text:
Mental illness: can Dhamma, meditation help?
Can people with poor mental health not just benefit from meditation, but realize  its goals?

Some people with a mental health history have actually benefited from meditation.
Such benefit is known to occur on a case-by-case basis, similar to how not every person that lives as a monk benefits from monkhood.
Many meditation centres have experience with mental health and generally require approval from a persons's psychologist or psychiatrist before permitting attendance on meditation retreats.
I have read many sincere accounts of people reducing mental health issues with meditation.
Also, the atmosphere of genuine metta (loving-kindness) at Dhamma centres is also helpful in reducing anxiety & other self-esteem issues.
The loving-kindness of a Buddha radiates upon all beings, neglecting none (including fake monks).

On this topic, I would hope that people with mental health issues might at least benefit from interacting (talking) with meditators and/or dhamma teachers. Also, IMO, part of their problem is that "sane" people act abnormally (e.g. unfriendly, angry, patronizing) to and with the "mentally ill" person.

OK. No problem. I accept your judgment. Regards

While this answer focuses on mindfulness-based medical therapies that are derived from Buddhist meditation techniques, it does not directly promote original Buddhist meditation practices, for medical therapy.
This Feb 2015 article from Huffington Post reports that:

Mindfulness research pioneer and founder of Mindfulness-Based Stress
  Reduction, Jon Kabat-Zinn, who was in the audience at Davos, stood up
  at the end of the conversation to share his thoughts on the mindful
  revolution in mental healthcare, which he noted has been well underway
  for several decades. As Kabat-Zinn explained, research and
  testimonials from patients and clinicians suggest that we can turn
  "the medication down and the meditation up."
"We’ve seen this in the clinical domain for many years. People, in
  concert with their physicians... actually going off their medications
  for pain, for anxiety, for depression, as they begin to learn the
  self-regulatory elements of mindfulness," said Kabat-Zinn. "They
  discover that the things that used to be symptomatically problematic
  for them are no longer arising at the same level."

Patients, in concert with their physicians, could seek to try two therapies derived from Buddhist mindfulness meditation techniques, namely, the Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT). More information can be found here and here.
MBSR was founded by Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn. You can find his books here. His book that talks about MBSR is "Full Catastrophe Living".
Another interesting book by Kabat-Zinn is "The Mind's Own Physician: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama on the Healing Power of Meditation".
MBCT description:

Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) is designed to help people
  who suffer repeated bouts of depression and chronic unhappiness. It
  combines the ideas of cognitive therapy with meditative practices and
  attitudes based on the cultivation of mindfulness. The heart of this
  work lies in becoming acquainted with the modes of mind that often
  characterize mood disorders while simultaneously learning to develop a
  new relationship to them. MBCT was developed by Zindel Segal, Mark
  Williams and John Teasdale, based on Jon Kabat-Zinn’s
  Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction program.

There is a TEDx Talk video by Dr. Zindel Segal, which explains MBCT and provides research evidence.
The three founders of MBCT and Kabat-Zinn also published a book called "The Mindful Way Through Depression: Freeing Yourself from Chronic Unhappiness".
The recently held 10th Global Conference on Buddhism (17 - 18 June 2017 in Toronto, Canada) had the theme of "Neuroscience and Mental Health: Making a Mindful Connection". You can find videos from it on their Youtube channel. There were three neuroscientists who presented on Day 1, Session 3. You can find a video of that here. There were speakers from both the sangha and the academia - you can find a list here.

"Can people with poor mental health not just benefit from meditation,
  but realize its goals?"

Yes, if their poor mental health is not an obstacle to calming the mind.
Otherwise, the more the poor mental health is making the mind wonder, the harder to realize the goals of meditation.

I agree with u. Some people with certain mental conditions are not suitable; it could even be dangerous. Some people can't have the taste of Buddha Dharma, due to their lack of merits that given them such blessing, even there is Buddha Dharma at the next door.

The question is whether people with mental problems can benefit from the practice of Dhamma? Yes, in all cases.
Note that everyone has mental defects till reaching Arahat-hood.
It is important to take the medicine rightly and completely, since meditation alone also harms those "without" defect.
Here is a good talk about why it seems for some that the practice of Dhamma does not work:

The Healing Power of the Precepts, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (1997; 4pp./11KB)
  Many people today have come to the Buddha's teachings in search of emotional and spiritual healing. In this short essay the author reminds us that the single most effective tool for healing a wounded heart may be found.

It might be that certain mental "real" disabilities (vitalingo -- persons with congenital defects such as idiocy, one of the few conditions that make the goal impossible for one in this life -- see here about conditions) are hindrances to reach any path or fruit in this life time; but even then, in the long term it will help anybody who takes the medicine right and associates with people of secured faith in and of the path.
So (at the risk of contradicting other answers) I will always encourage people, with whatever kind of mental defect or defective mental state: to turn to Dhamma or try to get the best possible integration; to serve and to make merits around the Gems, and to practice Dhamma as well as possible; rather than to turn to usual ways, which usually just try to make one function in and for society, or to keep the "defect" prevented/protected from functioning and vice versa.
(Note: this answer is not meant for any commercial purpose or other wordily gains.)

There are other answers to this question, saying "Yes, in all cases" and "benefit is known to occur on a case-by-case basis" -- I'd like to agree with both.
There's a wide range of "poor mental health" and "mental illness".
In some of the more extreme conditions you might not understand people, see them as a devil, not be able to pay attention because of the voices in your head, and so on. I'm told that sometimes people need psychiatric medication first, before they can make sense of conversation ... but that (medication) isn't enough, what comes after that?
The following are several ways in which I think it could help.

People with mental health problems may smoke, drink alcohol, abuse drugs, at a higher rate than the general population. A more Buddhist environment will tend to do without that.
People in general society may be judgmental, hostile; intolerant of people who are different; have expectations. Some characteristics of an ideal Buddhist might make them more tolerant, easier to be with, including: self control; good will; not necessarily wanting to profit from another person; not having too-rigid attachments or views to how other people "should" be; not seeing themselves as superior.
People with mental health problems may behave differently and not as you expect or want them to. If you're a normal, successful person you might live in a social environment where people do what you want them to do when you tell them to; and you may not know how to cope with someone whose response is different or indifferent. I think that "they drive me nuts" or "they make me crazy" or "they make me angry" is a not uncommon reaction people have -- and they might feel that their anger is justified (justified by the other person's unexpected misbehaviour). You may need to be a bit unusual, or have an unusual attitude, to practice unconditional good behaviour. Buddhists aren't the only people who might try to make their good behaviour unconditional, but it's explicitly a mental state that Buddhists train themselves towards and value.

In summary I suppose I'm saying that where you find the dharma you may also find the sangha ... and that the sangha might help, or at least be less hurtful than some other communities or societies.
And, yes. Some people (perhaps including monks) see society itself (or people's reactions to society) as a bit crazy. So far as I know, in general, a "sheltered" environment helps everyone.
I'd like to emphasize that it can help: be part of the solution, or at least not add to the problem. However, also: "You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way."


text:
How observance of the 5 Precepts is done?
As I know one says the 5 propositions and then goes about his day.
Or are the precepts also pegs for mindfulness? Keeping them constantly in mind?

You have to keep the five precepts constantly in your mind.
After while it becomes second nature to you.

Please see this question on Appamada (heedfulness). We need to be heedful of the precepts that we choose to undertake willingly.
This is an idea that doesn't just exist in religion or spirituality.
If you are a professional like a medical doctor, you need to be aware that the life and health of your patients depend on your decisions. If you're a civil and structural engineer designing a building, the lives of the many people who may use the building you designed, depend on your design.
If you have very young children, you need to be always aware of where they are and what they are doing. When you're leaving your house everyday, you need to be mindful of locking the doors, locking the windows and turning off the gas or other heating appliances so that you wouldn't cause accidental fires.
Similarly, you have to be heedful of the precepts that you choose to undertake willingly.
There are also other aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path like Right Speech or Right Action, that we may need to be heedful of.
If you commit yourself to be heedful of practising something, then it should be similar to being heedful of being constantly aware of your very young children's whereabouts and wellbeing. I think it is not very different.

The Five Precepts can be taken formally, but to observe them properly you must be heedful not to break any of the rules during the day. When you break one of the rules, however, there is no need to punish yourself. Keep in mind that you are observing the precepts and strive to improve. This is where being mindful throughout the day of the precepts is important.
One cannot simply be a person who "says the 5 propositions [sic] and then goes about his day" because the whole point of undertaking the five precepts is to follow them and realize the benefits.

Maybe usefull to answer the question: How to Observe(ing) the (5) precepts, Ursula

Keep 5 precepts in mind, first queue, and  meditate together. But meditation is second queue.
As time goes by, 5 precepts will be automatically appear in mind. At that time, you just use a few time to check the precepts.
However, if you in a meditation course, you should do follow to your teacher, first. Because (certified) buddhist teacher must can read the practitioner mind. So he should know what is the best for his student.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Will I be reindividualised after death?
I guess I have no craving left for the existence except for food and water.
Will I be reindividualised after death?
Should I give up the desire for food and water in order to stop my rebirth?

Will I be reindividualised after death?
Perhaps the answer depends on whether you are "individualized" now?
In this answer, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu wrote (emphasis mine),

I've talked about the subject before myself, and the conclusion I make is that it's not that Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's that we don't believe in death - the latter being merely a concept referring to the change from one set of experiences to another. True death only occurs either at every moment or at the experience of nibbana.
In any case, as useful as rebirth may be in reminding us of what's really at stake in our dhamma practice, far more useful is an understanding of the present moment, something that really has little to do with past or future lives.

I don't know which Buddhist school you're asking about, but I think that according to the Four stages of enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism, you should expect to abandon "identity view" or "self-view" at the first stage of enlightenment (stream entry) ... and "conceit", "material-rebirth desire", and "immaterial-rebirth desire" (and ignorance and restlessness) only at the last stage.
I asked about some of these concepts/topics here:

Is rebirth a delusional belief?
What are examples of identity-view?
How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

Should I give up the desire for food and water in order to stop my rebirth?
The Bhikkhuni Sutta (which may be intended for not-yet-enlightened people) says,

'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,]

'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.'

Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food.

'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

Note too that there are different kinds of "desire": for example, unvirtuous craving, and a more virtuous desire for liberation -- see, for example, How to develop Chanda?

"Will I be reindividualised after death?"

If craving is present, you will.
If craving is not present, you will not.

"Should I give up the desire for food and water in order to stop my
  rebirth?"

The aspirant who has liberated himself from all cravings should easily answer such a question.
Why is this so?
The aspirant, who is liberated from all craving, is liberated from future rebirth by knowing the cause of his future rebirth.
Knowing the cause, he removes the cause, thus liberating himself from future rebirth.
What do you think is the cause?
If you think the cause is the desire for food and water, either you missed something or your question is missing something.

Bad deeds (Karma) are the cause of rebirth. And also craving (Upadana) is the cause of the rebirth.   Suppose my karma is very good but I have some cravings left then I again will have to take rebirth after death. Therefore  cravings like food craving can also result in rebirth...

Something is missing. Firstly, there is ignorance. Then, because of ignorance, craving arises. Then, because of the arise of craving, body and mind and senses arise. Because of body/mind/senses, good and/or bad deeds arise. Thus, the cause is ignorance. What do you think? Is a desire for eating and drinking a good deed or a bad deed? If this desire is fueled by craving (a consequence of ignorance), then it is a bad deed and rebirth will not be stopped. If it is fueled by compassion (a consequence of extinction of ignorance), then it is a good deed and rebirth has potential to stop.

I think the real question you should ask yourself is, why do you want to give up the desire for food and water? Is it out of compassion for other beings? If yes, explain how you're being compassionate by not eating and drinking? What's your situation?

I guess I understood it now. I thought every craving indiscriminately causes rebirth.  When Nagasena was asked the same question by king Milinda then Nagasena said I will be reindividualized if any cravings are left in me. I think the answer would be to eat moderately and not to have any lust towards the food.

I think you were equating "desire" with "craving" and/or vice-versa. These two can't be equated, because they are two different things. When desires are present in a being but are not poisoned with craving, rebirth will stop. On the other hand, when desires are present in a being and are poisoned with craving, rebirth will probably not stop, because at the time of death, that being will probably not be able to realize the truth in order for all craving in him to get extinct. Nagasena was correct. I agree, eating and drinking moderately is a wise decision.

According to Buddhist teaching, you will be re-born until you attain Arahantship.
According to Buddhist teaching, Arahant consumes food in moderation until there Parinibbna.

Is Buddhist Arahantship different from Hindu Arahantship ? People follow different religions. Are the people of different religions doomed forever for not knowing the Buddhist teachings?

no, they are not. Buddhist teachings make life manageable, but they dont control your fate. Your consciousness can either drift back into the ether of the all or if uncleared of karmic influence it will be obliged to migrate to another shell with a similar "flavor" so to speak. I dont know the answers there yet. But meditation actually clears the "karmic influence" of the micro-tubules of brain cells. These are the quantum-level probabilities and choices that our lives have left over at our death and they keep our consciousness from re-entering the whole.

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


text:
8 Precept Commentaries?
Would like some suggestions on books/authors/resources for commentaries on keeping and maintaining the 8 and 10 precepts. Haven't found this question answered elsewhere. Am already aware of what the precepts are, just asking for ideas on how to support their practice in everyday situations.

There is a good commentary on the eight precepts here in the Questions and Answers format, originally written in Thai by Ven. Ñanavara Thera and translated into English by Ven. Kantasilo.

I recommend this best answer (in english). Because this book based on pali canon. The reader can uses the word in book to search more resource in pali in the future.


text:
What are the toughest thoughts to 'catch'?
While meditating, it is not always clear whether you mind is clear of thoughts or not. Some seems to be more emotions or visions. But if all emotions and visions are accompanied with thoughts which are the toughest to recognize that they are there in your mind?

While BonnWarapol's five higher fetters would be the most difficult to eradicate for all non-arahants, for a beginner in meditation, the hardest to eradicate would be the five hindrances (pañca nīvaraṇāni):

Sensual desire (kāmacchanda)
Ill-will (vyāpāda)
Sloth and torpor (thīna-middha)
Restlessness and remorse (uddhacca-kukkucca)
Sceptical doubt (vicikicchā)

The commentaries by Ven. Nyanaponika Thera here or by Ven. Ajahn Brahm here, would provide more information on these. This video by Ven. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu would also be helpful.

The toughest to catch, in pāli, are the 5 uddhambhāgiya-saṃyojana of anāgāmi: rūparāga, arūparāga, māna, uddhacca, and avijjā (in English. the five "higher fetters" which are listed here).
However, by practice, general practitioners who have never enlightened before, should focus on 5 precepts and catch immoral physical actions, first. Then he should catch 5 kāmaguna-attachment (for jhāna meditation). Then he should catch diṭṭhi vicikicchā and silabataparāmāsa (for access to insight meditation).

In the second paragraph, is "kāmaguna-attachment" one fetter (i.e. "sensual desire"), and especially a fetter for jhana meditation? And are the other three "diṭṭhi vicikicchā and silabataparāmāsa" especially fetters for insight meditation? And you didn't mention the fifth lower fetter, i.e. "ill will"?

More English translation would be strongly preferred.

@ChrisW All vipassana-practitioner must completely overcoming 5 hindrances before he start the insight meditation, both samatha-first-person (samatha-yānika) and vipassanā-first-person (vipassanā-yānika). So 10 saṃyojana must never arise between all meditations.  But for vipassanā-meditation, 1st level is sotapanna. So, 3 lowest saṃyojana are   the most basic for the newbie practitioner, who completely overcoming 5 hindrances.

@ruben2020 I have the open mind, so you can copy to make new answer/modify my answer to 2 form/etc. However, I maybe comment if the new one has something wrong, so the deriver has to have an open mind, too. Another, I agree with your complain. But my english still terrible and there are many editions of pali word's definitions in english, so I still have not enough english skill to translate whole dhamma to english, for now.


text:
Buddhism - Is it a religion?
I disagreed from the very beginning, after understanding some Buddhist philosophy, that it is not a religion.
In my opinion, it is not a religion but a lifestyle or administration under which Buddhist teaching is practised.
Please clarify why it is classified as a religion.
PS: I have met many people specially from Nepal, who claim as a Buddhist monk but yet they don't seem to practice any Buddhist norms. And they even call me 'nastik' (one who don't believe in religion)

Whether Buddhism is a religion or not, is just a matter of semantics.

In one Sutta Buddha says "He who understands Dhamma understands me, he who understands me understands Dhamma." So, Dhamma is to be understood.

It depend on what you mean by the word religion.

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

If you take above definition, Buddhism is not a religion.

Buddha is a 'dhamma', which means a set of knowledges, practises, path & realisations that support the mind to be free from suffering. The word 'dhamma' means 'that which supports'.
Therefore, Buddhism is not a religion & is not 'yoga' or 'binding'. In his 1st sermon (SN 56.11), the Buddha taught to not be bound ('yogo') or 'devoted to'.
The Buddha taught to not cling to the teachings (MN 22); not to cling to him (SN 22.87) or have blind faith in him (MN 38; AN 3.65). The enlightened practitioner is 'independent' (MN 56).
The Buddha called his path of practise 'the holy way of life' ('brahmacariyaṃ'; MN 29 & 30) therefore it is certainly a way of life rather than a religion.
There is nothing 'supernatural' in Buddhism. Everything is natural (dhatu; MN 115; MN 140), including phenomena such as 'supernormal psychic powers'.
The 'gods' in Buddhism are merely people; i..e, the rich, powerful or psychic mystics from other paths. There are no gods, apart from people, such as Sakka, king of the gods, who lived in a palace with many sexy nymphs (MN 37). The gods rule the people (SN 11.5). That is why in Thailand, the king is considered a 'god' or reincarnation of the Hindu Vishnu.
However, in countries such as Thailand, Sri Lanka & Tibet, Buddhism is a religion for the common people called 'puthujjana', where the common people believe in spirits, spirits of ancestors, ghosts, gods in the sky, gods in the trees, angels, reincarnation & other superstitious 'religious' things.
This photo is of people in Thailand worshiping a Hindu god & spirit house.

Of course it is.  The word "religion" comes from the Latin "religare" which literally means "to bind".  To be a religious person is to take on a set of beliefs, bonds, obligations, and laws so as to arrive at some sort of understanding or union with the divine.  I'd go so far as to say that the word "religion" is an almost perfect translation of the Sanskrit word "yoga" which means "yoking" such as when you place an animal in harness so as to be led.  Both imply that the adept is submitting their will to a spiritual vector that is not of their own creation.  They are relinquishing their own way-making for a path set down by those who have gone before.
To undertake the Buddhist path is to take on a set of precepts and training principles so as to understand, with direct knowledge, the experiences enjoyed by those Buddhas and other enlightened persons who have gone before you.  To practice Buddhism is to put your trust in the training even when it asks for things that are outside your comfort zone and current level of understanding.  To be a Buddhist is to be a person of faith - both in the efficacy of the Dharma and your ability to realize it.

Because supernatural or transcendental is natural in buddhism. We can found supernatural in many sutta, vinaya, even though abhidhamma of tipitaka (pali), because there are many possible cases of supernatural by logic, causes and effects.
However, all supernatural is natural in buddhism by 3 characterizes: "when arising exit, then vanishing exit, too", paṭiccasamuppāda. So, supernatural is not important in buddhism.
Therefore, in buddhism, we don't try to debate about next life, heaven, or supernatural. We do not deny any possible theories, in causes and effects logic.  Then we develop consciousness to cope every possible situations, not cope just some situations that we have seen. We try to avoid every possible suffering, by logic or theory, to make sure suffering will never return anymore, although we never meet that possible suffering and possible situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Buddhism is a religion. As in any religion one must have faith to advance. Faith is important in any religion.


text:
All sentient beings?
This is a question about Pure Land Buddhism.
What is a sentient being ?
What is a living being ?
Examples, e.g. slug, tree, bacteria, cat, aliens ?
How do you teach enlightenment to a cat ?
Are the snow lions in a pure land enlightened ?
How do slugs get to be enlightened ? Do they have to be reborn as human first ?
How can every living being be enlightened ?
Do they all have to be human first ?
Thanks.

What is a sentient being

In Classical Chinese Sutra, sentient being is 有情眾生, or simply 有情, a brief translation is one who has feelings, emotional beings. Trees, rocks, mountains... are not. But they can be dwelling places of Devas (Avatamsaka Sutra). I think in between there are marginal or transitory, like bacteria, slug, insect... like a rainbow though we say there are 7 colours, but in fact it's indivisible, between red and orange there is red-orange, re-red-orange, red-red-red-orange... so on and so forth, so the same as sentient beings and non-sentient beings, in respect to the multitude of lifeforms and substances.

How do you teach enlightenment to a cat ?

You should teach a human before teaching a cat, you should teach a human who has confidence and respect of Buddha before teaching those not... if a cat is ready for enlightenment, it's the Bodhisattva's job, not unenlightened human being you or me. Also a cat the first task before anything else, is to acquire human form - to be reborn as human.

Are the snow lions in a pure land enlightened ?

No snow lions in Pureland. Pureland is the emanation of Amitabha only those harmonious with his emanation are emanated by him, there are birds, trees, lotus, pavilions, clothes, foods, musics, dances, ponds... you may read the Pureland Three Sutras.

How do slugs get to be enlightened ? Do they have to be reborn as human first ?

There are no slugs in Pureland, all crawling things are not found in Pureland, if the birds are there it's due to Amitabha emanated them, and they are beautiful birds singing beautiful songs of the Dharma: the Four Truth.
It's not easy to transmit the Buddhist teaching if one didn't get a more profound understanding of what Buddha tried to convey, that the appearance of our world is purely our own conceiving. Such as this world - earth, with the grits, thorns, thunderstorms and lightnings, putrid smells, walking on two feet from distance to distance - spacetime... are all our own conceiving.

But I have seen several Thangkas of scenes in Pureland, There are SnowLions under the Throne. I have read Vajrayogini in Pure Dakini land sits on a throne supported by 8 Snow Lions ?

One of the main points of my question is in the generation of Bodichitta I have been taught to seek enlightenment for "all sentient beings", I don't get how this works.

Alright, it seemed your Pureland stands for Purelands, not restricted to Sukharvati (?) of Amitabha. There are many Purelands for many Buddhas. Snow Lion is particularly Tibetan Buddhism, related to one of the schools (four main schools of TB). As far as I understood TB taught abt immediate realizing Buddhahood, and emphasized Tantric (secret) Doctrine [密法] . It's, according to their claiming [emphasized], related to the fourth Buddha in this Noble Kalpas who taught Tantra, who associated with Snow Lion. There will be no more Buddha taught Tantra after this fourth.

If you google for Pureland artworks such as the Duanhuang or Maogao cave wall paintings found along Silk Road, no Snow Lion. Again Bodhicitta is another TB particularity, in general traditional Mahayana taught compassion, Bodhisattva vow in brief is for keeping the path of seeking Buddhahood uninterrupted during many birth-deaths, also based on Ultimate Emptiness in questing of Perfect-wisdom.

The TB Bodhicitta is certain mystical liquid generated by the body when doing proper Tantric Yoga... So seek enlightenment of all SB is just part of the job mainly about the superior intention, not really an act that must be fully carried out.


text:
About the doer and knower
During my meditation ,I experience automatically switch on  to breathe.what is this?Is it letting go of doer and knower?

Yes.
When the mind is quiet the breathing automatically becomes the object of meditation.
There is no need to try to watch the breathing. In fact, trying to watch the breathing is an obstacle to deep progress.
The Pali scriptures (SN 48.10; MN 118 at the emd) state the meditator makes 'letting go' the object of meditation.

Thank you for answer the question.could you be explain where I stand in meditation?

If the sense of 'doing' & the idea of 'knower' is naturally falling away and the mind is naturally uniting with the breath, this is how meditation should be. You should let this keep naturally happening. The purpose of meditation is to feel peace, contentment & for insight to develop. If the feeling of peace starts, this is the basis for determining where you stand. You will be satisfied with meditation. regards

I also experience the routine of the mind about thinking has  broken upto some extend and some about to be broken.mind does not disturb by loud noise as well.Are those things indicate improvement or still the same place?

For me, the only sign of progress is feeling a satisfying peace & contentment. Kind regards


text:
Did Buddha ever think about himself?
After attaining Nibbana, Buddha had realized that there is no self. However due to practical difficulties of communication, he had to use personal pronouns like 'I' , 'me' , 'myself' many times during conversation.
My question is: whether Buddha ever thought about himself? Because if he thought about himself then he must have had a self.
You can not think of yourself and simultaneously claim that there is no self.
In the book, Manual of Buddhism by Hardy Spence , it is written how Buddha thought about himself.
From p 181 :

After the repetition of these stanzas, Budha thought thus : " I have
attained the Budhaship ; I have overcome Mara ; all evil desire is
destroyed ; I am lord of the three worlds ; I will therefore remain
longer at this place, which has been to me so propitious." Thus
reflecting, he remained in a sitting posture upon the throne for the
space of seven days.

It is clear from the above translation that Buddha had a self because his thoughts bore witness to the self and declare that "I have attained Budhaship".
This proves that personal pronouns used by Buddha were not just used for convenience but were honestly projecting the reality that there is a self.
In thoughts there was no necessity to fake self for sake of communication.

Thế self Buddha mentioned in “ No self “ is a unchanged , everlasting , pẻmanent self . Thế self everybody are clinging is a temporary self . We have many lifetime , for each lifetime we have each self . So via many lifetime we have many different self depending on our past karma , our background of that life .
Self is delusion , we have been reborn because we attache to our self . Immediately after enlightenment , the Buddha uttered this pane of joy :
Through many a birth , I wandered in samsara ,
Seeking but not finding , the builder of the House
Sorrowful it is to be born again and again
The architect was craving or attachment ( tanHà ), A sẽ
Self- created force , a latent element in all . The rafters of this self-created house is defilement ( kilesa ) - the ridge pole that support the rafters is ignorance ( avijjà) , thế root cause of all defilements . The shattering of the ridge-pole of ignorance by wisdom results in complete demolition of the house . With the demolition of the house , the mind attains the uncondition which is Nibbãna
Oh house builder ! Thou art seen -
Thou shall build no house again ,
All thy rafter aérea broken .
Thy ridge - pole is shattered
My mind has attained the unconditioned .
Achieved is the end of Craving .

"is a unchanged , everlasting , pẻmanent self"? Who said so and how would that fit to the Buddhas teachings, householder?

In his enlightenment , Buddha discovered 3 things : (1) He remembered his past lives (2) every sentient being was reborn in what situation depending on his/ her karma . (3) what he stated as “ this / that conditionality “ . From (3 ) he concluded “ there is no permanent   Everlasting , unchanged self in every dharmas , or no self .

No- self or selflessness or emtyness . This is in contrary with what the Bramanism ( Hinduism ) believe . They believe everybody consists of 2 parts : an everlasting , unchanged , undestroyable called Atman .

Great question. In my opinion, he assembled a sense of identity as needed, to overcome doubts and accumulate energy.
In other words, he did not have a self, he was no longer a self, he artfully utilized a constructed form of self, out of wisdom and compassion for the students.
This is known as the Rainbow Body but it's purpose is not just to convince others, it is also a form of self-generation meant for self-empowerment.

i think it's a good question too! i think your answer "to overcome doubts" is too deep to be right, but thanks

Interesting!!   I think your guess makes sense.

Assuming there is no self, and he had fully realised that and attained nirvana, then no, not in the sense of considering himself as a self. I'm sure he understood interlocutors that asked if he had a self, though.
And assuming we can talk about the Buddha "thinking" about "sense objects", he would think about the things that unenlightened persons consider to make up a self.
If you mean think about himself as in value himself over anyone else, I think no, Buddhas are meant to be entirely compassionate and altruistic,
Some Mahayana sutras teach that there is a Buddha self, one that Shakyamuni has fully realised. But given that there is nothing except the skandhas, and the skandhas are not a self, it's not at all obvious to me what that is.

Self arise by the cooperation skandhas. But there is no Absolute Self.

Buddhism does not argue with reality. When one is awake, one understands ones true nature, that's all. One still has body, feeling, mental formation, consciousness and perception. And yes one can still think of themselves, one still needs to eat and talk and move around and be nice to people. However when this life ends you know it will be the end. Awakening is simply understanding. You simply understand what you are and this greatly impacts they way you behave in the world. I'm sure in your life you have realised a lot of things about yourself, even as a child growing up. All these realisations inform the way you are and how you interact with others. Awakening is the ultimate realisation that's all, you still need to use the toilet and go to work.

While Andrei Volkov provided a very Mahayanist answer, I'll try to offer a more Theravadin answer.
In the Ayacana Sutta, we find that the Buddha did indeed think of himself.

Then, while he (the Buddha) was alone and in seclusion, this line of
  thinking arose in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained
  is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. ....."

In the Sabbasava Sutta, we find that both the views of "I have a self" and "I have no self" are wrong, according to the Buddha.

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
  arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
  established, or the view I have no self.... This is called a
  thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a
  writhing of views, a fetter of views.

My analogy:
If you play a video game, you would be fully engrossed in the role of the character that you are playing. But when you decide to stop playing, you can immediately and instantaneously disassociate yourself from the character. You don't carry with you the identity of that video game character, or crave to become it.
To say that the video game character has a self or has no self, are both wrong views, because it depends on what frame of reference you would use to make that determination. Instead, I would say that in all parts of the game, it is empty of a self.
While the Buddha figured this out and stopped playing when the current "game round" is over, we are still stuck, and having the mistaken self-identity as the video game character, and craving its existence, thus coming back in future "game rounds" endlessly.
Just as in the Suñña Sutta:

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed
  down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the
  Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty,
  lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self:
  Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of
  a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self
  or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness...
  Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
"The ear is empty...
  "The nose is empty...
  "The tongue is empty...
  "The body is empty...
"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
  Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a
  self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the
  world is empty."

I personally believe that there is no self. If a self is found then it is an error,illusion or like a dream. There was no self behind the thought which Buddha thought. Yet Buddha thinks "I have attained Buddhaship" because he had attained Nibbana with residue. Only with Nibbana with no residue that such thought cease.

Several theories.

There's a sutta (MN 22) in which the Buddha says that, "I, too, do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair in one who clings to it". But what's quoted in the OP isn't a view-of-self nor a doctrine of self: instead it's a view of nibanna.
The suttas say especially that it isn't proper to view the skandhas as self (but perhaps what's quoted in the OP isn't viewing the skandhas as self, for the same reason as 1. above).
The usual/conventional grammar of language[s] requires a subject (i.e. a noun or pronoun) with a verb in a sentence. If you say (or write), "Buddhaship have attained." that sounds like an incomplete sentence fragment, ungrammatical -- the "I" is an artefact of communication.
See here for explanations of "conceit". The Bhikkhuni Sutta
mentions benefits of "conceit" in training:

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears,

'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.'

The thought occurs to him,

'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?'

Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit.

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

Whenever the Buddha tells people about himself and his accomplishment (and given that we're hearing it, the phrase you quoted in the OP is a soliloquy, intended to teach), that allows his audience to compare themselves with him, in order to conclude that "I should practice as he did, to achieve the same result".

I disagree over the point no. 3. Awareness of "I have attained Buddhaship" was translated into thought in which the subject "I" arose. What was the need to think is such a way? Because "I" or the Self still existed in Buddha. Self does not vanish suddenly. Self vanishes gradually. After final Nirvana I guess his self totally vanished.

The only reason he was thinking after his enlightenment was to teach others otherwise he would have just sat in meditation until parinibbana.
It's not that there is "no self", it's that there is "no self" to be found. The Buddha used pronouns as a convention and he did have a self in a conventional sense.
We have to understand our moment by moment experience to understand this teaching. Anatta isn't really so mysterious, it just gets us all were we live.
You wrote:In thoughts there was no necessity to fake self for sake of communication
This is a translation. Why do we think that the suttas are so  PRECISE down to the pronoun?  I think that sometimes we are appealing to scriptural authority too much. This authority requires a little wisdom on our part, doesn't it? I myself try  not to be a stubborn skeptic, I mean sticking with a point of view because of various bad habits and wrong understanding.
It would be very unfortunate if we couldn't ever get past our stubborn opinions. We would be forever doomed to stay asleep while we continue sleepwalking around mindlessly bumping into each other.

there is a body and there is awareness of it.................
by saying there is no self, that might mean there is nothing behind the naming of that self or the numbers assigned to it, there is only the awareness.
This mind/awareness is a restless thing and has a tendency to establish some self for a thousand reasons.  That doesn't make those reasons real or permanent.
also, this so-called 'self' is gradually developed from birth by our surroundings, family and environment.............it is developed so we can interact more clearly for our survival and daily life.
but in the reality of our existence, all these identifying characteristics of our 'self' are as fragile as anything else and only exist because of most everyone else buying into it.

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


text:
Seeking guidance on avoiding meditation distractions and sluggishness
Do any of you readers , know of a very simple, dependable starting point for an old meditator , who sits everyday, but I do not have contact with any meditation teacher, who I am connected with. I sit, and make an effort to practice the mahasatipattana practice. For example, a thought to start out my meditation, that will enable me to have a session where I am not distracted or get to nervous , or sluggish, and so on. I say some prayers and refuge, and the I meditate, afterwards , I dedicate to merit to all living beings, not excluding a single one.
Part of  my problem , is as I get older I have more health problems that affect me now, physically.So, I hope I made my question clear. I know , if I could go on a retreat, I would be sitting more firmly, but I can't attend a retreat at this time in my life. I have started , lately, the last two years, sitting for 5 minutes, twice a day. with prayers, dedication of merit and so on.
Does any one have a similar situation , were you have figured out how to start correctly? Meaning, starting out and having an undistracted session? The alternative is, I just don't meditate , but maybe read some Buddha sutra, or a good teachers explanation..

Hello Pasquale and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

Thank you, I am new to this site, but not new to the BuddhaDharma. I do not count my breaths, I think counting leads to a somewhat insensitive mind. Not a realistic mind either.

There is a very simply Mahayana method, derived from the meditation teachings recorded in Classical Chinese Sutras.
A) Sit in comfortable position, ideally Lotus pose - like most the Buddhas' statuses.
If you can't just sit as you are comfortable with, doing the visualization of light... [excerpted]. This can expel sluggishness, for it empowered.
B) Or, doing visualization of fire... [excerpted]. It's very good for health and curing.
I don't think the teachings of breathing meditations (or your mahasatipattana), [added: neither the so-called mindfulness meditation], mostly found around the corners, are correct. If you can do correct breathing meditation it would be awesome as well. Neither are there translations of any Chinese Classical Sutras can be trusted. Even Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka were grotesque molested by the translators, I discovered when doing some related researches.

I say some prayers and refuge

If you do so, I highly recommend you replaced with Nianfo (Jap: Nembutsu). It will greatly benefit you esp. benefiting older people. Apart from all the talks of Nembutsu, these Buddhas/ Bodhisattvas names are composed of Seed Syllables of Sanskrit, it has its mystical property that's mentioned in Gateway of Dharani, taught in Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra. Again trusted Eng. translation unavailable most were done by Theosophists like Edward Conze, they were badly translated.

Thank you , right on. I met Edward Conze. I sat in on one of his classes Saw him around town, too , and at master Hua's in San Francisco. I didn't know he was a Theosophist.He was very , very smart, and a genuine Dharma practitioner. I felt sorry that his health was very bad, at that time. I like I think I need to stay on the first foundation longer, and Thank you , very helpful, you are. P.S. I already do most of what you suggested. Please stay in touch.

Hi Pasquale, thanks for your feedback on the answers. I hope you won't be disappointed if or when users on this site do not use comments for dialogues -- this site is meant to enable a simple question-and-answer format ("with no chit chat"); and so, comments and discussions are discouraged. Comments are meant to be usually simply to "request a clarification from the author".

Wonderful! Glad that you find it helpful :). Assumed you read the post before edition. Very good, that's 1st hand information of those "masters". But you should be the real master for you should discern their teachings and take only their goodies. I read some articles of Master Hua long ago. You're most welcomed if anything I could assist. Meditation doing rightly is very beneficial for health.

Hopefully in not too much time I get my website up with resources for authentic Mahayana Buddhists and for those who are unbiased in searching for the true Dharma. Since I do get trained in Classical Chinese somehow I felt obliged to do something for that treasure the teaching kept in the Chinese lineage, for those who are fortunate, to get dabbing in the Buddha's words. Some Sutras translated maybe they could enrich your study :).

Thanks, ChrisW, for your clarification. sent on Aug 25, at 8.16.

A standard beginner's practice for those who get distracted is to count your breaths. You can count them by subvocalizing, or on fingers. I counted by touching my thumb to three phalanges on each finger, and for each full hand - count one phalanges on the other hand.
Another practice to establish the mind in the beginning of the session is to 1) review all body sensations, head to toe and explicitly note every discomfort, then 2) review all breathing tensions and emotional sensations and note all of the preexisting conditions, then 3) review the state of the mind and note the quality of thinking & awareness today. Once the review is complete this way, it helps to set all distractions aside.
Then again, it's not like the distractions and sluggishness is one, and meditation is some perfect state separate from those. The whole point of (Buddhist) meditation is to work with your inner condition, until you learn to manage it, and in the process get some insight. So don't treat the obstacles as something unexpected, working with obstacles is the meat and bones of meditation.

Thank you Andrei, I think I didn't make myself clear enough, I have been practicing for over 55 years. Mostly Zen, but I did many retreats with Theravadin masters. I do know how to practice Mahasatipattana , that's what I do. I learned that I do this after I started studying the Suttas, after I had been sitting for over 30 years. I believe that Mahasatipattana is the natural way, once we are drawn to the Buddha's Dharma. Thanks, Please reread my question, and see if you get a clearer idea of my basic question.

Hmmm, I see. So your question is specifically about prayers/offerings/visualizations before meditation, that could help improve quality of your focus in meditation, is that right?

I am 76 years old and have practiced mindfulness meditation for 50 years. I suggest that what you need to know is how mindfulness meditation actually works. I have written a book on this topic but nobody buys it because I cannot afford to advertise it. Anyway, mindfulness meditation works because it engages something I call a safeguard cognitive process. It helps for you to know that your mind cannot understand something unless it makes sense to you and your mind cannot do something unless it makes sense to you. You have a very sophisticated intelligent function or mental process that constantly makes sure that what you think, do, or decide actually makes sense. This process can be viewed as a safeguard against errors in learning or against errors in the application of what you have learned. This very intelligent process operates unconscious, so you do not get a chance to see its benefits. When you practice mindfulness meditation you engage this process by being objective and alert. I suggest meditating for at least 20 minutes at day. You might try "focusing" as defined by Eugene Gendlin because it is similar to more advanced forms of mindfulness meditation. My name is Ronald Cowen.

Ronald, Thank you for your concerned sharing. What is the Pali, or Sanskrit  Buddhist term for this term,  "safeguard cognitive process"? Could it be panna , or Sampajnana?  Which, by , I mean right discrimination or proper discernment. Also, I mention the goal was to find a "successful " starting Point. I mentioned that in my first sentence. Thanks.

The one place where you are allowed to "advertise", on this site, if you want to, is in your user profile. See also this help topic, which I think suggests you could post quotes from your own book[s], when the quote is relevant to your answer and the OP's question.

Good to have guidance on fundamentals. A Buddhist teacher will be very beneficial. Individuals vary. Any starting point at any point in life is possible.


text:
What do Buddhists say about illogical self sacrifice?
I don't want to sound Vulcan, but I mean self sacrifice which is out of proportion, what do Buddhists say about it? So as an example, going on a dangerous hunger strike, in order that your well fed friend has another loaf of bread.
I got thinking about this via dying for the "one you love", but obviously that sort of thinking is off in Buddhism.

hey, any comment on the downvote friend :)

Here are three possible angles to look at it from:

A genuinely selfless action can be a wholesome act of generosity and compassion. But...
A sacrifice of any kind can be wholesome or unwholesome depending on the deep motivation. If the action is meant to manipulate or punish others (or even yourself), it will have bad results. Sometimes we are not aware of how we can have selfish motives for apparently selfless acts, so we have to be careful.
One of the "fetters" that binds a being to endless rounds of rebirths is attachment to "rites and rituals". So fasting as an attempt to propitiate fate or karma or God, or to achieve some kind of magical outcome, is useless. Prior to his enlightenment, the Buddha spent years starving himself thinking that that was the route to liberation from suffering. His motivation was pure, but he realized that it was pointless to destroy his body.

yes good start if i were serious contemplating this rather than just asking a dumb question. with well wishes :)

In Buddhist Jataka stories you find Bodhisatva (Buddha in a previous life) sacrificing his life to feed hungry animals etc.
However, in Sutta what you find is the practice of the middle path or Noble Eightfold Path.

Self-sacrfice for me is doing the washing up in the temple (or anywhere else for that matter) - I'm doing it in service of the dharma, other motives (besides obvious practical ones) are wrong (this is on a good day btw, normally I'm doing it because I'm told to :)).
Other types of self-sacrifice often look to me like acts of extreme defiance coming from anger and ego, but I think it's a matter of choice ultimately.

If there is no-Self (無我), who is being sacrificed? If there is no-Self, who is doing the washing up - this is a Ch'an Ko'an :)?

The small self is sacrifed, the self left doing dishes is Buddha.

i like this comment :)


text:
Does Dogen's wholehearted way say anything about the status of memory?
Seems to me that memory is notoriously fallible, whatever we think about the nature of the self. I have a copy, but rather than reread it, I thought to ask, whether Dogen's wholehearted way, or right effort in general, from moment to moment, involves relying only on those memories of immediate relevance?

If you are referring to the intellectual capability of memory (隨念智), then this is not mentioned in Bendowa.
The whole-hearted way is, as you say, awareness from moment to moment. According to Zen, it is the experiential reality, not the memory or interpretation thereof (even if the memory is one of realization). The memory of a previous realization cannot help you. It will in fact hinder you if it arises. This is well explained in Mumonkan case 22:
Ananda asked Kashyapa, "The World-honored One gave you the golden robe; did he give you anything else.
"Ananda!" cried Kashyapa.
"Yes, sir!" answered Ananda.
"Knock down the flagpole at the gate," said Kashyapa.

Memory does not appear in the translated Bendowa
However, if we consider that memory might be defined as "held thought", then this passage from the Bendowa may be relevant:

All Buddhas continually dwell within this state, with None holding
  onto any of Their thoughts or perceptions, regardless of whatever may
  arise, whereas the great mass of sentient beings perpetually make use
  of what is within this state, but without their being fully awake to
  any situation

I don't know "Dogen's wholehearted way" but I do know memory is needed to make perception of being. Memory is collected knowledge and experiences from the past. It makes YOU recognize, label, discriminate, it builds YOUR conditions to act or react and is unique for every living being. It all comes with a thought. Some are true, some are false. The truth is in yourself, you only have to meditate/pray to find it. Clear yourself from all negative energy and reach a higher state of consciousness, your memory then becomes irrelevant. Feel and be, don't think. Good luck!

This is about Dogen's Shobogenzo, answer provides little value in this context.


text:
Why activity makes me material & full of desires?
I am in very dilemma- When I am inactive or lazy I meditate well, read good religious books etc. But whenever I come into action like studies or useful work I become very material & also get desires to earn a lot of money, respect or other material desires by which I stop doing meditate & completely become indulgent. Can anyone tell me the way to be active & meditator simultaneously. In this current globalized & dynamic world it is huge requirement to be active but that activity makes me material & forget to work for this birth to cross Sansara or Dukkha. So how can I be active & aspirant to dissolve Dukkha/future births simultaneously?

What really matters for a lay person as per Buddhist teaching is whether you are at least a Sotapanna which assures you the enlightenment withing seven births. As far as you have the right livelyhood you do not have to worry being materialistic and being rich.

I can't wait for 7 births.

At least seven. It could be in this life it self. Sotapanna is almost 99% close to Nibbana.

Sometimes during meditation, a noisy drill or something will start up from outside. Those times are great because you really get to see whether you are able to meditate or you just like the pleasure of tranquil sitting (I am not lazing! I am meditating!).
As long as the job itself conforms to right livelihood (samyag-ājīva / sammā-ājīva), it does not in of itself contradict the dharma.
It is not a problem to want to earn a lot of money. It takes a lot of smarts to be able to do so and you can do a lot of good for a lot of people with a lot of money. The answer lies in your motivation, what you want the money for. Engineers like to solve problems and make things work. Sales people genuinely like interacting with other people. You will have your own vocation.

Let a man, after he has discerned his own duty, be always attentive to
  his duty.
  Dhammapada XII.166

To study, to work, to make a difference, to "light up a corner of the world", these are all admirable things. To please yourself with temporal goodies of all kinds maybe not so much, although:

He who, though dressed in fine apparel, exercises tranquility, is
  quiet, subdued, restrained, chaste, and has ceased to find fault with
  all other beings, he indeed is a Brahmana, an ascetic (sramana), a
  friar (bhikshu).
  Dhammapada X.142

I have never read anywhere in the Pali scriptures where the Buddha threatened lay people with continuous cycles of rebirth or urged lay people to end rebirths. In the Pali scriptures, I have only read the Buddha teaching the path to 'heaven' for laypeople.
The Buddha taught lay people to work with initiative & energy; to make enough money to support themselves, their family & others.
In this current globalized & dynamic world, you must be efficient. Discipline & non-attachment can help.

"So how can I be active & aspirant to dissolve Dukkha/future births
  simultaneously?"

You cannot do it simultaneously.
If you're active, you must think. With thinking, there is no meditation. Thus, no dissolving of Dukkha/future births.
If you're not active, you can stop thinking. Without thinking, there is meditation. Thus, yes dissolving of Dukkha/future births.
Ask yourself what is more important to you? Then do just this one thing and let the other not be a priority.
Whatever you choose, either being active or not being active, you will come to not being active.
Why is this so?
By choosing being active, sooner or later you will get all your desires satisfied.
If not in this life, it will be in the next. Or the next. Or the 100th.
In this satisfaction, no happiness will be found. In satisfying your desires, you will find only happiness that leads to suffering. Constantly circling and going from suffering to happiness and vice versa. This is what satisfying desires leads to. This is the result. This is the truth of satisfying desires.
Once you realise the above truth, you'll let go of desires. Thus, you'll let go of materialism.
Then, you'll live your life modestly, without aquiring to much nor to little and do what is left to do: become not active.
Meditation will happen. Whatever you choose.

It appears you may not be meditating while you are active, therefore not actually seeing the material desire as it arises in the moment, only knowing about it retrospect, which produces regret, guilt and suffering. If you can see how your mind constructs these material desires in the moment, you will be better equipped to let them go over and over every time they arise. Stop thinking about meditation as an adjunct to life. It is life. Develop mindfulness at all times.

Meditation involves withdrawing from sense desires. Being active and being mindful is possible, if you develop sufficient base level of mindfulness and equanimity by practicing it ardently so that you are not taken over by your desires when interacting with the world.
But your question is not that, is it? It seems to me that while you in principle accept that meditation is the way forward, you cannot bring yourself around to give up the worldly pleasures. So your question in essence is "Do I do the boring meditation or get excited about the world and the riches it offers? One way there is an end, but the path appears to be boring while the other is exciting but without any end in sight"
Its not easy to give up on pleasures, or the process of becoming, identification. What you can do is develop insight into this, and see for yourself what these drives are made of. When you feel the excitement, ask yourself what is it made of? Is it permanent or transient? Will it bring me the promised pleasure or will it leave me high and dry, in want of more like an addict needing another fix? Will attending to these desires bring any satisfaction, release or will I be perpetually a slave to it?
See for yourself that these drives are transient, unsatisfactory and without any essence. That in essence is mindfulness. And that leads to unbinding from the samsara and dukkha.

Because you have not dissolved the Hindrances, Afflictions, and not attained Awakening. These fires are active in all people.
Instead of taking the restrictive and simpler path: the Theravadin path of becoming a monastic.... most of us have to choose to take the Mahayana path--the path of attaining Awakening within the world of Samsara which has become more complex in nature.
This is the path of Bodhisattva and produces a superior class of Enlightened beings as compared to the Theravadin path whereby such people cannot keep their peace within the world. But unfortunately, in some ways this path is harder than ever (more desires).... In other ways this path is easier now than ever (technology, facilities, conveniences, GTD).
Keep practicing and learn to not add attention/energy to fires.


text:
what happens to the mind during meditation?
l experienced stopping of thoughts comes to the mind at a point  and starts again.During that time my breathing has completely stopped.it is like mind has stopped for a moment.could that be possible?

This experience is called Asanna in Buddhist meditation. (see no 22 in the link)
Please make sure you practice this meditation in conjunction with Vipassana meditation.It also advisable to practice meditation in conjunction with Noble Eightfold Path.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

There are reports about something called nirodha-samāpatti, the so called 9th jhana, which is associated with Buddhahood and nirvana, though not identical to it.

With regard to the difference existing between the monk abiding in
  this state of extinction on the one hand, and a dead person on the
  other hand, M 43 says: "In him who is dead, and whose life has come to
  an end, the bodily (in-and-out breathing), verbal (thought-conception
  and discursive thinking), and mental functions (s. sankhāra, 2) have
  become suspended and come to a standstill, life is exhausted, the
  vital heat extinguished, the faculties are destroyed. Also in the monk
  who has reached 'extinction of perception and feeling'
  (saññā-vedayita-nirodha), the bodily, verbal and mental functions have
  been suspended and come to a standstill, but life is not exhausted,
  the vital heat not extinguished, and the faculties are not destroyed."

However, I personally believe that life depends on breathing. So I am almost entirely skeptical that even the Buddha could have achieved this bodily state.
I even found the claim here that:

Having attained the fourth absorption, inhalation and exhalation have
  ceased.

But given that appears in a discussion of 'feeling' and the prior cessation perhaps not a necessary component,

This is uddhacca-hindrance.
Right concentrated consciousness, of ānapanassati-meditation, has only thinking of breath. Stopping of thinking is wrong of meditation. Stopping of breath is wrong, too, for a newbie.
To correct it, Focus back to breath. If you can find it, just focus on breath point at nose.
In pali canon, the buddha and commentary concern(paccavekkhaṇavasī) ānāpanassati-jhāna after meditation. They have not know the description of ānāpanassati-jhāna while still meditating.  In contrast, they just know only breath while still meditating, non stop.

i don't think you can say that not thinking is wrong, though i wouldn't advise having that as a goal, especially losing consciousness of the breath!

The breath does not stop. What happens is the breath stops being an object of awareness because the breath calms but the mind remains too coarse or gross to be aware of the breath.
Here, the mind must let go more & be more quiet, until the mind can feel the breath again.
Trying to focus will not help because it is the very act of trying (to focus) that makes the mind too coarse or gross to know the breathing.
The supramundane path of the Buddha is only about letting go.
The Buddha taught supramundane meditation (jhana) is developed by making letting go (vossagga) the meditation object (SN 48.10; end of MN 118).

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 (vossagga),
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. SN 48.10

There is the case where a monk develops mindfulness as a factor for awakening dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion, dependent
  on cessation, resulting in relinquishment (vossagga). MN 118

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


text:
Why sukha (third Jhana) is more refine than pīti (second Jhana)?
Why is sukha (third Jhana) higher than pīti (second Jhana)? In other words, why does sukha not come before pīti?
This question is based on the following suttas in the Moggallāna Saṃyutta.

I found a satisfactory answer in Dhamma Wheel.https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=30148

why does sukha not come before pīti? You're probably mistaken, for an experienced expert of meditator, he is able to jump between the - Jhanas. Moggallana was famous for being able to jump in and out of different - Jhanas. There is a story in Vinaya abt his jumping causing certain dispute for he said he heard music of the Devas when he's in realm that's only accessible by the 4th J. In 4th J. You will not be able to hear. Sure if you search your Pali Tipitaka you will find this story to confirm what I said, although I learnt mine from the Chinese Tripitaka.

In the suttas referred to in the question, Mogallana was not yet an expert.

Sukha, piti is byproduct of mastering 覺觀. No 覺 no 觀 is 4th. It appears that the OP put incorrect concern on the two using as the guide for Jh. The guide is 覺觀, not the byproducts. Happy, joy, pleasant, ecstasy... how could they be used as measuring instrument except literally?

Good point@Mishu米殊

@Mishu米殊. Could you add an english translation of the chinese language in your comment?

@Mishu米殊 Could you also repost that as a answer, instead of by posting it as a comment? I could try to give translations of the Chinese words you used, but it's likely you can do that better than I can.

@Lanka Ok. I was just passing by carelessly dropping words for I think the Mog. story was quite interesting... :). I think in Sanskrit/ Pali, 覺: vitarkah/vitakka; 觀: vicāra. Many different translations, but it also said no exact term found in Eng. According to Nagarjuna 《大智度論》(Mahāprajñāpāramitā śāstra): 心初念是名為覺。細心分別是名為觀,  transl. the beginning of a thought is called Vitarkah, the following continuing discerning called Vicara. Further explaint, like a bell, when it rings is Vitarkah, the ringing is Vicara. Direct transl. is 覺: aware, 觀: contemplate. Abandoning these is 2th Jh... to 4th.

@ChrisW my comments are not complete answer. But to response to your query and OP, that 3rd Jh Sukha is a rapture received by only the body. It's the strongest among all raptures/pleasures in the whole world. Nag: 此樂世間第一能生心著 its the ecstasy that the uttermost in the world that one would be caught by (addicted). A bit counter-intuitive huh? That the 3rd is a bodily ecstasy... it will require more words... mah... I may consider as answer instead of comment but takes time. And honestly this post of Theravada Jhana and Pali Canon I naturally incline to take audience seat :).

Lesser khandha = Stable mind state = Better happiness.
Vitakka, vicāra, pīti, and sukkha are acceleration of consciousness to access jhāna. the practitioner need them to develop jhāna-consciousness, until he turn to be professor in each jhāna. After that they become an obstruction of jhāna's stability.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Ok. So in your opinion mind (Sankhara) is more grosser than body?

I'm sorry. I mean khandha. In tipitaka lonly saṇkhāra-word mean 5 khandha. however I have edited above answer.

Another saṅkhāra mean "khandha is arise by confused mass of causes", that is compatible with the main idea of the answer. Therefore I used sankhara-word before I have changed it to khandha-word.

Joy is still an emotion, it has an element of excitement. Sukkha, is just peaceful satisfaction, "everything is right".
Joy makes you tired. It shifts you off-balance. You can be a bit drunk with joy, so joy is still an intoxicant, an asava.
Sukkha is stable. It has it's problems too, it's own limits, but it's way more sober than joy. When you're emotionally sober, you can see things much more clearly, you can act with more skill.
However, cultivating Joy is considered a prerequisite, because you need to learn to control your brain chemistry before you proceed with advanced vipashyana practice.

The Buddha destroyed the asava yet the Buddha entered into the 1st jhana after his enlightenment (such as in DN 16, before he passed away); which had piti.

That is correct :)

Upasaka Sarath, two thing come to mind that might be supportive to dispel doubt and give rise to clearency:
One is the chain of "depending co-dissapearing", "lokuttara depending co-arising": jāti -> dukkha -> saddha -> pāmujja -> pīti -> passaddhi -> sukha -> samādhi ... (see SN12.23 or AN 10.1 which shows the same pattern, so to see that it's not a onetime issue.
And the other is, that in origin countries (traditional) pīti is not translated as rapture or joy like in english, but with words equal "satisfied" or gratified, like if have eaten enough (which makes also the chain above more understandable, and does not require to develop philosophical theories of what the different between "joy" and "pleasure" might be.
Maybe that "short-cut" brings sufficent satisfaction, gatification, or was final dish for pīti to simply follow further the chain.
(Note: This answer is a gift of Dhamma an not meant ro use for commercial purposes or other wordily gains.)

In the third jhana equanimity arises, this is neither a pleasant nor painful feeling. This 'neutral' feeling goes beyond pleasant feeling and mental satisfaction of pleasant feeling (Piti and sukha). Equanimity is pleasantness of a different variety to the material world, a pleasantness which has surpassed the feeling of the material world, but cannot be said to be pleasant feeling as it essential does not reside in the physical plane.
Try not to attribute piti and sukha with any certain jhana. Leading up to the first jhana body is surmounted (which feels relaxing), in the first jhana feeling is surmounted (which feels pleasant), in the second mind is surmounted (which feel like mental calm), in the third mind objects are surmounted (which feels releasing), in the fourth the entire physical experience is surmounted (which feel liberating). These are the four foundations of mindfulness which stack up on one and other as you move through to the fourth.
'mindfulness of breath supports the four foundations, the four foundations support the seven factors'
'Purity of mindfulness due to equanimity' (fourth jhana)

I could not understand you one hundred percent with my experience but I see what you getting at so I gave you a thumbs up.-)

yes my apologies, perhaps that was a little confusing. Use the breath to relax the entire body until your whole body feels pleasant and there is mental satisfaction with the meditation, this is piti and sukha or in other words bliss. And you have arrived at the first jhana.

Sukha can come before piti.
Try it yourself.
Go directly into the third jhana, stay there, then go into the second jhana. In this way sukha will be before piti.
If you're asking why the jhanas follow in such order so that piti naturally comes before sukha, it is because of layers of ignorance.
The more to the surface of meditation the more you experience. (or The more ignorance, the more you experience)
The deeper you go into meditation the less you experience. (or The less ignorance, the less you experience)
Thus, in Jhana meditation you are getting rid of ignorance and that's why piti comes naturally before sukha.
Why exactly piti comes naturally before sukha?
Because of kamma.
Kamma defines our ignorance.
Ignorance defines the natural order of Jhanas.


text:
Is it bad karma to disagree with an arhat?
I just wondered, is it bad karma at all to disagree with an arhat? I'm not saying I would, I just wondered, because killing one is phenomenally bad!
What about disagreeing with a Buddha?

According to the Nibbedhika Sutta:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
  body, speech, & intellect.

If you see this answer, bad karma or not, is related to the intentions of the individual. The story of the blind monk Ven. Chakkhupala in Dhammapada 1 and the story of the hunter's wife in Dhammapada 124 would serve as good examples from the scriptures.
If the individual has intentions that is insulting, disparaging or malicious towards the Buddha or arahant, then that would be generating bad karma.
However, if someone respectfully disagrees with the Buddha or arahant because he does not have the same view or understanding, then this should not be bad karma. If someone talks to a Buddha or Arahant, he should not incur bad karma, if he does so based on the principles of Right Speech (samma vaca), even if he disagrees with the opinion of the Buddha or the Arahant.
As said in the famous Kalama Sutta by the Buddha, just because a certain person is your teacher, it does not mean that you should simply accept what he or she says. Rather, it is preferable that you should accept the teachings only after you have known for yourself that it is good.

"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.
"Now, 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 skillful; these qualities are blameless;
  these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted
  & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter
  & remain in them.

Despite this, SN25 does have a provision for "faith followers" to meet a good end simply by having conviction and belief in the teachings of the Buddha, because it would lead them down the right track.

"One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is
  called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of
  rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the
  plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by
  which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm
  of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has
  realized the fruit of stream-entry.

Nevertheless, the Buddha was a great teacher who managed to convince those who insulted and verbally abused him (see Akkosa Sutta), mocked him (see Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta) and intended to challenge or test him (see Dhananjaanii Sutta and Acela Sutta). Of course, there are also times when the Buddha knew when to give up trying to convince someone (see Kesi Sutta).
The Buddha also understood and empathized that the truth he discovered may not be easily understood by everyone (see Ariyapariyesana Sutta):

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is
  deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this
  generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys
  attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by
  attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent
  co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the
  resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation;
  Unbinding."

Also, don't forget that it may not be easy for unenlightened individuals to know who the Buddha really is, just like the case in the Dona Sutta and also the Ariyapariyesana Sutta:

A second time... A third time, the group of five monks said to me, 'By
  that practice, that conduct, that performance of austerities you did
  not attain any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge &
  vision worthy of a noble one. So how can you now — living luxuriously,
  straying from your exertion, backsliding into abundance — have
  attained any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge &
  vision worthy of a noble one?'
"When this was said, I replied to the group of five monks, 'Do you
  recall my ever having spoken in this way before?'

While the Buddha may be omniscient, the Arahants may not even recognize that the other is also an Arahant (see Bhaddiya Sutta). So, Arahants are not omniscient. They are only enlightened or freed from suffering.

To draw a sample to Rubens introductional justification: similar to the blind would be one with a mental defect, and similar to the hunters wife, would be one who is forced to take a certain stand (or is simply quite because obligated). Maybe it's good to investigate intention a little deeper. Maybe it's also easy to missunderstand, that not "following" and disagree are different aspects. Just thoughts, maybe useful.

Of course it is! Almost by definition. Buddha's words are true and beneficial. Therefore by disagreeing you are setting yourself up for suboptimal results in the best case, if not for disaster. With lesser realization levels - once-returners, stream-enterers etc., the same general rule also applies, although mathematically speaking the odds that they are at least partially wrong are progressively higher, so your bad karma is correspondingly less severe.
The only loophole here that I can see, is if you disagree with Buddha due to misunderstanding of his way of expression - but then arrive at the same conclusions yourself and act accordingly. But if you actively disagree and act contrary to the teaching, you are most definitely setting yourself up for trouble.

...like a child not listenand following it's fathers benefical directive advice. Sadhu!

One thing to keep in mind is that the pluralistic society that the Buddha lived in had a very strong tradition of religious freedom and freedom of speech in religious matters.  Lay people could listen or not listen to arhants and wanderers; they could donate or not donate.  They freely disagreed and debated among each other.  Secular rulers allowed all of the sectarian teachers to operate in their dominions, and would not punish or persecute even contemplatives whom they knew were wrong.
Perhaps the only difference between his culture and the west today is that we have written laws protecting religious liberty, due to the religious wars of European history; whereas in his culture such laws were unnecessary.
In light of this, consider how the Buddha gladly debated anybody who cared to debate him.  Surely, in his great compassion, he would not have debated the adherents of other sects, and their teachers, if doing so put them at risk for unfortunate karma.

Generally, we do not know any arahants.
However, in respect to the Pali suttas, it is not bad kamma to disagree with a sutta teaching if you have experienced what the sutta is asserting to be untrue.
But if you reject the words of a sutta blindly & also somehow think you are a Buddhist, this is bad kamma.
A Buddhist should defer faith or trust to the suttas unless they have strong grounds to reject something in the suttas.
For example, I reject many things in the suttas and what I reject I consider to not be the words of a Buddha or arahant.
Ultimately, the suttas say to only believe what you have realised for yourself. To quote:

Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Teacher is our respected mentor. We speak thus out of respect for the Teacher'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Contemplative says this. We speak thus in line with the Contemplative's words'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you dedicate yourselves to another teacher?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you return to the observances, grand ceremonies, & auspicious rites of common contemplatives &
  brahmans as having any essence?"
"No, lord."
"Is it the case that you speak simply in line with what you have known, seen, & understood for yourselves?"
"Yes, lord
MN 38


text:
Symbolic meanings in Dogen's Fugen zazengi
What is the symbolic meaning behind "the tiger takes to the mountain" in Dogen's Fugen zazengi?

The tiger is in his home in the mountains (in the Eastern imagination), dropping off body and mind you return to the natural state.

Yes. In the line before, he mentions the dragon taking to the water.

Yes, you pretty much become yourself. Beautiful question.

The dragon is a kind of serpent which is a symbol of wisdom.

In addition, consider that when Dogen wrote his works, literacy was mostly reserved to the warrior class in Japan. For this reason, it may also hint to the reverse of Sun-Tzu's fifteenth stratagem, called "Lure the Tiger Out of the Mountains".