text:
Receiving blessings for a baby at a temple
My cousin just had a baby two months ago, a beautiful baby boy. The father is a catholic and my cousin, the mother, is a Buddhist. They have taken this two month old baby to a very sacred Buddhist temple to receive blessing from the relics of Buddha and to give alms.
One of the chief monks blasted them both, threatening them that they'll never be given permission to give alms or enter the premises: because the baby is only 2 months old and apparently should not have been brought to a sacred place.
Hearing this story made me so upset. On their way home they have visited a church where the reverend Father had welcomed them both and blessed the child.
I really want to do something about it but I just don't know what to do?
This should be fixed. This is not the way monks should behave in sacred places in the presence of the relics of Buddha.

Like to ask what is the Place This Incident Happened & witch country was Temple in?

@RANSARA009 temple of the tooth

was the temple in sri lanka?

@RANSARA009 of course

I am shocked as i live in srilanka (where the temple is). This is unheard of and we our selves have done it for decades if not centuries. Please tell your friends that we are sorry for such a rude behavior and tell them such an act must be from someone who does not have a clue about what lord buddha said. @Heisenberg

Heisenberg, i have only to Say to you SO SORRY...!!! this is not Buddhism.. the monk who scold you & your wife, just ware a yellow cloth. his not a follower of Buddha. Some monks think Buddhism only belongs to them. im a Sri Lankan Buddhist. again i have to say to you SO SORRY for rudeness of our MONK

Hmmm. Quite uncharacteristic. The palace of the tooth  (its really not a temple) these days is a rather busy and crowded place. More like a market place for trading favours. I wouldn't take a 2 month old baby there.

The Supreme Buddha has said that each and everyone should be responsible for good and bad one does.  According to this we can imagine the plight of this monk (I should not be calling him a disciple of the Buddha).  Be it Monks or laymen, that kind of actions (because it is done in the name of Supreme Buddha’s dispensation) will amass enough demerit to suffer in hell.   This is his own making.  We can only have pity on him and hope that someone will try and show him the gravity of the mistake that he has already made and that he will correct himself, which is highly unlikely. That tells us that the robe or the shaved head do not make a monk, ie. By that I mean a disciple of the Supreme Buddha.

Not all monks are virtuous. Not all monks follow the Dhamma (teachings) & the Vinaya (social discipline). This one monk & temple will not threaten the survival of Buddhism.

Within the Tibetan culture it is normal to keep a newborn child home for a few months so as not to exposed it to disease at such a tender age. However, if the parents decided to bring the child for blessings prior to that time, blessings would be freely bestowed. The family would not be "blasted" for requesting this benefit. Might I suggest that the family seek out another temple so that the the baby may have blessings from both parent's religions. I agree that their experience was with an aberrant monk.

Perhaps it's good to discuss your visit with someone at the temple in advance.
Some temples have a once-a-year event at which infants are presented to the Buddha for the first time; for example:

Hatsumairi (Infant Presentation) Service
Hatsumairi is a ceremony in which ones child is formally presented to the Buddha and to the Sangha for the first time. Contact the Temple Office if you wish your child to participate in the Hatsumairi service. This service is usually held in conjunction with the Buddha Day (Hanamatsuri) service.

Or for example,

Shosanshiki - Infant Presentation
Do you know of any families with a new baby or a new addition to the family in the last year?
Let us know, so they can register to participate in “Shosanshiki” or a Baby presentation to the Buddha. We welcome the new babies to the temple in a special service on Sunday, May 15, 2016 at 11am. If your toddler has never filed their name and missed a previous presentation, it’s never too late. The ceremony is open to any infants and children under three years of age.
If you are interested please contact the temple office at (telephone number).

Or for example this temple has a baby-blessing ceremony three times per year.

This looks relevent to do with Sri Lanka:

Buddhist Ceremonies and Rituals of Sri Lanka (1996)
While this is the method of formal admission of a new entrant into Buddhism, there are also certain ritualistic practices observed when a child is born to Buddhist parents. The baby's first outing would be to a temple. When the baby is fit to be taken out of doors the parents would select an auspicious day or a full-moon day and take the child to the nearest temple. They would first place the child on the floor of the shrine room or in front of a statue of the Buddha for the purpose of obtaining the blessings of the Triple Gem. This is a common sight at the Dalada Maligawa — the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic — in Kandy. At the time of the daily religious ceremony (puja) of the temple, one can observe how mothers hand over their babies to an officiating layman (kapuva) inside the shrine room, who in turn keeps it for a few seconds on the floor near the Relic Chamber and hands it back to the mother. The mother accepts the child and gives a small fee to the kapuva for the service rendered. This practice too could be described as a ritual of initiation.

I don't know what "when the baby is fit to be taken out of doors" means.
The above quote claims that, it's "a common sight at the the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic" (especially on an auspicious or full-moon day).
Wikipedia's Childbirth in Sri Lanka says,

Preparation for birth
During a first pregnancy, couples often visit temples of special significance in the Buddhist faith. Examples of such temples are Temple of the Tooth in Kandy or the Sacred Bodhi tree at Anuradhapura. At the temple they pray for the pregnancy and ask for an uncomplicated birth and healthy life. They make vows to ensure their wishes are granted. If their wishes are granted, they return to the temple or shrine to make offerings of praise to the Gods who protected their newborn child and mother during pregnancy and birth.

... and ...

Newborn Rites of Passage
The exact time of birth is reported to an astrologer who uses the child’s horoscope to determine the best letters for the child’s name. Nam tebima is the Sinhalese naming ceremony.[39] The baby’s first outing is typically to a Buddhist temple on a full moon day to receive blessings for a prosperous life. Idul kata gema is the ceremony to celebrate a baby’s first solid food. The ceremony, which takes place either in the family home or in a temple, involves placing dishes of rice boiled with milk, traditional sweets, a banana, a book and a piece of jewelry.

An article like Sinhalese birth rituals of yore isn't clear about when the baby goes outside for the first time, but maybe it's "in the fourth month after birth":

The dorata vedima where the child is taken out of the house into the open and exposed to the rising morning sun is another important ritual in traditional Sinhalese society. The practice is evidently the same as the hiru vadana magula or 'Ceremony of the increasing Sun' mentioned in the Saddharma Ratnavaliya which consisted of exposing the child to the sun a few days after birth. The practice bears a striking resemblance to the ancient Hindu custom known as Aditya Darshana or the ceremony of taking the child out to see the sun which took place in the fourth month after birth.

Culture Shock in Sri Lanka suggests this kind of custom is still practiced:

The rituals continue on with a child's first trip outdoors. There is a practice called Dorata where a child is first exposed to the rising morning sun, for example.

There are no such practices in our country is this practiced in Mahayana countries? That priest has later explained that all babies belong to the gods/ deities until they are 3 months old. Brought to a holy place before they are three months old can apparently make bad things happen (e.g. snakes appearing from no where to harm people). Is this Buddhism?

@Heisenberg I added quotes from some articles I found online, about Sri Lanka.

@ChrisW Another question to ask would be as to what should a person do when culture contradicts religion. On the surface it may seem both complement each other but differ greatly when analysed deeply


text:
State between Equanimity and 1st or 2nd or further path
I heard from my teacher that between the insight "equanimity of formation" and the following path insights the meditator can be stuck in a delusion state. This state can only be mastered if the wisdowm faculties are ripe. The meditator cut through this with sharp mindfullness.
Does anywhere heart about that?

What is being asked about in the question is from Vipassana Dhura, which is 16 stages of insight from the Visuddhimagga, written by the commentator Buddhaghosa in 430 CE in Sri Lanka.
The sequence of the 16 stages of Vipassana Dhura is not something the Buddha taught & can be confusing because terms used in Vipassana Dhura that indicate a beginning stage of insight- such as 'nibbida' - the Buddha used as the final stage of insight (eg. SN 12.23 - 'disenchantment'). This can make discussions about Vipassana Dhura difficult.
That said, some degree of 'nibidda' (disenchantment with worldly things) is required at the beginning of the path. Therefore, the stages in Vipassana Dhura do have some validity.
The teachings attributed to the Buddha describe the following kind of 'equinimity' (which is called 'Sense Restraint') before the arising of the path:

On seeing a form with the eye, he doesn't grasp at any theme or details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the
faculty of the eye — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or
distress might assail him. On hearing a sound with the ear... On
smelling an aroma with the nose... On tasting a flavor with the
tongue... On touching a tactile sensation with the body... On
cognizing an idea with the intellect, he doesn't grasp at any theme or
details by which — if he were to dwell without restraint over the
faculty of the intellect — evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or
distress might assail him. Endowed with this noble restraint over the
sense faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being
blameless.
MN 38

This 'equinimity' of not grasping at 'themes', when well developed, can become a kind of (deluded) liberation, described in the scriptures (MN 43 called 'theme-less awareness-release').
This 'equinimity' can be a state of delusion because the mind, being accustomed to the feeling of liberation via 'non-judging' or 'non-discrimination', does not discern the characteristics & cause-&-effect realities of many things.
This kind of 'equinimity' many Hindu, Mahayana & Zen traditions call 'advaita' or 'non-duality'. It is a delusion because the mind believes 'non-thinking' & 'non-discrimination' is liberation. Thus, the mind clings to 'non-thinking'; not clearly seeing thinking (sankhara khandha) is also 'not-self'.
Even some Theravada Sri Lankans, such as  Katukurunde Nyanananda, give the impression of this delusion, as they give the impression they believe the ending of thinking ('sankhara') is Nibbana.

It should be noted this 'equinimity' is not the equinimity of the 4th jhana because the stream-enterer (1st path) has not reached the 4th jhana.

I am pretty sure that your understanding of 'non-duality' is incorrect. It is not about being in a state of 'non-thinking'.

Whatever its called, its Hinduism.

Your ignorance of the concept does not imply that it is Hinduism.

To say "your" ignorance is dualistic. This shows pretty sure that 'non-duality' is incorrect.

I am now sure that you don't understand the concept. The fact is the Buddha use words like 'I' even though he is fully aware of the concept of 'not self/ no self'. The apparent duality is merely convention so that you can make sense of things. But as Buddhism points out the 'I' does not actually exist separately from the other. This is one of the meanings of non duality. There is actually no separate you, even as the words 'you' is being used.

You claim to be wise but assert I am ignorant. This shows there is no such thing as "non-duality" since you can do nothing to change my point of view. We are distinct & separate. We are not "non-dual". Please stop arguing & make your own personal answer to the question. Thanks.

I don't claim to be wise. I am saying that you are ignorant of Mahayana teachings and dismissing a whole tradition out of your own ignorance. Further more you conflate the concept with the state of  non thinking.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@Yinxu I think that Dhammadhatu was making a valid point which is not being clearly understood, due to the use of words. I don't think he was saying that nonduality as such is delusion, only that people experiencing non-judgement can believe that is Liberation. It seems to me that any sort of mental state or experience could become the basis for delusion or attachment. (The chat room does not exist, I tried to go to it.)

There are 16 steps to Anapanasati meditation. And almost all of us are at the first two to four steps. If one has a good foundation in virtue or morality (sila), a good knowledge of the Dhamma, and has established a solid base for developing the fourfold mindfulness, one will not get caught in any of the trappings.
What you have mentioned is "Experiencing the Highly Concentrated Mind (Step 10)" of the Ananda Sutta (SN 12:10):

Citta  patisamvedi assasissami’ti sikkhati.
  Citta  patisamvedi passasissami’ti sikkhati
First he trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure.  Now what is he developing successively?  Equanimity – the result of a calm concentrated mind. At this we get attached to that pleasure in mind.  But if one can cognize all differences that occurre in mind – then one can experience the mental formations – feeling and perception in anapanasati, without being swayed by them. Then one is very sensitive to the mind.  Experiencing the highly concentrated mind that is inclined to equanimity, one breathes in and breathes out, in training oneself.

What has been posted in not SN 12:10 but an interpretation of SN 12:10. The closest in the scriptures to "Citta patisamvedi assasissami’ti sikkhati" is "a monk, when the mind has passion, discerns that the mind has passion. When the mind is without passion, he discerns that the mind is without passion. When the mind has aversion, he discerns that the mind has aversion...When the mind is released, he discerns that the mind is released. When the mind is not released, he discerns that the mind is not released....etc".

The reference at mahamevnawa.lk says that it's discussing Ananda Sutta (SN 12:10) however I think that other sites (e.g. access to insight and/or sutta central) list this sutta as SN 54:13.

A agree, but it is a good interpretation. . It is not easy for everyone to properly do Anapanasati. So they have to first practice Asubha Bhavana and Dhathu/indriya Bhavana. You should not mix one meditation with another. You should get out of one type of meditation to get into another. Anytime when there is wandering thought, the concentration is not there.  When you develop an anapanasati nimitta (breath), and practice it further, then you need a good knowledge of teachings (suttas) for you to overcome obstacles that you face.

"equanimity of formation" is the 11th stage of insight knowledge(out of sixteenth stages) where all phenomenon one can make notice definitely and may feel like enlightened. If you understand it is not the goal, keep on your mindfulness and your notice on all the phenomenon become faster and clearer and come to a sudden end just like a candle light went out or just like you cut out a tiny string of rope with a sharp knife this phenomenon cannot be described by words. Sharp mindfulness is important to go through this phase and also your entire faith in your meditation master is also important that is you are going the right way.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Buddhists are rather serious people, won’t wear make-up and never have any fun
People tend to think that the disciples of the Supreme Buddha take life seriously. I feel that there is a grain of truth to this. Is this observation of others true? If so to what degree? I’m in search for a good answer to this question. This is not a casual and fun question, but a rather serious one. This is a question that will make you reflect, make you think. So please work through it and look inside to see what you really feel. My goal is to make me think, and to make you think before answering it.

Please rephrase as a question and not as a statement.

I felt that this is a better way to put forward this question. But you can re-phrase it as... " Don't you think that Buddhists are rather serious people who won’t wear make-up and never have any fun? I will let you make that decision, @Kaveenga

You seem to concern yourself a lot with influencing others. Are you a Mahayana?

I limit myself to reading only canonical texts (Sutta Pitaka) until I am fully established in the Path.  @Dhammadhatu, I understand that you have gone much deeper into things.  Unlike you I am just a novice. If I’m to read the  Abhi-dhamma it will confuse things as I am not there yet.  When there are nearly 18,000 suttas that are found in the canonical texts I do not think that I can cover one tenth of it in my lifetime.

May be similar to Are Buddhists happier people?

So the question is, that you want me to see "what I really feel", about whether "there is a grain of truth" in the observation that "People tend to think that the disciples of the Supreme Buddha take life seriously"??

I can't even have fun here calling Saptha Visuddhi a "Mahayana" without Saptha getting all serious about it. I occasionally have fun.

@Saptha Visuddhi Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you but reading all the suttas is useful for  understanding the Dhamma as reading the English dictionary is useful for learning to speak English. It's not about reading the suttas but about practicing what we think the Buddha was talking about in those suttas. There are many interpretations of what the Buddha meant exactly. All one needs to know to stay practicing is a little theory(somebody's interpretation of the suttas) and a teacher to guide one's practice.

Thanks @ChrisW for that link. Yes, it’s similar. Now there is a lot more for me to read and take in.

Living that little Dhamma that I know is the hardest thing for me @Uilium. Understanding the Dhamma intellectually is one thing, but seeing the Dhamma (within oneself) is another.  It’s this quality of   “Paccattam veditabbo viññuhiti”  To be realized by the wise, each for himself.

@Dhammadhatu, if you are to have a little fun now and then is fine as it is of the “Amisa” type I guess. But the other worldly happiness (samisa / niramisa) is more profound. It is greater to experience this and a sense of samvega, a sense of dismay over the nature of the human condition. Any thoughts?

Exactly, although I wonder if we are on the same page. I mean, are we both on that "ekayano maggo"?

Maybe this is asking for a discussion? If so you can discuss the topic in the chat room. Or, if this is meant to be an answerable question, you can use Meta to explain why this is or isn't answerable as a question.

@SapthaVisuddhi. Could you rephrase question to reflect our Q&A-policy? Also as ChrisW mentions, this format is not suitable for debates or discussions. This is a Q&A-site where we are looking for high-quality questions and answers. Thank you.

In simple terms, this is an opinion. We have opinions (mental formations) of everything we see. We like to label them, categorize them and generalize them. Have I met a fun loving Buddhist? No. But when I do, an opinion such as the one you mentioned will change. So I would take that with a pinch of salt. It cannot be canon.
Having said this, I think when people try to follow precepts, there is definitely a sort of "unnaturality" to it, either because they are not used to it, or because they have a fear of breaking it, or a combination of both. This does not limit itself to Buddhism. It happens with other religions also. And it also happens within any social club/community which have some strict rules. This may come off as "uptight" or opinionated.
As much as possible, I would try to be aware of such opinions though sometimes I cannot help judging something. Healthy skepticism is encouraged whenever you catch your mind making assumptions or generalizations about someone. But I do however strongly feel that we need not concern ourselves   with how others are. We could guide people the right way if that is what the situation requires. OR we could even learn from them if they know better about something.
About opinions, well, they are always there, but don't cling to them.

If one is to live a life with a purpose, is to live the life seriously. But that doesn’t necessarily mean a life that is lived wisely. Having said that, now may I say that you and I are serious people.  My line of thinking is the same as yours, @BlackFlam3. I would like to reflect on this question further. With metta…

There is no grain of truth to this mental proliferation (papanca). The Middle-Way revealed by the Supreme Buddha culminates in the bliss & liberation of jhana & Nibbana (which is much more 'fun' than wearing make-up). Buddhism teaches a path to the best kind of 'fun' (pleasure). But the mind won't reach this 'fun' if it thinks about it too much.

How can this be a papanca, @Dhammadhatu? For an ordinary run-on-the-mill person it could be so, but not for those in this group. This question doesn’t in anyway create a type of thinking that causes conflict within those who think it, and leads them into conflict with people outside. Let me think through this further. I will answer you in a couple of weeks. With metta…

In comparison to the path towards ignorant self-destruction yes, Buddhism looks like "no fun"--even though it is the way to True Bliss and Freedom. But don't worry there are extremely loose forms of Buddhism (which almost don't count) and tighter forms of Buddhism (Theravada), many of the moral rules are hard to practice today.
Also, I think you have a very superficial definition of fun. Buddhists are allowed to go to parties, have multiple partners so long as it is not "sexual misconduct"--Buddhism is actually truly scientific and logical. None of the practices are faith based unlike Western religions where one will have to be even more tightly disciplined to follow the religion to a tee.
Among the Eastern practices, Buddhism is actually the middle way and there are even higher paths that lead to (a few) other benefits, namely of rupakaya. These paths require even more worldly sacrifice yet are not essential therefore Buddha did not speak of them.

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


text:
How should I stop thinking that I am even slightly enlightened?
I don't know how else to phrase this question, but please advise. I have this constant irritating feeling that I am kind of enlightened. It is confusing.
I don't really know if it is my ego which is trying to assume this sort of "super self", when in reality I am just a normal person, making normal mistakes. I become unaware of my mental formations sometimes, or careless about what I say, or I get angry at times.
A little more about this. I know about this ultimate goal, like Nirvana or Moksha or call it anything. I listen to talks by Ajahn Brahmavamso, Alan Watts, J.Krishnamurti and some other yogis. Then I think my ego blends into acting like that enlightened being. I sometimes advise my parents on some matters also. It is definitely weird. You see I want to achieve that final goal, but I accelerate towards it in a moment. It definitely seems wrong. Or is there a final goal at all?
It seems like I am constantly checking myself against enlightenment. It is funny too.
So please advise. And also I would like to know if there was any such situation(in the texts) which the Buddha faced.

"Better the Devil you know, than the Devil you don't know." So, it is good to become aware of all the sorts of tricks that your ego will play. More good experience. "Is there a final goal at all?" is a very good question to carry around, not so as to promote doubt, but to keep focused on inquiry and self-awareness.

The appropriate response to such a thought of personal enlightenment is: "fart".

Su Dongpo was an avid student of Buddhist teachings. He was
  quick-witted and humorous; as a Zen Buddhism follower he was very
  serious and self-disciplined. He often discussed buddhism with his
  good friend, Zen Master Foyin. The two lived across the river from one
  another.
Following is an interesting and famous story about him and Zen Master
  Foyin.
One day, Su Dongpo felt inspired and wrote the following poem:
稽首天中天， 毫光照大千； 八风吹不动， 端坐紫金莲。
I bow my head to the heaven within heaven, Hairline rays illuminating
  the universe, The eight winds cannot move me, Sitting still upon the
  purple golden lotus.
The “eight winds (八风)” in the poem referred to praise (称), ridicule
  (讥), honor (誉), disgrace (毁), gain (得), loss (失), pleasure (乐) and
  misery (苦) – interpersonal forces of the material world that drive and
  influence the hearts of men. Su Dongpo was saying that he has attained
  a higher level of spirituality, where these forces no longer affect
  him.
Impressed by himself, Su Dongpo sent a servant to hand-carry this poem
  to Fo Yin. He was sure that his friend would be equally impressed.
  When Fo Yin read the poem, he immediately saw that it was both a
  tribute to the Buddha and a declaration of spiritual refinement.
  Smiling, the Zen Master wrote “fart” on the manuscript and had it
  returned to Su Dongpo.
Su Dongpo was expecting compliments and a seal of approval. When he
  saw “fart” written on the manuscript, he was shocked . He burst into
  anger: “How dare he insult me like this? Why that lousy old monk! He’s
  got a lot of explaining to do!”
Full of indignation, he rushed out of his house and ordered a boat to
  ferry him to the other shore as quickly as possible. He wanted to find
  Fo Yin and demand an apology. However, Fo Yin’s door closed. On the
  door was a piece of paper, for Su Dongpo. The paper had following two
  lines:
八风吹不动， 一屁弹过江。 The eight winds cannot move me, One fart blows me across
  the river.
This stopped Su Dongpo cold. Fo Yin had anticipated this hot-headed
  visit. Su Dongpo’s anger suddenly drained away as he understood his
  friend’s meaning. If he really was a man of spiritual refinement,
  completely unaffected by the eight winds, then how could he be so
  easily provoked?
With a few strokes of the pen and minimal effort, Fo Yin showed that
  Su Dongpo was in fact not as spiritually advanced as he claimed to be.
  Ashamed but wiser, Su Dongpo departed quietly.
This event proved to be a turning point in Su Dongpo’s spiritual
  development. From that point on, he became a man of humility, and not
  merely someone who boasted of possessing the virtue.

Hahahaha, awesome. Just awesome.

This is what my teacher (Ven Nawalapitiye Ariyawansa Thero) had to say on this, @BlackFlam3.

“If we regard ourselves as knowing the Dhamma well, we will be of the “I am the one who knows” mindset. Without allowing that to happen try to come to the view “I do not know. Only Supreme Buddha knows. I will accept it that way”.
“I am the one who knows” can be equated to a Thorn Bush. It is like this. There is a bush of thorns at the bottom of a hill. When it rains fertile soil settles down round the thorn bush after getting washed down from the hill. The soil is fertile but what gets nurtured is the thorn bush.
“Like this it is the fertile soil of Dhamma that we gather round us. But what gets nurtured is the thorn bush called “I am the one who knows”. When the thorn bush grows up even an animal does not approach it. Will not go even passing it. In the same way the biggest danger to a person on arriving at the view “I know”. “I understand” is his becoming a person who does not listen.
“He loses his sincere friend. He loses his ability listen to Dhamma well. (He loses both external sources of help). Then what is he left with? Only with the notion “I know” and “I understand”. He keeps on repeating this. Finally he will say “No one taught me. I studied on my own. I do not need anyone now. I will become solitary now”.
Supreme Buddha knows that the person with defilements is wrapped up in the idea of Self, is egoistic. Also that he is wrapped up in the concept “I know”.  Some people struggle to understand this simple truth in depth. That is why it is important to think and retain in your memory the following “I will obey Supreme Buddha and conduct myself in the way he wanted us to conduct ourselves. I will not do anything else”.
“Getting back to the simile about the thorny bush. When it rains fertile soil comes down to the bush of thorns and it grows up in a couple of days. Ultimately it becomes too big to be pulled out. Sin is also like that. So we must pull out this thorny bush and plant a good tree on that fertile soil. The biggest thorn bush we have is the notion “I know”.
“The good tree we plant after uprooting the thorny bush is “Supreme Buddha knows. I don’t know”. These thoughts lift up the man to a noble level. If we are of the idea “We know” it amounts to our tightening our own necks. We read what Supreme Buddha has preached. Then we assume “I know”.
“Therefore if we become humble in this manner we would have done something very much beneficial to our lives. The instant we start having confidence that way, Kammic actions, causing rebirth in the fourfold hells will not take place in us. So to further oneself in the Noble Path, the thorn bushes that need to be gotten rid of are “I am the one who knows”. “I can” “I have memorized. Others aren’t up to it”. “I understand well. I can speak well”. You must not have room for these and discipline this mind saying “I will do whatever the Supreme Buddha preaches and whatever my sincere friend tells me to do”.
“The immense benefit of understanding the True Path to Liberation has come to us. It is a pity if we let go of it. Therefore let us all try our best not to leave room for those immature thoughts such as “We know”. It is because we do not have confidence that we say “this is impossible” etc. If we step into Saddha we will be able to end our Sansaric journey at most in seven births. Attaining Nibbana is not a dream. Think of establishing Saddha in these principles and think of getting liberated from this sorrowful Samsara.”

Everything after the first sentence: is that a direct quote (or translation) of what your teacher had to say? Or is it your explanation (using your own words) of what your teacher had to say? And if it's a direct quote, are you copying that quote from a published source (e.g. a printed book or an online web site), and if so then please reference the publication you're quoting)?

@ChrisW, Ven. Nawalapitiye Ariyawansa Thero's sermons are all in Sinhala. You will not find even a single English translation of his sermons on line. This translation once appeared in a local paper in Sri Lanka and I copied it. So I am not in a position to reference the publication that I'm quoting. This article once appeared in the Mahamevnawa Web Site, but as he is no longer with the Mahamevnawa, they have removed the few translations of his sermons that were there.

Thank you for explaining the source, and for transcribing this teaching.

Posting my comment as an answer:

"Do not be a bodhisatta; do not be an arahant; do not be anything at all. If you are a bodhisatta, you will suffer; if you are an arahant, you will suffer; if you are anything at all, you will suffer." - Ajahn Chah

Also from MN 44

"Now, lady, how does emergence from the cessation of perception & feeling come about?"
"The thought does not occur to a monk as he is emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling that 'I am about to emerge from the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I am emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling' or that 'I have emerged from the cessation of perception & feeling.' Instead, the way his mind has previously been developed leads him to that state."

How should I stop thinking that I am even slightly enlightened?
To add another perspective to the existing answers (because you might want to know opposing or mutually-exclusive extremes in order to steer a middle way between them), maybe you shouldn't "stop thinking that you are even slightly enlightened".
For example if the Buddha and the Dhamma (the Triple Gem) cannot even slightly enlighten you, then what's the point of "Buddhism"?
There's at least one Pali sutta which says that conceit (that you can become enlightened) is helpful (because you hear that someone else has become enlightened and you think, "Why not me?").
And you might find it helpful to read this answer which describes Dzogchen and the earlier answer which describes tantrayana.

Saptha's answer said, "Only Supreme Buddha knows".
One way to stop thinking that "I am enlightened" might be to think "Buddha is enlightened. Am I Buddha?"
Various answers follow.

One is to consider Anatta. You wrote, "I become unaware of my mental formations" -- maybe it would be better instead to think that, "There are mental formations, but they are not mine and not me."
To avoid "identity view" you might also find it helpful to think, "There is (sometimes) enlightened practice, enlightened understanding -- that too is what it is and not mine or me."
I don't mean you should try to renounce "right view" or "ethical conduct" (by saying that they are "not me"), what I mean is that adding an "I am" view to those things is an extra complication which you and they may be better without (see also the answers to this topic which describe 'identity view' and 'conceit').

I have this constant irritating feeling that I am kind of enlightened
An alternate way to view that might be that the "constant irritating feeling" is of not being enlightened.
However maybe "I am not enlightened" is an ego-conceit, like "I am enlightened".
Also I think that the "irritating feeling" is a symptom of a fetter or a hindrance. Apparently you have associated "being enlightened" and "feeling irritated" -- maybe that's a mistake to associate them though, maybe it's better to associate "being enlightened" with "not feeling irritated" (and by "associate" maybe I mean saṃskāra i.e. "things put together").
If you do have any "irritated feeling" sometimes maybe that's not surprising! For example maybe it's uddhacca, or passion, which you might expect of/in anyone who's not an arahant.
Maybe not "constant" though, I guess it's more probably experienced as "continual" than "continuous":

Things that are unceasing or exist without interruption are continuous ... they never pause. Things that occur frequently or recur intermittently are continual. The continual action doesn’t happen ceaselessly, but it does happen regularly.

Another thing to note is that a characteristic of irritation is avoidance, i.e. if you characterize something as irritating then your inclination might be to avoid (not experience) it. Beware that this might be unwise, that it might be better to be willing to experience (better to know) your actual thoughts and feelings (I think that "be mindful" and not "be averse" is what some meditation teachers tell you).

A little more about this. ... It is definitely weird. ... It is funny too.
Perhaps, if you want, your relationships with other people (e.g. parents), and how you "check myself against enlightenment", could be the subject of some other questions.

And also I would like to know if there was any such situation (in the texts) which the Buddha faced.
Well, I'm not sure how that's relevant but MN 26 is one the suttas in which the Buddha describes his quest for enlightenment. I read it as saying that he successfully learned what his teachers were teaching (and didn't for example pretend that he couldn't learn what they were teaching).
He also had no "doubt" (see also vicikicchā) when he did finally attain enlightenment.

To check the enlightenment with pali Tripitaka
Chabbisodhanasutta MN 112.
Majjhima Nikāya 47
The Inquirer.


text:
Momentum Within Meditation
I'm curious as to what the difference is between meditation 1) with distractions / without distractions, and 2) for a long and motionless period / while in the business of motion and surroundings.
I have been practicing mindfulness in my day to day life, and I wondered whether this was not meditation, or even a complete waste. I feel as though certain states or insights are achieved in the process, but I'm really wondering the following:
Does meditation, to even 'begin' or 'gain momentum' require the succession of non-distracted states which bear a similarity to one another? I.e. by varying the type of meditation or the states one experiences, and by having some slight distractions between them, is the whole meditative effort undermined?
Also, I feel a great resistance to actually sit down motionless and attempt to concentrate on a specific point, or engage in a continuous / repetitive mental effort. I am unsure why this is, as I believe I can apply much effort otherwise.
Ideally, I would like to practice dry vipassana, and I hope someone can answer how this would be achieved in the context of what I have explained. I am willing to expend time and effort, but simply wish to know what is the ideal way to proceed.
Thanks for any answer. (Also, how many distractions can one tolerate without too much impediment to one's meditation? Especially in regards to noise.)

Trying to make this question even clearer, I'm not sure how to understand the second-last paragraph which contains two ideallys. Is it saying, do you want it to be understood as saying, "My idea is that I would like to practice dry vipassana, I would like to know what your idea is about the best way to proceed in the context of what I have explained (about momentum and resistance)"?

What do you mean by momentum?

Yes. 'Momentum' requires a succession of non-distracted states. 'Momentum' is a product of purification & samadhi.
Dry vipassana itself will not result in momentum because dry vipassana uses 'noting' or 'mental labeling', which are essentially 'distractions' or 'speed bumps'. It is only when the mind 'lets go' that 'momentum' will develop.
It is like letting go of a boat to flow down a river. Dry vipassana keeps the boat attached to the bank.
That said, dry vipassana is useful for developing 'sampajanna' ('clear comprehension'; 'applied wisdom'), which is a very important factor for samadhi development.
'Sampajanna' is necessary for negotiating speed-bumps but, naturally, when a speed bump is experienced, this results in a loss of momentum, however temporary.
The scriptures describe four kinds of meditative results (AN 4.41), the 3rd being the development of sati-sampajanna, for which dry vipassana is helpful.

Maybe you want to balance your faculties? Like, I do walking meditation before I sit and that usually balances concentration and effort. I am not sure if effort is increased or concentration is increased but I generally have a better sit right after walking meditation. There isn't as many distractions during walking meditation for me at least, I can stay more one pointed on my feet. It gets my momentum up.
   Some people do some breath meditation or some other form of samatha concentration meditation before mindfulness of mind and body. I went through a period where I couldn't sit down to meditate and I also had no idea why. I probably need to go to a retreat.

My answer won't format into paragraphs.

The defiled mind always goes out in search of distractions. That’s a given. Buddha in ‘dutiya assutawantu sutta’  –(SN 12.61) said that which is called mind, is called thought, is called consciousness one moment rises as another ceases continually - just as a monkey wandering in a big forest seizes a branch and letting go of it seizes another.  Taming this monkey is not an easy thing. So you have to take baby steps in the beginning. Even if your attempt at meditation takes only a few seconds, or a couple of minutes, be happy about it.
As you’re getting started, keep in mind that you’re like a kid learning to ride a bicycle. At the outset you may need training wheels, with only two wheels you will fall many a times, you will struggle, you may even need help. You can’t just learn overnight to ride a bike with a perfect sense of balance. With meditation, it will take months and years of continued practice.
There’s a Dhammapada verse that says, “Those who always earnestly practice 'mindfulness of the body', who follow not what should not be done, and constantly do what should be done, for those mindful and reflective ones the corruptions come to an end.  So in time, a day will come when you give away your defilements, and you gain freedom.


text:
A man asks Buddha about god's existence
Video: Does God Exist? - Sadhguru
This is a story I picked up from the above video (watch from 4.25):

A man confused about the existence of god asks Buddha if god exists. Buddha gives a straightforward "NO".
After a while another man asked the same question and the Buddha, surprisingly, said "YES".

First of all I do not know whether this is a true story. If (or assuming that) it is true, I want to know what made Buddha give contradicting answers?

I have never read or heard of this story before. The Buddha did not teach Buddhists to seek or worship 'god' (Brahma). Further, the scriptures report the Buddha said to Brahmans that no Brahman teacher has ever seen god (Brahma) & also taught Brahmans that the way or path to Brahma is to radiate love in all directions (refer to Tevijja Sutta on the internet). For the Buddha, 'god' or 'the gods' are states of mind. In the Mulapariyaya Sutta, different gods are equated with mental states of meditation. In the Brahma-Nimantanika Sutta & Culatahnasankhaya Sutta, the Buddha visits 'gods', who are obviously human beings with super-normal spiritual attainments.

When Stephen Hawking makes it clear that there is no God, here comes Bhagwan Sri Rajneesh, saying that in fact there is God, and says that the Buddha said so. BTW…. There is no place for God in the Mahayana traditions of Buddhism as well. When you get a chance try to read  “Brahma-nimantanika Sutta”: The Brahma Invitation (MN 49).
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html
In all of the 18,000 + Suttas, the closest thing to the God concept is this Baka Brahma who once challenged Buddha.
Also as per Access to Insight: "From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator God conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godheadof any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality. In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator God (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world."
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html
Buddhism and the God-idea – by Nyanaponika Thera

Yes I am aware of Buddha's stance on a creator/god. What this Yogi is saying is not that Buddha claims that there is a god. In the end he explains what Buddha wanted people to realize is that there is no point in believing or disbelieving I guess.

Having an opinion may be Right View in our usual , sleep walking and sleep talking "conceptual approach only" way to reality but in the moment by moment,  fundamental  approach to experiencing reality, Right View is no beliefs at all. No beliefs that there is or there isn't God.

The speaker explains his story at the end:

What's the game Gautama is trying to play?
  See if you believe there is God, or if you believe there is no God, you're in the same boat: you believe something that you do not know.
  "I believe this", "you believe that", it doesn't make any difference.
  You can believe whatever you want, yes? Everyone can believe whatever they want, it need not have anything to do with reality as such.
  If you say "I do not know", the longing to know will arise.
  If the longing arises then the seeking arises.
  If the seeking arises then the possibility of knowing, exists.

During the story I noticed he said that the men asked the questions because "a little doubt" had come into their minds. That reminded me about these topics, on the subject of the role of "doubt" in (Zen) Buddhism:

What happens after the great doubt of koan practice?
The role of doubt in Zen Buddhist practice?

I've seen "doubt" elsewhere: it's one of the fetters, vicikicchā, which a stream-enterer is free from. Note though that that's free from "doubt about the Dhamma".

If the story is true (or rather, "assuming for the sake of argument that the story is true"), maybe it's saying that "existence of God" is not knowable. You can't, for example, use the standards given in the Kalama sutta to assess whether or not there's a God.
Another thing I noticed from the story-as-told is that:

The first man uses only one word ("Ram") to say everything/anything. Gautama replies to him accordingly, with one word: "No".
The second man is an expert arguer and missionary, no matter which of the Gods you believe in he can prove you wrong within ten minutes of formal argument. Instead of getting into an argument, Gautama answers him too with one word: "Yes".

Maybe "does God exist?" is a question that belongs in the same category as other questions in the Avyakata Samyutta.
Maybe, using the logic in SN 44.10, Gautama gave the answer which would least confuse (or best unconfuse) the person who is asking:

The devotee was confused by their belief in God, so Gautama answered "No" (e.g. you need to see through, see beyond, see more than that belief).
Similarly the atheist, the materialist, was confused by their belief in only-materialism, and so Gautama gave him a corresponding answer.

A bit off-topic but it does remind me of this, which I read in a non-Buddhist collection of aphorisms:

Fais que je me contredise souvent: afin d'être simple et vrai.
  - Prière paienne

(my translation from the French)

Make me contradict myself often: in order to be simple and true.
  - Pagan prayer

About the truth of the story, nobody can know. But one thing is for sure. The answers given by the Buddha are contextual. By simply asking "Does God exist?", I don't feel like giving you a serious answer to be honest. This is what I meant by "trolling". I think there are many spin-off questions that the questioner has to observe for themselves. Possibly by starting off with defining God and suchlike questions. Now that's another matter altogether.

It is very simple. He thought that arguments relating to the existence of god does not solve the problems and suffering in this world.
For example :
If you had been shot by a poisonous arrow,what would you do? Would you waste time trying to find who shot the arrow or would you try and heal yourself?
The answer is and should be to heal yourself obviously. (If you think otherwise, well.. that is a serious mistake.)
Imagine this scenario, for the atheist if He said that there is God and to the theist there is no God. Both of situations would cause an unnecessary argument and the day would end up with anger on the person and ultimately not understanding Dhamma.
Now Lord Buddha was intelligent and possessed with divine powers. Hence he was able to predict if the person was a theist or atheist.Then what He basically did was, He responded in such a way that wouldn't cause conflicts and taught them Dhamma. End of the day winning an argument about a God is obviously futile but knowing the Dhamma and the truth about this world is much worthwhile.

I have read this story and have felt that Buddha answered each with love. As he saw into the heart of each man, he answered in a way that would help lead them to their own enlightenment. To Buddha worrying about such questions as whether God exists or not was beside the point when the person was still suffering. Suffering is ignorance, and so my first task should be to release myself from such ignorance.


text:
Are the movie Fight Club, and Project Mayhem in it, buddhist?
Is the movie Fight Club, and the Project Mayhem idea at all buddhist? Since it predicates detachment from material possesions there's a neat point. I believe in the end it's not, but wanted to ask here for a more argumented answer

I loved both answers: ChrisW & BlackFlam3's. Please check them both out. 1st is more to the point of the actual negative answer. 2nd one is more on to possible and interesting derivations, also some more detail on general background zen philosophy

you're best if you just leave things as are
1st RULE: You DO NOT talk about FIGHT CLUB.
you do not talk about zen.
you do not talk about the water is wet.
you just dive in..

I'd never thought of it this way. Good point actually.

you should leave ALL things as are? totalitarianism? slighty confusing perhaps?

I don't think so.
it predicates detachment from material possessions
That's not enough to call it Buddhist.

Buddhism might be known for what it is, rather than for what it isn't. Maybe Buddhism isn't material possessions, but, what is it?
That ("what is Buddhism?") is addressed e.g. in many other topics on this site, for example:

What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?
New to Buddhism
How to explain what Buddhism is?

I think that these topics describe elements of Buddhism, and that you'd find it difficult to identify any of these specifically Buddhist element in the movie ... not only difficult to show that the movie identifies these elements but even that it doesn't contradict these elements.
There are other (non-Buddhist) common belief-systems which de-emphasize or criticize material possessions -- e.g. communism, christianity, anarchy, and nihilism -- but these are not Buddhism ... which, is proof (a "proof by counterexample") that critiquing material possessions isn't even nearly sufficient to identify an ideology as Buddhist.
Buddhism isn't entirely or necessarily against material possessions, at least in lay society (and lay society is relevant to the topic, in that I assume you won't try to argue that the movie represents Buddhist clergy). I don't know a Zen example off-hand, but for example I'm thinking of the Sigalovada Sutta which talks about not squandering wealth, and about protecting and making peaceful and secure, etc.
There are books and essays you could read about the behaviors and attitudes recommended to Buddhist lay-folk, in summary I don't think I see these (generosity, non-violence) in the movie. I think that Buddhism was in many ways meant to co-exist with lay society, and not meant to destroy it (which, destruction, is I think more inline with what the movie is suggesting).

My impression is that the movie isn't written by a Buddhist nor written for a Buddhist audience, not intended to teach a Buddhist message. Furthermore I think it arouses passion in its audience, rather than arousing a dispassion (or compassion) which might be more characteristic of Buddhism.

To address some of the points you made in your other question ...
Narrator does bunches of haikus
Here is the haiku from the movie:

worker bees can leave
  even drones can fly away
  the queen is their slave

Apart from anything else I think that this isn't a good, Buddhist haiku e.g. as described in What Makes Haiku a Zen Art (I mean, "yes it's a haiku but is it Zen?"):

Haiku is an expression of direct experience, not an expression of an idea about experience. Possibly the most common mistake western haiku writers make is to use the form to express an idea about experience, not experience itself. A haiku does not present metaphors or try to explain meaning. It provides no concepts or opinions. It does not reflect on the past or anticipate the future. It is just this moment, right now. Plop! It is this directness that makes it a Zen art.
So, for example, this is a really bad haiku:

A rose represents
    A mother's kiss, a spring day
    A lover's longing.

It's bad because it's all conceptual. It doesn't give us experience. Contrast with:

Wilted rose bouquet
    Left in new grass
    By the gravestone.

The second haiku is not great, perhaps, but it brings you into a moment.

The haiku in the movie is conceptual: the queen bee represents a slave, which represents the alleged slavery of the fictional character's colleagues, which represent human office workers, which supposedly represent the movie's audience?
This isn't just a criticism of the poetry, it's a criticism of the way in which the words are or are not used to connect the audience with reality (or unreality).
Narrator's home intends to be zen-like looking
Well now you seem to be making a religion of Ikea's minimalism, which is actually one of the things the movie complained about.
Car crash scene Tyler says Stop trying to control everything and just let go!
If it's true that there's a time and a place for everything, IMO that's inappropriate (even potentially suicidal or murderous) behavior for a car driver.
The phrase ("Stop trying to control everything and just let go") sounds interesting but I'm not sure that it corresponds to what Buddhist might know as Right Intention, for example:

And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill-will, on harmlessness: This is called right resolve.

I don't think the movie does teach renunciation; for example it advocates acquiring a harder body:

A guy who came to Fight Club for the first time, his ass was a wad of cookie dough. After a few weeks, he was carved out of wood.

Nor is it, IMO, especially good at teaching freedom from ill-will.
Detachment is a major theme since first conversation between Narrator-Tyler
Yes the whole movie is about "detachment", which is arguably a psychological pathology ... see for example Wikipedia articles like:

Emotional detachment
Dissociation (psychology)
Dissociative identity disorder
Dissociative disorder
etc., etc.

I don't think this is necessarily "Buddhist".
Buddhism teaches non-attachment, which isn't quite the same thing (as "detachment"). The opposite of non-attachment is clinging.

Wow! One of most thorough answers I've seen in quite a time!

The movie, Fight Club, and the Project Mayhem is no more or no less Buddhist than Hermann Hesse’s Novel “Siddhartha”. Please read it if you have not. Also do not forget to read “Narcissus and Goldmund” – its Christian equivalent. Just like Hermann Hesse came up with the novel “Siddhartha”,  David Fincher’s Fight Club has similar undertones. For those who are not familiar with Hermann Hesse’s book, Siddhartha here is not the historical Buddha, though he too is a character in the book. This Siddhartha is a Brahmin youth who leaves home in search of the truth, as the Buddha himself did.
Fight Club is a movie that is difficult to understand as there are many layers to it. But it is very unlike the True Dhamma, though some may think that it alludes to the Paccattam veditabbo viññuhiti  quality of the Dhamma - to be realized by the wise, each for himself, or "To be personally known by the wise".  The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Ariyas) who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.  In Fight Club, the narrator challenges self to break out of the world, but it is nothing compared to the difficulty of our struggle stay in the Dhamma path in a quest for attaining the state of Sotapanna.  In the process we have to learn what are the pre-eminent qualities of a Sovan (stream entrant); What defilements should be eradicated to attain entry to the path;  How can we tread to the beat of a different drummer unlike the worldings - the great many beings-in-the-world,  that measures success by the yardstick of worldly achievements.
Unlike these great many beings-in-the-world a Stream Entrant always sees things in their proper perspective. i.e. in the light of Anicca (Impermanence), Dukka (Suffering), and Anatta (Absence of “I”). This firm basis is a part and parcel of his/her personality and remains with him/her all the time. In our case we see fleeting glimpses of the truth, similar to lightning illuminating a dark sky. In the case of the Sotapanna, he/she has this right vision as a permanent acquisition. He/she sees things as being impermanent, unsatisfactory and without a permanent soul.

Thanks for Hesse's Budda! I've read it and agree it's valuable. On the rest didn't fully understand. Tldr version please?

Here is a good review of Hesse's "Siddhartha".  (Buddha in the Business World - by Satya Chaitanya)   http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=2169

I bolded the actual answer (in middle). Good answer. These "Buddhist" movies--even the ones that are overtly Buddhist have usually nothing to do with The Factors of Awakening and ACTUAL BUDDHIST PRACTICE. Just some worldly drama mixed with nonmaterialism (which in itself does not make something Buddhist).

Thank you very much, @Ahmed for your editing on the post. I like the highlighting. I have to learn how to do it. But for the next 6 day I will be extremely busy to do anything. I found a couple of errors that I'll correct shortly.

"Fight Club" seems to be rather unrelated to Buddhism, as explained by ChrisW. And you're putting "Siddhartha" at the same level of non-relatedness? I find that hard to accept; I thought it contains a lot of Buddhist teachings, which is why Siddhartha discusses with The Buddha himself - but I'm no expert. So, could you elaborate on your opinion, or give some reference to justify it?

@hmijail, you may be right in one way, but you and everyone else are a whole lot more wrong is accepting  Anicca to be Impermanence, and Anatta  to be Absence of “I”. But that is the accepted belief in the present day, and that is what I too have stated, even though it is incorrect to say so. Comments are not for discussion, so I will stop at this.

I don't even know why you link to those other concepts; my question was very clearly and specifically about your opinion that "Siddhartha" is not related to Buddhist. The non-answer is interesting in itself. Nothing to discuss like this, so of course we stop here.

Regarding the linked "review" to "Siddhartha", I'd say it's more commentary than "review". And I have to call attention to how it somehow manages to bring in some discredited experiments on human-influenced magnetism - even mentioning the wrong researcher from SRI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI#Ingo_Swann

I think it has heavy Zen undertones if you take it in the context of the Ultimate Reality. It may also be nihilistic. This is not Buddhism per se, but it is somewhat related.
IIRC, there was this guy at the convenience store who actually wanted to be a vet, but instead he was giving himself excuses not to do that course because college/tuition fees for that is expensive and some other reasons. Possibly he isn't trying hard enough. So Tyler Durden gives him an ultimatum, death or be a vet. If that's what the convenience store person wants to do then he should just chase it and go off with a bang if it fails at all, instead of just whimpering about at the convenience store. I think it makes sense. We need to embrace failing gloriously to really feel ourselves. I hope I made sense there.
It brings in concepts of consumerism which is definitely a problem we are faced with in the modern world. We are stuck in a rut in society. Trying to be a perfect/complete person with IKEA furniture or that great body because we are constantly fed with it through advertisements/media.
We think too much, rather over-think. And we think that through thinking, we can have a controlled environment which is what the Western world tries to do. I think it was Réné Descartes who said "I think therefore I am". I think it is okay in reality but it seems to be a fallacy, because there is certainly something beyond our limited thinking. Too much importance has been given to thinking. Thinking is great, sure. But there is always that mental-wobbling and deliberation in choice, to quote Alan Watts. Do we really have a choice? Or are we just consoling ourselves with the pseudo-control we think we have? We are no more respecting our intuition, or pure nature if I may say so. We are trying to be politically correct which creates more layers, more religions, more useless communities and takes us farther and farther away from the Ultimate Truth/Reality. We are afraid of that naked truth. In Buddhist meditation, we just let our thoughts come and go. We try not to give them importance. Because that's all they are. Thoughts.
I can say that there should be a willingness to let ourselves die. You have to be ready to give something up, let go, lose control to really experience something. The car crash scene in the movie is just a way of depicting it. Of course we don't have to do that literally. Its symbolic. Its a movie with a situation so take it as such. We are slaves to our minds. The mind is a bad master, but an excellent slave. So if we sort of let go of the steering wheel of life per se, we can let our minds work FOR us rather than against us.
There is this part where Tyler Durden says to the narrator that he is smarter in more ways than the narrator, more capable, free in ways that he is not. This is because Tyler lives free. There is this feeling of true freedom. The only thing that stops you from achieving enlightenment or ultimate reality, call it whatever you like, is YOU. There are many Zen stories which if we read, we sort of get this "Aha!" moment where we realize it is just us living in our mind, overthinking, rather than just taking it all in, partaking in the present moment. There is no other reality. There is only the NOW. Our mind creates all that other bullshit if I may say.
There is another part in the movie where Tyler Durden says self-improvement is masturbation, how about self-destruction? which is rather strongly the point in Buddhism. Maybe I should use the word Dissolution rather than destruction. We get in our own way. This self-consciousness that we created of our own thinking.
So there are a lot of parts in the movie which seems to hit Zen aspects heavily. Some of it is nihilistic too like destroying buildings etc., I don't really approve of that of course, but again that's Hollywood. Has to be a show piece a little bit ;)
Adding certain clarifications:
"Death or be a vet": The idea is to just go ahead and try to accomplish that which you have been wanting to, without stopping to think too much. When you think unnecessarily, you have slowed down. The thinking might be in terms of what may happen or what happened in the past. You already know what you'd want to achieve. So proceed without unnecessary doubt. These are covered in right action in Buddhism.
"a willingness to let ourselves die": This is to sort of "kill" your self-consciousness. For example, when you were a kid you used to be joyful and playful. (Were you? I'd like to think so) As we get older, we start to live in our mind more rather than just how we are or where we are. Questions like "What would others think about us?" start to crop up. An inhibiting self-consciousness starts to creep into everything we do. It stops us from being spontaneous and lovely human beings. So the idea is to give yourself a little slack and room for failure and just barge into things as a kid would.
You may have noticed how when you involve yourself into an activity, you automagically start thinking about necessary things and solving problems that lie ahead. Rather than cooping yourself in the mind, which is an endless interminable chatter.
tl,dr zen/buddhist elements in Fight Club:

accomplish what you want to, without stopping to think too much. [right action in Buddhism]
"kill" your self-consciousness. It stops us from being spontaneous and lovely human beings.

"death or be a vet": interesting idea. what is the principle behind this. also on "there should be a willingness to let ourselves die": seems cool too, but auto-destruction is not a buddhist/zen idea, correct? Just checking to learn :)

that's an excellent response!!!

just perfect! please include comments into the answer! very valuable!!

"Wanting to be a vet" isn't exactly being in the moment. Imagine trying to write a haiku about it.

You're thinking about it in the moment. Because you calmed yourself down to fundamentals of what you want to do. Then you spring into action. What's the problem? If haiku writing is your thing, something like I opened the window and a breeze blew past my face. It brought me an invigorating feeling of pursuing my career in veterinary sciences.

@BlackFlam3 that seems correct and hilarious!

Anarchist, nonmaterialist themes do not make something Buddhist. Buddhism goes WAAAAAAAY deeper than that: actual immortality and freedom from suffering!
Unless The Wings of Awakening are addressed in a movie, it is not a totally Buddhist movie.
Needless to say, with these high standards, even most overtly labelled Buddhist movies are not truly Buddhist (leading to the actual practice of actual Buddhist Three Trainings--not just ethics) because they get caught up in the drama of family life, never touching on stream entry.
It would be cool to one day see some phantasmagorical movie that goes through The Stages of Insight, pitfalls and triumphs through samadhi, powers, and some visual representations of Enlightenment. I think Cloud Atlas was the closest so far.

immortality? Is Un Buda (2005) no good?

Anarchist, nonmaterialist themes do not make something Buddhist because ...

@nilon I haven't seen that one. "doing vipassana doing time" might fall under my somewhat extreme categorization of Buddhist. Also "anarchist, nonmaterialist themes do not make something Buddhist because..." Buddhism isn't anarchist (see Eightfold path which encourages social formation and liveilhood).

One point of anarchism is don't follow rules just because of custom, or authority. In that sense I think it may be in sync with Buddhism since each person has to seek their own path of illumination, searching for the inner way. Yes? Also: anarchism has many variants: social formation and livelihood is part of many of them that are more peaceful than the contrary.


text:
Is Buddhism about being less "sensitive"?
I'm just curious, since before I began practicing the Buddhist way of life, I was a very emotionally sensitive person. I constantly had my "feelings hurt" or got into petty arguments over small things in life with people who were once my friends. Sometimes this broke apart many friendships. However, a lot of Buddhist teachings seem to deal with detatchment from the ego, therefore as to loosen or weaken one's sense of self. I found that sometimes I no longer clung to my opinion about reality as if it was absolutely right. But what about emotions? Is Buddhism about taming one's emotions (I grew up as an often very emotional individual on many ends of the spectrum)? Or does one approach emotions by letting them manifest opnely? In short, in my practice, how can I go about dealing with my innate sensitivity? Thank you.

The effect that the emotion has on you to evoke an immediate reaction has reduced. But you will still feel emotions normally. You start to see emotions as a part of the whole play of things. They come to pass, when earlier you just reacted to everything. This is a sort of calmed reaction to any emotion. Having said that, Buddhism is sensitive in that it has compassion in it which is something like how Jesus said, "they know not what they are doing, forgive them", when he was being nailed to the cross. He was able to forgive them even as they were doing that horrific thing to him. That is compassion.

The correct word would be to be less attached. The lesser you are attached, the less emotional you will be.
If you were less sensitive, you wouldn't be able to follow certain basic principles. You would not feel like giving, helping or showing compassion.
Confusing as it can be, you should be less attached from worldly things. It maybe a game, women/man, alcohol, friends etc. The stronger you are bonded to it, the harder it is when it goes away from you (ultimately everything in this world is impermanent).
I think in my opinion, what you should do is, realize this world is impermanent ( which is the truth). So if by nature you are sensitive, you will be able to realize that there is no point being sad over it because its not permanent and that it is a part of this world and its futile to be sad. Nothing in the world is unfair, it perfectly follows newtons third law : Every action has an equal but an opposite reaction.
Meaning, if you beat someone up, you will, for sure, get a beating equally to the one that you brought upon to the person earlier. Now this may and may not happen instantly, but with time it will happen.
With that said, do not get me wrong, If you are hyper sensitive and if it seems to bother you a lot, it is probably because of a past Karma that you have done. Well we all need to pay it. But never be discouraged, in this life that you have got, do good karma, and less bad karma, eventually you will be able to overcome these sins and live a happy life.
Keeping that in mind, a simple answer to your question:

how can I go about dealing with my innate sensitivity?

Follow a proper meditation. You should consult a Buddhist monk to select what is best type of meditation for you. With time you will eventually fight this sensitivity. :)


text:
Mindfullness or Self Consciousness (Introvert's Struggle)
I am trying to achieve consciousness and that is my target to achieve it,...
I am struck in Strange State .. as Bruce lee said, in Enter The Dragon:
Its like a finger pointing away to the moon. Dont concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory
This dialogue describes my mind state exactly, and i want to overcome this state..
So, i am stuck in a state, which is high self-consciousness state, and i feel stuck when i am going to do something in group of people or alone, i feel everyone is watching me, and i am literally freezing, and i dont know what to do next..
example: when i am opening a door, a thought strucks me, like my mind shift towards some body is watching me, or something gets reminded to me, and i cant move in the intended direction of what i want to do...
Any help regarding how to overcome this is greatly appreciated...

any inputs are greatly appreciated..

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have also a Help Center with useful resources for new comers.

Maybe you could elaborate on this sentence as it seems somewhat unclear; "I am trying to achieve consciousness and that is my target to achieve it".

@Lanka I have to say that, i experienced consciousness, but its like a temporary spark(for few seconds), it is not in a stable state.. in which i can get hold of it and continue in being in that state.. that is my problem.. and more often i encounter the situation i described above.. And if  i feel frustrated because of this state...

@Lanka Previuosly, I used to meditate from childhood, now i stopped it, and i am in my twenties now, these days i am trying to be mindful, but not meditating, i feel very strong feeling that i should achieve consciousness

@Lanka Actually, i am facing this freezing state in social situations, when there are so many people around me, and also generally and basically, i am an introvert(from childhood itself), and dont like being around in social situations..

Thanks. I have made an answer to one of your comments and not the main question. I might address that at a later point in time or we can have a chat about it.

It is not clear if you are doing some formal practice; if you do it regularly, you are likely to see the conditions more clear and learn to deal with them. The best is to do a retreat.
In the usual forms of vipassana  (Mahasi & similar I am familar with), you have an anchor (breathing, walking) and when something else comes to your mind (through the 6 sense doors -- western 5 senses plus mind, which includes thoughts, feelings, states of mind etc), you acknowledge/label/note/name what happened and come back to the anchor. This way you learn to (a) see what is there (b) let it go and come back to the anchor. Both points (a) and (b) are important; that's how you learn to deal with whatever happens.
In fact, various states of mind such as frozen, switched-off or dissociated are common. If you find yourself in a stuck state, you can use the "stuck" label to acknowledge that state, and come back. If you find yourself you want to get rid of that state (as you say), acknowledge that wanting and come back. The feeling of being watched is also a feeling you should acknowledge.
When you follow a condition (which the mind does automatically when you don't acknowledge it), you see that a whole drama unfolds: first you notice the stuckness, then you dislike it, then you want to get rid of it, then you perhaps remember that it happened many times and you get frustrated or desperate, then you think what you've done wrong so that it does not disappear, maybe you think there is something wrong with you in general etc etc. That is endless. Acknowledge it as soon as you can, as quickly as you can, and let it go. See what comes next. That's the practice, always coming back to the present.

Previuosly, I used to meditate from childhood, now i stopped it, and i am in my 20s now, these days i am trying to be mindful, but not meditating, i feel very strong feeling that i should achieve consciousness..

I have to say that, i experienced consciousness, but its like a temporary spark(for few seconds), it is not in a stable state.. in which i can get hold of it and continue in being in that state.. that is my problem.. and more often i encounter the situation i described above.. And if i feel frustrated because of this state...

Actually, i am facing this freezing state in social situations, when there are so many people around me, and also generally and basically, i am an introvert(from childhood itself), and dont like being around in social situations..

It does not matter if it is in social situations; these situations trigger something in you and practice will help you release that. Dunno what you mean by experiencing consciousness, but don't attach it. Try to see things for what they are, that brings relief and liberation. Do not change them in the first place, they will change by themselves and in different (and often better) ways than you want/imagine.

@user2929.. now that you have told a bit more about yourself, I have to add this & edit my post. To tell you being an introvert is a blessing in disguise. It is a good thing. Just try to reflect on this… A person can say that he/she is shy and would sound as if it is bad. I do not think so. Only those who have the innocence and gentleness, who have the shyness and fear to do wrong are the fortunate few (ones who have Hiri & Othappa”). They are the ones who will see the Dhamma and walk the Noble Eight Fold Path if they put their mind to it.
People who do not seek large crowds tend to turn their attention inwards, and there are very few of them in the world today. Buddha has pointed out that they have a far greater chance of going to heaven and finding liberation.
Still I am not going to change what I said before. This is a higher goal for you, that you got to work towards. The day that you come to the realization that what you conventionally call a ‘person’ can be understood in terms of five aggregates of clinging, and that the sum of which must not be taken for a permanent entity, your awkward feeling of self-consciousness will vanish.  It is because you are now mindful of your true nature - that you are nothing but an amalgam of ever- changing phenomena.
If you do not acquire a thorough understanding of the five aggregates of clinging, you will not be able to  grasp the liberation process at work within you.  In reality you and I are nothing but an amalgam of the five aggregates of clinging. So please try to think it through.

Thank you for the elaboration. I have based my answer on one of your comments;

"...Lanka I have to say that, i experienced consciousness, but its like a temporary spark(for few seconds), it is not in a stable state.. in which i can get hold of it and continue in being in that state.. that is my problem.. and more often i encounter the situation i described above.. And if i feel frustrated because of this state..."

First of all, don't feel sorry or frustrated because you cannot stay in a certain state.
Instead understand, through insight meditation, that this is actually the impermanent nature of conditioned phenomena that you are experiencing. You cannot control anything as long as being in Samsara, i.e. the conditioned realm. Trying to control stuff is actually the source of your (and others) frustration.
All condition phenomena, whether mental or physical, follows a specific recipe/process. See drawing.

So when something comes into existence, it persists and then breaks up and falls apart. Even in the middle part of the process, i.e. the Presence-part the phenomena is already falling apart. It's already travelling towards its own disintegration. Nothing is stable. Everything is in a constant flux and no matter how hard one tries to hold onto the object, it will vanish as sand through ones fingers.
That is simply the nature of conditioned phenomena. One cannot really understand this through the process of thinking or intellectualization. Instead one has to practice insight meditation (Vipassana) and see with ones own eyes how phenomena arise, persist and disolves into nothingness. When the mind has seen that enough times it will begin to let go.
As the Buddha said; "Having known the world's impermanence, They (disciples) made an end to suffering1".
Trying to grasp at things creates attachment and as long as there is attachment, one cannot be free. Having something as your target might instead become a hindrance, depending on the intensity of the craving. The mind is like a little child or a dog, you have to teach it over and over in order to develop and purify it.
Lastly, don't be too hard on yourself. Think about it, we are all in the same boat, trying to become free from Samsara. We are just on different steps on the path. Being born human is extremely rare. Being lucky enough to come in contact with the Dhamma is even more rare. You are here now and that means countless of life times of performing wholesome and meritorious deeds, e.g. the practice of meditation.
Let me know if you have any questions to what I wrote and I will try to answer you. If you are interested in the technique I practice, I will be happy to share it with you.
Lanka

1 Samyutta Nikaya: Sagathavagga: Devaputtasamyutta: Connected Discourses with Young Devas, Bodhi trans, p. 139.

please share how to start vipassana meditation.. or the technique you use to achieve mindfulness.. if it would be helpful to me, then it is greatly appreciable.... if anything i do comes to fruition, i will share this experience with others...

sir, can i have brief chat with you, if possible.. my time is now night 9:10 pm(IST).. if possible, at what time could you be reachable..

Hello and sorry for my late reply. I'm in Greenland and the time here is now 7.58 morning time. I will be available at 16.00 Greenland time. I will create and invite you to a chat room that you can then join if you are available. If not, we could talk via email. My mail is on my profile page.