven until nibana right?

No! Gods do commit sins, just like humans. And they can easily become ignorant due to long life and refined pleasures. It's easy for them to fall to lower realms. In comparison, It's harder for hell beings to come up as the natural tendency of most beings is to do wrong.

Then the God would born in the earth or hell if he commits sin?

Yes, if the sin is strong enough to cut off his life, he will be born in a hell. There are some gods who die, just because they got angry. You can't become a human with a sin. A good Karma should come forward to give a human life.

that's weired !!

Some Buddhist scriptures state by doing good you can go to heaven & by doing evil you can go to hell.
Also, if you love the Buddha, you can go to heaven.

'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech &
  mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions
  under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body,
  after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad
  destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were
  endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile
  noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the
  influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death,
  have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.'
Bhaya-bherava Sutta

~~~

The liar goes to hell; also he who, having done (wrong), says, "I did not do it." Men of base actions both, on departing they share the
  same destiny in the other world.
There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in hell because of their
  evil deeds.
It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the
  people.
Four misfortunes befall the reckless man who consorts with another's wife: acquisition of demerit, disturbed sleep, ill-repute
  and rebirth in hell.

Nirayavagga: Hell

~~~

Monks, in this Teaching that is so well proclaimed by me & is plain, open, explicit & free of patchwork, those who have simply
  faith in me, simply love for me, are all destined for heaven.

Alagaddupama Sutta

There are different realms described but I don't think it needs to be so complicated. The point is that you create your own hell or your own heaven, for example; if you hit your head against a wall on purpose, would you not be in pain? Would this be hell? Another example; if you lie and cheat, people you have hurt may come after you and hurt you, wouldn't this be hell?
Alternative, if you are careful you can avoid hitting your head, wouldn't that be great? And if you don't lie and cheat, then you don't need to worry about people taking revenge, wouldn't not having to worry about anything be heaven?
You create your own reality, even right now in this lifetime.


text:
Animals and humans in Science vs. Buddhism
About the doctrine of the 31 realms of existence. I have a few questions, because science, especially the theory of evolution, makes a good argument for categorizing humans as animals.

Is this list of 31 realms static or can single realms vanish? Because due to science we know that this earth won't last forever. This would mean, that there are no animals or humans anymore, unless a similar species lives on another planet somewhere in this universe (which is very, very, very unlikely if you consider the set of condition it took of several billion years to evolve humans).
The theory of evolution proofs, that humans have evolved from animals and just use different techniques for surviving as every other species as well. So knowing that there was a time of transition, where there only existed primordial human beings, how could you at that time say if it was a human or an animal? How can you cross that line between one species (humans) and every other one? Because it is sure, that in the next few 100.000 years humans will have evolved to a totally different species according to the conditions in the environment.

So how should you understand this classification of beings. Is it just a provisional and time-dependent concept? Or is it only related to the degree of suffering, which predominate each realm?
I know on this topic are already many questions. But none of these related to this particular question. So please don't tag as duplicate.

Some Buddhists regard the realms of existence as psychological states of people. For example, if you are moral & humane, you have a 'human' existence. If you act impulsively, without self-control, without reasoned reflection, & particularly without moral conscience & with violence, your state of mind is like an 'animal'.
The following quotes from the scriptures support this view. Particularly, the quote at the bottom states an 'animal', by realising the Four Noble Truths, can be reborn as 'human', such as occurred to Angulimala  (the former mass murderer who became a fully enlightened monk), as shown in the video link at the bottom.

Monks, these two bright qualities guard the world. Which two?
  Conscience & concern. If these two bright qualities did not guard the
  world, there would be no recognition of 'mother' here, no recognition
  of 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,' 'teacher's wife,' or 'wife of
  those who deserve respect.' The world would be immersed in
  promiscuity, like rams with goats, roosters with pigs or dogs with
  jackals. But because these two bright qualities guard the world, there
  is recognition of 'mother,' 'mother's sister,' 'uncle's wife,'
  'teacher's wife,' & 'wife of those who deserve respect.'"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.009.than.html

~~~~

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in
  Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time
  a large number of monks, after the meal, on returning from their alms
  round, had gathered at the meeting hall and were engaged in many kinds
  of bestial topics (tiracchānakathaṃ) of conversation: conversation
  about kings, robbers, & ministers of state; armies, alarms, & battles;
  food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents; relatives;
  vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women & heroes;
  the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales of
  diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether
  things exist or not.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.069.than.html

~~~~

Few are the beings who, on passing away from the animal realm, are
  reborn among human beings or gods. But far more numerous are reborn is
  hell. For what reason? They have not seen the Four Noble Truths.
SN 56.123 (no link)

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i49oX1Shxf4

Buddhism doesn't subscribe to the view that humans evolved from animals.

The theory of evolution proofs, that humans have evolved from animals

No, it doesn't. It's just a theory with some supporting evidence.

Is this list of 31 realms static or can single realms vanish?

No conditioned phenomena is static. This time, up to 14 realms will be destroyed by fire at the end of the aeon(Kalpa). Most of the beings are born in higher Brahma realms at the time. Those who don't make it(due to nihilistic views) will be born in a hell that is out of this world system.

unless a similar species lives on another planet somewhere in this
  universe (which is very, very, very unlikely...

No, it is very likely, even scientifically speaking, to have similar living conditions elsewhere in the universe. In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way, 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.

How can you cross that line between one species (humans) and every
  other one? Because it is sure, that in the next few 100.000 years
  humans will have evolved

According to Buddhism, there's no crossing of the line between species, unless you mean something like a human dying and being born as an animal. Also, humans are devolving during this period of the cosmic timeline. Not evolving.

I see your point about the possibility of living beings on other planets in the universe. But evolution can't be disproved. There are many homologies (anatomically and genetically), which proof the existence of a same origin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28biology%29).

That is supporting evidence based on scientific research. Not proof. :)

Nevertheless, there is no reason to believe that this theory isn't true.

There are many. ex: The huge intelligence gap between animals and humans. The capacity for art. The potential for spiritual growth etc. The problem with science is that it's too materialistic. They completely ignore the mental aspect of the universe.

Just because Sakyamuni Buddha didn't say anything about evolution doesn't mean there wasn't evolution.. Or maybe there wasn't evolution.. Maybe our state of consciousness is around the animals and the humans.. We cannot talk about something we haven't realized to be true. IMHO, If we talk about such things, it's called "Belief" or just a "Point Of View". I don't know if this is Nihilism ;)

@GokulNC The Agganna Sutta clearly says that humans originated from the Brahmas from Abhassara realm. So you have to pick one in this case. Buddhism or Science :)

Some Buddhists take the stance that the mind is the driving force behind evolution and the appearances of different species (and beings).

Dalai Lama dismisses the element of randomness in the theory of
  evolution based on natural selection:[5] From the Buddhist's
  perspective, the idea of these mutations being random events is deeply
  unsatisfying for a theory that purports to explain the origin of life.
  Lopez elaborates that the process of Rebirth (into any of a large
  number of states of being including the human, any kind of animal and
  several types of supernatural being) is conditioned by karma (action
  of consciousness), which explains Dalai Lama's view.[6]

The idea of the stackexchange-fora is to put questions as questions and not hidden in answers. So why not move the text of your inside-questions into a new explicite one?


text:
Mindfulness with Pride, Anger, Hatred
I've recently tried doing a more open form of meditation where I put the least amount of alteration on what I experience, therefore letting everything arise non-judgmentally. However, I realize some problems I'm experiencing with this.

I'm still debating or trying to understand whether one should experience fully all emotions and states or whether one should apply antidotes to certain states when they arise. Generally speaking, which is the case? Which would correspond to being fully mindful?
I am having extreme difficulty with anger and pride when they arise, as when they do, I seem to be unable to keep a compassionate attitude. Basically these states seem to change my mood and outlook when they occur, and I have difficulty experiencing them without doing this.
Lastly, I'm unsure whether this is related as well but I noticed I have a much easier time doing mindfulness when I'm basically curious and aware of everything arising rather than re-focusing on the breath. Any ideas on that topic?

Thank you for any answer relative to any of these questions or all of these questions together.

1-I'm still debating or trying to understand whether one should experience fully all emotions and states or whether one should apply antidotes to certain states when they arise. Generally speaking, which is the case? Which would correspond to being fully mindful?
You can try to experience fully all emotions and states as you apply an antidote. You wouldn't have to stop being mindful in order to do this other "antedote" practice, you can be mindful of the other practice too. When we "experience fully all emotions and states" moment by moment, that is mindfulness.
2-I am having extreme difficulty with anger and pride when they arise, as when they do, I seem to be unable to keep a compassionate attitude. Basically these states seem to change my mood and outlook when they occur, and I have difficulty experiencing them without doing this.
You can be compassionate towards yourself as you are mindful of your reactions to attempting to be compassionate to yourself. If you see you are suffering, tell yourself "it's okay". Be nurturing to yourself and be mindful of your reactions to your own compassion being aimed at you. Maybe you  dont feel your worthy of compassion grom yourself. Then tell yourself "Its Okay".
3-Lastly, I'm unsure whether this is related as well but I noticed I have a much easier time doing mindfulness when I'm basically curious and aware of everything arising rather than re-focusing on the breath. Any ideas on that topic?
Always go back to the breath. This is what grounds the practice and facilitates peace. The breath gives the practice a home.
You will grow more and more weary of everything arising, if you are practicing correctly.

How you practise is your choice.
In formal Buddhism, having 'right mindfulness' means to apply antidotes to certain unskilful states when they arise. This is described in the 6th factor of the Noble Eightfold Path (Right Effort) and in suttas such as the Dvedhavitakka Sutta.
However, this can cause stress if the unskilful states are powerful. Therefore, sometimes we must simply be patient with unskilful states until they subside or until we learn the lesson we need to learn from them.

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

I'm still debating or trying to understand whether one should experience fully all emotions and states or whether one should apply antidotes to certain states when they arise. Generally speaking, which is the case? Which would correspond to being fully mindful?

Both can be done fully mindful. If you experience fully all emotions, you can be mindful during that experience. If you apply antidotes to certain states when they arise, you can be mindful during these experiences. Just remember, when you note an emotion/feeling/thought/etc., let go of it and return to your meditation object (in your case the breath). Be mindful of "things" that distract you away from the meditation object, so that whenever you notice that your mind wandered away from the meditation object, return back to it and stay with it.

I am having extreme difficulty with anger and pride when they arise, as when they do, I seem to be unable to keep a compassionate attitude. Basically these states seem to change my mood and outlook when they occur, and I have difficulty experiencing them without doing this.

If you're having difficulties with anger and pride, stop the arising of anger and pride. How? Observe as precisely as you can how anger and pride arise. If you'll observe precisely enough, you'll see the cause of both. Remove the cause, and both will be removed. In order to be able to see the cause, you must train your mind until you reach a point where you can be focused on your meditation object (in your case the breath) without interruptions.

Lastly, I'm unsure whether this is related as well but I noticed I have a much easier time doing mindfulness when I'm basically curious and aware of everything arising rather than re-focusing on the breath. Any ideas on that topic?

Why do you have a much easier time doing mindfulness when you're curious and aware of everything arising? What bothers you when you're re-focusing on the breath? Answer it yourself and you'll know what you should work on.
Nonetheless, when you see something arising, you should note it, and then let go of it by re-focusing back on the breath. Note and let go by going back to your object of meditation (in your case the breath). You should train your mind like that. With practice, you'll be able to be focused on the breath without interruptions. You'll need this level of concentration later to see the main cause of phenomena arising in your mind (in your case, for example, anger and pride).


text:
Secular Motivation
I am new here and I would like some help with the issue of motivation.
I am a 25 years old student in engineering in his last semester at university. I have been facing the problem that whenever I study, it becomes a huge source of stress.
I have been a buddhist and meditating for the past 4 months now and I like of what the practice has done to me and my relationship with my parents and with people in general. The motivation of being in the path for the benefit of all beings really resonates with me and it really helps me, but I can't mirror that motivation to my studies. Secular knowledge used to be such a motivation for me when I was young and it has been missing for such a long time now. Now the only thing that motivates me is when I feel that I will be actively helping people, but I feel like I can't abandon my current state of life and just decide to do something else than getting my degree and pursuing something related to it.
I don't know if it is clear, but I can study for a few periods of time (not enough for my course), but studying gets me sort of all pumped up. I get all this energy flowing, restlessness. I feel like I have all this attachment maybe to getting high degrees or to this illusion that I will only be happy if I am able to graduate now, or that my parents and people will like me better if I show that I know more, or if I have all this knowledge accumulated I will be more successful. It is clear to me that it was much stronger when I started meditating that it is now. It seems is obvious to me by my previous statements that studying has a lot of issues attached to it.  :teehee:
I feel like in the past months buddhism has helped me let go of a lot of my illusions and that helps me get on with my day without getting so frustrated, but I still have this issue. Do you guys think this anxiety related to studying will reduce after more months of practice? Actually, I know by the words of the Buddha that it will, but do you have any advice in regards to it?
I hope I made sense writing in english beacuse I am from Brazil.
Thank you!!!

Welcome Bruno.
In the original Buddhist scriptures, it is reported the Buddha gave many teachings about livelihood, including Right Livelihood in the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha encouraged lay or secular people to study & be proficient in earning a living.
One meaning of the Indian word 'dharma' is 'duty'. From a Buddhist perspective, education is less about personal achievement & more about performing personal 'duty' because each person must earn a living so they can eat food & buy shelter. Education is similar to the need to breathe.
You only have one semester to finish your degree and your old 'attachment' & your new 'aversion' are hindrances to your concentration.
If you change your view and simply see completing your education as a personal 'duty'; then your concentration will be more pure.
'Secular knowledge' in relation to livelihood is something considered very valuable from a Buddhist perspective. Most famous Western Buddhist monks completed their university degrees when they were secular students.
When I was at university, I did not enjoy what I was studying but I finished. I never ever worked in the specialty I studied but the degree has helped me get work because completing a degree is a sign (to employers) you are intelligent & have discipline.
My opinion is to finish this semester first. Be in the present moment. Focus on today only & notice how yesterday has now passed. Study, one day at time, not thinking about tomorrow. Leave thinking about what you would love to do to a later time.

"To reside in a suitable locality, to have performed meritorious actions in the past, and to set oneself in the right direction — this
  is the highest blessing.
"Vast learning, skill in handicrafts, well grounded in discipline and pleasant speech — this is the highest blessing.
"To support one's father and mother; to cherish one's wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupations — this is the
  highest blessing.

Maha-mangala Sutta

~~~

You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the
  future. What is past  is left behind. The future  is as yet unreached.
  Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there,
       right there. Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop the heart.
Bhaddekaratta Sutta


text:
Importance of Posture in Meditation
I'm curious to know: how important is posture during meditation? Could someone meditate on public transport, or while walking in different places? Is there a difference in the necessity of posture between a beginner and an advanced practitioner?

To answer your question, yes one can meditate anytime anywhere.  The following might be far reaching example, however,  during Buddha's time Ven. Maha Kassapa was an expert in meditation.  As a matter of fact, he was the only person Buddha compared himself to be equal in the ability to enter Jhana at any time any posture.

Posture is extremely important however sitting cross-legged is not important. What is important is having a naturally erect spine so the mind is alert & the breathing can flow unrestricted.
When sitting in public transport, sit upright, close your eyes & meditate. Completely let go of any self-consciousness that other people are watching you & know what you are doing. Relax & enjoy.
As for walking meditation, this is something monks do a lot. You should try to learn how to do walking meditation (but not in a busy or dangerous place, such as when crossing a busy street in the city).


text:
Are the positive qualities of enlightenment ultimate or conventional realities?
Are the positive qualities of enlightenment ultimate or conventional realities?
These are

permanence, bliss, personality, purity.

If they are ultimately the case, can they be directly seen?

Do you mean "are they ultimate truths?" or do you mean "do they exist ultimately?"

Enlightened qualities are ultimate. One's mind is innately ultimate ie. enlightened.
A highly achieved buddhist practitioner often likens the enlightened mind with the clear blue sky.
Often clouds (defilements) obscure the clear blue sky and the clear sky cannot be seen. In other words, without the clouds, the clear blue sky (the ultimate) can be seen.

'Ultimate realities' (paramattha dhamma) in original Pali Buddhism means things that are always true. For example, that for suffering to occur, there must be craving & attachment as causes, is an ultimate reality. Suffering cannot occur without craving & attachment.
Conversely, the general truth that good karma leads to good results & bad karma leads to bad results is not an ultimate reality because this is not always the case. For example, good karma (eg. loving one's family) had lead to suffering (eg. if your family die) & bad karma (eg. hurting another person) can lead to enlightenment (since one learns to never perform that action again).
Convention realities can also refer to ideas such as 'man', 'woman', 'hot', 'cold', 'American', 'Chinese', etc, which are not always 100% or inherently true or fixed.
Therefore, full enlightenment (rather than partial enlightenment) is always permanent, blissful & pure for the entire lifetime of an enlightened being. This is an ultimate truth, which, naturally, can be directly seen by the fully enlightened being.
As for 'personality' or 'self', this is not an ultimate reality in Buddhism.
However, if 'personality' is taken to mean 'character' or 'mental qualities', yes, the virtuous & enlightened character of a fully enlightened being will have a permanent quality.
When the Buddha was old, it is reported he said:

I am now old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life and come to the last stage: my years have turned eighty... Sariputta, even if you
  have to carry me about on a bed, still there will be no change in the
  lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html

in what way is full enlightenment not a self if it is permanent?

why would enlightenment be a 'self'? since when was 'permanence' as 'self'? imagine if the universe or space was permanent? would the universe or space be a 'self'? the word 'self' refers to ideas of "I", "me" & "mine". enlightenment, nirvana, space, the universe, a block of long lasting concrete, do not have any ideas of "I", "me" & "mine". there was once an Indian logician named Nargajuna, who equated 'sunnata' with 'conditionality'. Nargajuna was not the Buddha. The Buddha was not Nargajuna. The Buddha taught nirvana was unconditioned, permanent & not-self.

i dunno, all those terms (i me and mine) sound like totally viable conventional designators, which, if picking out something permanent, would be very much like a "self". so, those terms, as much as what they designate, seem like they break down under scrutiny, at least without supporting them with a further ontological quality, like permanence

What you are posting is not related to Buddhism, which is about suffering & the end of suffering. The unconditioned state, empty of craving & self-view, is permanent but is not a 'self'. How can something, 100% devoid of 'self', be a 'self'? 'Not-self' is not actually dependent on impermanence. The physical body has no self in it. The physical body, when seen as merely the physical body, is empty of self. That is why it was taught 'form is void; void is form'. Impermanence may demonstrate  'not-self' but this is just a beginners introduction. The only self that exists is a mental construction.

'Ontological' is a term from Western philosophy. It is unrelated to Buddhism. The Buddha taught that talk about whether 'things exist or not' is 'animal talk'. Nargajuna talked about whether things exist or not, which is not Buddhism, such as claiming a tree or dog has no inherent existence. The Buddha did not care about whether trees exist or not. The Buddha was only concerned with not clinging to a tree as 'me' & 'mine'. The Buddha was also concerned with what is permanent happiness (Nirvana).

to say that the Nagarjuna did not teach buddhism is just wrong

dare i ask where the buddha says that talking about existence is "animal talk"? there are a number of suttas where he uses that term, including in the discussion of self (it does not exist). it could be that these are basic or introductory discourses, but that doesn't mean they're not true. you seem to be reducing buddhism to ethics and liberation, i find that misleading

it seems true that buddhism also says how things are, e.g. in the theory of dependent origination. it does make sense, i think, to ask what "self" means, beyond the harm of attachment

really no point in continuing this discussion since Buddha & Nargajuna are very different. The Buddha was concerned with the existence of the self-delusion but not concerned with the existence of the planet earth. Buddha used the term 'dependent origination' to refer to 12 conditions leading to suffering where as Nargajuna used dependent origination to describe how 2 parts oxygen 1 part hydrogen make water.

ok, millions of buddhists are practicing a fake religion

@user3293056 You can certainly ask what 'self' means, but if you are attached to a particular answer or type of answer, it becomes a "vexing question". You can experience this for yourself. Ultimately, you have to find and evaluate your own answers. No one else can provide them to you ready-made.


text:
Meditation and Materialism
Many people try to approach meditation and Buddhism from a scientific materialist perspective, despite the fact that Buddhism makes explicit claims about the after life, and despite the fact that Buddhism explicitly state that it is a Wrong View to believe in materialist Annihilation.
I posted the following questions rhetorically as part of an answer to another question, but it was suggested to be moved to its own question:
So, are there any materialist explanations to the following?

Why is meditation pleasurable and helpful in a materialist world
that is run based on natural selection?
How is the possibility of experiencing states of joy and peace and
realizations through meditation possible through an evolutionary
model?
What evolutionary advantage would make the desire to end greed,
anger and selflessness such the desire to become a monastic (not
reproducing and passing on your genes) occur?

What are the materialist claims by other philosophies with regards to meditation that you have seen? For example: (Evolutionary psychology) people are driven to help others because it enhance group survival. According to the same thinking though, people are also jerks because it enhance their own survival.
What are the counter arguments from Buddhism to these claims?

Can someone please explain why this post got down voted? I didn't even want to ask this question but someone suggest that I should.

I voted it down because, in my opinion, it is not skillful for Buddhists to behave like Christians and argue against science using unverifiable beliefs (such as reincarnation or God).

But, I wasn't arguing against science though, I am interested in whether anyone have seen the relevant arguments posited by scientists/ atheists to explain these phenomena, and how should Buddhists react to these claims? What if someone were to say "it's all in your head"?
There are plenty of 'evolutionary psychology' thrown about to explain human greed, anger, lust and folly. I am interested to know if they have made any scientific claims with regards to human virtue specifically with regards to meditation.

Upvoted because you took it from some answer to make a new question - that's nice practice in stackexchange :-)

I haven't had the time to write answers or questions lately, but I would recommend someone referencing the book, "Buddha Brain" by Rick Hanson in their explanation. Also, is it possible to achieve enlightenment in materialism if they deny the existence of a self-observer/awareness? I understand it doesn't negate the possibility of enlightenment, but according to Buddhist doctrine awareness is essential for enlightenment to take place. Is it contradicting to hold both views?

"I didn't even want to ask this question" - please don't feel obliged to ask questions you don't want to ask. Some people try to be sensitive to what's the motive for a question, and would find it a chore to answer questions for which you don't really need an answer.

Why is meditation pleasurable and helpful in a materialist world
  that is run based on natural selection?

Don't know; but it's just what is pleasing me. Also it helps to organize my view of things to the more relaxed one. Evolutionary benefit ? Why not...

How is the possibility of experiencing states of joy and peace and
  realizations through meditation possible through an evolutionary
  model?

We seem not to be surprised, that, for instance, skiing is joyful and motion/sports is making peaceful in general, according to the doctors. Is skiing meaningful through an evolutionary model? (I'm taking your terms without really wanting to use that language & concept - but just for the moment...)

What evolutionary advantage would make the desire to end greed,
  anger and selflessness such the desire to become a monastic (not
  reproducing and passing on your genes) occur?

Training the ability for selflessness, peace and compassion is very likely advantaguous for a (socially organized) species, even if it looks sometimes disadvantaguous for an individuum. And - if I'm relaxed not to run blindly and hysteric for reproduction, that's in a materialistic view surely benefitial for me (and as well for possible reproduction-partners ... ;-) ).
In short: emancipation from the totalitaristic greedyness of the "evolutionary paradigm" is -in my view- a step forward in the evolution of human kind (and that is also the background for answering this here in a buddhism-forum: the teaching of the Buddha can be understood as teaching for emancipation from greeds ("tanha") attachments and illusions.)

Thanks, it always seem that the explanation for any behavior in evolutionary psychology is concluded as being beneficial for survival (evolutionary fitness). Even playful behavior are said to be about conflict resolution, attract mates, learning, build survival skills etc. Everything is about greed and survival in some form.
That is not what Buddhism teaches however. The mental and moral viewpoint from Buddhism is a far cry from survival and reproduction only mantra of evolutionary psychology.

The observation "everything is about greed and survival" is a formulation of what -possibly mentally defective- observers have seen. Human culture, intellectualism, reflection and self-reflection of behave and possible outcomes of behave should -in the same perspective- be an in-between result of evolution itself: whether it is only beneficial or also dysfunctional must be found out later/in the current process. A -meanwhile- somehow commonplace is a report of some couple in my friends who wanted "reproducing" This did not work until they left out their determination. ...

If one likes to think only materialistic - even then the Buddhas teachings for emancipation from unwholesome mental states and fabrications might be seen as useful. The buddhistic dharma was not intended as a better replacement for biologists/evolutionists paradigm to manage the world but to help people "who have little dust on their eyes" to find a way to resolve from their sufferings. Unrespectively whether an evolutionist sees this as progress or backstep in his/her mental concept of evolution.

For me, Buddhist meditation is scientific & materialist. For example, watching breathing causes the breathe & physical body to calm. This is scientific (observable cause & effect) & materialistic, since breath is a material element
For me, claims about an after life are not related to meditation. I have read meditation is done to abandon this 'world' and any other 'world'. When the mind is concentrated, it does not think about an afterlife.
For me, Buddhism does not teach about materialist Annihilation. The Buddha of the Pali scriptures taught Annihilation is the view that: "I will cease at death"; just as Eternalism is the view: "I will continue after death". These are wrong views because they are 'self-views'. They are not related to life after death. They are about beliefs about personal life after death.
I think meditation is pleasurable and helpful in a materialist world that is run based on natural selection because it is a non-sensual joy that frees the mind from 'samsara', i.e., craving induced reproduction.
I think there is possibility of experiencing states of joy and peace and realizations through meditation through an evolutionary model because evolution is both physical & mental. For example, the Buddha represents the pinnacle & final end of human evolution.
The evolutionary advantage of becoming a monastic (not reproducing and passing on your genes) would be exactly the very same advantage as ending craving so there is not more 'becoming' in the future, which some people believe to be an "afterlife". This advantage is reaching the final end of evolution. The arahants said at enlightenment: "There is nothing further to do for this world".
In my understanding, there are  no materialist claims and counter arguments from Buddhism because the Lord Buddha taught that talk about how the world was created is unprofitable. That said, the theory of evolution accords with the Buddhist law of cause & effect.

The Buddhist commentaries state:

The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of
  causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of
  relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of
  natural law, or niyama. They are:

Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way
  flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and
  nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and
  decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by
  heat or temperature.
Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."
Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental
  reactions to them.
Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this
  is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds
  bring bad results."
Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and
  then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of
  affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching: P. A. Payutto
  http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/good_evil_beyond.pdf

Apologies, but I cannot access your link. I am also uncertain if you understood my intention.

try this link: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/good_evil_beyond.pdf


text:
Are the Buddhist sutras 100% verified if applied in life?
I remember my teacher mentioned this in class :

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not
  believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
  Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your
  religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of
  your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they
  have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and
  analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is
  conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and
  live up to it."

Does that mean that the sutras are 100% correct if I follow them? because it is very confusing, or according to what siddartha mentioned, I can't even trust the sutras when he says do not believe?

Your teacher was loosely quoting the Buddha's instructions to the Kalamas.

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. AN 3.65

What he is saying is that it's up to each of us to investigate the teachings for ourselves to verify their veracity and usefulness.

In the real quote (here), the Buddha emphasized believing in that which:

"when adopted & carried out, does not lead to harm & to suffering"
and
"when adopted & carried out, leads to welfare & to happiness".

Therefore, you can trust the majority of the sutras because the majority (but not all) are about giving up harm & suffering and cultivating welfare & happiness.
The Buddha wanted his followers to investigate & realise the teachings for themselves.

But lying for the welfare of many, is it that bad? I mean people get lost very often from the path.....

yes but as per the lord Buddha said follow this steps when ever you can.. as per over life style now its not possible but if we try we can do it ..

buddha taught 'karma' (action) is 'intention'. if you had to lie to save 100 people from a murderer, the intention is good intention. the moral rules in Buddhism are training rules rather than fixed absolutes.

Yes Kernex your right. lord Buddha said like that. he said check from your Knowledge & is it fare to the rules.. then accept it. Buddhism was born in India before 2500 years before. after lord buddhas death Monk bring the sutras to the future mouth to mouth learning. so in that time some external things added to the Buddhists sutras. but the main thing of Buddhism is 100% true & that will help you to have a peaceful life without Bonds. just follow below basic 5 rules of the Buddhism.

Do not take life
Do not take what is not given
Do not distort facts
Refrain from misuse of the senses
Refrain from self-intoxication through alcohol or drugs

So overthinking is toxic because it leads to judgment (number4) therefore vipassana is very important to be able to follow those rules, because it somehow opens a doorway to a new path right?

this are not 5 rules. lord Buddha said to Follow this 5 Guidelines. this 5 guideline are the 1st Basic of the Buddhism..if you follow this basics it will take you to Nirvana.. Nirvana means No life after Death.. No suffering

Yes I understand that, but how can you follow these rules if one's mind is clouded with judgment like many in society? Like really clouded.... i Mean doesn't vipassana usually help someone follow these guidelines? I mean a convict or very evil person will have a lot of trouble following these lines withouth some sort of spiritual path...? no? @ RANSARA009

before you go go vipassana you have to follow this guide line. when you can settle & clear  your mind you can go for Higher things like Vipassana.. its very hard but we can do it if we try..

Just finished, man, the SURGERY KEEPS GETTING DEEPER.... Annicca to you my brother.

The Suttas are contained in the Sutta Pitaka, within which are 5 collections or nikayas. Of these, the first 4 are the earliest and the ones that can be fully trusted. It is because you will never find any contradictions in it - from one sutta to the other. They are :

Digha Nikaya consists of 3 books on the long discourses (34 Suttas) of the Supreme Buddha,
Majjhima Nikaya comprises 3 books containing the Supreme Buddha's middle length discourses (152 Suttas),
Samyutta Nikaya contains about 2000 short discourses in 5 books, and
Anguttara Nikaya contains about 2000 short discourses in 5 books.

Khuddaka Nikaya, the fifth, is a minor or smaller collection. Although termed "smaller", it is in fact the largest as more and more books have been added to it over the years. It has grown to 15 books in the Thai and Sri Lankan versions.
In 1956, the Sangha Council in Burma added another 3 books, which are not the Supreme Buddha's own words. These 3 additions are Questions of King Milinda, Petakopadesa and Nettipakarana. This is how the Khuddaka Nikaya grew from a minor collection to become a major collection!
In the future, say in 500 or 1000 years' time, this would definitely create more confusion. Out of the 18 books now, probably only 6 are reliable in that they do not contradict the earliest 4 Nikayas.
These 6 reliable books are the Dhammapada, Sutta Nipata, Theragatha, Therigatha, Itivuttaka and Udana.
As Buddhists, we should be familiar with the Suttas and if possible obtain our own copies. It is a sad fact that whereas we rarely find Muslims without the Quran or Christians without the Bible, yet we find many Buddhists without the Nikayas.


text:
Investing in poultry stocks and Buddhism
Peace !!
I am planning to invest some of my money in poultry stocks in the stock market and having second thoughts. As I understand Buddhism teaches not to kill any living beings although it does not say directly not to eat meat even for monks or laymen.
However , I don't think humans can survive without destroying other species . e.g. Even if you take water it has bacteria or micro creatures in it .
My intention is to make a profit , not kill animals . However I may have contributing to animal suffering by a proxy. I am in a grey area. Is this something morally wrong ?

Honestly I would say that it's not even a grey area. For me, investing in stocks in the meat industry is not in keeping with right livelihood. To quote the Vanijja Sutta in full

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not
  engage in."

By investing in a poultry company you are in effect a part owner of that business - therefore you are in the 'business of meat'
Of course when you say poultry stocks I'm assuming that this is a business for producing meat for consumption. If the business is raising chickens so that small children can love them and keep them as pets then fantastic - a wonderful ethical investment (slight tongue in cheek - I couldn't resist).

-bucket thanks a lot clearing this up.

Actions are never wrong in Buddhism. Actions either lead to suffering or they do not lead to suffering.
Some practicioners get very technically crazy on the first precept. Some would say that because you arent actually there killimg the chickens directly then you are not in violation of the 1st precept but then some (like me) say it does violate the 1st precept.
This isn't just a vegetarian issue, you would actually be profiting from the killing of beings like hitmen or butchers profit from killing. So, it would also be wrong livelihood.
We should try to humble ourselves. Are we really  better than chickens? If we are thinking with our hearts as well as our brains we would want nothing but peace and happiness for all beings.
There must be better ways to invest money anyway. -Metta-

What you said may possibly be true in that humans many not be able survive without destroying other species.
Also, the Buddha did teach 'karma' is 'intention' therefore the Buddha did not generally directly admonish or criticize people for killing animals for food for their personal or family consumption.
However, the Buddha did say carrying on a business from the slaughter of animals is wrong livelihood probably because this involves concentrated killing en-mass.
For example, in the chicken factory, the workers must spend 8 hours per day killing chickens or watching chickens being killed, dismembered, gutted & processed.
This has been shown by psychological studies to have severe adverse psychological impacts upon the workers, such as the following:

This thesis research focuses on the negative effects that Concentrated
  Animal Feeding Operations (later referred to as CAFOs) have on the
  environment and the psychological and physiological effects of
  alienation of food production on slaughterhouse workers of industrial
  slaughterhouses in comparison to niche-market slaughterhouses....
  Slaughterhouse workers are also at risk of Perpetration-Inducted
  Traumatic Stress, which is a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  and results from situations where the concerning subject suffering
  from PTSD was a causal participant in creating the traumatic
  situation.
http://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2157&context=honr_theses

When making a statement as scientific fact (psychological studies), please support your statement with a source.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252707000428

http://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2157&context=honr_theses


text:
Notion of good and bad in Buddhism
if I understand correctly, Buddhism is opposed to dualistic concepts: Us vs. them, beautiful vs. ugly, pain vs. pleasure. We should rather realise the emptiness of those constructs in order to see the things in the way they really are, i.e. see their real nature.
How then, does that translate to the concept of good and bad? Because I think every Buddhist tradition teaches us that certain behaviours, acts or ways of thinking are beneficial and create good karma, whereas others are detrimental to our spiritual progress or to our own well-being and that of others and create bad karma. Examples of good vs. bad behaviour abound in many texts like the Vinaya rules but also in the Noble Eightfold Path itself. Right speech for example is considered good whereas the opposite - lying, denouncing, spreading rumors, careless speech in general are surely to be considered bad, detrimental, whatever you want to call it.
How can I accept the duality of good vs. bad while accepting that other dualities are just hollow projections of the untrained layman's mind that keep me from seeing the true nature of things?
I would also be greatly interested if somebody could shed a light on the different traditions' views on the subject.
Thank you!

Famous Quote: Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.

Even in Zen, the tradition at the forefront of non-duality, there's a famous saying, something like:
"Before studying Zen, one saw mountains and rivers as mountains and rivers. After gaining deeper knowledge, one saw mountains and rivers as no mountains nor rivers. But now at last, one sees mountains and rivers once again as mountains and rivers"
So basically, there's a gradation or stage of cultivation. At the beginning, whether one wants to experience non-duality or not, it's still only a theoretical abstract concept which one is yet able to experience for oneself. That's why there's a need to clearly differentiate what's wholesome and what's unwholesome. That's why there're the Vinaya, the Five Precepts, Eight Precepts, Ten Precepts, the 8NP's Right Speech, Right Livelihood, so on and so forth. Any serious Dhamma practitioner has to go through this training first until observing precepts no longer something one has to strive for but has become second-nature. Only until then will the truth of non-duality becomes fully manifested and one can fully live and experience it for oneself.

Thanks for your answer! I actually came across the Zen saying before and couldn't make much of it. Now, in this context, it seems to gain some clarity.
I would have liked to give you a votes-up but I first have to gain 15 experience points. :-)

No worries friend. As long as the info. is useful to you that's all that matters..

The original Buddhist teachings do not include a doctrine of non-duality. The Buddha's enlightenment came from ending craving & attachment rather than from ending dualistic perceptions & thoughts.
Understanding good & bad for moral/social purposes is one kind of knowledge.
Seeing & understanding the true nature of reality for liberation is another kind of knowledge.
The Buddha taught: (1) avoid evil; (2) do good; & (3) purify the mind. Purifying the mind means ending egotistic attachment towards good & bad rather than giving up the understanding of good & bad.

'See evil as evil.' This is the first Dhamma discourse. 'Having seen evil as evil, become disenchanted there, dispassionate there,
  released.' This is the second Dhamma discourse. These are the two
  Dhamma discourses that the Tathagata — worthy & rightly self-awakened
  — has given in sequence.
Itivuttaka 39

I have actually taken non-duality for granted as being at the core of the Buddha's teachings. But I think I have misunderstood the concept. If you equal non-duality to Sunyata then it certainly is a substantial part of Buddhist teaching. But if I understand the Wikipedia article on Sunyata correctly then the Theravada tradition, the one that I feel most attached to, does not even stipulate their intrinsic vacuity, but just says that we need to let go of the attachment to the five aggregates, as opposed to the Mahayana tradition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9A%C5%ABnyat%C4%81#Theravada

Yes. It can be difficult for Pali & Mahayana to reconcile or communicate at times. Non-duality is an attractive teaching to many and Mahayana is the 'great vehicle', in that it offers a greater variety of teachings for a greater scope of people.

It's not that complicated. Mental states that lead to suffering are bad and the mental states that lead to or conducive to freedom from suffering are good. In other words; craving, aversion and ignorance are bad; whereas non-craving, non-aversion, non-ignorance are good.

Nonduality is not taught in the Pāli literature.  Bad and good are.
Throughout the canon we find the Buddha dividing things into good or bad both in the conventional sense as found in the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas,  and in the absolute or ultimate sense in the Abhidhamma literature.  The Dhammasangani (the first book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka) begins with a chapter of states that are good followed by a chapter of states that are bad.  In both senses states  that are good lead to happiness and release, states that are bad lead to unhappiness and further becoming.

Non duality is a conceptual tool, and like all tools you need to know when to use it.
Of course you should have moral standards, otherwise its impossible to practice the Noble Eightfold Path. This requires a discerning mind.
Where non duality shines is when you encounter obstacles. For example anger because you despise someone, you reflect and realize he isn't so different from you after all and apply compassion. In fact usually as people practice morality, they often becomes judgmental of people with less stringent morality because the discerning mind is very active. Same goes when you experience revolting environment (perhaps a dirty toilet), instead of emotionally repulsed, they calm the mind and accept it, allowing them to clean it without disturbing their inner peace.
When encountering craving they also use non duality to detach themselves. Monks use meditation on corpses to realize that the human body is actually a living breathing corpse. The attractive human bodies are realized to be impermanent and unsatisfactory.
Sure it's not mentioned in the Pali Canon perhaps because they wisely didn't want to get into a whole philosophical debate, but aspects of it are definitely already there.


text:
Is nirvana just the end of a causal series?
It is often said that nirvana is bliss.
What I'm struggling with, and have been for years now, despite reading a fair amount, is whether nirvana, being blissful, is not just objectively so.
i.e. is nirvana good for the buddha or saint that achieves it?
Because if it is, then I don't think it can only be an end to the causal series. Just like, when a fire has stopped burning, we don't say the fire is not hot.

All conditioned or caused phenomena are bad. Because they are unsatisfying. That which is not conditioned or caused is good. It is good for anyone who achieves it.
This problem occurs when you think that 'good' means a person experiencing a pleasurable mental or physical feeling. Nibbana is not a feeling. All feelings are caused. It's an existing phenomenon that cuts off the cause of suffering at the moment of attainment.

got it. it's tempting to think of the buddha's nirvana as a feeling; is that the same kinda thing as thinking of the "person" as a self ?

We think like that because Nibbana is outside of the framework we are familiar with. i.e. the five aggregates. So there's no real example to show that Nibbana is like this.
Both 'person' and 'self' are misunderstandings of the five aggregates.

thanks for the to the point and agreeable answers, it's v much appreciated :)

Nirvana is not 'caused'. This is why the Buddha referred to the "path" to Nirvana rather than the "cause" of Nirvana.
Imagine being blind-folded. The eyes cannot see any sights. But if the blind-fold is removed, sights can be seen.
Similarly, greed, hatred & delusion are like a blind-fold that prevent experiencing Nibbana. Nibbana is not something 'mental' although the mind experiences Nibbana (as a sense object).
This is similar to how a tree or flower is not the eye, but the eye experiences the tree or flower.

It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former
  times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city,
  an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with
  parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html

thanks for the reply, tho i don't understand the suggestion that you're correcting me and i said, or meant, that nirvana is caused

sorry if i sound hostile, it's not the best medium for the exchange of these sorts of ideas :)

that's OK. i apologise if I misunderstood your question. regards


text:
Do you think that this Laughing Buddha Restaurant sign is a disrespect?
Greetings to everybody,

According to the image above, what do you think from your point of view?
Is this disrespectful since The Laughing Buddha is being used for a branding?

Welcome to the site. To fit the Moderation policies for Questions, please try to phrase question to avoid asking "polling questions". For example instead of asking, "what do you think?", you should ask something more like, "what do scriptures say?", or "how can I solve the following problem?" or "what's the custom in such-and-such a society?".

This is really more a matter of opinion and I'm certaintly not an expert when it comes to Buddhism, but I can see how one may be offended by this. I don't however think that it was intensional for this to offend people. I also recall hearing -and maybe this is only certant Buddhist sects- that karma is based on intensions, so, while it is pushing the envelope a bit, so long as its not with any disrespect in mind, it technicall is OK, although not encourageable.

@MorellaAlmann I don't know of anyone or any sect who thinks karma is not based on intention. Else the murderer and the surgeon who loses a patient will both carry the same karma.

Intentions matter.
Only people and cultures take offense. The Dharma doesn't take offense. Awakened ones who have gone forth to become the Dharma can't take offense.
In certain strictly Buddhist cultures such as Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand and Tibet, I'd expect to see a strong reaction, including jail time. In non-Buddhist cultures, it won't matter to the majority who are ignorant of the implications.
A sincere adept of Dharma can even use this insult as a stepping stone, and inquire into what in him takes offense and let go of that identity.
Karma results from volition. Someone seeking to cause injury to Buddhists would definitely be falling afoul of good intentions, and thus cause consequent karma to occur.
The act isn't the problem, it is the intention behind it.

that one is a joyful  goddess  (sorry I don't know how to type his name in english ) he always has a happy smile and laugh.i think they shouldn't put that name... the owner might not mean to disrespect but they just thinkless and too playful

Why worry about whether or not it is disrespectful? What it is is a drawing, in your own mind you can think of it as disrespectful and become stressed by this, or you can look at it as a cool logo and laugh about it.
Which path leads to happiness?

Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma.
Vakkali
   Sutta

Yes, it is disrespectful and bad Karma for the owner and those who endorse such things.

I just searched that actually The Laughing Buddha is not literally a Buddha. He's called Budai, was an eccentric Chan monk who lived in China during the Later Liang (907–923). He was a native of Zhejiang and his Buddhist name was Qieci. He was considered a man of good and loving character. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai

It is wrong to use the term "Laughing Buddha", even if it refers to a Chinese monk.

Just to complicate things in Chinese Mahayana Buddhism, Budai IS an incarnation of the Future Buddha Maitreya. He's there so you don't judge a Buddha by his appearance.

And yes 笑佛 or "Laughing Buddha" is a common Chinese name for the Maitreya Bodhisattva.

Budai that I refer to was a native of Zhejiang and his Buddhist name was Qieci (契此). Is Qieci (契此) the future Buddha Maitreya? But he passed a long time ago.

Yes, according to Mahayana Buddhism the Bodhisattvas continuously appear in the world to guide sentient beings. Budai is simply one of his manifestation, not his final incarnation which is expected to have the Thirty Two Signs of a Great Man (physical perfection).

Buddhists can also take advantage of this as a teaching moment. It inspires them to let go of identity associated suffering.

One need not suffer to know that a certain act is wrong & disrespectful :)


text:
The fear of committing to a monastic lifestyle
I have a persistent fear of going without food that prevents me from giving monasticism a full shot.
Some background: I suffered for approximately 4 years with something called cyclic vomiting syndrome. This is an affliction characterized by recurrent, prolonged attacks of severe nausea, vomiting, and prostration with no apparent cause. During this time I repeatedly lost and regained 100s of pounds at a time. Losing weight, while something I needed to do, was not fun. My longest single attack lasted a full 7 days during which time I was unable to keep any food down whatsoever, much less get any sleep. Retching on a completely empty stomach 45+ times an hour is a hell that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies. So, food is important to me. At the same time I realize that too much is not good in a myriad of ways.
So, where are all the Buddhist monasteries at which I'd be afforded the opportunity to practice self compassion as opposed to gritting my teeth and forcing myself through a whole lot of discomfort in order to satisfy my ego and other's expectations of what constitutes a good, chaste and worthwhile existence? That doesn't seem mentally or physically healthy or conducive to showing loving kindness and compassion to others. I'm a firm believer that in order to be able to show compassion for others, I need to show it to myself. I'm mainly thinking about food here. Whatever could be wrong with my eating something when my stomach is growling after noon? At least until my stomach had shrunk to such a degree that hunger pains were perhaps more a nuisance than anything else?
I think I understand the reluctance on the part of many monastics to allow things like eating after noon, etc. It so happens also, that I suspect that their concern is misplaced. It seems to me that there aren't many things in life that don't consist of shades of grey. It also seems that Buddhist monastics in general tend to lose sight of the nuance making up many of these things.
So, is there a tradition I should be focusing on? A teacher? (Ajahn Brahm is a favorite btw.) Am I way off base with my concerns? If so, how should I go about rectifying my inconsistent views? If not, then what?

Upon further inspection of my post it looks like I was unfair to monastics as a whole. Apparently this is what happens when I post from a place where my monkey mind is in full swing. Incoherence ruled my roost yesterday. Today, I'm trying to be mindful and slow my roll.

By practicing monastic life, if you mean becoming a monk, it's a no go with your current condition. But if you just want to practice meditation, staying at a monastery, you still have to give up Marijuana and Nicotine. No serious monastery would allow you to smoke while you stay there.
Some monasteries allow lay practitioners to take just 5 precepts and have food in the evening as well. But usually you have to bring your own food for evening meals.
I would suggest for you to do an online meditation course and to get advice on how to give up your addictions while consulting a doctor to treat your ailments without Marijuana and Nicotine.

Yes, that's what I was referring to. I wasn't expecting to be able to smoke anything at a monastery. Thanks for mentioning the 5 precepts. I had no idea that some monastery's allowed food after noon. I'll definitely be looking into a place where I can get a taste of monasticism for a short while. Cheers!

I understand. Way's to further my practice without beating the hell out of myself is what I'm looking for. Up to and yes, even into monasticism. I've experienced enough self hatred for 5 people in my life. I just want to find a way to practice love and compassion and at the same time experience solitude, which seems to be a near requisite for spiritual growth.

Start simple, try to be a better person one step at a time, don't jump the gun and compare yourself to saints.

Solitude is easy to find if you have the means to move into your own apartment. That way you can meditate at home as well.  But it's nothing like being in a monastery where you have to keep to the precepts and not be complacent with the practice. I would suggest Metta meditation as a starting point  since you have anger issues and then move on to Vipassana. Good luck!

Would you be willing to link to some free resources that dissect the inner workings of metta meditation? Thank you.

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/facets_of_metta.php

That's great! I've never read Sharon Salzburg before. She explains metta quite clearly and succinctly. Much appreciated.

I normally wouldn't advice anyone who is not committed to Buddhism to become a monk, because you will probably end up being a bad influence or even ruining the reputation of the temple. Experiencing a short term monastic experience is fine though, if you can stick to the rules during that time.
That said, for drug rehab there are temples specializing in treating drug addicts:
http://travel.cnn.com/bangkok/life/high-and-low-ends-rehab-tourism-thailand-295566/
http://alcoholrehab.com/drug-addiction-treatment/thamkrabok-temple/
I can't vouch for their effectiveness, but it might be what you are looking for?

Edit
Apologies, I realized I have been far too judgmental and not compassionate enough in my response. It is good to have the desire to leave the householder's life, and that should be encouraged. The thoughts have crossed my mind too. It is just unfortunate to see so many monks behaving badly because they went into it without any considerations or good intentions. I knew some people who went into it because they have health problems and want to get some good merits to fix their problems. I even had an acquaintance who decided to renounce the world then left the monastic order one year later for unknown reasons. Ideally someone who will become a monastic should have only the highest noble intentions in mind to deal with the challenges and obstructions ahead of them.

No, I don't need drug rehab. I already identify with 99% of Buddhist thought. I was trying to emphasise that as far as monastic rules go, I'm not seeing a whole lot of self compassion. I see striving and sweating and a tendency toward asceticism that honestly doesn't strike me as being very, "middle way." You know, like the person who sits through pain and self inflicted misery, in effect saying, "Grrr. I'll do this no matter what." As though pain is an indication of right intent. This seems foolish and egoistic to me.

The purpose of a monastic life is not only to be an example to the society at large, but also for the purpose of spiritual cultivation. Good monks work hard to attain Right Effort and Right Mindfulness in everything they do. You won't make any progress on the path without some effort. Sure they are compassionate and understanding of weaknesses, but they work hard to overcome it. To let go of your greed anger and attachments require immense self discipline. Ultimately the goal is nothing other than Spiritual Perfection. Paramita.

I have gone on a short term monastic retreat as a novice monk and I can assure you that it was eye opening and life changing. It is not easy and isn't meant to be. The reward of Jhanic bliss, happiness and peace do not come without work.

So, you just provided me with the term I was looking for, "monastic retreat." Thank you. I'm not averse to putting in effort, as long as the effort leads to my becoming a kinder, more compassionate person as well as the type of person who can withstand hardships. I realize also that taking vows of any kind is serious business, so I wouldn't want to ruin anyone elses spiritual trajectory. Perhaps just as important would be the fact that I would be letting myself down.

Is "short term monastic retreat" a thing? If I contacted a temple and asked about those, are they going to know what I'm talking about?

You could try getting in touch with temples to see if they offer such retreats (since depending on the temple this can require significant preparations), obviously the quality of the experiences can also differ, better yet, why not participate as a lay Buddhist in temple services? If you find those difficult and unappealing, being a monk is much harder.

@user8312 Notifying you of a change in my answer, friend.

Yinxu, thanks for your consideration. In the tradition I was raised in, those monk's would be referred to as, "Sunday Christians." as they were all about looking holy to others, but not practicing what they preach. As a humanist, I don't subscribe to the idea of merit. Meritocracy means that the people who have it good deserve their lot. But that's akin to saying the opposite, that the unlucky and unfortunate deserve that fate too. Since I don't believe in a loving force that keeps tabs on us, the idea of merit makes no sense to me. My interest is at root, selfish. A Bodhisattva I'm not...

I guess I'm framing the situation thusly; The idea of pure compassion is probably a fantasy. If I do good to others, at it's core, it's because doing such makes me feel good about myself. Simple as that.

That's to say that the striving to be a better person, toward Buddha hood provides a useful paradigm from which to work, even if it's not literally true.

At the minimum you should believe that you can make a difference and things don't happen for no reason. If you don't you will likely sink into depression.

I do believe that I can make a difference. I'm unsure of what you mean by, "things don't happen for no reason" Yes, for every effect there exists a cause. But somehow I don't think that's what you were getting at. Please elucidate. Thanks.

It's like this, Right View is at the very beginning of the Noble Eightfold Path, because it leads to the rest. So what this means is if you hold on to wrong views, it will make things very difficult.
Now it's easy to become depressed with thoughts like it's all meaningless, so that is dangerous. Guard your thoughts well. Maintain right mindfulness!

Thanks for the clarification. Open minded honesty dictates that I admit to feeling hopeless much of the time. All I know with 100% certainty is that I don't know. I failed grandly yesterday to maintain right mindfulness. As Pema Chodron puts it, I was "hooked." My mind was all over the place. This is why I asked my original question. I need a break from life that is focused on cultivating right mindfulness in a supportive environment, free from distraction. Anyway, I'm definitely thinking about what you said. Cheers!

"If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves " - Dhammapada

Whatever could be wrong with my eating something when my stomach is growling after noon?

I'd like to mention, I saw a video by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu (probably one of the "Monk Radio" videos, but I don't remember which one). He was talking, describing something, and sitting next to him were other monks listening along.
Anyway, the topic was food for some reason, and he said that people have this experience (I think he implied that everyone has this experience) when they're meditating and keeping the sixth precept: I forget what he said exactly but it was something like, people think, "What is this hunger Oh God I'm going to die."
What I found remarkable was that, when he said that, both of the other monks started to chuckle or laugh with him: as if they'd been there.
So I guess, it's not that there's something wrong with eating ... but there is something right about not eating; and part of the rightness is that, by doing it, you apparently earn the right or learn to be able to laugh at that kind of speech.

Interesting way to frame it. So, am I correct in assuming that the monk's were laughing at themselves in an endearing way because they know that their fears don't comport with reality? I like that way of looking at the situation; no chastising or beating themselves up over it. Instead treating themselves much like they would a kid sister or brother.

I feel that your fear is unfounded and it is due to your clinging to the sensual pleasures of food. The reason monastics do not eat after 12 is because having less food in your body makes the mind more active. There are scientific studies to prove this.http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section1C.t-1.html
The stimulation of hunger gives your brain the ability to retain information better and concentrate better.
The more important discussion here is your fear , which came into being due to your illness. Which makes me feel that you should confront it and see if it is really true. The mind will always resist anything that takes us out of the comfort zone and anything that is unfamiliar. Try to attend a few retreats and see if this works out for you. Facing the fear is the only way to deal with it , but in small doses. And if you deciede monastic life is not for you ,be compassionate to yourself. WE all progress at our own rate.
Wish you all the best in your journey. Much Metta!

One has to make an informed choice. Becoming a monk does not guarantee peace or nirvana. It is just that its a faster mechanism for people who have urgency to attain bliss. You do not have it otherwise you would not be asking this question. You are not scared because of your medical condition but leaving shore to sail towards unknown. Its just an excuse. Having said that i can assure you that many people enjoy jhanic bliss who are not monks. I can tell you from my experience that chances of bliss are higher if you are not a monk. Monks keep on striving but a worldly person just give up. That giving up creates a far greater bliss which monks attain. When you reeling under scorching sun a shade gives you far greater relief than a person who is resting under the shade. I am not critical here. Just trying to balance it in favor of non-monks.

I'm sorry: this sentence, "That giving up creates a far greater bliss which monks attain",  isn't quite grammatical, and so I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that because non-monks give up and stop striving they therefore have greater bliss than monks? And is that because monks are "resting in the shade" i.e. sheltered all the time, whereas non-monks are reeling under a scorching sun and so the contrast (between sun and shade) is greater and therefore more blissful?

Surrender is the right word. More you strive more is the tension. Surrender comes easily to the worldly person than somebody who lives in solitutude. Monks are relaxed to the point of being complacent. Most of the monks I have met so far have lost the urgency. Worldly person can appreciate meditativeness far greater than a monk because of contrast and therefore greater urgency.


text:
Observations appear as thoughts
For example when I'm feeling a little anxious, I might think "I'm feeling threatened". These thoughts makes me feel like I am not actually being mindful, because if I actually were then I wouldn't need to think about it, you know? It's kinda hard to explain, but I feel like I'm just fooling myself into believing I'm observing myself, when it's actually all happening within my thoughts.
What's going on here? Am I misunderstanding something?

In my opinion, you are not misunderstanding something. You are being true.
Many teachers & gurus say thoughts can be observed. I personally disagree here (unless the thoughts are very subtle and very infrequent).
In my experience, thinking & observing are antagonistic. When the mind thinks, it is not particularly observant. When the mind is truly observant, it rarely thinks.
To genuinely observe anxiety, attention should be drawn to the tremblings or vibrations of the body (the nervous system) and shortness of the breathing. Try to feel the emotion, mood or feeling of anxiety; the pressure in the head (brain) & body, etc.
That said, it is not easy to do this. If you try, you may need to regularly let go of observing & do some breathing out. The important thing is to trust it is impermanent or a passing mood; like a storm temporarily clouding a clear sky.

If you're feeling a little anxious and you think "I'm feeling threatened", you are being mindful.
Being mindful, you observe the arising of anxiety and you think: "I'm feeling threatened".
If you think that your thought "I'm feeling threatened" is yourself, you're fooling yourself into believing "I'm observing myself".
If you think the arising of anxiety is yourself, you're fooling yourself into believing "I'm observing myself".
If you think that you're observing yourself feeling anxious, you're fooling yourself into believing "I'm observing myself".
When a thought "I'm observing myself" arise, you're fooling yourself into believing "I'm observing myself".
When any phenomena arises and you observe it, you're fooling yourself into believing "I'm observing".
Are you fooling yourself?
Your thoughts make you feel like you're not observing yourself, because if you actually were then there wouldn't be thoughts.
Your thoughts make you feel like you're fooling yourself into believing you're observing yourself, because if you actually were to observe yourself then there would be nothing to observe.
Just like when you throw a ball and you say to yourself "I'm observing the ball, thus I'm not the ball." in the same way you arise thoughts (or feelings, or anxiety, or any other phenomena) and say to yourself "I'm observing my thoughts, thus I'm not my thoughts. I feel I'm just fooling myself into believing I'm observing myself."
Find the cause of the arising of thoughts (or feelings, or anxiety, or any other phenomena), remove that cause and you'll know yourself.
In knowing yourself is the path to liberation.

...because you stop fooling your self in to believing that there is anyone or any liberation to be had. You just stop selfing.