text:
How to enter the second Jhana?
I know you must abandoned applied & sustain thought. Getting rid of applied is easy it's gone once the first Jhana is established. But how to you get rid of sustain thought? I have ready many books & articles but i don't understand them to well. They say once you reach the 1st Jhana review them and see how gross the first really is. But wouldn't that break concentration & push me back to square one?

From The Questions of King Milinda (translation mine):

‘Venerable Nagasena, what is the characteristic mark of vicāra?’
‘The characteristic mark of vicāra is pondering/mulling over (anumajjana), Your Majesty.’
‘Give me an example.’
‘For example, Your Majesty, if you strike on a copper vessel, it then rings for a while, it responds with a sound. Here, Your Majesty, the strike is a simile for vitakka and the reverberation is a simile for vicāra.’

Given enough time, the affective "sustain" will cease all by itself when you stop the cognitive "striking", there is no need to do anything separate.
As for your question about "review and see how gross the first jhana really is", this idea of "review and see as gross" comes from an entirely different context that was designed to explain Jhanas as steps of gradual removal of (initially coarse and then progressively finer instances of) Craving/Kleshas/Asavas toward cessation of dukkha and achieving perfect suchness. The first three Jhanas in this sequence can be further illustrated with a following allegory:
Let's say there once was a boy, who heard about this Luna Park coming to town that was rumored to have the best rides and the tastiest ice-cream. Everyone in town was talking about it, buying the tickets, and getting ready to enjoy. Just like the other people, the boy really wanted to go to that Luna Park and try the rides for himself. However, it happened so that he could not obtain the ticket and ended up staying alone in an almost empty town.
At first he was upset at his apparently bad luck, but then he said to himself: look, I can imagine how it is like at that Luna Park. It must be extremely crowded, with people pushing each other, hot and sweaty. The lines to the rides are probably very long. There is a lot of noise and screaming children are everywhere. The rides are nothing special, just going up and down, and the ice-cream is not different from what I can buy here any day. I, on the other hand, get to enjoy this entire town all to myself. I can walk in the park. I can gaze at the statues. I can sit on the benches. I can even walk into a city hall and sit on the mayor's chair - because everyone's gone to the Luna Park. How much better it is to not be at the Luna Park! How happy am I to have this quiet and peace all to myself. Can any Luna Park in the world be better than this quiet and peace? No, that would be logically impossible. It's a mathematical impossibility that something could be better than this quiet and peace. A Luna Park can be exciting at best, with lots of ups and downs - but it can't ever feel as sublime as this quiet and peace. And since I understand this fact, I'm not just lucky, I'm also wise. I understand what other people do not understand, and I can enjoy at a whole other level than they can.
-- As he thought so to himself, the boy immediately felt a relief, and the more he replayed these thoughts while going around the empty town, the more joyful he felt. Whenever he felt the joy was subsiding, he would look around and think up another reason for being glad. "Look!" he would say - "people at Luna Park are waiting in line to go to a toilet, while I have all toilets in town available to myself". He would then keep walking around, smiling to himself at that thought.
Until at some point the very effort of convincing himself started to feel redundant. "Why am I even repeating these thoughts to myself?" -- thought the boy. "This empty town is clearly much more enjoyable than the Luna Park, it's just a fact. Why don't I stop convincing myself and enjoy this beautiful town in happiness and joy?" -- and he did just like he said, stopped convincing himself and enjoyed the town in happiness and joy. As the day drew longer, the boy have had plenty of time to enjoy himself. By the time the sun was going down, the acuteness of joy has gradually subsided, leaving behind a deep feeling of satisfaction and peace. "I'm getting tired of celebrating" said the boy to himself. "Why don't I relax and spent the evening in quietude and peace". And he spent the rest of the evening in quietude and peace.
In this allegory, the boy is a meditator. The Luna Park is an idea of worldly success. Enjoying the empty town is the jhana. Thinking up another reason for being glad is vitakka. Savoring and smiling to oneself about that reason is vicara. Letting go of the effort to convince oneself and just enjoying the town in happiness - is the second jhana. Letting go of smiling and joy in the evening is the third jhana.
As you can see, in the First Jhana vitakka-vicara plays the role of a "peg" used to "push out" the unskillful mindstates:

Just as a skilled carpenter or his apprentice would use a small peg to knock out, drive out, and pull out a large one; in the same way [...] when he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts [about "the Luna Park" and "one's bad luck" -AV] — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.
(from MN 20, Vitakka-santhana sutta)

The resulting withdrawal from the unskillful mindstates gives birth to "rapture and pleasure", and this process is repeated until "the entire body" is "pervaded" with it:

Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal [from the thoughts about "the Luna Park" and "one's bad luck" -AV]. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...
(from AN 5.28)

...once the defilements of mind have been washed away with joy to a sufficient degree, vitakka is seen as unskillful/redundant and is eliminated in turn:

Just as the thought would occur to a man walking quickly, 'Why am I walking so quickly? Why don't I slow down?' So he slows down.
(from MN 20, Vitakka-santhana sutta)

The resulting state is called the Second Jhana:

...with the stilling of vitakka^, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from vitakka — internal assurance.
(from AN 5.28)

and then the other jhanas:

Then the thought occurs to him, 'Why am I walking? Why don't I stop?' So he stops. Then the thought occurs to him, 'Why am I standing? Why don't I sit down?' So he sits down. Then the  thought occurs to him, 'Why am I sitting? Why don't I lie down?' So he lies down. In this way, giving up the grosser posture, he takes up the more refined one.
(from MN 20, Vitakka-santhana sutta)

^note how I edited the canonical description of the second jhana to remove the reference to vicara because in actual practice vicara does not disappear until the third jhana. Indeed vicara (affective savoring) is cojoined with joy which only goes away in the third jhana.

This just made everything so clear. I none, from this detailed post walk away fully understand what the second jhana is. Thank you

This explaination is very helpful. Thanks.

Vitakka explanation is right on, vicāra is wrong.  vitakka and vicāra are both verbal, lingustic thought. The difference between the two, is that vitakka directs one to think skillful thoughts according to dhamma, while vicāra explores the line of thought brought up by vitakka. (cāra literally is walking, exploring) . Vicāra is not conjoined with joy or savoring, nothing to do with third jhāna.

@frankk there's no disagreement about the first jhana. The disagreement is whether vicara disappears in the second jhana or not yet. I know 99.9% of the texts copy/paste the same verbatim description of the second jhana. What I'm trying to say is, given how the second jhana has the piti, and given the (rare) references in the canon to "samadhi without vitakka yet with vicara" and given how it obviously refers to the jhanas, it's clear that the second jhana has both piti and vicara, despite 2500 years of copy/pasting :) That also matches with the way its taught in Mahayana and my own experience

You really should read the references I linked. vicāra doesn't change meaning from first jhāna to the jhāna without vitakka but with vicāra (AN 8.63). THe DN 22 ref also shows what vicāra is doing not necessarily in jhāna context, has nothing to do with pīti. Also see KN Snp 5.14, where vicāra in 4 jhānas context, but is said to explore what vitakka is doing (both in first jhāna and before first jhāna, commentaries explicilty describe the non-jhāna vicāra of exploring vitakka, nothing to do with  pīti).

To answer your comment before the last one, I'm not saying vicara is always tied to piti. I'm saying vicara is subtle, affective, non-discursive savoring of a theme inserted by vitakka. In the second jhana you have the joy, right? What are you joyful about? You are not just joyful (there's no such thing, "the Buddhas don't smile without a reason"), you are joyful about the theme you thought about back in the first jhana. Outside of the jhana context, vicara could be cojoined with e.g sadness (if you savor a sad thought). In this case Savor does not imply pleasure, it's a technical term.

this answer is confusing vitakka as ordinary thought with vitakka as a factor of jhana. MN 20 is not related to jhana. I suggest the writer of this question refer to MN 19, which literally says any type of wholesome thought is "far from concentration"; that the Buddha "stilled" the mind prior to jhana.

I don't want to argue.

Nothing to argue about. Jhana is a superhuman state and not a mundane state of worldlings

If using the breath as your source for piti, once the piti fills the whole body to saturation, and it cannot nor should not go any further, you no longer have to put any vitakka-vicara into spreading piti accross the body, it is saturated. You can then either consciously completely fill your awareness at this point or it will also likely happen automatically as an artifact of the mind seeking pleasure. It this point (in the technique I use) the perceptions of foreground (breath) and background (body) will merge into one in this sea of piti and your awareness will have not only expanded to fill the body but will have also anchored itself there in joy and contentment. That is the pace of the Second jhana.
Thanissaro gave a simile, and it may be hard to understand at first. But the mind is like a lens. In the first Jhana, your awareness is centered on the focal point i.e. the awareness is centered on the breath along with the body and "kneading" in piti-sukha into every last crevice of the body.
First Jhana

"There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.
"Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal..."

When the body is saturated with this piti-sukha, vitakka-vicara no longer do any good to give any more pleasure to the body. No matter where the lens is focused, it finds pleasure. In the second Jhana, the awareness of body is filled and the awareness itself is unified, and you may notice the complete subsiding of vitakka and vicara. This is because instead of the body, you are now filling your awareness with the mind, and whatever pleasure and happiness there is is in fact born of samadhi, or the mind having gone to one. Now instead of the awareness being the focal point of the lens, the awareness is of the lens itself. There is not motion between the various parts of the body. When the awareness is filled in the way, it is profoundly still and truly three factored: piti, sukha, and ekaggata.
Second Jhana

"Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters and remains in the second jhana: rapture and pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation — internal assurance. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born of composure.
"Just like a lake with spring-water welling up from within, having no inflow from east, west, north, or south, and with the skies periodically supplying abundant showers, so that the cool fount of water welling up from within the lake would permeate and pervade, suffuse and fill it with cool waters, there being no part of the lake unpervaded by the cool waters; even so, the monk permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of composure. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born of composure...

I think of great importance is to realise that this too should be effortless. If the first jhana is well-develeoped and thorough, the the mind will want the stillness and pleasure and unification of the second. It works because of how the mind gravitates toward pleasure.
The key here is not to keep the road map of Jhanas in your mind so much that worry about it. Just use the map for direction. As long as the concentration is endowed with the Seven factors of enlightenment and leads to dispassion, cessation, and release, you are on the right track. Many times when you sit, your meditation will absolutely not go like how you were imagining it to. Your mind will do things you didn't want it to or think it would. Realize that it IS trainable, much like an animal. You feed it treats when it does the things you want it to. You don't want it to fear you, so you don't goad or whip it as punishment. You want it to love you, so you feed it good and nourishing food. I hope I made sense and I'm npt rambling on too much!

You have reached second jhana once you no longer have to put any effort in not only applying the thought/mantra but also maintaining the thought/mantra.
It happens by itself, automatically. Practice becomes effortless.
For instance metta practice example:
In the beginning, to start of I have to bring the mind continuously back to the phrase I picked for the practice ('May I be happy, safe, healthy and at peace.').
After a while the mind no longer runs off to other objects but stays with that mantra (1st jhana).
I still have to put some effort in maintaining that mantra; it doesn't yet keep itself up, so to speak. And then, due to continuation, that effort is no longer necessary. The mind keeps up that mantra by itself, without any input from me. (2nd jhana).
The mind is happy, really enjoys the practice, is settled down and calm. After a while that joy drops away, just by continuing (3rd jhana and 4th).
And so on.
Basically, continue the mantra till it goes on automatically, but stay with the practice/mantra. Keep observing.
You might also check your understanding of what the jhana are. I often notice that people think that a jhana must be really something. Their minds make more out of it than it really is. It's just a state of mind. That's all.

It happens on its on, yet all the book make it seem like its something im suppose to make happen. How long does it take before you move from 1st to 2nd

There are many methods for achieving jhana. Buddhist and non buddhist methods. The clear distinction of buddhist method from non buddhist is achieving jhana by understanding dependent origination rather than concentrating object without and analysis.
Buddhist methods of achieving jhana leads to attain Nibbana by understanding dhamma. It incudes meditating impermanance nature - suffering or no self nature of five aggregates. All Buddhist meditations are thinking and understanding dhamma. According to the level if understanding one attain jhana concentration. Among dozens of methods I have been using over the years and will tell how to meditate suffering and achieve jhana level concentration,

Think about the suffering. Suppose you have born in all worlds such
  as Hell, Peta loka, Animal world. Hell exists and hell beings are
  suffering. Burn their bodies, uproot muscles, cut hands legs and gore
  with spikes. In 'Preta Loka', some Preta's are burning and they are
  suffering in hunger for millions of years. In animal world animals are
  always in fear of their lives. Animals like bulls are being killed by
  people violently. As a human we were in mother's womb nearly 9 months.
  It was very painful to stay in a same posture for such a long time.
  When we were young we learned with lot of difficulties sometimes in
  hungry and other times uncovers to rain. When doing jobs we meet lot
  of similar difficulties with people to fix problems. We have suffering
  from lot of diseases. With getting older we will have to suffer more
  than that with the weakness of our faculties. Think about the
  suffering.  In heaven, gods have similar works like us since they are
  living on a society. After getting tired, they have a drink by
  smelling stink 'SAL' flowers. Brahma also has mental distress when
  they loose their concentration level. Everybody is dying. Every world
  is suffering. (If you understand this you will have great level of
  concentration with pleasure, Because suffering is the first noble
  truth.)

Got the above content from my blog - Meditating four noble truths
Characteristics of first jhana concentrations as follows

First jhana - vitakka vichara (recursive thinking of meditation object), rapture, pleasere, concentration.
Second Jhana - rapture, pleasere, concentration.
Third Jhana - pleasere, concentration.
Fourth Jhana - equanimity and concentration.

First Jhana
When thinking like above (vipassana meditating) for sometime one will will be able to eliminate five hindrances (five bad mental states such as sensual desire, ill will, sloth and troper, restlessness - worry and doubt) and achieve vitakka vichara (recursive thinking of meditation object), rapture, pleasere, concentration. They are characteristics and signs of jhana concentration.
Second Jhana
If one practice this first jhana for sometime, he will feel vitakka vichara as a gross nature of first jhana and will be able to eliminate vitakka vichara and concentrate upon pleasure. If one want't to give up something, first be able to understand the
Third Jhana
Then he will be able to attaing second jhana by eliminating vitakka vichara. Then he practice second jhana for sometime he will feel rapture as a gross nature and be able to attain third jhana. rapture is an intense pleasure to a beginner. But, one practice and stay second jhana for more than hour, he will feell like body is drying. Understanding the suffering nature of Second jhana concentration One will be able to attain third jhana.
Fourth Jhana
Then he practice third jhana for sometime he will feel pleasure as impermanant and be able to attain fourth jhana.
This is the buddihist way of achieving jhana with understanding dhamma. There are so many meditations to achieve above results. All suttas in pali canon have a meditation. One can easily achieve jhana concentration by meditating four great elements, death meditation, contemplation of the impurities of the body, metta meditation according to Metta Sutta; the contemplation on the twelve links of pratītyasamutpāda and those are the most popular meditations buddhist have been using from ancient times.

I know you must abandoned applied & sustain thought. Getting rid of
applied is easy it's gone once the first Jhana is established. But how
to you get rid of sustain thought?

Apart from one or two strange sounding suttas, vitakka & vicara are spoken of as operating together in  the 1st jhana and ceasing together in the 2nd jhana. Since vitakka is ordinarily 'initial' thought; there logically cannot be 'sustained' thought without initial thought.
However, in respect to jhana, vitakka refers to the mind moving towards the objects/factors of jhana and vicara refers to the mind exploring those objects/jhana factors. An analogy is observing the paintings on the walls & ceilings of the Sistine Chapel in Rome. Vitakka is the mind directing itself to those walls & ceilings and vicara is the activity of looking around & exploring those walls & ceilings.

I have ready many books & articles but i don't understand them to
well.

This is understandable. Western Buddhism has many charlatans pretending they understand jhana. On the subject of jhana, I recommend to read books & articles by Budddhist monks such as Ajahn Buddhadasa & Ajahn Brahm. In Buddhism, jhana is called a 'superhuman' state and can only be understood by those who have devoted sufficient time to  reach this 'superhuman' state. The average Western Buddhist faith follower householder with family indulging in sensuality cannot attain, let alone understand, jhana.

They say once you reach the 1st Jhana review them and see how gross
the first really is. But wouldn't that break concentration & push me
back to square one?

Yes. 'Reviewing' is for when the mind emerges from jhana. Vitakka & vicara will cease by themselves as the mind attains the 2nd jhana. In the 1st jhana, the mind comes to constantly know vitakka & vicara are coarse because (in the 1st jhana) the wisdom of the mind is constantly letting go of the mind's tendency to engage in very subtle vitakka & vicara, i.e., when  the mind is drawn towards & explores the seductive feelings of rapture & happiness. It is particularly in the 2nd jhana the mind will definitely know how coarse vitakka & vicara previously were.
Ajahn Brahm's book 'The Jhanas' is at this link.


text:
Avoiding neck pain
I am meditating now regularly for last 4 months. I always sit in a cross legged position with my head slightly bent down. I started developing a neck pain for last 10 days and it distubs me a lot. I couldn't do a chin up position because if i do it then my forehead part feels heavy after meditation. I tried various positions like chin slightly tucked in, it still puts me under pain. Everything was good but this neck pain now disturbs my meditation.  Does anyone experienced it ? Any suggestions for me to come out of it.

I don't know how you're sitting but you might want to straighten (lift) your upper back, and ensure that your shoulders are held down (relaxed) and back (not hunched forward and rounded). That (being more vertical instead of hunched forward) helps to ensure that your head is directly above (balanced on top of) your spine, less effort for the neck.
You might be able to get the head/skull to balance like a stone, supported on the vertical skeleton instead of by muscles. If the bones are stacked one on top of the other then the muscles hardly need to support them -- then the muscles can relax, soften, droop.
To make your upper back more vertical, you might want to make your lower back more vertical too, so the whole back is straighter (i.e. try to straighten both the thoracic curve and the lumbar curve, as illustrated here).
One way to test whether your back is straight is to twist or rotate it: e.g. with your seat still, twist your back (to move your shoulders) and your neck (to move your head) to try to look behind you (look back over your shoulder). It's easier to twist on a vertical axis (i.e. if your spine is vertical), i.e. you can't do it (your vertebrae lock) when you have a pronounced thoracic and lumbar curves -- so doing this (rotating, left and right) is a good test or good lesson on straightening your back.
Also it's not necessarily a question of whether you chin is up or down: it's a question of whether it (and your whole head) is pushed forward (off-balance) or pulled back slightly (more vertical).

It would have made a little easier to answer if you would have given the time for which you sit for meditation. Because 30 min to 1 hour meditation daily should not really induce a complex neck pain.
I suggest you should check with a doctor as you also experience heavy forehead with chin up, which is also not normal. Just dont let it become chronic or any other medical condition.
If there is nothing to worry about medically, I will suggest you two things.

Use an orthopedic neck collar like  this .

When you are meditating, between intervals convenient to you, just revolve your neck or move from side to side to make it loose, so muscles dont get stiff. You can do it slowly so as not to disturb your meditation.

Thanks revolving the neck during meditation worked out !

Other people have brought up concerns with physiological issues and issues related to posture, but I'd like to bring up concerns with the actual meditation practice, as a possibility.
According to Bhante Vimalaramsi, neck pain and headaches related to meditation may be related not only to body position but also to the actual meditation practice. Do you find yourself feeling when meditating that you are keeping very tense, in order to stay focused on the breath or to prevent thoughts? If so, his 6-Rs might be helpful. The 6-R method is used to dismiss unnecessary thoughts during meditation without causing tension in the body.
(I have also used them in day-to-day life in order to reduce intrusive negative thoughts, to great success).
The six Rs are as follows:

Recognize-- Recognize that the train of thought is not what your goal is at the moment.
Release-- Release the thought. I have often mentally said to myself something along the lines of "I don't need to have this thought right now" or "I don't need to think about this" or "I can think about this later if I need to"
Relax-- Entirely relax the body. If you notice tension in the neck, be sure to release it now.
Re-smile-- Smile to yourself. This can be something you do physically or something you mentally do as well. If you don't have success mentally smiling, it can be easier to simply physically smile.
Return-- Whatever it is you're doing for this meditation, go back to it.
Repeat-- This will probably happen again, and that's fine! Be prepared for that. Go back to step one each time you find yourself straying from the meditation.

(Chart of 6-Rs from Bhante Vimalaramsi: https://library.dhammasukha.org/chart-of-6-rs.html )
Here is also a letter on his website which is somewhat related-- it refers more specifically to how the tension might be a result from trying to push down negative feelings as a result of negative actions in one's past, but the idea is similar:

"When one has done something in their past that they may feel guilty
  about, it can cause the meditator to try and push the memory down be
  using excessive energy"

(Quote from https://library.dhammasukha.org/headache-advice.html)
In this case, the excessive energy is being used to push down specifically negative thoughts, but I have also heard of people having the neck pain or headaches from simply using excessive energy to push down any thoughts unrelated to the meditation.

For meditations like anapanasati and iriyapatha you need to maintain a certain position in your body..But for most of other meditations you needn't a certain position..That means you can do them in a sleeping position also..But the problem arise next when you  do it in a that type of position you may feel sleepy..If you don't feel so you can try any position like that, no barriers for it,you are the one who can find a suitable position for it,than us..
Otherwise try some exercises for neck if need getting some medical advises, sometime that may help prevent the pain

A neck slightly bent forward put lot of stress on mussels on the back side of the neck when balancing the weight of your head. This usually cause pain and stiffness.
When meditating for a longer time on siting pose, a straight back and a neck is important. If this is deficult for you try strengthning back and neck musseles or try a completly different post (ex laying down).

I'd recommend you to have a neck MRI. I've had slight discomfort in my back muscles while meditating and a few months later I was diagnosed with disk herniation and arthritis. If MRI shows your spine is OK then the cause is either improper position or a psychological one.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I need an answer as to why i received a mother who makes me feel like an outcaste?
Buddhism teaches to respect parents. I do follow. But when ever i bow down our relation with my mother, she constantly tries to bring me down. She makes me feel bad for the way i look. I cannot change my skin color or my height. She nags about my appearance. My childhood was ruined and now she is making me depresses by saying no guy would like to marry me. It is getting hard to listen to her day by day. I am a person who upholds goodcharacter above anything. I can never say a bad word to anybody's face. Yet i am facing this almost everyday by my mother. When she fell ill i could not leave he and i was the one who suffer her illness more than her mentally. I feel bad as why she cannot see me as a daughter and love me when all i want is to make her happy.
What mistake have i done in my past life to her that she is constantly taunting me to death.

What mistake have I done in my past life to her that she is constantly taunting me to death.

If you are literally asking about your past Karmas, to figure out the reason behind your current life situation, then, it is impossible for other, you yourself have to reach that level of meditative awareness to remember your past life. The ways of Karma are not linear also the ripening of fruits is also not linear, you receive the fruits when the environment is right.
Furthermore, if you blame your past life for your present life, then you can again blame your past to past life for the deeds of past life, so the regression is infinite. So the first thing to solve the problem is that stop blaming past life or Karma or anything for that matter. The first step is to accept the situation. The first step is acceptance.
How can you solve this problem?
From a Buddhist context, you really have two problems here, one is Attachment and other is Expectations.
As much as I have studied human psychology I can tell you that hatred of mother for her child is usually dissociated, meaning she does not really hate you as a child but maybe she hated your father or something like that, but sometimes humans are not capable to locate the real reasons of hating somebody, so her nagging about your looks is simply her own misunderstanding of the exact thing that was bothering her about you. So the next step is to look at you mother as a human rather than 'your mother', this will free you from the attachment you have, and will be able to help you to solve the problem objectively.
Second is you stop expecting love and affection from your mother. This expectation is same as desires, which Buddhism talks of in great detail. The suffering here is caused because you desire your mother to behave in a certain way and she is not doing it, as the Buddha said, "not getting what you want is suffering". So this is the second thing you have to learn, to drop your desire.
The next step is to learn not to react, I suggest you should do a 10 day Vipassana  retreat of S N Goenka. Here you will learn to watch the sensations without reacting to them, you will have to apply the same to your relating to your mother. So whenever she insults you, you just watch, the unpleasant sensation arising in your mind and its impermanence. Ths will help you get rid of a lot of emotional trouble.

she is making me depresses by saying no guy would like to marry me.

So you are depressed by her words that no guy will like to marry you. Well, you have to understand something here, if you are depressed then your mother's prophecy will be self-fulfilling because no guy will want to marry a depressed girl. So instead of feeling depressed, you fill your heart and mind with loving-kindness and compassion. If you are loving then love will come in your life, but remember the inherent unsatisfactoriness of everything. To accomplish this, I will suggest that you should also learn some Metta meditation. Ajahn Brahm is the best teacher for this, see his Youtube videos on this topic. If you could give Metta to your mother under your current situation, then you have won, girl.
Look at the bigger picture
You take my word for this, and I assure you, that if it would not have been your mother bothering you it would have been someone else, something else. The first of the Noble truth is, There is Suffering in life. So instead of thinking that it was your bad karma that got you an undesirable mother, maybe it was your good karma that the suffering you are entitled has led you to ask important questions in life about Karma and past life. Life's plots are complicated, your mis-fortune sometimes is your greatest fortune.
Think about the story of the Buddha, He had a perfect father, His father kept Him in utmost luxury possible, gave Him everything, but still, you can imagine His suffering that He had to leave His palace in the middle of the night, teary-eyed, to find the end of the suffering.
So think about this, that getting a good mother or good father is also not the solution to life's suffering. Those who got have their problems. Follow the Dhamma taught by the Buddha, that's the only true way out.
Contemplate on this story told by Ajahn Brahm and last thing I will suggest you read the book 'Who ordered this truckload of Dung' by Ajahn Brahm. Thit will change your entire perspective.
Metta to you.

Today is the day. I'm feeling blessed right now. I will surely change for better. Thank you.

@Palvi Zeus be with you!!!

Your mother has ignorance & suffering in her mind. Respectfully, your mother is mentally unbalanced. Your situation is unrelated to anything in an imagined past life. The Buddha taught in this world there are children who are morally inferior to their parents; children who are morally equal to their parents; and children who are morally superior to their parents. In your case, you are morally superior to your mother; who lacks moral sensibilities.

What you have done in your past life does not matter. What you do in your current life matters. Your childhood is the past, only your memories that bothers you and if you keep attaching to them, it becomes your obstacle for your present and future well-being.
Appearance is impermanent, and getting married doesn't mean they are better or worse in personal qualities.
Be compassionate to yourself, and to your mother. Of course you need to be respectful to your parents, but you can also be respectful to yourself by holding no ill-will neither against them, nor yourself.

Yes toxic parents create a delicate situation which becomes irritating and later on very draining of mental energy. It is very easy for the grown up child to see existence has being wasted.
 THe biggest mistake you can do, for you and your parents, is to be  angry, resentful, mad, mean, crossed with  your mom.
You ask about past karma, but until you can see for yourself the workings of the karma, speculating about this is detrimental to you, just like relying on the remarks of your mother.
You can care being criticized by a buddha and other arhants, but worrying about the remarks of a normal person who tries to be mean makes you miserable like you clearly  claimed. Caring about those words is not worth it, it goes against your sake. So the solution is to stop caring about her remarks. THe method for this really to become enlightened but that could be a lot of work if you care about what must not be cared.
To dilute her effects on you, you can do the simplest thing, to wit to put space and time between you and her.
You can leave in another house if you have the money and find somebody to rent you an accommodation. You can then later on still go to see your mom.
You can even enroll in a monastery if you can no longer stand her and fails to find an accommodation.
Second, you can talk regularly to her, but sometimes people do not change, even when they see that their actions lead to failure, even when they see that their actions do not give them what they want, especially when the claims and advises they hear come from a person that they do not take seriously, typically one of their children.
Perhaps you can get a person, like a bikkhu, appreciated by your mom for her words, to talk to your mom and you.
THe third way is the best way but requires far more work from you. THe method gives you endurance in face of negative people. You are upset at her words and perhaps her actions because you manage to care about her words and about the topic of her claims.
for instance, You claim that she makes claims about your height. Even if you are very small or very tall,  It turns out that the height is not significant, not relevant to follow the dhamma.
Height matters only to people who do not want to follow the dhamma, who care about living in the society and want what is wrong to want in order to stop being unhappy, like fame or being attractive to other people in the society.
Words are only words and as long as you ''do not take up'' the words, like words of insult or mockery, you will be fine.
See the sutta of some puthujjana insulting the buddha.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.002.than.html
In order to dilute the power of her words on you and for you stop being upset by her words, you can remember that you do not fall for her remarks and you stick to being a good person, you can dilute your attachment to what could be seen as the ''best years of your life'' (in order to weaken your view that many years of your existence have been wasted) by thinking that life is long and you are able to endure a few years of audible mediocrity.
See the sutta about being cut in half by mean people.

"In the same way, monks, there are these five aspects of speech by
  which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false,
  affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of
  good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way
  or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is
  false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way.
  They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They
  may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. In any
  event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and
  we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's
  welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will
  keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and,
  beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world
  with an awareness imbued with good will equal to a catskin bag —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill
  will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb,
  with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered
  even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train
  yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil
  words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with
  no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness
  imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading
  the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will —
  abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill
  will.' That's how you should train yourselves.

In order to dilute the power of her words on you, you can remember that Sometimes a person can only stop doing bad things, stop saying bad words by dying. So you just have to wait. Her pollutions will not last long.
Always have in mind that this situation is not permanent and that taking her words seriously, that caring about the remarks, especially from a puthujjana, which have nothing to do with being a good person with respect to the dhamma is detrimental to you and would lead you to being an awful person too.
Always have in mind that your mom is not enlightened. Do not hold grudge against her.

Things we have to undergo or sufferings we meet in this life are not only the results of what we did in our past(kamma) lives..According to buddhism,things happen due to 5 reasons or dhammas..That mean that sufferings you have mentioned above happen due to 5 reasons..That's not only the kamma of you(what you did in past)..Those 5 reasons are called as ''the five niyamas''>>>you can see further deatails about it from here...
As you say those bad words and scoldings you have to be heard mostly may be due to 2 of above mentioned niyamas..those are ''kamma niyama'' and ''citta niyama''..kamma niyama is what you did in your past lives and this life,if you did a serious good/bad thing, result of that comes in the same life..But we can't tell surely your mothers behavior is a result of your kamma/acts you did in past...Because ,to tell that someone has to develop his ind to a special state,which is called ''pubbeniwasanussati gnana''..If you read buddhist stories ,you'll find such occasions where lord buddha,said about others past lives and karmas certain people did....
As you say mother fells from some illness, So we can think here about the other niyama  of that 5 i mentioned early..That is ''citta niyama''..Due to her age and illness, her mentality has changed,So here mind is not working as usual,and the thoughts come from her mind are varied weird or bad ones..As a result of those bad thoughts she blame you and try to make sufferings on you..
you can see as above, those sufferings you feel are  happen because of the bad state of your mother's mind or citta niyama..So that's not a fault of you and you have no reason to be sad or repent..As you say you spend a good life,Think about that and fit your mind...
As our lord buddha said when you lead a good life, if you meet with barriers/hard situations in your life think about your good behavior/how you avoid bad acts/''seela '' which you follow...Then the strength or results of your behavior increases..And otherwise try to speak good words,don't be sad about what your mother says..Try to keep in your good behavior and,increase them..When you increase good deeds and good behavior in you if there are bad  things affect on you,they'll decrease gradually, as the salt taste  of a salt crystal decrease step by step as we put it into a bowl and add water gradually..
triple gems bless you

It is easy to inherit seeds of sorrow, prejudice and favouritism from the side of the parents and then further transfer these onto the children and so on.
I say this as I was in exactly the same situation, but from the side of my father. My brother was the favourite one and I used to typically get a lot of grief, uneasy, depressing remarks and insults about my worthlessness and utter uselessness.
That made me, in the end, suffer from depression, anxiety and lack of confidence in the rest of my adulthood.
The result of our mental formations is not entirely dependant on us and our actions, it is also that of collective consciousness of the environment we participate in and historically used to revolve around.
If one looks deeply (and meditative insight helps), one might discover the cause. For my father, the case was that he was too, an underdog and his brother was the favourite of the parents. And it just happened that he was the eldest of two brothers - and so was I, the mimicked situation made it ever more resembling and worse.
It is in the end the case of mirroring.
Good news is that we can root out and transform all the childhood seeds of grief and misery and the key for that is plenty of Metta towards ourselves and our parent(s). So, here it is, I advise Loving-Kindness meditation to understand our parents suffering with compassion, and namely, where that suffering comes from. Only then we can unconditionally love ourselves and our parents.
It matters not that mother or father holds such views of us - it is about our reaction to these; we cannot change other people’s way of thinking and deeply rooted bias, and we should not hope for that to happen.

Now that i think about her childhood, my mother seems to simply reflect what she faced. Isn't it wise to not let others face the situation because we know how it feels? Why isnt she able to realise that? Like in the story a gentleman shared here, she is carrying the dung around with her. Is it okay for me to ignore her and live my life on my own? But being a mother i am sure she would not listen to me. I will look into metta. Thank you Sir.

It is better to let things go, but not everyone  is capable of seeing through attachments to see wisdom. This clinging in the end causes suffering and delusions, but not everyone aspires for liberation.

Sounds like in the past you were very judgmental. You probably despised people who were not as righteous and idealistic as you. You thought they were lowly. As a result you now got into this situation. This is called "attachment to ideals".

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


text:
Vipassana meditation with samadhi
In vipassana meditation either samadhi or insight  comes as the  vehicle .When samadhi comes as a vehicle it's called Samanthayanika vipassana .In Samanthayanika meditation how yogi see the impermanence suffering and no self?

Think about it. How can one see anicca, dukkha, anatta when observing concepts that are stable, satisfying and experienced as self?

@user13579 Samanthayanika meditation can not be the samadhi used in satipatthana that cultivates  vipassana?

I think it is wrong to say that either insight (panna) or concetration (samadhi) comes through Vipassana. They both come through Vipassana, they both aid each other in their "coming through" and further growth. Of course, it is relativly easier to develop samadhi as compared to panna; nonetheless samadhi is perfected only when one has panna and panna cannot be perfected without having perfected samadhi.
It is unclear what you mean when you say 'comes as a vehicle'. But if I were to take vehicle as that which carries you over the river of samsar- then 'vehicle' is vipassana. Concentration and Insight both go in hand in hand. A yogi who has perfected samadhi has more chances of perfecting panna, and therefore, is closer to Nirvana; than a yogi who is yet to perfect samadhi (for perfection of panna without perfection of samadhi is not possible).
DO note that these are not the only two things to be perfected. These are only two Paramitas. There are more.
Since the vehicle is Vipasssana only, one 'sees' the three marks of existence (anicca (impermanence), anatta (no-self), dukhha(suffering)) as anyone else would see-through insight build on a foundation of samadhi and other perfections (paramitas).

Great answer! I believe the questioner was referring to the two vehicles model that posits one vehicle as being A) one who practices first Samatha and then Vipassana, and B) one who practices Vipassana and then Samatha. I agree that they arise and assist each other on the Path, and must both be developed in tandem for true progress. Some modes of practice however might stress one or the other. For example, first gaining Ekagatta and then using this calm, wizened mind to look at the Three Characteristics.

@SunWuKong Yes! I very much agree that there are traditions that stress one over the other. That is good, because everyone begins at a different point. Thus, for people who think they need to work on samadhi, can go for vehicle A. Likewise, people who think they need to work on panna[pali] (prajna[sanskrit]), can go for school B.


text:
Are there any Buddhist monasteries near Varanasi?
I am in Varanasi , India where Buddha gave his sermons. I want to know ,are there any Buddhist monasteries near Varanasi ?

Venerable Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche has built a classic Tibetan monastery in Sarnath called Vajra Vidya Institute. When you reach Sarnath, go to the backside of the Deer Park. The area is known as Kajoohay. Ask for directions to the "Big Tibetan Temple" or "Big Mandhir".
There are other Buddhist temples and monasteries in Sarnath: Tibetan, Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Sri Lankan, Cambodian, Vietnamese etc.


text:
the foot feels the foot when it feels the ground

the foot feels the foot when it feels the ground

I see this in a book. I cannot understand exactly what it means. what is the deep meaning of this Buddha's quotes.

Its sounds like walking meditation to me.

mokakda potha..man nan kalin ahala na

Yep, do walking meditation and you'll know.

Although the quote is fake, the idea behind it is real. As @Friedrick Nietzsche correctly pointed out, it refers to the reality of co-arising. Here is an explanation by Nalin Swaris in his "The Buddha's way to Human Liberation":

A verse in the Samyukta Nikaya draws attention to this primacy of cotouching, which escapes the average person's awareness:

Who touches not is not touched. Touching he is touched (K.S.I.19).

The seemingly enigmatic Zen koan, "What is the sound of one clapping hand?" statement bears on this necessity of co-touching. There is no arising of any type of sensation without co-touching. The feeling and the felt are conditioned-conditioning factors. This is expressed in a terse formulation phassa-phuttha -“touched by touch” (Thag vs.783). The ‘toucher’ is not an autonomous subject touching a passive object - ‘out there,’ or a transcendental ‘idea’ in the head. The ‘toucher’ is touched in the very act of touching. This emphasis on mutual touching is of utmost importance.
...
A form 'as such' does not pre-exist the act of perception; it arises when
there is contact, feeling and perception. The proposition that subjects and objects exist prior to the act of perception is a falsification of the factual situation. Without the friction produced by counter-flows ‘nothing’ could be sensed - through friction a form is felt and perceived - rūpasaññā. Mutual contact is the genetic moment of consciousness. Thus the belief that consciousness and thoughts exist before contact with an appropriate stimulus of the senses is fallacious.
...
The development of ego consciousness coincides with a sensation of difference, or of the otherness of the other. The attention is fixed on the sense of difference evoked by touching and is conceptualized as a difference between two ‘things’ - the Self and an 'other.' The growing child becomes ignorant (ignore-ance) of the touch which unites and splits experience up into differences of 'this' and 'that' and 'yours' and 'mine.' It forgets that the sense of 'I' and 'Not-I' is a co-arising experience. It falls into the delusion that these perceived differences are substantial differences between separate ‘things’ which existed before they interacted with each other. Consciousness, which initially arises through contact between a sense organ and its connatural stimuli begins to
imagine it is an unconditioned subject of thought.
...
The growing child begins to differentiate between different sense impressions registering them as pleasant and unpleasant. Contacts which do not impinge consciousness as pleasant and unpleasant are ignored as the child oscillates between the pleasant and the unpleasant. As result, it begins to live without mindfulness as to the body which registers these multiple sensations, that is to say, mindless of the frictional co-touching - patigaha samphasso - which conditions feeling and engenders
consciousness. The self fixes its attention on the source of the pleasant, delights in them and clings to them as if they are external things-in-themselves. The notion of a self as the subject of these feelings co-arises with the notion of other-others as objects of pleasure or pain. The infant’s attraction to the pleasant and repulsion from the painful becomes attachment to the pleasant and antipathy for the unpleasant.
The child delights in the pleasant and clings to it. Clinging gives rise to becoming, the process of becoming conditions the birthing and rebirthing of the clinger as well as the objects it clings to. This fixation on the self and the other, as the Buddha puts it, limits the mind; the range of consciousness is circumscribed. Its imaginations about reality are conditioned by a mind that is limited to inputs registered in terms
of pleasant/unpleasant. A desire arises to rebirth the pleasant which is experienced as the very condition or foothold of its sense of self as the subject of experience and knowledge. The child is no longer aware that subject and the object of craving are mutually conditioned-conditioning relationships.
...
[Buddha] is describing a conditioned-conditioning
process that culminates in consciousness of a separate self existing independent of conditions. Initial instinctive, reflexive physical reactions of attraction and repulsion becomes transformed into conditioned psychic reactions of lust and hatred and take on a moral character.
The illusion of duality originates with contact and feeling. As the infant begins to differentiate itself from ‘others,’ - initially the
(m)other who suckles it. It becomes ignorant that consciousness of the ‘I’ and the ‘other’ co-arose through touch and feeling. The ‘I’ and the ‘other’, the ‘this’ and ‘that’ take on the appearance of separate forms which it learns to name.

According to this it was coined/intended as an explanation of "Naturalness" in Zen.

Yes, here's the anecdote: "An instance of this came out when Buddha asked the monks to step on the ground and tell him what they felt. The monks described the earth, the gravel etc. and were surprised when the Buddha exclaimed: 'What! Did you not feel the foot?' Carrying the system further we realize that in all experience we should be able to realize our essential self-nature not as an object among objects, nor as a subject among objects, but just as it is." - The Dictionary of Zen by Ernest Wood (emphasis mine).

Wow, awesome reference!

It is a fake Buddha quote. Check it here. He never said that.
But still, if you want to interpret it, this profound wisdom might suggest that, "only an uninstructed human will not understand dependent origination".
Only an uninstructed human  will need ground to know the truth that she has a feet. Doesnt sound buddhist to me at all.


text:
Non duality in daily life
What is this like in daily life ? How  does it manifest when dealing with insults? Ambition? Materialism?

Non-duality is Hinduism (which was adopted by Mahayana Buddhism). I think the questions you have asked and issues you have mentioned can be addressed with teachings other than 'non-duality'.

@Dhammadhatu The tag definition for 'nonduality' ends with, "Nonduality is the occurrence of non-self". I think that "non-duality" is a superset of the "non-self" doctrine -- so if you wanted to answer as if the question were asking about "non-self", then I think that might be on-topic (except only that "The Buddha didn't teach anatta to lay-people" wouldn't be much of an answer, however true that may be).

I feel the question is phrased in a tricky way. Non-duality would be the true nature of Reality so we all live with it, knowingly or otherwise. I think you mean what is it like living as a realised master. This question might yield better results.

Non-duality in essence means that samsara and nirvana are one, and this further corresponds to emptiness and interconnectedness of all beings. For instance, we have mostly positive and comfortable, wealthy lives in the West, but that corresponds to the terrible situation in the third world countries that are exploited to provide West with all the comfort (example given, China or some African, exploited countries). Another common example is that there cannot be Lotus without Mud, one allows the other to exist. Or Left political wing cannot exist without the Right.
Non-duality is mainly Mahayana and Vajrayana concept. If you'd like to know more, read Heart Sutra along with some decent commentary. I recommend "The heart of understanding" by Thich Nhat Hanh, if you are getting lost in the practical way.
Another example from perspective of realised being (Bodhisattva), Diamond Sutra explains it quite well as a universal teaching:

However many species of living beings there are—whether born from
  eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they
  have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or do not
  have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have
  perceptions or that they do not have perceptions, we must lead all
  these beings to nirvana so that they can be liberated. Yet when this
  innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become
  liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been
  liberated

For one there is pledge for non-discrimination, which requires non-dual way of thinking (i.e. Me versus Them, Ugly versus Beautiful), but also aspect of spontaneous helping; helping without distinguishing between the person that's being helped, and the helper.
Concluding, I think what you really mean is not non-duality per se, but applying wisdom of the teaching through Mindfulness. This way is fully described by Buddha in step four of the Noble Truths; Eightfold Path that is.
You don't have to really do much more, everything is there! Do good, avoid evil, purify your mind and also, remember three characteristics; impermanence, no-Self and that there is suffering. If you keep recollection of these at all times, you will transform your drives and habits.

Isn't the example in your first paragraph ("wealthy lives in the West") an example of duality, not of non-duality? I thought that a corresponding example of non-duality might be, something like, "(my) charity (to help someone else) improves (my) standard of living (as well as theirs)", or, "everyone lives and dies", or etc.

It is an example of rich elements build of non-rich elements, as in they are contained within each other. All of these examples are from TNH’s Heart Sutra commentary.

All of these examples are from TNH’s Heart Sutra commentary Are they? I didn't notice it in The Heart of Understanding -- by searching for "West", "rich", "China", or "Africa" ... or "lotus". There is a bit there though about "left" and "right", "good" and "evil".

You should get plenty of hits around page 42 and chapter “Roses and Garbage” although  what I have written is not literal quote as I have read it long time ago, it should still convey its spirit and meaning, example (from this chapter): https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/685727-let-us-look-at-wealth-and-poverty-the-affluent-society

Thank you yes, that's a good chapter (its next explanation, after the rose, is to do with whether child prostitutes are impure). FWIW I see nation-scale poverty as relative or comparative, e.g. "China appears to be poor because the West appears to be rich". I do remember seeing China's ambassador to the USA say in about 1990 (on the subject of "what good is the Chinese government doing?") that for the first time in history almost everyone in China now has enough to eat (i.e. that China too, in general, is less poor than it used to be).

We obviously have names and legal existence. In Other words Im a father,husband and have a job .

I think there is a mistake already in saying "I am a father....". If you only say it as a way of communicating conventionally, then ok. But believing the meaning of the words, then no.
Conventionally speaking I am married. But I don't feel a meaning behind those words. There is nothing behind the words. (Sorry, can't put it in better words. See here the limitations of communication. :( )

Things are expected of this body. I know as a Buddhist I am meant to
  follow the four precepts but day to day how does non duality operate
  for you ?

On a day to day practice I follow the five precepts. (Your tradition knows four?)
But, I'm not meant to do anything. I train myself in the precepts of my own choice.
It's a daily thing. Getting up, paying respect to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha, then reciting the precepts and then I pick something to train myself in for the next 24 hours. It's my own personal touch of Dhamma practice.
So, that one topic can be:

paying special attention to the fourth precept (not to ly, speak harshly etc).;
keeping an eye on the hinderances;
staying with the sense doors;
training one of the ten parami (metta or khanti are the ones I pick most of the time);
(put other objects of your choice here ....)

How do you deal with material desire? Insults? Etc the slings and
  arrows of life.

Desire doesn't come up that often anymore. Especially material desire. It's just no longer there. Insults are often just 'hearing, hearing'. But sometimes the mind reacts with aversion. Then I note this as 'aversion, aversion' or 'anger, anger'.. depends.
I guess, you could say that there is no difference anymore between formal practice and daily life.
Hope this helps.
I might have misunderstood your question, given that my answer completely differs from what others already wrote.

I think that "non-duality" is a slightly later doctrine, which can be understood as a superset of several earlier/original doctrines -- when I say, "a superset", I mean that earlier doctrines are examples of (or instances of) the more general non-duality doctrine -- that non-duality can include or contain earlier doctrines.
Someone on this site wrote this tag definition (for the nonduality tag), which ends with:

Nonduality is the occurrence of non-self.

I'm not sure that's a conventional description of nonduality -- there's a description of the "non-duality" doctrine here, but I'm not sure how to apply that in practice (it seems to me to be discussing or explaining points of doctrine rather than aspects of practical life) -- so instead I'll try to answer your question, by explaining:

How the doctrine described in the suttas is practical or helpful, prescriptive
Why I consider that doctrine to be examples of "non-duality".

The first (and, in my opinion, the most important) bit of doctrine, is the second noble truth -- that suffering co-arises with craving and attachment.
And I think that craving and attachment are examples of "duality", for example:

This is where and how I am -- in this situation, with these problems
That is where and how I crave to be -- in that situation, without problems, with those assets

"I perceive and vainly wish there weren't an unbridgeable difference between this and that" is IMO an example of duality and of suffering -- and working to erase that perceived difference (different between "this so-called reality" compared to "that fantasy or ideal") is a practical manifestation of non-duality.
Note that Buddhism distinguishes between "craving" (tanha) and "desire" (chanda).
Craving is associated with suffering (because it implies an unbridgeable or an endless craving for things to be other than as they are), but desire (e.g. a skilful desire for non-suffering) may be good.

Another example of "duality" is found in the idiom "it takes two to tango" -- it's defined as (for example), "both parties involved in a situation or argument are equally responsible for it."
On the subject of "insults" I think that this sutta is a clear example of not being insulted: Akkosa Sutta (SN 7.2).
I think there's a similar example (involving anger) in the opening lines of the Dhammapada:

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

There I think that "hatred", and seeing a split between "him" and "me", and an unbridgeable gap between "he hit me" and some fantasy ideal in which there's a me who wasn't hit, is an example of dualistic thinking -- and in contrast, "non-hatred" is an example of non-dual thinking.
I think that a further example, of (maybe) "non-dual" thinking, from the Dhammapada comes in the 'Violence' chapter:

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.
One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.
Speak not harshly to anyone, for those thus spoken to might retort. Indeed, angry speech hurts, and retaliation may overtake you.
If, like a broken gong, you silence yourself, you have approached Nibbana, for vindictiveness is no longer in you.

This "putting oneself in the place of another" is an example of healing the perceived duality between self and others -- I think the practice of that is described extensively in Buddhism, e.g. it's the basis for almost all ethics (sīla), and it's related to the Brahmaviharas.

As for "ambition" and "materialism" that's a bit more complicated as a subject - or, if it's not complicated, it's broad. In practice, for example, I think that what's considered right behaviour (and ownership of material possessions) for a monk is different than for a lay-person.
Examples of what may be considered ethical behaviour for a lay-person can be found in e.g. the Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31).
But very broadly I suppose that "ambition" can be summarised along the lines of:

Avoiding causing suffering for yourself
Avoiding causing suffering for others
Helping to liberate others

That's difficult to explain terms of "non-duality" -- because "non-duality" might posit that there's no essential difference between "yourself" and "others"; that any self-view is unwise; or that there's no tangible difference between the real (e.g. samsara) and the ideal (e.g. nirvana).
I think the key is to have an 'unselfish' and 'wise' view (of existence and/or non-existence), to follow through (from that view) with right intention, and so on (with right or noble concentration or mindfulness, behaviour, speech) as outlined in the noble eightfold path.
In summary I think it isn't "having the right thing" that will make you happy -- instead what leads to an absence of remorse (i.e. no difference or duality between "as it is" versus "as it ought to be") is "doing the right thing".

Returning to the Wikipedia definition for a moment:

The Buddhist tradition added the teachings of śūnyatā; the two truths doctrine, the nonduality of the absolute and the relative truth, and the Yogachara notion of "mind/thought only" (citta-matra) or "representation-only" (vijñaptimātra). Vijñapti-mātra and the two truths doctrine, coupled with the concept of Buddha-nature, have also been influential concepts in the subsequent development of Mahayana Buddhism, not only in India, but also in China and Tibet, most notably the Chán (Zen) and Dzogchen traditions.

I think of sunyata as an extension of the earlier anatta doctrine.
For example, anatta teaches more-or-less that any (fixed) "view" of "self" is unwise or untrue -- that the self isn't what you think it is, and that thinking like that is a recipe for suffering and/or a consequence of not paying proper attention -- see e.g. How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?
And I think that sunyata extends that from the "view of self" to the "view of everything else" as well -- e.g. that it's wrong to have a fixed view of things-as-they-are -- because they're not like that, or that's only one aspect of them, or a fixed view is a form of attachment, and so on.
Also I suppose that many of the anatta techniques or reasoning (e.g. "there's no 'self', only forms and perceptions and feelings etc., impermanent and conditioned") is applicable to sunyata (e.g. "there are no 'things', only forms and perceptions and feelings etc., impermanent and conditioned").
I think that Western philosophers have spent a lot of effort on trying to understand or explain the difference between subject and object (e.g. between "I perceive", the "I" which perceives, versus "what I perceive", the object which I am perceiving") -- and that that (example of a "duality") is not helpful and is an example of where non-duality is more practical.
I guess (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Buddha-nature doctrine is "practical" in that it helps to overcome the duality (the perceived split, the craving) between "I am not enlightened" versus "I want to be enlightened", by teaching that the seed or possibility of Buddha-hood exists.

I guess that (or I wonder whether), even more generally, any word (any use of words) implies some kind of division: that the word "cat", for example, implies the existence of "cat" and "non-cat".
I think there are forms of Buddhism which distrust verbal descriptions.
In early Buddhist doctrine I guess that's possibly evident in, for example, descriptions of "formless" awareness (i.e. jhanas), however in general that the early Buddhism of the suttas is not at all shy about labelling some things in a possibly "dualistic" way, e.g. distinguishing between "wise" and "unwise", "noble" and "ignoble", etc.

Appreciate all the comments and insights. I have realized that for me, when I make decisions on any issues, I ask " what will be my decisions if I take OUT
my personal interest from the equation? and what will it be if personal interest is taken into account
When you compare the two you realize the role of the SELF in your life and how it affects your relationship with all things

Non-Duality is a Hindu idea of ultimate liberation or 'Moksha' as they call it, its realized when the 'atman' (permanent-self/soul) joins(coalesce together) with 'Brahman'(universal consciousness). To me, this seems like reaching the 6th jhnana where you realize 'infinity of consciousness'.
But for the sake of your question let us assume that you mean to say,

How does realization of Anatta, Annica and Dukkha help in daily life  OR
  How do Buddhists insights help people live their daily lives?

What is this like in daily life?
Most of Daily life of a present generation lay follower is like anybody else's life only it comes with adding mindfulness everywhere. You try to walk with being mindful of steps, you try to eat being mindful of every bite and you drink tea like its a ceremony, savoring every small sip of that divine potion.
When you start cultivating the 10 Paramis and living with the 8 fold path, you will observe that day by day you start living with a positive mind state, (not to confuse with 'positive thinking') which means instead of spending days and days with hatred, anger, lust, self-pity, loathing, regrets, you start feeling good about yourselves, just because you exist. Taking a deep breath feels like a treat, being here start making a count. You start living in tune with the Dhamma which means, in words of Zen master Bankei,

'when hungry eat when tired sleep'

. That's living with non-duality, the mind is no longer split when you are eating, you are really eating, and not thinking about your work or your wife.
How does it manifest when dealing with insults?
Here is a story of the Buddha Himself dealing with the insults, it's from the Akkosa Sutta.
The more you realize the no-self, the more you drop the Ego, the more you start living without the Ego (but this should not be confused with humbleness or altruism). The less is your Ego, the less are the chances of that getting hurt when people hurl insults at you. It does not mean that you become insensitive, or dumb or numb or you start showing indifference in a passive-aggressive way. It means that your perspective of experience itself changes, instead of reacting to the insult, you start having compassion for that person in the first place for harboring anger, you learn to respond, intelligently.
Ambition?
Ambition is a twisted version of having desires. Having an ambition means you want to be somebody in the future which you are not at the moment, or you want to possess something or somebody in the future or you want worldly pleasures, but that's in the future. And for that desire, you are ready to do efforts hard work. In this process, your ambition ends up becoming part of your Id and Ego, which means if you won't achieve that you will end up in suffering. So what to do?
To quote Zen master Basho here,

“Sitting quietly, doing nothing, Spring comes, and the grass grows,
  by itself.”

This does not mean that resort to inaction and just sit there. It means that you change your way of action entirely. You start living in the present moment more and more, you plan, knowing well that they are tentative, subject to change. You keep intention, like, I want to get promoted in the office, but this intention does not become an ambition, that I want to become a CEO. So, with intention, you give your best at the moment, best in the hour and best to the day in the office. When it's not an Ego issue every single bit of your Karma working in the office is going to accumulate and bring flowers of spring which may or may not be a promotion. So, you are not affected by the results anymore and hence not entitled to suffering.
Materialism?
Buddha taught the monks to renunciation and minimalism, but He did not prescribe the same thing for householders. So the problem of materialism can be easily tackled with deep insight into nature of Samsara, i.e. Annicca OR Impermanence. When you live by this insight, you basically learn not to cling to anything, not to get attached, not to create attachments, and simultaneously enjoy all the worldly pleasures that life has to offer. As long as your wife/ girlfriend is there with you, when she is gone, it's equally good, you don't have to cry, it was impermanent anyway, you enjoy nice clothes, good food, a good car, but tomorrow if all of this is not available and the Zombie apocalypse does happen, it should not bother you, you should be in state of equanimity. A deep insight into impermanence brings this state.

The following shows duality in an untaught ordinary person and non-duality in a fully enlightened arahant, in daily life. Duality here refers to what is your self and what is not your self, and the relationship between the two.
From MN 1:

“Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for
  noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has
  no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their
  Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he
  conceives himself as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he
  conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’
  he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood
  it, I say.
“He perceives water as water. Having perceived water as water, he
  conceives himself as water, he conceives himself in water, he
  conceives himself apart from water, he conceives water to be ‘mine,’
  he delights in water. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood
  it, I say.
“He perceives fire as fire. Having perceived fire as fire, he
  conceives himself as fire, he conceives himself in fire, he conceives
  himself apart from fire, he conceives fire to be ‘mine,’ he delights
  in fire. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
“He perceives air as air. Having perceived air as air, he conceives
  himself as air, he conceives himself in air, he conceives himself
  apart from air, he conceives air to be ‘mine,’ he delights in air. Why
  is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
“He perceives beings as beings. Having perceived beings as beings, he
  conceives beings, he conceives himself in beings, he conceives himself
  apart from beings, he conceives beings to be ‘mine,’ he delights in
  beings. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
...
  “He perceives the seen as the seen. Having perceived the seen as the
  seen, he conceives himself as the seen, he conceives himself in the
  seen, he conceives himself apart from the seen, he conceives the seen
  to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the seen. Why is that? Because he has not
  fully understood it, I say.
“He perceives the heard as the heard. Having perceived the heard as
  the heard, he conceives himself as the heard, he conceives himself in
  the heard, he conceives himself apart from the heard, he conceives the
  heard to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the heard. Why is that? Because he
  has not fully understood it, I say.
“He perceives the sensed as the sensed. Having perceived the sensed as
  the sensed, he conceives himself as the sensed, he conceives himself
  in the sensed, he conceives himself apart from the sensed, he
  conceives the sensed to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the sensed. Why is
  that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
“He perceives the cognized as the cognized. Having perceived the
  cognized as the cognized, he conceives himself as the cognized, he
  conceives himself in the cognized, he conceives himself apart from the
  cognized, he conceives the cognized to be ‘mine,’ he delights in the
  cognized. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

On the other hand, a fully enlightened arahant:

“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has
  lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is
  completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows
  earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not
  conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he
  does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth
  to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he
  has fully understood it, I say.

And so on.


text:
What is the difference between mindfulness and concentration?
Does the concentration occurs during first jhana?or is it relates to the samadhi which involves in second jhana?What is actually one pointed of the mind means?

"Mindfulness" means to "remember to apply" and "not forget" the Dhamma teachings. To quote:

What is sammasati? Sati means to bear in mind or bring to mind. Sati is the state of recollecting, the state of remembering, the state of
  non-fading, the state of non-forgetting. [Vbh.105, 286]

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities —
  right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around
  right view. MN 117

For example, in Buddhist meditation, it means to always remember to keep the mind free from craving. The suttas (MN 10; MN 118) say the meditator: "is mindful to abandon covetousness & distress in relation to the world".
"Concentration" is the state of non-distractedness or singular preoccuption; which occurs when the mind is continuously mindful. Concentration is "samadhi' ("collectedness"); when the mind gathers its potentials onto a primary task and objective.
Every jhana has one-pointedness/singleness of mind; as follows:

The first jhana has five factors. There is the case where, in a monk who has attained the five-factored first jhana, there occurs directed
  thought, evaluation, rapture, pleasure & singleness of mind. MN 43

Unflagging persistence was aroused in me, and unmuddled mindfulness established. My body was calm & unaroused, my mind concentrated &
  single. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful
  mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana... MN 19

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go,
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn
  from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters
  & remains in the first jhana... SN 48.10

One-pointedness is when the mind becomes glued to a mental image.
Both the 1st and 2nd jhana have one-pointedness however in the 1st jhana, while the "centre" of the mind is unmoving; the outer parts of the mind (consciousness; not thoughts) still move or 'hover' around the factors of jhana; similar to how a wheel is fixed to an axle but spins around the axle. Refer to Ajahn Brahm's teaching about the "jhana wobble".
On Buddhist chatsites on the internet, there is not one person who has declared they have attained jhana who has actually attained jhana. These people are always overestimating their experiences.

Your definition of concentration is spot on, imho.

Concentration is part of every mind state: the normal, regular, every-day-of-life mind states; the unwholesome ones; the wholesome ones.
It is absolutely not limited to jhana states!
One-pointed means basically that it focusses the entire mind on to an object. In vipassana we speak of momentary one-pointedness where the mind in this moment focusses entirely on this object and the next moment on the next object.


text:
Harmlessness as the highest form of generosity?
Somewhere I thought it was said that the practice of harmlessness was praised by the Buddha as the greatest form of generosity. (I don't remember where I read this.)
Has anything like this been said in the Buddha's teachings or in any Buddhist texts?

i.e. the non-doing, non-harming of an arahant vs. the doing of a political activist.

Dhamma-dana, the gift of the noble teachings, is said by the Buddha to excel all other gifts:

The gift of Dhamma excels all gifts; the taste of the Dhamma excels all tastes; the delight in Dhamma excels all delights. The Craving-Freed vanquishes all suffering. ~~ Dhp. 354 ~~

and one who practices harmlessness is giving the gift of the Dhamma through living it, are they not.

And what are the manifestations of living the Dhamma if not through all 3 gateways of body, speech, and mind.

Dhammapada 270 has been translated in several ways, some of which use the word "harm".
Verse 270: He who harms living beings is, for that reason, not an ariya (a Noble One); he who does not harm any living being is called an ariya
In terms of "greatest", it is notable that generosity is the first Paramita.
Focusing on "greatest" alone is problematic, because it may lead one to ignore other considerations. For example, standing by to avoid risk of harm to oneself while others are being harmed might not be generous.

in Overflowing Merit.
Reasons for people to observe precepts.  some might do so for self benefit, self generated peace .. or in case of incorporating with gift giving, people observe precepts so others may benefit from it.  such as no killing, stealing etc.
IMO, observing precepts for benefit of others is highest form of generosity.

...Mendicants, these five gifts are great, original, long-standing, traditional, and ancient. They are uncorrupted, as they have been since the beginning. They’re not being corrupted now nor will they be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on them. What five? Firstly, a noble disciple gives up killing living creatures. By so doing they give to countless sentient beings the gift of freedom from fear, enmity, and ill will. And they themselves also enjoy unlimited freedom from fear, enmity, and ill will. This is the first gift that is a great offering, original, long-standing, traditional, and ancient. It is uncorrupted, as it has been since the beginning. It’s not being corrupted now nor will it be. Sensible ascetics and brahmins don’t look down on it. This is the fourth kind of overflowing merit …

Bhikkhus, whatever grounds there are for making merit productive of a future birth, all these do not equal a sixteenth part of the mind-release of loving-kindness.
(It §27)

For It §27, loving-kindness is said to be the most merit-producing form of generosity.
Next, for Satipatthana Samyutta, No. 19, loving-kindness is described as protecting others, together with harmlessness and compassion.

And how does one, in protecting others, protect oneself? By patience and forbearance, by a non-violent and harmless life, by loving kindness and compassion."


text:
Are there any higher education opportunities in Buddhism?
I am searching if Buddhism can be studied in Universities academically.
I searched for PhD positions, most are in US with ambiguous postings. There are programs in Thailand but most of the postings look expired.
So, can you help me know if there is any way to be an Academic Buddhist scholar? Are there any universities you know offering Buddhist studies? Any other suggestions in this direction.

In United States, the ones I have heard something nice about, that offer a professional program in Buddhist Studies:

University of Virginia - Department of Religious Studies. Very strong Indo-Tibetan Buddhism school.
University of Hawaii - Department of Religion. Very strong Chinese/Japanese Buddhism school.
Columbia University (New York) - Department of Religion. Strong Indo-Tibetan and Chinese/Japanese Buddhism school.
Rollins College in Florida - Department of Philosophy and Religion. Buddhist Ethics.
Naropa University, Colorado. Undergrad school for kids aspiring to grow in Buddhist Studies.

Many large universities in US offer a program in philosophy (or "comparative philosophy") with concentration in buddhist studies. See for example this list from the Tricycle magazine. Buddhist studies further specialize into Early&Theravada Buddhism, Indian-Tibetan Buddhism, and Chinese/Korean/Japanese Buddhism.
In my understanding, the way this (the choice of school for PhD) is usually done is: you find yourself drawn to one of those subfields of buddhist studies and realize that you keep enjoying online articles and published books by a particular professor from a particular college. Then you go to that college and study under that specific professor or one of his/her students. Like, you're definitely supposed to know much of the professor's work before you even show up as potential PhD candidate.
Also note that since studying Buddhism academically involves studying texts, the student at PhD level is expected to know a couple of primary languages (Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese) and a secondary language (usually French, since most early 20th century study of Buddhism was in that language, or perhaps Japanese or Korean if that's what you study).
Which is why you can't simply jump from a Master's in Engineering to a PhD in Buddhism. You need to start at the grad level and get the basic background in languages, history, culture, and philosophies of the geographical area corresponding to your preferred type of Buddhism.
A slightly less academical and more pragmatic approach is to pursue a degree in "Buddhist Ethics". I believe this usually helps avoid getting pigeonholed into a specific geohistorical tradition, and gets a more "applied" perspective on Buddhism, relevant to the real life in the modern society. Buddhist Ethics is something you'd get if you want to practice Buddhist leadership as opposed to doing research and translation.
Finally, if you dream of becoming a professional Buddhist Chaplain (a "priest"), you may want to consider pursuing the Master of Divinity degree. There is one now offered by the Harvard Divinity School and a number of less famous schools such as University of The West in LA and Maitripa College in Portland.

There's an Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies in the UK.
There are other Centres for Buddhist Studies in Toronto, Hong Kong, Bristol, London, Denmark, India, Kathmandu; also Hamburg; similarly an Institut d'Etudes Bouddhiques in France; and so on.

You can consider the Doctoral Program in Buddhist Studies of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (University of Munich) in Germany.
According to the DAAD page for this course, there are no tuition fees. You can get funding from The Robert H. N. Ho Family Foundation Program in Buddhist Studies (please see this answer). You can also get some funding from the University of Munich's "Global Cultures – Connecting Worlds" program.
The guidelines for this program state:

The prerequisites for admission to the doctoral program are proof of
  completion of a Master of Arts or Magister Artium degree in a relevant
  field, knowledge of at least one Buddhist source language and
  outstanding qualification in the subject.

A Buddhist source language is presumably one of these: Pali, Sanskrit, Tibetan, Chinese.

Wow @ruben2020 I can't thank you enough for finding this out...this is precisely what I been looking for. Thank you so much dear friend.

In the west it's most of the time part of a more broad study, I believe. In the country where I live you can become Buddhist Spiritual Guidance Counselor.
And then there are studies like this one, fi.: https://religiousstudies.mcmaster.ca/graduate/graduate-program
Sri Lanka has an university:
http://www.bpu.ac.lk
Another idea might be studying the autobiographies of monks. Especially of scholar monks. Most of the time it is mentioned where said monk has gotten his degree. This could give you some opportunities.
Hope this helps.