text:
As per buddism, how is it possible to leave behind my obsession with drugs?
I don't want to consult any doctor about my obsession. I do not even want to speak about it to my family and friends. I wish to get an answer tailor-made for me about my obsession with getting dead-drunk and practicing self, the meditation.
Please don't take it otherwise but a question to Buddha & his disciples. I am so fed up of the dependence of me on drugs. It happens, believe me (i have seen many others, too). Please provide/mark/show/point wordings of Buddha if he has said something near to this. If any modern Buddha is reading this than please share actual revert of you with example. I am standing at a dead-end (may be here's some way ahead but my thought isn't going beyond my confusion.
My philosophy about buddhism says that it's a way of living that is worth living. I am practicing meditation in routine in early morning timings. The rest of the day i depend on drugs to stay connected to the will of mine to become a Buddha, it appears like a bridge that i can walk and i walk across it, everytime.
How is it possible to leave behind my obsession with drugs? I want to quit my drugs. I wish to be free.

This isn't an answer to your question, but I hope it will help you. A great many of your sentences above are "I" sentences, -- about your relation to things -- and the pain it causes: many wants and desires. This is natural, and is the way everyone is. Consider these in turn, even the innocent looking ones, and how they cause pain. Don't think that it's a good or bad thing or that they need to be stopped or focus on the sadness or beat yourself up over it or trying this or that when you do it.

When you really understand/internalise those connections. not just think them, then it should start to become more natural like pulling your hand out of a fire. The obvious one is "what pain is wanting drugs causing you and how?" But don't forget "what pain is wanting to be free causing and how?", "what pain is not wanting to talk about it causing and how?" "what pain does being at a dead end cause?" "what pain does being you and not another cause?" and so on. And good luck to you!

Edit: Fixed some spelling/grammar and added a tag and paragraphs to increase readability. Feel free to roll-back if not suitable.

You start by saying, "I don't want to consult any doctor about my obsession".
I suggest that what you want (and what you don't want) are part of the problem: and should not be considered as a reliable guide for what you ought to be doing. It is your using "what I want" as a guide that has led you into this situation, from which you find it difficult to escape by yourself.
Perhaps you should follow (i.e. look for, and then follow) someone else's advice, for a change, even if their advice doesn't sound like something that you want.
The Kalama Sutta for example suggests that greed will arise, aversion will arise, ignorance or delusion will arise. Their arising is inevitable, but what you must do is to not be "overcome" when they arise.
You might be in the habit of thinking,

I want X: therefore I shall have X.

Whereas it would be better to think,

The thought that 'I want X' has arisen, nevertheless I shall (bear up and) continue to not have X.

Continuing the Kalama Sutta, the kind of person who you should trust as a teacher on this subject should someone who is not greedy, not aversive, and not delusive: i.e. an "ungreedy person, not overcome by greed, his mind not possessed by greed" etc.
Such a person might be a doctor, or a monk, or they might be people at a "12 step program" meeting.
My guess is that you may have social needs (need for family and/or friends), that meeting new people might be good for you.
In summary, don't trust "what I want" and "what I don't want", and instead look for advice that is 'blameless', 'praised by the wise', and 'skillful'.

Regarding your 'will to be a buddha', I think that the last part of the Kalama Sutta says that you are more able to practice the immeasurables (i.e. compassion etc.) after you are 'free':

"Now, Kalamas, one who is a disciple of the noble ones — thus devoid of greed, devoid of ill will, undeluded, alert, & resolute — keeps pervading the first direction [the east] — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below, & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing cosmos with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.

Apart from the mistake of following 'what I want' and 'what I don't want' when what you want is intoxicating (poisonous), another mistake is to "bargain" or try to negotiate, e.g. to say things like, "I will behave better after I make a new friend" or "after I'm rich" or "after I get advice that I like", etc. Some problems with that bargaining are:

It's possible that you will never in the future feel satisfied enough
It's possible that being sober is a necessary precondition to being skillful enough

I sympathize that you are likely to have problems other than your drugs or drinking:

Because everyone (including you) does: the first noble truth is that 'suffering exists'
Because your suffering must have been bad for you to have started with this habit
Because this habit makes your suffering worse (by causing new problems and by making you less able to address existing problems)

But don't tell yourself, "I will stop this habit when I stop having other problems." It sounds like you'd be better to stop this habit even though you still have other problems. "Accept" that those other problems may persist for a while even after you begin to learn how to live without this habit.
I think that Buddhism doesn't claim to be the cessation of suffering, it claims to be "the Way towards" the cessation of suffering (third noble truth).
Buddhism says that what we do habitually make a difference. For example, the Dhammapada says,

Think not lightly of evil, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the fool, gathering it little by little, fills himself with evil.

Think not lightly of good, saying, "It will not come to me." Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it little by little, fills himself with good.

The present moment is what we have. I hope you find freedom, now.

Excellent answer, focusing on what the OP needs and asked for, not what they want.

I would like to answer this not from the perspective of a knowledgeable Buddhist, but from the perspective of someone who has been clean and sober for over 9 years. Disclaimer: I am a recent Buddhist and know very little about the mechanics or the theory of it all. I simply practice daily meditation with the intent of awakening someday in this lifetime (or the next, or the next...). I also do not claim that what worked for me will work for you. That said, I know how to get and stay sober from a practical perspective and feel obligated to share that path when someone asks.
The only thing that worked for me was to get involved with a 12 step program. Built into all 12 step programs is the concept of "prayer and meditation." I had to turn over my life to a higher power who I didn't really think existed and in whom I had no confidence. And I had to take action by working through the steps. But I was amazed early on that by doing so, I was relieved of my compulsion to use. By taking small, simple daily steps every day and following good, orderly direction, I have managed to stay away from any mind altering substance for quite a while now, and I hardly ever think about it at all. I cannot even begin to describe to you how much better my life is since I made that small decision back in 2006.
A key detail about 12 step programs is that you don't have to believe in any one particular conception of God (or higher power, or whatever you think to call him/her/it). All you have to do is believe that there is a power greater than yourself and that you ain't it. This means that the programs welcome Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics...anything you like. And this is what made it acceptable to me. If it were strictly a Christian thing I would have been screwed.
I have thought a great deal about whether or not it is possible to recover from addiction through Buddhism...I assume by reaching a certain level of non-attachment. But for me, I know that 12 step programs work so I am not about to go screwing around with a proven formula. The stakes for me are just too high (haha).
OTOH I am VERY interested to see if my compulsion for foods like cookies, candy, ice cream, bread and meat will be abated through continued practice of meditation. I'm hopeful, but in this case it isn't likely to kill me nearly so fast as going back to active addiction is.
I don't know what your particular substance of choice is (or should I say, substance-of-non-choice...once I start to use, all choice is out of my hands and I am engulfed). But there is undoubtedly a group in your area that you can connect with. And even if you live out in the middle of nowhere, in today's world there are hundreds of meetings and support groups available online for just this purpose. Use Google to find that is appropriate to you.
I wish you the best. You are brave for coming on here and baring your sole. Keep reaching out and exploring and you will find the answer that is right for you.

I do not feel qualified to answer your question in depth.
That is why i would like to point you towards these video talks by Ven. Yuttadhammo:

Drug and Alcohol addiction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdVkq4AD8oE
Strong attachments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-8aXvl1XXc
Pornography and masturbation (addiction in general): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Lg9P-VekA

These are very informative videos and i think they could help you out and cast some light onto this topic from a theravada buddhist perspective.
Are you familiar with the doctrine of dependent origination?
It would be a good idea to study that doctrine since it will tell you how the links in addiction is created and how they can be broken and stopped at various parts of the cycle. Of course this studying needs to be combined with insight meditation practice.
You can find a discourse on dependent origination by Mahasi Sayadaw here.
May you be happy, peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.
Lanka

Not really about addiction, but in the spirit of "alcoholics looking for sobriety shouldn't live where there's a bar":

[...] From there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, "Bhikkhus, I will teach the method of the forest. Listen and attend carefully, I will teach.
Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu abides in a certain forest stretch. When abiding there, unestablished mindfulness does not get established, unconcentrated mind does not concentrate, not destroyed desires do not get destroyed, and the not attained noble end of the yoke is not attained; as for the four requisites of life for the one gone forth, robes, morsel food, dwellings, and requities when ill, are collected with difficulty. That bhikkhu should reflect:
'I abide in this forest stretch, to me abiding in this forest, unestablished mindfulness does not get established, unconcentrated mind does not get concentrated, not destroyed desires do not get destroyed, and the not attained noble end of the yoke is not attained; as for the four requisites of life for the one gone forth, robes, morsel food dwellings, and requisites when ill, are collected with difficulty.'
Bhikkhus, he should not abide in that stretch of forest, he should leave it by night or by day.
-- MN 17 Vanapattha Sutta - Jungle Thickets

From experience, the Buddhist path is a very effective and useful tool for helping to alleviate all forms fixation, obsession, or addiction with the specific knowledge that fixation is the cause of suffering. Addiction is suffering. It is dukkha with the volume turned up.
You may be interested in Noah Levine's Refuge Recovery. I also recommend looking into teachings on shenpa as taught by Pema Chodron, I have found them beneficial. You may also be interested in the Buddhist Recovery sub-reddit forum, where there is a lot of information about how the Buddhist path relates to recovery. Please do go check it out.

You need to consult a medical professional. You can't meditate your problems away.You can't be more concerned about emptiness,not self or the progress of insight.this is la la land advice.you need to deal with the elephant in the room which is your drug problem. Your sila.Dont bypass sila.I am in the health industry and you need professional medical advice which I am not qualified to give.Its always beneficial to meditate and hear the dhamma but get yourself to your GP.Don't worry about Not Self, Buddhahood,and meditation their not going anywhere they'll still be here after you get cleaned up and you can still practice during the process.Use the dhamma for support But don't substitute it for professional medical help.Understanding reality such as Not Self can really free one from suffering but your not going to get there if your under the influence or if you skip sila.This is why you need to focus on cleaning up your sila.Cleaning up from drugs is liberating.

Buddhism (Vissudhimagga, more specifically) distinguishes three "trainings":

morality training, which we'd today probably call "personality development" int the broad sense: that includes biological, psychological, social, relational, ethical arrangements which makes the next two steps possible.
concentration training (samatha) which leads to tranquility of mind, and is a prequisite for the next one (in some traditions concentration is trained simultaneously with vipassana, but is still conceptually dinstinct).
insight training (vipassana) which leads to freedom from suffering.

Drug obsession is a problem of the first training; get rid of that obsession using suitable means (I'd give +50 points to Jeff's answer, it is great); they are designed for that -- by smart people who knew something about drugs.
Meditation is not designed for dealing with drugs; while it could theoretically help (since it cleanses craving in general), in practice one would not be able to handle the strain of suffering being brought up, since a relatively stable psychological basis is missing. Even MBSR will not let you in unless you are 1 year clean; and that is relatively light practice.

You are changing after some sensation or the other through these chemicals. The addiction is to the sensations the chemicals create.
1st you have to identify the craving for these sensations and try to resist as much as possible and try to keep your equanimity.
You need to get all the help you can get. Hence seeking medical advice is also a good option to compliment any route you take through meditation.

The fifth precept explains about this subject.
If an individual is addicted to alcohol, it does not yield any positive results.
It leads to an unstable mind, giving up on goals, wasting time, squandering wealth, and also causes one to engage in other negative actions.
That’s why Buddha advised those who use these substances to stop, because of the negative effects on all aspects of life. It leads to wasting that very rare human life without doing any valuable things.
So, avoiding alcohol/drugs helps an individual to have a clear mind, stop wasting time and wealth, achieve their goals, avoid other bad actions that can occur due to the unstable mind caused by drugs and also do more positive karma in their life without wasting time and losing their mind

I agree with Orion  that you must first take Medical help. Yoga or Meditation , does not help you stop a bleeding wound or a life threatening disease.  Conventional Buddhism and Hinduism , tells you that you need many Births or many life times of Spiritual Evolution to achieve Enlightenment or Liberation . You don't get it in one life time and that too , without overcoming your bad habits.  It is possible ,however ,according to Vajra Yana Buddhism (ref- Wikipedia) and Tantra System of Hinduism (ref- Wikipedia). But these practices may be easily confused with Satanic Worship of the West .Also these practices require close interaction with a Guru or a Spiritual Teacher . So you have to tell about your obsessions to your Guru and leave it to him to find out a suitable technique of Meditation, Physical Exercise ,Medication and method of control of your day-to-day activities for optimum results. Vajra Yana or Tantric practices , without a Guru , can lead to permanent Insanity or Death .Ramakrishna Mission ,a Hindu religious organisation ,accepts the Tantric or Vajryana practices for spiritual development . You may get in touch with them , through their website.


text:
Are there examples of the Buddha showing humour in the Pali Canon?
Leading on from this question - are there any examples of the Buddha showing a sense of humour or a certain lightness in his teachings within the Pali Canon? I was once told that it is possible to find examples where he perhaps approaches teaching with a gentler approach depending on his audience. Certainly the Buddha gives the lions roar but does he sometimes give the cheeky wink too?

The only "humor" I recall was when a monk saw a ghost and smiled, not exactly humor but a kind of relief... He smiled because he would not have that poor destiny, this is the closest to humor I recall.

well, he did said the lion's roar should be remembered as the "The Hair-raising Discourse" ;)

Some of the stories of the origins of the monks rules have quite a bit of humor in them. Not canonical; but humorous. Ex: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/7236/drunk-monks-and-the-5th-precept/7244#7244  :)

OK. Thank you all for the wax apologetics. It only made it clear to everybody that the Pali Canon cannot be a source material even for the most talented of right-wing comedians(if he or she even exists.)
There is a large amount of Buddhist humour outside the scriptures for people to feast on. What interests me is that given the Theravadan vinaya admonishments against anything that even hint on the slightest pleasurable sensations, are these 'funnies' kosher??

You could say the Buddha and arahants had a peculiar form of humour, as Konrad suggested in his comment above. The hasituppādacitta (smiling-producing mind) is a citta unique to enlightened beings. While they can also smile due to beautiful-functional cittas, the hasituppādacitta is rootless, containing none of the wholesome or unwholesome roots.
This means they would smile at things ordinary folk wouldn't, like brahmas being born as pigs (Dhp-A 338), or ghosts being tortured for past misdeeds (Dhp-A 71).

The formulaic way the suttas are recited make it difficult to see much humour. But there is a really interesting series of talks by the scholar John Peacock, "Buddhism before the Theravada", where he talks about the way many of the Buddha's concepts, even some of the most basic and familiar ones, could have been seen as provocative and satirical at the time he spoke them- particularly, satirizing or punning on brahmanical rituals (http://www.audiodharma.org/series/207/talk/2602/).
There was some short sutta I saw, I think in the Anguttara Nikaya, where the Buddha said something like "This is so important, I can't even think of a simile for it". Considering how free the Buddha was with similes, I think his listeners would have taken this as a bit of a joke :)

If anyone has a reference for this please post it!

Lahu-parivatta Sutta (AN 1.48)

There are examples of satires by the Buddha in the Pali canon. Presently I can remember two instances:
(1) In Tevijja Sutta (DN13), the Buddha compares the brahmans claiming to show the way to meet the Brahma without ever seeing him to a young man searching for the perfect girl, without seeing her or knowing her name and whereabouts.
(2) In Assalayana Sutta (MN93), the Buddha ridicules the claimed superiority of the brahmans by birth by saying that the "brahman-women are plainly seen having their periods, becoming pregnant, giving birth, and nursing [their children]. And yet the brahmans, being born through the birth canal, say, 'Brahmans are the superior caste; any other caste is inferior."
You can have a look on "What the Buddha Thought" by Richard Gombrich where there is a chapter on Buddha's satire.

Yes it seems he liked to ridicule. Another example I remember is when someone asked him about posthumous prayers helping a sinful person obtain better rebirth and he said it was like throwing a heavy rock into lake and chanting "swim good rock, swim" :))

@Andrei Volkov again just by chance I saw this post... The story u told was incorrect, Buddha wasn't ridiculing the posthumous prayers but the one with bad Karma is like a heavy rock - it sinks. I read this in a Chinese "Art of living" Goenka though I will reject Goenka teaching which is an other-teaching clothed in Buddhist outfit. Even the Varjayana has a lot rituals and teachings empathized on posthumous prayers, I can recall the Tibetan Book of Death teaches them.

Nope, this comes from a Pali Canon sutta.

The sutta being, for example, SN 42.6

@Mishu米殊 - I would read it differently. The rock will sink, but it's the posthumous prayer 'swim good rock,swim' that seems to be the target of the comment.

Nah, I don't think the the Buddha would utter such nonsense as 'swim good rock...' in the related canonical text @PeterJ, if not a mock-up making up by the quoter. However as my knowledge grow, don't even think this example met the humour criteria

@Mishu - I was suggesting that he'd never say such a thing except to mock the words.

There is humour in the suttas, but inevitably it is used as a lead up to a more serious discussion of dhamma.
M.N. 90

The frame story of this sutta presents a gentle satire of royal life.
  Despite his position, King Pasenadi Kosala must still act the role of
  messenger for his wives. Because of his position, he finds himself
  surrounded by people he cannot trust — he never gets to the bottom of
  the question of who brought misinformation into the palace — and whose
  minds fasten on issues of overthrowing and banishing, possibly him. He
  is so preoccupied with his responsibilities that he doesn't pick up on
  the Buddha's gentle joke about his servitude to the sisters Soma and
  Sakula, can't stick with an issue for any length of time, sometimes
  can't even phrase his questions properly, and can arrive at no greater
  certainty about the Buddha's teachings than that they seem reasonable.
  At the end of the sutta he has to leave, not because he has exhausted
  the issues he would like to discuss, but because one of his courtiers
  tells him it is time to go. All in all, not an enviable position.

I'd also recommend Ajahn Sujato's blog post for more examples: https://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/the-ten-funniest-scenes-from-the-pali-canon/

There's a page on Ven. Sujato's blog, The Ten Funniest Scenes from the Pali Canon.
The Buddhism.SE site guideline say I ought to quote from the reference; so here is the first, of ten:

10. Saccaka gets his comeuppance
Where?
Majjhima Nikaya 35, Culasaccaka Sutta
What’s up?
Saccaka the wanderer features in a few Suttas. Here he threatens to
  take on the Buddha in debate on the five aggregates and not-self,
  giving an elaborate series of similes on how he will drag the Buddha
  about ‘like a huge elephant would enjoy a game of washing hemp’.
Where’s the funny?
While Saccaka is boasting, there’s no doubting his pride is due for a
  painful fall, and the Sutta doesn’t disappoint. He ends up thoroughly
  humiliated, seating and depressed. But like all good thrashings in
  debate, it turns out to be a necessary antidote for his pride. He ends
  up becoming an arahant.

Readers mention others in the comments at the end of that post.

There is one passage in the Vinaya (rules of conduct for monks and nuns) which struck me as showing a sense of humor from the Buddha.  He saw in the distance a hut made from sun-baked mud that a monk who was a potter in his life as a householder before he went forth.  The Buddha asked the Ven. Ananda something like, "Ananda, what is that thing in the distance that looks like a beautiful ladybird?"  If you are familiar with how the Buddha wanted his monks to live, abandoning luxuries and things of beauty, then you might appreciate the subtle humor of this.  Ananda replied that it was the hut that a particular monk had made, though I suspect that the Buddha already knew that.  The Buddha then made a rule that a monk could not make a sun-baked hut.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Which Jatakas illustrate Viriya Paramita
As far as I know, the story of Khantivadi illustrates the perfection of Khanti by the Bodhisatta, and the Vessantara Jataka illustrates the perfection of Dana - on similar lines - is there a Jataka(s) which illustrates the perfection of Viriya in the Pali Canon ?
Also , Could anyone point out references to other articles/suttas/commentaries etc. inside/outside the Pali Canon on the topic of Viriya Paramita and its cultivation ?

The commentary cites the Maha-Janaka Jataka (539) as the pinnacle of the perfection of effort:

So I will ever do my best to fight through ocean to the shore;
While strength holds out I still will strive, nor yield till I can strive no more."
(Cowell, trans)

Also, the Vaṇṇupatha Jataka (#2) deals with this perfection. There's also one about a bird trying to put out a forest fire that comes to mind, but can't find it right now.

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


text:
Buddhist Monk - Travel by air
Happened to watch Yuttadhammo's video on Life in a day project and also understood that Monks are not allowed to stay in a place with a woman.
Was wondering how do they actually travel by air in a confined space for hours,worst case if they were assigned to be seated next to a female?

I think an air travel is much different from staying in a house. They are not allergic to women, it is just that they want to avoid some situation, this is a rule Buddha created to protect the monks from having second thoughts... just that

I heard they can fly through the air:">

Fly through the air? For real? Lol! Supernatural sounds more like it! =D

The Bhikkhus' Rules - A Guide for Laypeople
says that the "spirit of the rule" is important:

FAQ 4: "It is mentioned in the Vinaya rules that a monk is not allowed to reside under the same roof with a woman. How does that apply to multistoried (condominiums, flats, apartments) and multi-compartment buildings (terrace houses), where the flats, terrace houses, share one roof?"
A: This has become a complex question with various interpretations because of modern conditions. The spirit of the rule is very important — avoiding possibilities of intimacy — while the interpretation will depend on the monk and the circumstances. In countries without proper monasteries there will always have to be something of a compromise. (See Staying Together for a discussion of this.)

This is clearer if you read the previous 3 FAQs, for example,

FAQ 3: "What is the rule if an eight-precepter unintentionally comes into [direct physical] contact with another lay person or eight-precepter or ten-precepter or monk or nun of opposite gender?"
A: As with the preceding cases with bhikkhus, there is no fault if there is no wrong intention.


text:
Can you help me identify this English translation of The Gateless Gate?
Over the years, as I have seen various commentaries on koans, I've become aware that the quoted text seems to always derive from one of a very few English translations, but the translation concerned is rarely mentioned.
I am no expert on this area of philology and I'm particularly interested in the version which for Hyakujo’s Fox uses the phrasing "fall under the yoke of causation". This was the first translation which I saw, and so somehow canonical to me. I wonder if it is a highly regarded one?
My main interest is in intellectual curiosity, being interested in philology more generally.

I stumbled upon the answer to my own question elsewhere.
The translation I was seeking was prepared by Katsuki Sekida (1903—1987). Sekida was a school teacher by profession, after retiring he dedicated himself to his lifelong interest in Zen, including preparing excellent translations of the Gateless Gate and Blue Cliff Record.


text:
Trouble Maintaining Practice
Okay, so I searched for an answer to this question and couldn't find one, but it must be common, so I apologize in advance if this is a duplicate.
I try to practice daily mindfulness by saying in my head, "walking" as I am walking, "reading" as I am reading, etc., but often I lose my focus, and three hours later I find myself thinking, "oh yeah, right, I was supposed to be practicing mindfulness.." This happens especially when something I perceive as really bad occurs- negative thoughts cloud my mind and take me over. And then I feel SO GUILTY!
How do I overcome feelings of guilt about my practice? And how do I sustain mindfulness throughout the day? It seems almost impossible, and every time I realize I have failed at it, I curse myself and feel like a hopeless buddhist.
Thx for reading! Ian

tl;dr keep pushing yourself, but gently as Paul Sasik says. Also, keep an open mind because this stuff can be very counterintuitive.
Long answer
It sounds like you're practicing the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, where one notes phenomena as they arise. In this case I can answer from my own experience in the tradition.
A few pointers:

Negative thoughts are just thoughts, so you have the opportunity to note "thinking".
Ditto for a clouded mind; you have there an opportunity to note "clouded mind".
Ditto again for guilt; if guilt is predominant then note "guilt".

The essence of this strategy is not to get enticed by what we perceive. Thoughts aren't intrinsically negative or positive; we mistakenly understand them to be as such. The same goes for feelings like guilt, and the realization that the mind is clouded. When we see them as they are, it's easier to remain in the here and now.
As for the wandering mind, I can say a few more things:

Try to abandon the desire for practice to go well—paradoxically this can hold you back.
Don't curse yourself. Cursing yourself is a form of identifying with your experiences.
Experiment a lot. Vary the quality of your practice—Does one note intensely, or note softly? What can be noted that was not noted before? What are the limits of what can reasonably be covered by noting? Do the limits change from one day to the next? Come up with ideas like these, and test them out during walking and sitting practice. At the same time, keep it simple. You don't want to get too obsessed with conceptual dead ends.

It can take a long time for practice to improve. But I can confidently say that my mind wanders much less than it did one year ago. In my 3 years of practice (one 6-day retreat, about 15 minutes per day on most days) I have found there are long stretches—perhaps days, weeks, even months—where no progress is made, followed by flashes of what seem to be insight, followed by the realization that they are just unusual experiences, and so on.
Lastly, as for maintaining mindfulness throughout the day: I find this one quite difficult. It improves with practice just like the wandering as I explained above. Personally my daily mindfulness is quite weak but at the same time much better than, for example one year ago. Another side of this is that the monastic lifestyle or a meditation course will give you the opportunity to develop these skills more quickly.
Be well.

What you're experiencing happens to everyone, every - one. When you find yourself "off course" just bring yourself back gently. Be kind to yourself.
You seem to be expecting too much from yourself. When reading, for example, you should be taking in information, and IMHO, this is not time for mindfulness. Attempting to understand what you're reading and being mindful at the same time does not sound possible. Human beings just aren't made that way.
Another high bar you've set for yourself is the expectation of being in a constant state of mindfulness. This is a tall order indeed and also another example of something that is not necessarily possible for the average person.
Be gentle to yourself. Bring yourself back to the present gently and gracefully as you would a lost or grieving friend. Then celebrate that return. Embrace the imperfection and practice gentle, loving kindness to yourself over and over. Your enemy is not your naturally wandering mind. It is the guilt, cursing and impossible expectations that have been foisted upon you by your past experiences.

The Buddha says that one who is mindful remembers what was said long ago. Frequently mindfulness is defined by this phrase in the Suttas. Since in those ancient times writing was available for kings and ministers one had to rely very much on memory, and mindfulness helps memory.

What your key focus in the practice should be
What ever the tradition the object is to see the phenomena arising and passing knowing their characteristics of impermanence maintaining perfect equanimity.
If you get carried away with the reciting instead of using this as a tool to keep your focus and keep looking at the arising and passing of phenomena in an equanimous manner, then you may get stressed and may not get the results you are looking for.
Key is:

look at the phenomena as your primary focus and the recital as a tool to keep the focus
keep equanimity
understand the true nature of phenomena

Keeping up your practice
Also to keep you in track recall:

you can practice only as a human being
you may not live to take the next breath

For me the key to practice is remembering impermanence. Being a human is very precious and death can come at any time without any warning. So when i feel lazy or distracted I try to hold this thought and remember impermanence.

Recalling death can be very useful to keep up your practice.

Dont be too hard on yourself. Give yourself a break sometimes and some pads on the shoulder for wanting to deal with these things. You could just push it aside and fill your life with noise but instead you contemplate this and you try to practice daily mindfulness. That is great and that is what the Buddha taught us to do. So keep that in mind everyday that you are making an effort here. Its valueable. Not only to you but also for everyone who comes in contact with you.
When feelings of guilt, inferiority or other negative feelings arise just note them and observe them. If you observe them from they arise until the point where they cease you will see that they are impermanent. What is impermanent is also suffering since one cannot rely on it. Also you will see that you have absolutely no control over the feelings. Its not like you can say: bad feeling, go away. That will not work. All the aggregates are subject to the 3 signs of existence, namely anicca, dukkha, anatta, meaning impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and not-self. They are uncontrollable and ungovernable.
When you guard yourself with mindfulness and thereby being able to see e.g. feelings and mental formations arise and cease you will see that they do so on their own accord. Because they are conditioned phenomena build upon other causes which again is build by other causes etc., they will exist as long as the causes sustaining them is present.
Lets take the example with guilt. When guilt arises, note it, observe it and watch it until it goes away. See that you have no control over it. When there arises an object to the sense door, there will be contact and when there is contact there arises feeling. That feeling can be pleasant, unpleasant and neutral. When guilt arises, there can arise aversion towards that feeling. If that happens then switch to the new object which is the aversion and note it as "disliking". You can stop the process at that point or before that point if you are mindful about it. If you are not mindful or loose mindfulness for some reason the next step can be a bodily reaction to the guilt-based aversion. It might be heat in the body, increased respiration or other unpleasant bodily reactions. If that happens then swith to that new object e.g. heat in the body and not it as "heat, heat or warm, warm".
The point is that feelings, mental formations and the other aggregates are not subject to our control. By seeing that in insight meditation one begins to gradually let go of the aggregates and when that happens its results in more freedom and equanimity. One sees that one does not have to react to e.g. feelings and thoughts. They arise and they cease and thats it. Dont interfere with them. They will go away again. If you interfere with them you will blow them up in size. Its like putting fuel on a fire.
If you dont react to them and just note them there will be no fuel for the fire and it will cease to exist.
Ven. Yuttadhammo has made a video on youtube which i unfortunately dont remember the name of now. I will post the link if i find the name. In the video Ven. Yuttadhammo makes a simile of feelings and talk about how they can be viewed as a piece of burning wood taking from a camp fire. When one takes the piece of burning wood and puts it on the ground away from the fire, then it will burn for a while and then go out. No problem there. But if one takes the piece of burning wood and holds it in ones hand one will get burned.
So if you "take" the feeling of guilt and interfere with it you will get burned. But if you dont interact with it and just note it then you will not get "harmed".
Hope this might be of some help to you.
Lanka


text:
Is it more important not to break precepts through proxy, or to not cause suffering to your family?
An important point I see is how one furthers death and lying. Through working, you are taxed, and taxes fund the breaking of the precepts. Taxes fund war and espionage, so killing and stealing are definitely two which you break just by earning income.
If one abstains from paying taxes, then your wage will be held. So nothing is really achieved here, since you are just laying the karmic burden on another person, which is arguably worse.
Also, just being a consumer, even if say you make less then the taxable amount in your country, then you still fund abusive working conditions and abusive companies and practices. You fund massive amounts of suffering, since the money you pay goes into the company and then into warfare/espionage funding through the company's taxes.
So, to leave such a life would really upset my relatives. My question is, is it more important to not cause suffering to my mother and father, and am I just being over reactive about this issue?
Because the way I see it, I am certainly breaking the precepts of killing and stealing through proxy, yet if I were to leave, I would cause a massive amount of suffering to some of the most important people in my life. Also it may cause people who know me to really disrespect Buddhism, thinking "oh what a lazy/crazy person". Yet I cannot help but feel that contributing to the death of millions of people is less compassionate.
Any thoughts please! This is a difficult situation.
I am practicing Mahayana and am currently adapting the Bodhisattva vows.

What exactly do you mean when you say "leave such a life"? Thanks for clarifying.

Firstly, does your profession fulfill the requirements of Right Livelihood? If your work or business is not in weapons, human trading, meat, intoxicants, poison or anything in the spirit thereof, then it is fulfilling Right Livelihood. For now, I assume yes.
Secondly, although your profession fulfills Right Livelihood, the State requires and compels you to pay tax. So here, you do not have the intention to willingly contribute money to the government, but you do so because you are forced to and because you are a law-abiding citizen.
Thirdly, you have the opportunity to influence how your tax money is spent through the elections. So, here I assume that you have voted in the past at the ballot box (assuming that you are eligible to do so). It doesn't matter who got elected, as long as you have done your part.
Fourthly, you still have the opportunity to vote using your feet and move or migrate to another place.
However, the main point in my opinion is that, what the government does with the tax money, is not caused by your intentions and you did not pay tax with the intention of contributing towards warfare etc. Rather, you paid tax because you were compelled to do so.
The commentary on the story of the hunter's wife from Dhammapada 124 is relevant here.

The monks began to discuss the matter, saying, “So Kukkuṭamitta has a
  wife, and when she was a mere girl she obtained the Fruit of
  Conversion; yet she married this hunter and by him had seven sons.
  Furthermore, during all this time, whenever her husband said to her,
  ‘Bring me my bow, bring me my arrows, bring me my hunting-knife, bring
  me my net,’ she obeyed him and gave him what he asked for. And her
  husband, taking what she had given him, went and took life. Is it
  possible that those who have obtained the Fruit of Conversion take
  life?” Just then the Teacher approached and asked, “Monks, what is it
  that you are sitting here now talking about?” When they told him, he
  said, “Monks, of course those that have obtained the Fruit of
  Conversion do not take life. Kukkuṭamitta’s wife did what she did
  because she was actuated by the thought, ‘I will obey the commands of
  my husband.’ It never occurred to her to think, ‘He will take what I
  give him and go hence and take life.’ If a man’s hand be free from
  wounds, even though he take poison into his hand, yet the poison will
  not harm him. Precisely so, a man who harbors no thoughts of wrong and
  who commits no evil, may take down bows and other similar objects and
  present them to another, and yet be guiltless of sin.” So saying, he
  joined the connection, and preaching the Law, pronounced the following
  Stanza,

If in his hand there be no wound, A man may carry poison in his hand.
  Poison cannot harm him who is free from wounds. No evil befalls
  him who does no evil.

Also, the commentary on the story of Ven. Chakkhupala, the blind arahant, from Dhammapada 1, is relevant here:

While residing at the Jetavana monastery in Savatthi, the Buddha
  uttered Verse (1) of this book, with reference to Cakkhupala, a blind
  thera.
On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at
  the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in
  meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the
  morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They
  thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The
  Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects.
  When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had
  not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects.
  Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no
  intention of killing and so was quite innocent." On being asked why
  Cakkhupala was blind although he was an arahat, the Buddha told the
  following story:
Cakkhupala was a physician in one of his past existences. Once, he had
  deliberately made a woman patient blind. That woman had promised him
  to become his slave, together with her children, if her eyes were
  completely cured. Fearing that she and her children would have to
  become slaves, she lied to the physician. She told him that her eyes
  were getting worse when, in fact, they were perfectly cured. The
  physician knew she was deceiving him, so in revenge, he gave her
  another ointment, which made her totally blind. As a result of this
  evil deed the physician lost his eyesight many times in his later
  existences.
Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:
  Verse 1: All mental
  phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their
  chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with an evil mind,
  'dukkha' follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox
  that draws the cart.

I don't think meat-at-a-supermarket is very good analogy (meat-at-a-supermarket a separate topic, a topic on which mahayana might disagree with theravada, a topic that's arguable): because two characteristics of taxes are a) paying taxes is involuntary i.e. coerced by the government b) choosing what to spend the tax money on is decided by the  government. Similarly when a monk begs then they are not the decision-makers. But when you spend money at a supermarket, that's not coerced and you do decide what to spend money on. IOW I think this would be a better answer if you deleted the end of ...

... it, starting with "This is similar to".

@ChrisW Agreed. Though it would be nice to find a good analogy from the suttas on the importance of intentions for karma.

A good analogy would be paying the rent to the landlord. It aint your fault, if the landlord takes that money to a bar and gets drunk!

That is a very complicated point. depending on how you see it, almost every work for big corporation could be wrong livelihood! Hard to find a big corporation that works with good products, ethical conduct, it is not involved in tax evasion, bribe or other scandal... so I try to focus more on what YOU do in your work, not what the company does!

i dont think you are causing suffering to your family by going forth. That suffering is triggered by the perceived expected result of the actions performed by another but is ultimately "caused" by delusional state of the afflicted stream of consciousness.
I think you are definitely overthinking it in regards to taxes but honestly i am not sure how to address it.
Society is more or less crazy, it is to be expected that they would have some political and juridical system in place that is upside-down. If you pay taxes it is more of a compromise and getting along with community for the time being, than actually making some contribution.
Getting along is very important because for a monk to sustain life without killing, stealing or farming, they are 100% dependent on alms.
A hand that has no wound can carry poison- Dhp.
Seems to apply here.

Anton A. Zabirko,
You are giving, paying tax, as an agreement, even with joy, as a contribution for your community. Such does not require unskilful thoughts, ordering and approving possible unskillful deeds.
As for what somebody else, later in charge of it, might do with it, that does not really lies in the givers sphere.
In regard of suffering of certain partners of relations. That falls somehow into the sphere of breaking promises, which is generally "ok" if it is really for a more skilful way and of course one needs to bear the effects.
If thinking on renouncing the live as a householder, if wishing to become a full ordained disciple, it's required to have no debts and one needs the permission of ones parents to leave the live of a householder.
Losing wealth, relations, honor... is of course no match for as if you lose wisdom, conncentation, virtue and goodness: Kalyāṇamittādivaggo: Good companionship and others
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commerzial purpose or other low wordily gains by trade and exchange.]

Depending on where you live, paying taxes also pays for schools, libraries, hospitals, the police, the fire brigade, social services, street cleaners and a million other things.  Think how many people would die if we didn't pay our taxes.  Probably a lot more than die in wars.

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


text:
Can you gain stream entry by focusing on the clinging and stress going on at the five clinging aggregates?
If I see the clinging and the stress going on at the five clinging aggregates can that propel me into stream entry?
Like say I see that clinging is going on at the five clinging aggregates and I see that it's causing stress can that take me to enlightenment or is another method needed like seeing the rise and fall of the aggregates, or practicing the silavant: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.122.than.html sutta.
Is it just a good overall practice anyway?

Yes. Meditating on the five aggregates and seeing the three characteristics of impermanence, stress, and non-self, leads all the way to Arahatship. In the words of the Anattalakhana Sutta:

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to
  change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
(Similarly with the other aggregates)
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows
  disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the
  knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
  holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
  world.'"
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.than.html

You can get enlightened by getting rid of clinging and craving. I.e. when a contract or formation gives arise to a sensation be equanimous without reaction knowing its true nature.


text:
Is working for a big corporation invariably wrong livelihood?
That can be a very complicated point.
Almost every work for a big corporation could be (potentially) seen as wrong livelihood! Hard to find a big corporation that works with good products, ethical conduct, respects the environment, the employees and is not involved in tax evasion, bribe or any other scandal... so what is more important from a Buddhist's point of view: What YOU do in your work routine or what your company does or sells?

Related question perhaps at http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/3080/157

It does feel like big corporations are somehow less ethical but I suspect it's related to complexity. In a smaller company it's relatively easy to understand whats going on and where the ethical grey areas may or may not be. I work in a company of 30 people so I've a reasonably good idea what we are up to and if there are any major ethical concerns. However in a bigger company all manner of things can and will be going on. Your department may be perfectly ethical but another department might be selling arms to unsavoury regimes. The office 50 miles away might have real issues about work place bullying. The executive board might be engaging in large scale tax evasion. In a big company there are a lot of conditions in play, lot of things going on, lots of places to hide. There is bound to be good and bad there.
But in reality we are all affected by each other. A small company has suppliers - what are they up to? A small company invests in pensions - is it ethically investing? A small company still has an environmental footprint - is it excessively flying its people to other countries? The more we think about ourselves and others, the more these issues will come up. I think we are living in a golden age for Buddhist practice (controversial I know) but I do think that our livelihood is one of the areas that is more difficult for us in the modern world. But we still need to consider this kind of issue - exactly as you are doing.
I've a personal preference for working for smaller companies but I'm not sure that it's because of right livelihood and general ethical concerns. It might be just my ego playing out - preferring to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

Dear Crab, it is more than that: In the time of the Buddha there were no corporations, you had one person producing intoxicants and another selling (sometimes the same person). Now think about our time, you can be a HR executive or an IT professional for a  company that produces intoxicant or weapons, are you practicing wrong livelihood? Very grey area in my opinion, but I think the answer is no.

Corporations could not build weapons without participants (employees), just as governments could not fight wars without soldiers. The problem is we have to compromise somewhat to make a living in the real world, so some people do build/sell weapons or become soldiers. How much compromise is acceptable is the personal decision, but what others do should not be a justification.

@konrad01 it is an interesting question which I will give more thought to. Isn't this though a critique of modern globalised capalitalism rather than large corporations particularly. I think my point is that it the complexity and massive amounts of interconnections within the system itself rather than big corporations that make right livelihood such a challenge. There are examples of big corporations being able to do positive things such as the Northern Rock foundations. So I'm reluctant to say that working for big corporations is always wrong. A case by case basis perhaps?

user I think it is not as simple as that. One thing is you actually sell the weapon, another thing is you work as an HR executive for a company that sells weapons! It is like the story on the dhammapada about the wife of a hunter, she used to clean his weapons and cook the dead animals, but he was the one hunting. The Buddha said she was blameless...  just like you are if you buy meat on the supermarket. Your acts and mind are what matter

But if the HR person is aware of the connection, it is in the mind. What is done in response is their choice, but to say such a person has no responsibility for the indirect consequences of their job activities becomes a drawn out conclusion.


text:
What determines whether a style of meditation can or cannot lead to insight?
On YouTube @Yuttadhammo seems to say that tranquility meditation requires focus on a concept and as a result -- i.e. because a concept is not "real" -- that meditation cannot lead to insight. And, by way of contrast, he says that the rise and fall of the abdomen can lead to insight because the abdomen (and its rise and fall) is real.
Is that -- the nature/reality of the meditation object -- the primary difference between meditation intended to achieve tranquility and that intended to achieve insight?
But if so, how does that tally with Y's answer to this question. There, he notes that the Visuddhimagga allows for insight to be achieved by scrutinising “mentality” (nāma). But how is mentality real while a concept is not?

Here is the difference: a thought itself is real, but the object of the thought is conceptual. Loving-kindness is real, but the object of loving-kindness is conceptual.
When thinking, one is really thinking. When thinking of a cat, the cat is not really there, but the thought is.
When loving a person, the love is really there, but the person is only a concept.
Mind refers to the process of thinking, loving, etc., itself, not the object of the mental activity. When the mind focusses on the movements of the body, the movement is real, the focussing is real, but the body part itself (e.g. hand, foot, stomach, breath etc.) is a concept.
If one focusses on the breath, for example, going in and out of the body, one is focussing on a concept, as it is not directly related to the observation of the sensation. If one focusses on the sensation at the nose or the abdomen, then one is focussing on ultimate reality.

I'm not sure I understand this fully yet, but I have a suspicion that it is really pretty important. Can you recommend some reading that would explain it in more detail (i.e. more detail than the SE format permits -- your answer, as far is it goes, was very useful)?

@tkp. You can read more about conceptual understanding and experiential understanding here in "Nature of Reality" by Ven. Yuttadhammo.

Tranquility meditation requires focus on a concept
Tranquility meditation such as Metta or Recollections of the Qualities of the Buddha are based or expanded on concepts.Tranquility meditation using the breath is based on the "real" " physical" " direct" sensation of " **touch ** " in the nostrils.
Is the reality of the meditation object the primary difference between meditation intended for tranquility and intended for insight
Of course you'd want to choose a meditation object that you can concentrate on. The more  real the better. The more solid (rupa) the better.You need concentration to develop insight.So the 'realness' of the meditation object is not the "difference" between tranquility and insight but is in the best interest of both meditation practices.So my answer is no.Meditation objects are not the primary difference between tranquility and insight its the meditation technique one uses on them that  differentiates the two.
How is mentality real while a concept is not?
Forgive me.I don't know how to explain this but ill give an example: Loving kindness is a concept.Sukha and piti are nama.Nama are like the actual real mental qualities that arises in our mind and concepts is almost like a label we give to the combined mental factors.Since insight deals with seeing things clearly it sees straight through concepts and deals directly with Nama and rupa.Tranquility however doesn't have to break the concepts into nama.it just has to stay with it for however long it lasts.

Actually, loving-kindness is an ultimate reality; it is the object of loving-kindness (i.e. a being) that is conceptual, hence the problem.

Oh I get it now.The object of loving kindness are people..and people are conceptual  but loving kindness is ultimate reality  thank you for clearing things up.

Supposing you thought of a coloured-disc - then, the disc is not real - simply because you don't experience a disc - what you experience maybe one or more of the following(one after the other): perception of colour, perception of shape, perception of any of the four elements, mind-consciousness, pleasant/unpleasant/neutral feeling etc - and the above are all namas - that's what you experience, and that's what is real - You do not experience a "disc" - hence it is not real.
      Now, when it comes to Samatha Meditation - As far as I can see you choose a particular concept - and stabilize it in your mind - to access jhanas and so on.
      As far as I can tell - the difference isn't really in the object but how you use it - for example - you take up a coloured-disc in your mind and then analyse the three characteristics of  the namas (their impermanence, non-self and suffering) - and that would be vipassana instead of the usual samatha it is used for - but it seems, as Yuttadhammo mentioned somewhere on this site - that some objects of meditation are far better suited for samatha and some others for vipassana.

Tranquility meditation is a method, and it has nothing to do with an object.  Tranquility meditation can easily use the rising and falling of the abdomen as an object, just like insight meditation can easily use a concept as its object.
Now I can see conceptualization itself being an issue, but again, that's nothing to do with tranquility or insight.

Actually, the object is understood to be the very thing that differentiates the two methods. If insight focusses on a concept, how can it possibly allow for insight into reality? And if tranquillity focusses on ultimate reality that is transitory and unsatisfying, how can it lead to absorption?

@yuttadhammo I have to respectfully disagree.  One need only to read Samatha and Vipassna texts to see they both use the breath.  If it's the object, then there is no different among the two methods (although in all fairness, both methods spill over into each other to an extent).

If I am to interpret meditation leading to insight as meditation which takes you to the final goal then it should have the following characteristics.

should be based on the foundations of mindfullness
you should come to a station where you experience the whole body,
you should calm the body conditioner
you should look at sensations cultivating the factor of rapture and joy thus calming the mind conditioner
etc.

Meditation devoid of the above may not take you to insight. Even if you take to develop concentration still you have to pass through these stations.


text:
Difficulties Maintaining Balance In Between Buddhism Teaching in Today’s Lives
I’m not sure if this is a good question to ask but would be great if anyone could shed some lights.
Not sure if it’s just me or anyone of you experiencing the same in one way or another?
In workplace – It’s relatively hard to have the Buddhism practice applied when dealing with your co-workers or your bosses. It seems like one needs a little bit of drama to climb the corporate ladder. If you failed to do that, you may very well be left behind the rat-race unless you are satisfied with the condition where you are at now, else you might need to do something to get there. There are couples of scenarios commonly seen in today’s workplace. For example :
(i)How do you even cultivate the so-called “right speech” to your co-workers at a somewhat hostile meeting or even competitive environment?
(ii)In workplace, there’s a constant need for you to show that you are go-getter, driven person. How do you actually incorporate the not clinging to the desire for recognition or acknowledgement to a point where it’s considered acceptable in Buddhism context?
On one hand, you are trying to detach yourself from this desire but on the other, you just wanting to do a good job.
At home with family – Are you actually generating bad karma if you are minimizing interaction with your parents/siblings/relatives?
Being away from home for couple of years, I find it pressurizing to go home even on an occasional basis.
But I do try my best to go home as often as I could cos deep down I knew, I’m still holding the duty as a daughter.
I knew my family misses me dearly and I can’t bear being in that emotional state. It’s like I’m opening up the chances of them having the desire for expecting me to be back again and again which is obviously not my intention here.
Also, there are times when conflicts and disagreements arise, I find myself in a position using all kinds of unkind words towards my family which I felt bad later on.  As much as I wanted to maintain good terms with them but it’s always seems like an energy-draining process and I gave up.  I simply gave up the notion of having a proper communication with them in order to get the message conveyed properly or at least to have myself understood.
And I thought by minimizing the interactions with them could at least mitigate the continuation of unwholesome act and I thought I could repay them in another way such as sending money back or sponsoring them for trips and etc.
But part of me feels like I’m not fulfilling the duty as a daughter cos I failed to show gratitude to my parents/family.
In Society – At times I find it hard to relate myself to non-Buddhist or to those free thinkers. It seems like we have different views and when you start speaking in a spiritual way, they turned judgemental to you or worse, they may think you are a weirdo or have issues and needs to be fixed.
I can’t deny that some people going into Buddhism as a way of looking for an answer, for some guidances in life perhaps. I guess my intentions are undeniably between both, also I took it quite seriously as some sort of guide for betterment of oneself.
But sadly, in this materialistic world today, the lay life are pretty ignorant with the essence of these valuable teaching.
How do you actually pursue your spiritual path without offending others?
Sorry for my lengthy questions. =(

I've experienced some of these issues as well. Before I began a regular meditation and study practice my success at work and in society was much more important to me. Now, quite frankly, it's not important.
Work - I work hard in a focused way but I don't try to fit in (using wrong speech) or be seen as a go-getter. I see the benefits of actually not being promoted as leaving me more time to study and practice. And that's more important than the increase in salary I might have received if I had continued to be ambitious.
Society - I've found myself socializing a lot less. Really doesn't feel like time well spent; especially when you are socializing with people who want to judge you or your practices. It's ok if some old friends move on. Trying to cling to old relationships that don't work anymore will definitely lead to suffering. Trying to forge new relationships with people who don't understand your journey will likely be a waste of time. Finding new friends who are on the same path can be very helpful though.
Family - Going home and getting upset then avoiding family does sound draining. I have only a suggestion to try to keep in touch primarily by phone or email (or letters) or Skype or social media or anything that breaks the pattern of going home and getting involved in old issues all over again, until you have reached a point where others behavior won't upset you so much. Once you have reached that point, a visit home might be more doable.
But meditation can help you be more detached and less inclined to get upset about any of these things. Best wishes.

Robin,tq for sharing!Forget abt the power or promotion,I guess v stil need a job to get it goin,as a lay person,as a mode of survival,at least.Instead of hvin sumthin jz to get by.I guess its not really abt power hunger,its more like u r bein responsible for wat u hv been tasked to do.After all,y do u thnk v r bein paid for.
Well, bein less social can somehow be labeled as an outcast which could turn up to be unsightly.
All in all, it can be a hard-knock life as a laity. Sigh~~~

Here is my advice in regard to the topics that you raised, much of it that took years of studying in psychology:

Workplace: Focus on your work and try to do your best in a state of unity. You will feel happy to work. And you will not take things so personally. (Be careful though to still set limits--don't stay late if your boss is not going to pay you for it or unless you genuinely want to.) If someone yells too loud or criticizes, just see it as a bit of fiery energy within the team interaction that is your workplace. Do not hold things back but do not exaggerate them either. Practice expressing your emotions as naturally and smoothly as possible--don't add extra energy to it or any judgment ("this person is saying this to annoy me"). Just express it: "I am getting the feeling that you are not understanding what I am saying"... also if your work has a time measurement system then make sure to log all the times that you help your co-workers.
Family: learn to create healthy boundaries while with your family. Running away from your problems is OK as a temporary fix but running away from anything, never fixes. It is better to argue and work things out then to avoid those arguments and come closer to any solution. If you find that you are falling into too many arguments while with your family, it is an issue of boundaries--either you do not have enough or your respective relative does not. They need to stop giving you advice when you ask them to stop, leave you alone when you ask for space, and most importantly allow you the freedom to do your own "bad decisions". Likewise, you must give the relative/parent space when they ask for it and respect their choices and wishes in life--however self-destructive you may perceive it to be. If you take the time to have one talk about all this and that if they can respect your boundaries, then you won't need to do it again.
Society: think of the parable of the burning castle. Those people that are somewhat weirded out--that do not think of the karmic repercussions of ignorance, hatred, and greed... well let them burn inside the castle! Realize that there are people who are ignorant of their ignorance and furthermore there are those who wish to stay ignorant of their ignorance. There are seriously people who believe "ignorance is bliss." They would like nothing more than to meet their basic needs--such people will be animals in their next life. You just have to find like-minded people--which is not easy. It is easy for low-quality people to find low-quality people because there are so many of them. Do not envy them. You, congratulate yourself, and be grateful you have the karma to cultivate beneficial thoughts. Be happy, be grateful, and keep learning/doing the good things you want to..

Tq all for the responses!

Question -In workplace
Answer  -There is no barrier keeping you from being competitive,You should know there were kings,queens,ministers,generals,billionaires who were Buddhists.To keep you away from career suicide you need to fight with the rest,yes so only follow these..
Don't lie
End arguments with peace,Be rude if you want but always know your line
Don't back stab others
Expect hostility greet it with being better than the other then they can only complain
Remember you can only shape yourself not other people's opinions!,so expect a lot of anger and jealousy.
Want respect?give it in the same amount to others
Drive your career instead of being driven by it(Show off without fear).Do work to earn the salary Do your homework to earn your place.
Remember if you are shy to showoff your potential they are of no use when you're dead,SO DO WHAT YOU GOT TO DO IN THEIR FACES BUT REMEMBER OUR CODES OF LIVING,BUDDHISTS ARE NO SECONDS (BETAS)WE ARE THE ALPHAS
BE WHO YOU WANT TO BE!
Question - At home with family – Are you actually generating bad karma if you are minimizing interaction with your parents/siblings/relatives?
Answer  -Karma is generated by Acts,Thoughts and words that you use,but only if they are intentional.Buddhism doesn't teach anyone to minimize emotions and be something robot like.you are advised to have your connections with the understanding that everything changes and change causes sadness and because of that nothing is yours truly and therefore you have no soul (that you are not a person,but a functioning mind and a body).Greet your family with love and kindness but do not attach yourself to them so hard like any other person.You are a Buddhist,so always have mindfulness.
Question - In Society
Answer  - If they had enough sense of what is happening around them do you think they would remain in their beliefs?there is enough pain and suffering in the world for anyone to understand that something is wrong.this is what you should do,keep your thoughts to yourself and pretend to be interested in their things but always have mindfulness.Just when they hit a bump in their lives you will see what happen to those so called "Free thinkers",simple the difference between a Buddhist and a free thinker is that they need therapy to come over the simplest troubles in life and we just move on like nothing happened!If the common person you will meet had half of your understanding about life they would try to find a solution for life instead of making up things as they go or praying to someone that they've never seen.


text:
Can insight be gained at any point in insight meditation, or do you have to go through all 7 purifications of insight?
Can insight into impermanence suffering and not-self be gained at any point in insight practice or do you have to go through all 7 purifications of insight?

The seven purifications are not all related to insight; only the sixth specifically deals with the realization of three characteristics. The first purification is related to morality, and the second to concentration. The seventh is super-mundane, so is not related to realization of the three characteristics. The fourth and fifth do somehow relate to the three characteristics, but the fourth has more to do with understanding cause and effect, and the fifth to do with finding the path rather than walking it.

Some insight into 3 characteristics is gained at every stage, though the depth (and thus the transformative power) of this insight is different, and also type of objects in which 3c are seen are different as one moves through the stages of insight. One goes forward through the stages by understanding more and more of 3c.


text:
Is the continuous effect of karma also sustained by karma?
Like say that someone gets cancer which is caused by karma. Now is that cancer staying on that person also sustained by karma, so that if the karma ran out then they would lose the cancer.
Or someone wins the lottery, is them having that money also sustained by karma so that if the karma was depleted they would lose the money.
When something bad happens does it go away when the karma causing it is depleted?
Is the effect sustained by the initial karma or is the effect sustained by other karma.
As soon as a karma runs out are you free from its effects or can other karma continue it effects.

oh there's definitely an answer to this, you could maybe read about the alayavijnana, i don't know about the pali tradition

Karma is extremely difficult to understand because in every situation there are numerous karmas working at the same time and also numerous circumstances affecting the result.
In some way you can compare the complexity of karma with the complexity of gravity.  Every single atom in the universe is subject to the influence of gravity from every other atom in the universe. Of course the closer they are the more influence they will have.
In karma, the strongest karma will have the strongest effect in the outcome, but other karmas will also have an effect. Only an enlightened being can fully understand it.
For example you may have the karma to be born as an animal and also have the karma to have a live free of suffering, then you can be born as a pet of a very rich family that will take the best care of you.  Or you can have the karma to be born as a human being and also have the karma to have a live of suffering, and then you can be born in a violent and poor country and experience a lot of suffering.
Karma, understood as “cause”, can only have a limited “effect”. There is no such karma with unlimited effect.  Once the effect of a karma has mature, it won´t happen again.
Personally, I like the definition that good karma is everything that helps you get closer to enlighten while bad karma is everything that moves you away from enlighten. Winning the lottery or getting cancer are neither good nor bad karma per se. If winning the lottery distracts you from your spiritual practice, makes you forget about the beings suffering around you and males you pride, then it is bad karma.  While if getting cancer makes you think about the suffering of others, opens your heart and makes you a more patient and considered person with the people around you, it is good karma.
You can also say that good karma is what allows you to learn from every situation and makes you grow, regardless of what that situation is.  Bad karma is what makes you react is such a way that it will hurt your spiritual development, regardless of what the situation is.
The advice would be not to worry so much about what happens to you, worry about your response to those challenges.
I hope this helps you.

According to the Acintita Sutta, the precise working out of the result of karma is not to be conjectured about, otherwise it will bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
  about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
  about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not
  to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone
  who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured
  about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured
  about them."


text:
Which Buddhist schools give importance to cultivation of Jhanas?
Which schools/lineages in Buddhism give importance to the cultivation of Jhanas before entering Vipassana, and which schools focus entirely on Vipassana?

I have not 50 reputations yet to comment here. Hence answer here.
I have personal experience in Goenka's 10 day retreats. Their first 3 days practice samatha - anapanasathi and the next 6 days use for vipassana and the final day is for Metta - loving kindness.

This is not an exhaustive or scholarly answer, but:
Lineages or traditions don't necessarily predict how this is taught. I believe Ajahn Brahmavamso, who teaches that it's very important to master jhanas first, comes from the Thai Forest Tradition, but not all Thai Forest teachers emphasize that as strongly. Pa Auk Sayadaw in Burma is also a proponent of jhana mastery before vipassana.
On the other side of things, the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage in Burma emphasizes vipassana from the outset.
All traditions would agree (I think) that a certain degree of samatha is a prerequisite for attaining vipassana knowledges. The difference is in how one teaches the practice, and how strictly one defines 'jhana'. There is always a dynamic interplay between samatha and vipassana, so jhana factors can emerge in formal vipassana practices, and insight wisdom can develop during formal samatha practices.

Ajahn Brahm tends to discount talk of Vipassana as a method and his position as I understand it is that vipassana was not a technique taught by the Buddha, that vipassana (insight) is inseperable from jhana, and that the practices that have come to be under the heading 'vipassana' are dangerous insofar as one may be deluded into thinking they have insight (which is not possible outside of a clear, calm mind).
http://www.theravada-dhamma.org/blog/?p=3466
http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Ajahn_Brahm_Samatha_Meditation.htm
http://media.bswa.org/sutta_study/Brahmavamso_2013_06_30.mp3

Thanks! Not directly related, but just in case you know the answer,

Sorry, the previous comment got submitted because I pressed newline:-) Thanks for your answer. I had one more question, not directly related, but just in case you know the answer, do the 10 day Vipassana retreats discuss Jhanas, or do they focus entirely on Vipassana (Insight)?

If you're thinking about the Goenka-tradition 10-day retreats, I believe they focus entirely on vipassana. (Take my answer with a grain of salt- I have no personal experience of them- but I think when you see a '10-day vipassana retreat', it's often the Goenka organization).


text:
Causation without causes
I just reread Bachelor's translation of MMK.
It struck me that the argument against causation was that:
A cause has no essence in addition to what it is, else it would not be the final cause. But it must have an essence if it is to be active for more than a moment.
So everything is radically impermanent: and nothing exists long enough to be born and then cease.
And so everything that is born and ceases is empty, it is not a final cause.
Any conditioned entity is then a mere conventional designation, something which can be identified in a better way (and on forever) and so is always incorrectly identified.

But I was reading about Sautrantika-Yogacara, and the idea that "existents" which aren't unique particulars aren't causally real. This to me seems wrong, I think we can eliminate the unique particulars from a theory and be left with something which is grounded in the particulars' causal properties. This is what some scientific realists do.

My question
Assuming it true that there can be causation without causes, then is there any way to argue that the sentences of science, with their unique particulars eliminated, are not conceptually constructed?
Perhaps because only those particulars are as such, and so empty; and our ideas about the rest of the world can be grounded in them, without that structure being thereby empty.

i hope the question is OK, sorry if it isn't

The Enlightened One taught that there is no cause or "creator" that was eternal or has immortality, such as; a soul or supreme being that was empirically knowable. The Buddha taught that there was causal conditions that are observable in the material world of form and in the conscious dispositionally conditioned state (samskrta). Simply put, the Buddha did not teach eternalism or annihilationism but that everything/everyone is streaming headlong towards becoming.  Perhaps an example might be useful.  A plant seed does not have an inherent cause within it.  It cannot become a tree in and of it's own.  The potentiality might be there but the tree is not evident.  The seed will not germinate without other causal factors; soil, water, temperature, atmosphere, and etc.  It is the causal conditions of these all these things that then cause the seed to germinate.  Once the seed has germinated, we now have the sprout.  Where did the seed go?  And, we no longer conceptualize the seed but the sprout.  Eventually, we may or may not have a tree because there are other factors (causal conditions) that may effect the tree's growth and longevity.
Even emptiness is empty of a state of a substantiality. Dependent arising is not a string of "moments" but a continuous flow of becoming.  If you are looking for a metaphysical cause ( "a final cause" , a "forever" something) that, is simply not evident.  What the Buddha taught was the means to end the general dissatisfaction we have with life and not a metaphysical philosophy. Nibbana is that liberation from dissatisfaction.

I can't make sense of how you made sense of my question :)

It is true that the Enlightened One never taught that there is an eternal creator or First Cause, but neither did he teach that there is not one. In fact he taught disciples not to debate such eternal entities, and we would be skilful to avoid seeking such conclusions about them which cannot lead to closure.

As far as I understand there "is" a substantial underlying nature pervading the all. I say "is" with speech marks because technically the normal 'is' has the opposite 'is not' and refers to the arbitrary conception of existence vs non-existence. (For which this nature is the host and therefore cannot be subject to.) Therefore, although the existents do not fundamentally exist because they are without essence, they are composed of the fundamental substance, which is why they are visible. It is only our conception of their existence which is in error, for phenomena are truly composed of an eternal nature.
So back to the question, cause and effect refers to one inherently existent object being a prime mover to result in another, which is sheer nonsense. Since it is impossible for an inherently existent object to be created or destroyed or even change. But anyway, the true nature produces a continuum of states, no one state can be considered to be ultimate or self-possessing, however we sentient beings use conceptual constructs to point at particular( and arbitrary) definitions of the intermediate states.
It would be pertinent to mention, therefore, that there are really no causes, that is why they are called causes. In as much as the continuum is ever propelled forwards without a hint of any objects. As a result to speak of birth or cessation would be to talk relatively and within an arbitrarily defined set of parameters, a subset of the continuum, whose criteria is the presentation of a set of characteristics that correspond to somebody's idea of what things should be like. A chair is not actually a solid object, it is constantly undergoing changes, but its noticeable characteristics are still close enough to its original form that we aren't aware that it is different. It also still behaves as we would expect a chair to behave. It's birth point is when it behaves enough like a chair to pass examination, it's cessation point is when the continuum in the vicinity of the chair no longer behaves in a way that corresponds to our ideas about chairhood.
Finally then you are correct there are no causes, but there is also no causation and no ending of causation. There is only this. However 'this' closely corresponds with the ideas of 'causation' and therefore I can conventionally claim that 'causation' is true. Likewise I can conventionally claim that, since "this" does display the characteristics of "x" then I would also be wrong to say that it was different, therefore "this" is "x" and that therefore causes do exist. But the reality is that the continuum has no position where it becomes that or stops being that, it does what it does.
All of science is built upon the presupposition that an object is self-possessed, first there was a list of elements which were atoms(indivisible) then they realised it was not indivisible and posited that protons, neutrons and electrons were indivisible. Then they created the so-called fundamental particles list. And then quantum physics which seems to have no main interpretation. Take away existents and all but quantum physics falls into dust. All fabrications are empty.


text:
Whose nirvana is it anyway?
Allow me to take you on a little detour through Heidegger?
He claims that "my death" is inalienably mine: that no one can die my death for me.
I think this means that "my death" never arrives... That may sound weird, but if we view death as a complete extinction of the "person" or whatever makes them up, then the empirical instant that death begins necessarily goes unnoticed - as in I can have no cognition of "my death" or by proxy the time it occurs.
i.e. It cannot be said that the event of my death is in any way only empircally real for me (because such a quality would never arrive): but who else dies for me? Which of course isn't very Buddhist...
But it does make me wonder if a similar thing can be said about nirvanic extinction? Or is the true self of a Buddha his or her nirvana, such that it can be said the Buddha is no more, just not that he or she reached it?

From a buddhist point of view, i think the question is flawed already from the beginning by assuming that there exists a "self or person" by using the words "whose nirvana, my death, person, his or her nirvana".
By using these words it is implied that a self exists which it do not. There exist a physical and a mental stream and nowhere is there a self to be found. A self is not even needed in the equation. Things work just fine without the need for a self.
If you try to search for this self by either using the method of analysis where you break things up into the constituent parts and look at them you will not find a self anywhere.
If you use the method of synthesis by looking at things in a relational/interdependent way by using the doctrine of dependent origination you will also not find a self anywhere. Why? Because according to dependent origination things only exist as a part/reflection of other things. Therefore no real self can be found.
The false idea of a self arises when the 5 aggregates work together as a physio-psychological machine. The false idea of a self is really just one of the 52 mental formations belonging to the 4th aggreate and all the aggregates are subject to the 3 signs of existence; anicca, dukkha, anatta. This is said by Dr. Walpola Rahula on p. 18 in his book "What The Buddha Taught".
So in order to answer your question i would say that you should take out the aforementioned words and then you have your answer which is that no "self or person" achieves nibbana. Assuming that a "self or person" exists is not refering to ultimate reality - paramattha sacca. Instead you are dealing with concepts which is not real.
Lanka

Although in one sense, this is true, in another sense it's utterly false.  Clearly I expect something to happen to me (even if it's that "I" evaporate); otherwise, why would I waste time with Buddhism?

I cannot tell you why you should or should not spend time on buddhism. That is entirely up to you.

Sorry, it was a rhetorical question.  I was just saying that there is a reason for adhering to Buddhism; while your answer is definitely something to keep in mind (and is useful as a corrective to a type of clinging), it's also important not to adhere too strongly to that view, for there is a goal in sight.

they were meant ironically, i am not committed to the existence of persons just because i use that term. so a downvote form me

Don't look at it that way; look at it as the extinction of suffering.
The problem is that Buddhism is dealing with the ineffable, so any attempt to define these phenomena will be imperfect at best and a disaster at worst.  Unfortunately, people have felt compelled to add details and in the process... well, your question is a classic example of the kinds of illusory problems people face.
First, you're obviously going to gain something out of Buddhism, otherwise why practice?  If someone came to me, said that my finances were a wreck, but if I worked an extra job, someone ELSE would improve their finances, I wouldn't waste my time. So why is it different with Buddhism?
It isn't.  However, the problem is that there are two different definitions of "self" that are being used in discourse, and it's not always clear which definition is in use.  Thus semantic confusion reigns, creating illusory problems out of thin air -- nonsensical, utterly unimportant problems that prevent you from doing what Buddhism teaches you to do -- PRACTICE.
One "self" is raw consciousness.  If you stub your toe, you will feel it.  In that sense, that you does and will continue to exist.
The other "self" is the bundle of concepts that you identify with, the history and attributes that you think define "you".  It's that you that won't exist and that's the source of your suffering.
Confusing the issue is the fact that the experience of the first kind of self's experiences can be transformed by one's conceptual filter (it's amazing how our perceptions are shaped by concepts), so that even that self -- while not vanishing -- also seems to be transformed.  That stubbed toe that hurts may involve a lot more conceptualizations in the "physical pain" than you may think.  This means that this first type of self would still feel the stubbed toe, but may not feel the pain of the stubbed toe, given how much of that pain is really conceptualization.
Does your head hurt yet?
A classic saying is "there is suffering, but none who suffers".  On the surface, it seems to almost be a claim that suffering is a purely impersonal phenomena.  In a way it is, but in a way it isn't.  There's experiences that make up suffering, but it's those experiences when conceptualized with respect to the illusory (second type of) self turn those experiences into suffering.  Which means there really is no suffering until we actually believe there is one who suffers (curiously circular, no?) so by eliminating the one who suffers, we eliminate suffering or the suffering of the one who suffered, who actually doesn't really exist, but does in a way.
Ok, NOW does your head hurt?
That's the thing; when we run into so many difficulties that half our time is spent trying to duct tape the holes in our conceptual edifice, it's a sign that we are thinking about the problem in a fundamentally wrong way.
Buddhism itself seemed to notice this and in (what I take) to be a rare moment of lucid self-criticism, it offered the Fetters of Views and Parable of the Poison Arrow teachings.  The idea is to avoid the temptation to conceptualize and instead practice.  If things get better, don't over-think it. Just do what works.

He claims that "my death" is inalienably mine: that no one can die my death for me.

Yes, but what is the phenomenology of "me" and "my". It is an experience that arises and passes away. In fact no experience is inalienably yours. The experience of "mine" (a sense of ownership over the object of experience) arises and passes away. "Mine" is an illusion. It certainly true that you have a first person perspective while you are conscious. But you don't have it when you are asleep for example. Nor when in deep samādhi. If there is no first person perspective then there is no sense of "mine".
So, in order to argue that death is "yours" you would have to argue that the first person perspective is a constant. In fact it is dependent on functioning senses - the five physical senses and the mind. If we are referencing Heidegger then we must admit that the brain and the senses stop working at death. So one can never experience death. At best one might experience the moment immediately preceding death, though I could not say that this moment is different in any way from other moments, but one could not experience death per se because experience ceases with death.
Now orthodox Theravādins say that after the final moment of mental activity in one body, a new moment of mental activity arises in another body. If we take this to mean experience arises, then the experience is of the moment before death, and then the moment of rebirth. With no gap. There is no experience of death. Sarvāstivādins in particular critiqued the idea that the transition was instantaneous - they argued that the transition involved travelling in space and thus must involve an appreciable time. For them there was an interim realm between death and rebirth called an antarābhava (Tibetan "bardo"). But the nature of experience in a mind that has no sense organs or brain is moot. It cannot possibly be experience in the sense that we normally use the word.
So it seems that you are right that "your" death never arrives, at least from your point of view, because your point of view is contingent on being alive. At best it can involve a shift in perspective: from one first perspective to another, either via a mysterious interim or instantaneously.


text:
On Vipassana: Focus on feeling sensations VS Focus on describing sensations through words
I have noticed that there are perhaps two main different approaches to experiences/sensations in vipassana.
One of them (e.g. Mahasi Sayadaw) describes experiences/sensations through words:

Mahasi Sayadaw, Kenneth Folk, Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu: pick a word that describes the experience accurately

The other (e.g. Goenka) asks to focus entirely on the experience/sensations:

Goenka: Feel the sensation. Not visualize, not name it, but feel it.

At the retreats of Goenka, in one evening talk, he explicitly says that there is a misunderstanding. That is, the Buddha meant not to name experiences/sensations but to feel them.
So the questions are:

how relevant is this difference?
Is there any relevant consequence/effect/repercusion on our progress if we decide, say, to describe with words rather than focusing on the experience, or the otherway around?

Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

Thank you for this question.its puzzled me whether to note or just experience.looking forward to an answer.

Texts are all over the place about this.
For instance, one school of thought criticizes our tendency to conceptualize our experience, at the expense of actually experiencing the thing -- and says this is us sleep-walking through life (the dream is the conceptual template we overlay on experience).  For instance, I encounter a tree, think "this is a tree" and never actually see the thing before me.  This would seem to imply that labeling during mindfulness is a repetition of this mistake.
Another school of thought sees the labeling as a way to step outside of the experience, to not get sucked into it.
So who is right?
It depends.
The issue here is not getting pulled in by attachment and habitual reactions.  While these are a function of conceptualization, they are a function of a specific type of conceptualization.
For instance, if someone does something I dislike, and I conceptualize this person as a "jerk", I likely have a strong reaction to this, and am falling into the same attachment (aversions) that have caused me so much pain.
On the other hand, if I experience a reaction of aversion towards the way this person treated me, but start labeling the components my experience as Skhandas, then I'm effectively deconstructing the experience and undermining attachment in the process.
On the other other hand, if I watch the experience as it is, then I can be with the sensations without the problematic concepts.
So really, there is no right or wrong answer; the key is whether your technique takes you out of the conceptual trap that keeps you attached to the phenomena or reinforces it.  In this case, it's about fighting fire with fire (concepts with concepts) or fire with water (concepts with bare sensations).
The upshot is that you don't have the luxury of treating anyone as an authority, but have to see how you respond, and decide on the most effective method.

Awwsome answer man!

Imagination, visualisation, verbalisation all leads to verbal fabrications. One objective of insight meditation is to progressively calm the fabrications. So any activity which feeds into creating fabrications and also perceptions is strongly discouraged.
But for a beginner you may use it as a aid if it helps, but it is discouraged.

It is as Suminda says. Notice what it is. This may mean labelling the phenomenon that occurs. This may mean "feeling" it. This all actually means the same thing. If Goenka implies by "feeling" that we should TRY something, then no, that is not correct. Vipassana is not about TRYING anything. Just experience it as it is, note-ing it, changing, moment-by-moment.

I would slightly deviate in my opinion. You have to try to maintain equanimity experiencing the changes from moment to moment. You have to apply some effort towards maintaining your equanimity and observe objectively without getting carried away or react to any painful, pleasant or neutral sensations. The effort is directed at to just observe. With out this minimum effort you might not observe or stop observing or even give up the session early.

Yes, I didn't mean entirely effortless--just don't try too hard to create some sort of observation. Of course maintain efforts on balancing the Five Faculties and factors of jhana and being clear about what you are observing. Eventually this too will become habit and you just have to bring your mind back to the object..

That's right :-)

I believe both are good and important and help each other rather than contradict each other.
There can be no experience without a perceptual framework, conceptualizing sensations clarifies this perceptual framework and makes the experience deeper and more meaningful.
On the other hand, to conceptualize clearly, a keen experiencing mind is called for and developed.
Personally I would practice Vipassana meditation (and there only focus on sensations) but also write a diary or meet with a fellow practitioner and describe my sensations.

The feeling of sensations can only make us know their arising and passing away. How anicca will develop?