text:
How does one practice mindfulness during thinking - e.g. thinking about how to solve a problem?
This question is in context of practicing mindfulness in one's day-to-day activities (e.g. walking, talking, washing dishes etc.), where one is supposed to be "aware of" / "observe" / "be mindful of" these activities.
But how does one be "mindful" during thinking, since the very act of "observing" thinking would interrupt the thought process? And, say, if the thought process is about solving a specific problem, the very act of "being aware of /observing" the thoughts would result in one being unable to effectively solve that problem - when compared to not observing/ not being mindful about those thoughts. Or, be unable to solve it all.
The same question for when reading something very interesting, or studying, where one is fully engrossed? Wouldn't being mindful about these activities interrupt the reading/study?
New to mindfulness here. Apologies if the question sounds foolish, or irrelevant due to my misunderstanding of mindfulness.
Thanks in advance.

A.K.
It's not a foolish question at all,  I think it's something everyone spends sometime trying to understand when they first start learning meditation and mindfulness.
Mindfulness is being present.  If you're sitting you know you're sitting, if you're standing you know you're standing. If you are washing dishes you are only washing dishes, you are not thinking about the what happened at work, about the bills, or about any problems you may have had with your spouse or friend. Eventually with enough practice you can stay present while sleeping though I make no claims on being able to do this.
This can extend to studying, shopping, for groceries, driving, etc.  I meditate most days while driving into work, as I'm completely mindful of what I'm doing and undistracted,  I'm probably the safest driver on the road. As an "intellectual worker", I stay mindful and undistracted with the work I do.  I think many people do this and do not understand they are being mindful. Mindfulness is not "non-thinking" though it can be as being present doesn't require thinking, it's being completely present with and aware of what you are doing. Decisions can be part of the process but should be void of I or my, rather the appropriateness of the decision to completing the task in the physical world is the factor of action.
A suggestion is that you don't draw a distinction between being mindful in meditation and when you get up from the mat, try to find things to extend your mindfulness to as the day goes on, pick simple things at first like taking a shower, going to the bathroom, driving, and start working on extending it through the entire day.  You will find things like basic planning and paying bills will take care of themself to a large extent.  You won't forget your social security number or to pay the bills..no worries. It is also a process that takes years -> decades, etc to fully develop but it is well worth the effort.
Addendum: I realized I hadn't addressed part of your question. About being mindful with "engrossing" or something or really interesting. This is probably the unpopular part of the answer but truth is just what it is.  For monastics, entertainment is not allowed.  The reason for this isn't that it's evil, but because by design it "hooks you",  creating desire (i.e. Dukka - suffering).  There is no problem with experience happiness or suffering - but mindfulness is to help you not cling to good things "engrossing" and desire (Dukka - suffering) push away bad things.  If you are fairly well down the path you may be able to do this quite easily without suffering, but most of us aren't.  So if you want to know how "engrossing" things cause suffering, imagine being denied to watch the next season of "Game of Thrones" if you are a fan.  This is a gross example, there are much more subtle forms of suffering also, things that re-enforce I and my. So though some could be mindful watching "Game of Thrones" without desire/attachment/suffering, it's really tough for most of us.
2nd Addendum:
I believe there are two different issues that are being mixed, one is thinking or concentration, the other is actively encouraging suffering. When you are mindful,  you are not bored as you are present and observing, and as noted taking action (decisions and thinking) such as braking and not hit the stopped car in front of you when driving. Working on a really hard problem is not much different than washing dishes and deciding to wipe more or not, except that it's more likely to be iterative. If you are really mindful, it's not necessarily more focused as you can be really focused on simple tasks as well as difficult problems. Working difficult problems does not encourage I or my  (dukka - suffering), unless of course you scold or complement yourself on how stupid or smart you are.
The case of entertainment again is something designed to make you unmindful, to rouse desire and emotions (dukka), if they didn't then shows like the "Out of Focus Pages of the Telephone Book" would be very popular.  The "designed to make you unmindful" part again doesn't make it evil - it's just with Buddhism the long game is rejiggering your mind, taking advantage of neuroplasticity to break life long habits that lead to suffering.  If you meditate alot, you will find watching something like GoT will make it really difficult to meditate for sometime afterwards. You find that avoiding things like this make you a more contented person.  I know that if you watched GoT in a completely mindful way, it would be like having a teflon mind, nothing would stick, but you would also not get the "high" (or "low") from it, you would not feel jubilation when the bad guy gets killed or depression when the good guy gets killed - you would just be observing and noting.  Renunciation is a process, you don't do it in a day, it happens naturally while developing your practice. It turns out not to be a sacrifice or hardship when you really understand on a deeper level more than an intellectual level within yourself that you're really gaining peace by doing so. In the mean time go and enjoy GoT and note how if it disturbs your mind and do not take my word for it. If you find this is true as you develop a practice (meditation,etc), it will make you naturally draw back from watching other programs of this sort in the future.
3rd Addendum: From your last comment, I'll try my best to answer but I admit I am working somewhat out of my pay grade so take it as as a potentially flawed answer.  The purpose of meditation is as a vehicle to enlightenment which is the end of suffering by extinguishing the ego.  It is the ego that causes suffering,  not consciousness and not emotions.  With or without the ego emotions are still with us, it's just without the ego there is no suffering because the emotions are experienced without clinging and aversion. You can be happy, but as it passes since everything is temporary, you don't try to hold on to it or make it last longer, and when you're unhappy, you're not pushing this away. Without an ego there is no one to suffer. So an enlightened person can laugh and cry and is not an emotionless robot.  The difference is that there is no clinging or aversion.
An enlightened person may not detached from life at all, or may detach completely.  Though the next comment may cause some ire of others, I believe it to be true.  Many persons who very likely were enlightened have done things that people thought were unenlightened.  Examples are Suziki Roshi crying when his wife died, he mourned for a few days and some criticized him for it asking how could he be enlightened and do such a thing. He later commented that he mindfully observed his mourning. I've gone to a lecture with the Dalai Lama and he is very engaged, he often tells funny stories and jokes. Some of the best dharma talks I've heard could almost have been standup comedy routines. Metta meditation intentionally works to create compassion and raise positive emotions as does Tonglen meditation.  Probably more controversial would be Trungpa Rimpoche who drank, smoked, and was a womanizer, he never tried to hide any of this. You'd have to study his life and his work and try to figure out if you think he was authentic or not. I do personally. It's thought that this was at least in part to confound the minds of his followers as to what an enlightened being was and break their wrong preconceived notions.  When you read his writings and look at his accomplishments they were authentic and significant.  It would be tough to have much more of a less (apparently) detached life than his.
Monks are students, just like the lay Buddhist, it's just they've pledged their life exclusively to the path.  If they actually become a fully realized being, there are no longer bound by restrictions as those restrictions were only there to help them become a fully realized being.
I hope I answered you're question rather than creating more confusion.
I hope this helps..

Thank you for a detailed answer. Did help clear some of my understanding of mindfulness.
So, would you say, mindfulness is not really applicable to activities where one does need to be attached to. e.g. as I have mentioned above - thinking hard to solve a problem.  Or, for entertainment such as watching GoT, as you have mentioned above. Both of these are applicable for most of us.

Some interesting comments in your addendums. It seems to me (I could be wrong) that if one is an mindfulness practitioner in the most "ideal sense", one does not experience or, "get affected by" the conventional pleasures (GoT, drinking, reading etc.) or pain (death, hurtful sentiments etc.) of regular life? Because one is completely detached from life - which is intentional and is supposed to be the "goal" of a Buddhist monk practicing mindfulness? And that, the pleasures a monk experiences are ones that come from meditation & mindfulness - which are a "still mind" devoid of any "ripples"?

'Mindfulness' ('sati') is not 'observing' ('anupassi'). This common idea is a misunderstanding.
'Mindfulness' ('sati') is 'remembering' or 'keeping in mind'.
For example, in formal meditation/concentration development, at the most crude level of practise, 'mindfulness' does not mean 'observation' but 'remembering' to be observant (rather than being distracted). At a more profound level, 'mindfulness' in meditation means to 'keep the mind' in a state of 'not-attachment' (the 'observing' happens automatically because the mind is automatically conscious).
Therefore, in your daily life, you practise Buddhist mindfulness by remembering to practise Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action & Right Livelihood.

What is the right speech...? Abstaining from lying, from divisive tale-bearing, from abusive speech & from idle chatter.
One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong speech & for entering right speech: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon
wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right
mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort &
right mindfulness — run & circle around right speech.
Maha-Cattarisaka Sutta

~~

What is sammasati (right mindfulness)? Sati means to bear in mind or bring to mind. Sati is the state of recollecting, the state of
remembering, the state of non-fading, the state of non-forgetting.
Sati means the sati that is a Spiritual Faculty, the sati that is a
Spiritual Power, Sammasati, the Sati that is an Enlightenment Factor,
that which is a Path Factor and that which is related to the Path.
This is what is called sammasati.
Vbh.105, 286

A very interesting question that you asked. When you are fully engrossed in something, the time stops, as you are in oneness with it. The following describes such a moment:

“We cannot be aware of these most precious moments when they are actually happening - such as when trying to finish something late at night over a table with a group of friends, cigarette stuck to lower lip, eyes tired, earnest concentration.  It is the time we are most right, most just, most sad, and most hilarious” (Christopher Alexander)

Satipattana or Establishment of mindfulness, which is the only way to Nibbana, is not this kind of absorption.  Here to be mindful means observing self in the very act of doing things, in a detached way.  Here establishment means bringing mindfulness or sati to the mind - the mental object being mindfulness or sati.  Here we have to be aware of the body, and what we are doing.  Gradually as the practice develops we will be aware or mindful all the time.  This is the only sure way to keep the mental defilements at bay, and the mind will then never get strongly attached or does not become ill with aversion.

I think it's a good question, since I have asked me the same some time ago.
Wouldn't being mindful about these activities interrupt the reading/study?
Yes, it does. It 's practically speaking impossible to do both things at the same time. What you can do is intentionally interrupt your activity. Like when you're reading a book, you can stop reading for a short moment and notice your body sensations or your posture and then continue reading after a few seconds. For studying a very useful technique is to do short meditation sessions in between (like 30min studying, then 5min meditation, repeat .... ). It's very useful because brings your mind back to reality and prevents it from getting lost in all those concepts. Also if you feel stressed during studying, you can stop and use that feeling of discomfort as your meditation object.

In Buddhism, the word "mindfulness" ("sati") does not mean "to observe". In the Pali language, the word that means "to observe", often mistaken for "sati", is "anupassi".
In Buddhism, the word "mindfulness" ("sati") means "to remember" or "to keep in mind".
When practising "Right Mindfulness", what is remembered or kept in mind is the factors & practise of the Noble Eightfold Path.
Therefore, when you solve a problem with mindfulness, it means to solve a problem remembering to use Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action & Right Livelihood.
For example, if you have a problem with your friend or at work, you remember to discuss your problem with Right Speech and with Right Thought, such as not getting angry.
When you view or define the problem, you view or define the problem according to Right View, Right Action and Right Livelihood.
Yes, the question certainly sounds foolish or irrelevant due to a misunderstanding of mindfulness but this foolish misunderstanding is extremely common and expected due to the foolish misunderstood ways mindfulness is taught in the world by so-called Buddhists, including by monks. How long this foolish misunderstanding of mindfulness by so-called Buddhist Zombies will persist in the world is unknown but it appears certainly not diminishing.
The Pali scriptures define mindfulness as follows:

And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering (saritā) & able to call to mind (anussaritā) even things that were done & said long ago.
Indriya-vibhanga Sutta

Whenever, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu... recollects (anussarati) the
Dhamma (Teaching) and thinks it over, on that occasion the enlightenment factor
of mindfulness is aroused by the bhikkhu; on that occasion the bhikkhu
develops the enlightenment factor of mindfulness; on that occasion the
enlightenment factor of mindfulness comes to fulfilment by development
in the bhikkhu.
SN 46.3

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right
view: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
resolve: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
speech: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
action: This is one's right mindfulness.
One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness.
Maha-cattarisaka Sutta

attha katamaṁ satindriyaṁ? Yā sati anussati paṭissati sati saraṇatā dhāraṇatā apilāpanatā asammussanatā sati satindriyaṁ satibalaṁ sammāsati— idaṁ vuccati “satindriyaṁ”.
What is sammasati? Sati means to bear in mind or bring to mind. Sati
is the state of recollecting, the state of remembering, the state of
non-fading, the state of non-forgetting. Sati means the sati that is a
Spiritual Faculty, the sati that is a Spiritual Power, Sammasati, the
Sati that is an Enlightenment Factor, that which is a Path Factor and
that which is related to the Path. This is what is called sammasati."
Vibhanga 105.286

Aren't there various dhamma to be mindful of, including as you say the Noble Eightfold Path, the Dhamma, and ethical behaviour (and the Triple Gem)? Isn't there also doctrine about being mindful of the body, like in the Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) or Kayagata-sati Sutta (MN 119) -- and don't you suppose that might be a (doctrinal and practical) basis for what people refer to when they talk about "mindfulness" of or during some activity?

I'm no expert but what you ask might not be feasible.
When I'm "thinking about how to solve a problem" -- I work as a software developer; and the conventional wisdom among programmers is that to be effective or "in the zone" you become immersed in the problem/subject/activity ... and the less you're distracted by anything else, e.g. by thoughts of other topics, or bodily sensations (including other people talking around you), or any "self-awareness" unrelated to the problem at hand, the better. The time for considering whether that activity is ethical might be before you embark on it -- because during it all you want to be aware of is the problem[s], the goal, and potential solutions.
Perhaps this is just me, or perhaps some similar state-of-mind might happen (and be sought as being desirable) during any slightly complicated or dangerous activity -- driving a car or riding a bicycle, performing surgery or carpentry, etc.
Such intense or focussed awareness isn't just a matter of thinking more about the subject, it's also a matter of think less about any distractions irrelevant to the problem (and it takes time to become immersed at the start of a session, for cessation of mental activity unrelated to the problem; that immersion includes putting aside some notions of self -- including "I don't like this problem" and "it's too difficult for me" -- and is I think part of the skill or habit which a student or practitioner or expert develops, that learned ability is as well as the necessary body of knowledge).
As such you have the problem you raised -- that being "mindful" would interrupt the activity.
I think that when I'm working I'm mindful of the current problem[s] and the goal -- and potential solutions (to the problems) come to mind -- and then as long as I'm aware of the viable solution, I keep that in mind as I act to implement it. The subject (details of what I'm thinking about) changes -- as new solutions come to mind; as I encounter problems with implementing a specific solution; as solutions are completed and I move to a next phase (e.g. testing or another problem) -- or if I lose my concentration, if somebody talks to me, or if I need to sleep, or whatever it is.
This mode of thinking is all very well, it's practical; and if you're careful it's ideally harmless too and beneficial in a mundane or "householder" way.
There's another but related mode of thinking, when the problem exists but when a solution isn't obvious. There's a description of that -- I like the description -- in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (which the Author's Note says, "should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to orthodox Zen Buddhist practice"):

Well, those were the commonest setbacks I can think of: out-of-sequence reassembly, intermittent failure and parts problems. But
although setbacks are the commonest gumption traps they’re only the external cause of gumption loss. Time now to consider some of
the internal gumption traps that operate at the same time.
As the course description of gumptionology indicated, this internal part of the field can be broken down into three main types of
internal gumption traps: those that block affective understanding, called "value traps"; those that block cognitive understanding, called
"truth traps"; and those that block psychomotor behavior, called "muscle traps." The value traps are by far the largest and the most
dangerous group.
Of the value traps, the most widespread and pernicious is value rigidity. This is an inability to revalue what one sees because of
commitment to previous values. In motorcycle maintenance, you must rediscover what you do as you go. Rigid values make this
impossible.
The typical situation is that the motorcycle doesn’t work. The facts are there but you don’t see them. You’re looking right at them, but
they don’t yet have enough value. This is what Phædrus was talking about. Quality, value, creates the subjects and objects of the world.
The facts do not exist until value has created them. If your values are rigid you can’t really learn new facts.
This often shows up in premature diagnosis, when you’re sure you know what the trouble is, and then when it isn’t, you’re stuck. Then
you’ve got to find some new clues, but before you can find them you’ve got to clear your head of old opinions. If you’re plagued with
value rigidity you can fail to see the real answer even when it’s staring you right in the face because you can’t see the new answer’s
importance.
The birth of a new fact is always a wonderful thing to experience. It’s dualistically called a "discovery" because of the presumption that
it has an existence independent of anyone’s awareness of it. When it comes along, it always has, at first, a low value. Then, depending
on the value-looseness of the observer and the potential quality of the fact, its value increases, either slowly or rapidly, or the value
wanes and the fact disappears.
The overwhelming majority of facts, the sights and sounds that are around us every second and the relationships among them and
everything in our memory...these have no Quality, in fact have a negative quality. If they were all present at once our consciousness
would be so jammed with meaningless data we couldn’t think or act. So we preselect on the basis of Quality, or, to put it Phædrus’
way, the track of Quality preselects what data we’re going to be conscious of, and it makes this selection in such a way as to best
harmonize what we are with what we are becoming.
What you have to do, if you get caught in this gumption trap of value rigidity, is slow down...you’re going to have to slow down
anyway whether you want to or not...but slow down deliberately and go over ground that you’ve been over before to see if the things
you thought were important were really important and to—well—just stare at the machine. There’s nothing wrong with that. Just live
with it for a while. Watch it the way you watch a line when fishing and before long, as sure as you live, you’ll get a little nibble, a little
fact asking in a timid, humble way if you’re interested in it. That’s the way the world keeps on happening. Be interested in it.
At first try to understand this new fact not so much in terms of your big problem as for its own sake. That problem may not be as big as
you think it is. And that fact may not be as small as you think it is. It may not be the fact you want but at least you should be very sure
of that before you send the fact away. Often before you send it away you will discover it has friends who are right next to it and are
watching to see what your response is. Among the friends may be the exact fact you are looking for.
After a while you may find that the nibbles you get are more interesting than your original purpose of fixing the machine. When that
happens you’ve reached a kind of point of arrival. Then you’re no longer strictly a motorcycle mechanic, you’re also a motorcycle
scientist, and you’ve completely conquered the gumption trap of value rigidity.

I find it an amusing description of how solutions (or "facts") sometimes come to mind.
It can sometimes happen that you're "barking up the wrong tree", maybe too focussed on a unworkable solution, or maybe you've forgotten something important -- in that case, putting your tools down, and going for a walk, and not thinking about the problem for a while provides an opportunity -- a mind that's not too busy or too focussed in a wrong direction -- for a potentially helpful solution to "pop up" or arise.
Then there's "mindfulness" as it's taught in Buddhism. One of the classic summaries is here: Anussati — The Recollections. I'm not sure how meaningful they are, I suspect they act partly as a summary of everything you've learned about and learned from Buddhism -- which, I assume, varies from person to person. Still I find that it i.e. Buddhism is a good "solution" to a lot of the "problems" of life. Maybe it won't fix your "motorcycle", maybe it will help peace of mind as you work to repair it, or to "let go" of it, and to "value" it correctly.
Another thing is that a lot of what we work with, the world we live is, is a "fabrication" -- Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?
To some extent, that's apparently normal and there's no avoiding it, and so the question is about the quality of it (like whether it's ethical), and one's reaction (like whether one tries to attach to it) -- see for example the Dhammapada:

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' (suffering etc.) follows him just as the wheel follows the hoofprint of the ox that draws the cart.
All mental phenomena have mind as their forerunner; they have mind as their chief; they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness (sukha) follows him like a shadow that never leaves him.

I think of the kind of "applied" thought, that I described at the start of this above, is like a kind of vehicle -- it's a means of getting from A to B, from a problem to a finished solution. But if you do have a vehicle like that, you might not want to be driving it all the time -- spending your whole life, pushing the engine on a highway -- even if only because it's not sustainable, you ought to slow down sometimes (when the going gets difficult), maybe cool down or empty your mind to make it receptive (like a muscle needs periods of food and rest in order to work) etc. I'm told it's also useful to understand something of a relationship between mind and body -- like what does "feeling anxious" mean, exactly, what is "peace", what is "impermanence"?
Anyway, for whatever reason, one of the types of meditation people teach or practice is "mindfulness" -- "mindfulness of breathing" for example, "mindfulness of the body", and so on.
I'm not sure those can be practiced at the same time as mundane problem solving. Maybe yes during "physical" activity, maybe less so during some sustained/applied mental activity -- or maybe other people can and it's just my inability. But I think there's a reason why people set aside time -- dedicate some time to "meditating" -- or go on a "retreat", for a week-end or ten days -- or become like monks, that might be so that they can concentrate on the practice literally full-time.
I'm not sure but maybe the practice is intended as an antidote to -- deliberately, as a way to interfere with -- the kind of immersion with mundane worries and concepts which may normally occupy a mind.
There's also a suggestion that, when you're not preoccupied with mental activity, then all that remains to be aware of is the physical -- so trying to be aware (or mindful) of the physical is a way to, as this answer puts it, to "work within the framework of the target state". And it's a respite from perpetually driving the mental engine.
Maybe it's also good to be mindful of the body "occasionally" during mundane activity. The breath becoming "short" for example might be a symptom of the mind becoming too tight -- and correcting that might improve the mind's interaction with the activity.


text:
Where does it say Siddhartha Gautama mastered all types of meditation?
I vaguely recall that before he sat to meditate under the bodhi tree and was enlightened, he learned all the different techniques of meditation. Where does it say this?

In the Maha-Saccaka Sutta it describes his learning some meditation types/techniques, from teachers, before he sat and was enlightened:

Alara Kalama ... the dimension of nothingness.

~~~

Uddaka Ramaputta ... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.

~~~

Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the past have felt painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the utmost.
  None have been greater than this. Whatever brahmans or contemplatives
  in the future will feel painful, racking, piercing feelings due to
  their striving, this is the utmost. None will be greater than this.
  Whatever brahmans or contemplatives in the present are feeling
  painful, racking, piercing feelings due to their striving, this is the
  utmost. None is greater than this. But with this racking practice of
  austerities I haven't attained any superior human state, any
  distinction in knowledge or vision worthy of the noble ones.

For sure what you have heard of is this incident. After the night of his Awakening, the Buddha spent 49 days experiencing the bliss of release. The knowledge of all that one will ever know in all of the three worlds was known to the Buddha within those 49 days. A mention of the vastness of this knowledge in him was mentioned when he was in the forest of simsapa trees. The Simsapa tree has very small leaves.
Taking a handful of the Simsapa leaves Buddha asked the monks, “Which is more, the leaves in my hand or the leaves in the forest?” The monks replied, “Of course, the leaves in the forest are many more than the leaves in your hand.”
Buddha said, “In the same way, what I learned in the course of my Awakening is like the leaves in the forest. What I have brought out to teach is like the leaves in my hand.”
Please read Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves - Access to Insight

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If Buddhism is about moderation, then why is it that you can attain nirvana only after renouncing worldly possessions?
This is really confusing to me. Buddha himself was an ascetic, and his teachings seem to imply that the path to nirvana is attained through renouncing one's worldly possessions.
Isn't this in direct contradiction to the Middle Way?

Abandonment of attachment and craving is an axiom, it's not questioned, because this is what bounds one to samsara and endless round of births. What moderation refers to is the method of achieving the goal and it's been formulated as a result of the Buddha's own experience at asceticism (as answered in detail below) and also perhaps in reaction to the then known two extremes in methods of spiritual cultivation, which were either lax as with the brahmans or self mortifying as practiced by some samanas

also one essential feature of the Middle way is acknowledgement and allowance of spiritual pleasure, the pleasure of jhanas in contrast to self-mortification “I thought: ‘Why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states?’ I thought: ‘I am not afraid of that pleasure since it has nothing to do with sensual pleasures and unwholesome states.’“I considered: ‘It is not easy to attain that pleasure with a body so excessively emaciated. Suppose I ate some solid food—some boiled rice and porridge.’ https://suttacentral.net/en/mn36

@БаянКупи-ка Please post answers as an answer, not as a comment.

a) the middle way means that generalisations such as "it is X" and "it is not X" are both wrong, not 'moderation in all things', and b) giving away all your posessions is asceticism, Buddhism is about being a normal human being.

These are common misunderstandings of the middle way. The middle way is best explained through the Buddha's life story.
The Buddha began as a nobleman who had the money for all the indulgence in sensual pleasures which he wanted. However, indulgence in pleasure did not lead to lasting happiness. This is the first extreme. The Buddha then became an ascetic who starved himself and took part in self mortification. This was an attempt at gaining happiness through pain, or indulgence in pain. This is the second extreme and it did not lead to lasting happiness.
The middle way is neither indulgence in pleasure nor indulgence in pain. The middle way is not about moderation, it is about the attitude to indulgence.
Taking a simple example like eating chocolate: There are extremes of never eating chocolate or eating 10 bars of chocolate each day, but eating in moderation such as 1 bar per day is not going to bring about happiness. If you eat 1 bar of chocolate and you treat it as the best thing you've ever tasted then you're already indulging in pleasure. The amount of chocolate is irrelevant. The point is to eat chocolate without doing it to seek pleasure and without doing it to seek pain.
One final common misconception which you didn't mention is "The middle way is for laypeople, monks don't follow the middle way". This misconception comes from the idea that the middle way is moderation. Although monks deny themselves things like sex or perfume this is not a type of indulgence in pain, the purpose of the rules is entirely different. The monks don't try to use perfume in moderation but as I've explained moderation is not the middle way.

This is not true, The Buddha did not say that one only achieves nirvana (the highest happiness) after renouncing the world.
Arahantship or enlightenment is caused by the ending of mental fermentations, defilements, pains, hankers, cankers (asavas), not from merely giving up worldly possessions (this is something repeated throughout the Pali canons).
There were lots of people during The Buddha's time who gave up worldly possessions but did not achieve arahantship.
When Siddartha Gautama did severe austerities (like starving) he found that it had no benefits and just made him weak. When he started eating again after regaining his strength he found it easier to concentrate, but his enlightenment came only after the ending of mental fermentations (asavas).
The Buddha discovered the "Middle way" in between the extremes of austerities and the extremes of a worldly life.
The rules for monks are there to help one achieve arahantship in this lifetime, but arahantship won't come until the ending of mental fermentations, defilements, pains, cankers, taints, hankers (asavas).
When you go too much into the extremes of austerities it becomes difficult to end mental fermentations and when you go too much into the extremes of a worldly life it becomes difficult to end mental fermentations. So it's the "Middle way".
In the Cula-dhammasamadana Sutta (MN 45) The Buddha describes:

Practicing strict painful austerities as a practice that is "painful in the present and yields pain in the future"
Engaging in sensual pleasures as a practice that is "pleasant in the present but yields pain in the future"
Doing good deeds even when experiencing grief and misery as a practice that is "painful in the present but yields pleasure in the future"
Entering higher states (jhanas) as a practice that is "pleasant in the present and yields pleasure in the future"

So it's important to emphasize the ending of mental fermentations (asavas) above everything else as The Buddha himself said that ascetics who torment and afflict the body even while following many of the same rules that Buddhist monks follow lead a life that yields pain in the future (to lower destinations like hell).

“Master Gotama, are there any Ājīvaka ascetics who make an end of suffering when the body breaks up?” “No, Vaccha.”
“But are there any Ājīvaka ascetics who go to heaven when the body breaks up?”
“Vaccha, when I recollect the past ninety-one eons, I can’t find any Ājīvaka ascetics who have gone to heaven, except one; and he taught the efficacy of deeds and action.” (MN 71)

yet renouncement of the world though by itself does not bring about the destruction of taints, is conducive to it

The 'Middle-Way' does not require giving up all worldly possessions. Instead, the Middle-Way states to not engage in sensual pleasures.
A person can have basic worldly possessions ('requisites'), such as food, housing, clothing, medicine, etc, and still practise the Middle-Way.
In short, practising the Middle-Way does not require being a monk or nun.
The 'Middle-Way' was described in the 1st Sermon as the way of life that does not rely on impermanent & unsatisfying sensual pleasures for happiness nor subjects oneself to & attempts to become impervious to pain.
The Middle-Way culminates in the four blissful meditations (jhana) and ultimately Nirvana, which is permanent peace & freedom. The happiness of the Middle Way is far superior to the happiness of sensual & worldly pleasures. Therefore, there is no contradiction.
People are attached to sensual pleasures, which generates suffering when those sensual pleasures cease &/or are lost. Sensual pleasures also create enslaving tormenting addictions. Further, sensual pleasures cannot bring true permanent happiness, which is why people get bored of sensual pleasures and continually search for & acquire new sensual pleasures.
Therefore, from a Buddhist perspective, reliance on sensual pleasures cannot be bring lasting true permanent happiness. The scriptures state:

The Blessed One has said that sensual pleasures are of little satisfaction, much stress, much despair & greater drawbacks. The
  Blessed One has compared sensual pleasures to a chain of bones...to a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a
  pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... the fruits of a
  tree... a butcher's ax and chopping block... swords and spears... a
  snake's head: of much stress, much despair & greater drawbacks."
Alagaddupama Sutta

~~~

And what may be said to be subject to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement? Spouses & children... men & women slaves...
  goats & sheep... fowl & pigs... elephants, cattle, horses, & mares...
  gold & silver are subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement. Subject to aging... illness... death...
  sorrow... defilement are these acquisitions, and one who is tied to
  them, infatuated with them, who has totally fallen for them, being
  subject to birth, seeks what is likewise subject to aging...
  illness... death... sorrow... defilement
Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search

Dhammadhatu, în your first sentence you meant "doesn't", right?

My recollection of the suttas is they say the tendency of desire for sensual pleasures is not abandoned until jhana is reached. The Buddha certainly abandoned sensual pleasures for the 6 years prior to his enlightenment. In fact, he abandoned them while living in the palace. I would prefer you to post you own answer rather than use my post as a place to comment with such a distorted view. The pleasure of sensual pleasures does not & cannot be conducive to the development of Buddhist samadhi. Thank you

@Dhammadhatu happy mind is conducive to concentration not sensual pleasures, I did not say that the pleasure is conducive to samadhi. I

buddhism refers to two kinds of concentration: wrong concentration & right concentration. for example, to aim a gun to kill requires concentration. refer to MN 117. regards

What is the moderate amount of cigarettes to smoke? None.
Moderation in the pursuit of truth is a vice.
Moderation does not mean indulgence.

When the Buddha refers to the Middle Way he wasn't talking about 'moderation' of indulging in desire, he was talking about avoiding the pitfall of extremes. To the Buddha any level of 'moderation' of indulgence in desire is not the Middle Way.

The Buddha calls this path the middle way (majjhima patipada). It is
  the middle way because it steers clear of two extremes, two misguided
  attempts to gain release from suffering. One is the extreme of
  indulgence in sense pleasures, the attempt to extinguish
  dissatisfaction by gratifying desire. This approach gives pleasure,
  but the enjoyment won is gross, transitory, and devoid of deep
  contentment. The Buddha recognized that sensual desire can exercise a
  tight grip over the minds of human beings, and he was keenly aware of
  how ardently attached people become to the pleasures of the senses.
  But he also knew that this pleasure is far inferior to the happiness
  that arises from renunciation, and therefore he repeatedly taught that
  the way to the Ultimate eventually requires the relinquishment of
  sensual desire. Thus the Buddha describes the indulgence in sense
  pleasures as "low, common, worldly, ignoble, not leading to the goal."
The other extreme is the practice of self-mortification, the attempt
  to gain liberation by afflicting the body. This approach may stem from
  a genuine aspiration for deliverance, but it works within the compass
  of a wrong assumption that renders the energy expended barren of
  results. The error is taking the body to be the cause of bondage, when
  the real source of trouble lies in the mind — the mind obsessed by
  greed, aversion, and delusion. To rid the mind of these defilements
  the affliction of the body is not only useless but self-defeating, for
  it is the impairment of a necessary instrument. Thus the Buddha
  describes this second extreme as "painful, ignoble, not leading to the
  goal."
Aloof from these two extreme approaches is the Noble Eightfold Path,
  called the middle way, not in the sense that it effects a compromise
  between the extremes, but in the sense that it transcends them both by
  avoiding the errors that each involves. The path avoids the extreme of
  sense indulgence by its recognition of the futility of desire and its
  stress on renunciation. Desire and sensuality, far from being means to
  happiness, are springs of suffering to be abandoned as the requisite
  of deliverance. But the practice of renunciation does not entail the
  tormenting of the body. It consists in mental training, and for this
  the body must be fit, a sturdy support for the inward work. Thus the
  body is to be looked after well, kept in good health, while the mental
  faculties are trained to generate the liberating wisdom. That is the
  middle way, the Noble Eightfold Path, which "gives rise to vision,
  gives rise to knowledge, and leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to
  enlightenment, to Nibbana."
Cutting Off the Causes of Suffering

Anything short of the Noble Eightfold Path is actually indulgence in sensual pleasure, no matter how 'moderate'.

"Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone
  forth from the house-life. What are the two? There is devotion to
  indulgence of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is
  inferior, low, vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good; and there is
  devotion to self-torment, which is painful, ignoble and leads to no
  good.
"The middle way discovered by a Perfect One avoids both these
  extremes; it gives vision, it gives knowledge, and it leads to peace,
  to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana. And what is that
  middle way? It is simply the noble eightfold path, that is to say,
  right view, right intention; right speech, right action, right
  livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That
  is the middle way discovered by a Perfect One, which gives vision,
  which gives knowledge, and which leads to peace, to direct
  acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana.
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting Rolling the Wheel of Truth

Still more evidence than your claims that the religious leaders corrupted what the Buddha say in order to gain converts. At least that is what the scripture say, and any conventional usage of the 'Buddha said' would basically refer to that. Seriously reflect on yourself please. You are just down voting me out of petty spite now.

There is a good discussion of the Middle Way in this answer.
The Middle Way is not a moderation between the goal of ending suffering and the goal of enjoying material pleasures.
There is only one goal in Buddhism, which is attaining permanent happiness through ending suffering. There is no other goal.
To achieve this goal, the Middle Way of practice is prescribed by the Buddha, in between extreme ascetism and extreme indulgence, and is shown in the Noble Eightfold Path.
The monastic order (which requires renouncing worldly possessions) is just a more intensive training program to achieve the goal of ending suffering. It is designed for faster progress in achieving the goal. However, it is not mandatory. Both lay people and monks can progress in their path, following the Noble Eightfold Path.
The Buddha did not shun the worldly or lay life. For example, you can see how Buddha provided advice on financial management and economics in this answer, this answer and this answer.
In the Sigalovada Sutta, the Buddha taught:

By dividing wealth into four parts, True friendships are bound; One
  part should be enjoyed; Two parts invested in business; And the fourth
  set aside Against future misfortunes.

The same sutta has plenty more advice for the lay life.
In the Maha-vacchagottasutta, the Buddha tells that there have indeed been lay male and female followers of his who had become enlightened. So, that's not impossible.
Also see this answer.

It's impossible to realize path and fruits, the Dhamma, while holding on home and house. To understrand what it means, even that requires one to leave home: Where and what to practice
Only in the homeless state the Noble Eightfold path can be practiced, see especially right resolve.

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

One is wasting his time practicing holding on his house and outward possessions.
Some words for those able to leave home: Out, border and contact with the Noble ones domain
Less are able, are you? You aren't, not knowing letting go.
[Note: This gift is not for householding, trade, exchange, stackes... and if not given to give release here, it should possible be deleted]

'you can attain nirvana only after renouncing worldly possessions?'
no - I meditated to satori 40 years ago - I forget exactly how long it took but maybe about two and a half months - which I only recently read was apparently about the same time as Gautama took.
I live in a house full of junk - have retired with enough money and regularly enjoy overseas travel - but with an empty no-mind free to see with crystal clarity the beauty of the world, I tend to live simply - my partner just told me our carpet has changed colour after 25 years - our 35yo kitchen has not been renovated - it works fine - I drive a 26yo small car - it works perfectly.
So I don't live in the forest under a tree - I live in the centre of city and today enjoyed some wonderful Japanese ice cream treats - but without desire or attachment to things, I could lose the stuff - or my life tomorrow without any worry.
Without Fear - http://users.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/nofear.html

authors: Баян Купи-ка

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

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


text:
Was the prohibition on eating dinner health advice?
This fascinating article describes the Buddha as data driven ascetic.

Buddha took a different approach: His rules were grounded in his own
  experience. Like a lot of us, he tried some crazy diets. But what
  worked for him was very simple. He gave little advice about what his
  monks should eat, but he was very particular about when they should
  eat it. His followers were basically free to eat anything they were
  given — even meat — but only between the hours of dawn and noon.
Like any good data scientist, Buddha learned to ignore the outliers.
  Buddha didn’t give a mystical or supernatural explanation for this odd
  time restriction. But he was pretty sure it would improve their
  health. He had tested it on himself. “Because I avoid eating in the
  evening, I am in good health, light, energetic, and live comfortably,”
  he explained. “You, too, monks, avoid eating in the evening, and you
  will have good health.”

The article goes on to discuss the empirical results of calorie restriction diets with mice.
Now, what I'd like to know, is there any grounds to believe that the Buddha had health in mind when he suggested not eating dinner?
I've read that many vinaya rules were based on how the laity would see the Sangha- eat lots would make the sangha look like gluttons, so they only took two meals.
Also, Nikaya Buddhism's central problem to be solved was desire & aversion, so it was the fixation on hunger that was the problem, not that dinner was making one fat, unhealthy or short-lived.

See also What is the purpose of not eating after noon?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you looking for a reference (e.g. sutta) for the bit you quoted (where the Buddha claims to have good health as a result of not eating in the evening, and exhorts monks to do the same)? Are you asking whether health is one of many reasons, and asking for a list of all the various doctrinal reasons? Are you asking whether current/modern science (about diets) has an opinion about whether such a habit is relatively healthy, and in what way ... what the pros and/or cons are?

I'm skeptical that the Buddha said skip dinner because it's good for your health, which the article author seems to say. I'm wondering if there are past or present texts or dharma teachers that support the idea that this is about health.

Oh look at that, it does have support in the Sutra: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3758/289

suttas and in some cases the Vinaya are the first thing to be checked when verifying Buddha's statements

I'm skeptical that the Buddha said skip dinner because it's good for your health

Yes if I hadn't read it I'd be skeptical too. It sounds a bit contrary to the primary/normal message: almost as if the Buddha were giving advice on how to be rich or become wealthy!
Nevertheless there are other seemingly-health-related suttas, for example Ittha Sutta,

It's not fitting for the disciple of the noble ones who desires long life to pray for it or to delight in doing so. Instead, the disciple of the noble ones who desires long life should follow the path of practice leading to long life. In so doing, he will attain long life, either human or divine.

The above (which also describes Beauty, Happiness, Status, and Rebirth in heaven as welcome, agreeable, pleasant) is addressed to a householder.
Dharmafarer's introduction to MN 70 talks about untimely eating on pages 1 and 2: it mentions "health" and also other reasons, and says that the rules (or prohibitions) were phased in gradually to let the monks adjust gradually.
Also I think it says (on pages 2 and 3) that the monks being addressed in this Sutta were monks but not very good monks: who were eventually expelled from the Sangha. Perhaps, who knows, "health" is mentioned in this sutta because it's appropriate to the audience, i.e. of several reasons (for skipping dinner) the Buddha chose one (health) which he thought had the best chance of appealing to this particular audience.

My recollection is the rule about not eating after noon was to stop monks going on alms round at inappropriate times of the day, including at night, where they could frighten lay people. You can research the 'Vinaya' for this.
There certainly is a sutta where the Buddha states he enjoys good health by eating once a day but my recollection is that is not the rationale, which is why many monks today eat twice per day.

When these staple foods go beyond their time limit (i.e., after noon) a bhikkhu will incur an offence if he consumes them. The original
  story shows the complications that can arise from leaving the
  monastery at the wrong time:
The 'group-of-seventeen' bhikkhus — another set of frequent misdoers — went out one afternoon to enjoy themselves at a festival outside the
  city. When lay people saw them they gave them a meal and food to take
  back to the monastery. The Buddha therefore laid down this rule:
"Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non- staple food at the wrong time, it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 37; BMC p.362)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/ariyesako/layguide.html#begging

I doubt the advice was for health purposes even if it may improve health. It was probably to improve self-discipline for monks and is stated as a sign of a monk's virtue:

"He eats only once a day, refraining from the evening meal and from
  food at the wrong time of day." (Apannaka Sutta, MN 60)

Now modern science shows that eating too much is bad probably because the body wasn't designed to be digesting food all the time. The FMD (Fast Mimicking Diet) has gained popularity as well showing great health benefits so far.
One meal a day (with calorie requirements) may or may not improve health, but will certainly improve self-discipline.

My understanding is that the reason for no meal after noon was two fold. First, it was inconvenient for people to have monks come begging at that time of day, and people had leftovers in the morning from the previous day.
Second, monks who spend a lot of time meditating do not require as much food (calories) as the average person. Buddha said that we should eat according to the needs of the body. That means not only when you eat, but also what you eat. Not a problem in ancient times, but consider modern times when monks are given junk food. Many of them now have diabetes.

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
Be like water - but what if i fail
Be like water - but what if i fail
i really like the quote "be like water"  and wanted to live by it  -  but the problems was what happenes when i fail - when i cant meditate or more truly too lazy to meditate - and always take a few days break no matter what ?
because water don't fail - they don't take a break -  so when i do fail and not meditate and get lazy it breaks my whole motivation cause the "be like water"    theory doesn't work cause water don't stop and get back up
can someone here help me find some explanation to make the "be like water" quote reasonable to failing as well
This is not a buddhist connected idea directly - but i ask this to help my practice - and its very very important for me if i get a good reply  - very wholsome kamma    +++  plus its more related to the practice than   other questions ive seen here before

Breath, how about, instead of focusing on having a meditation schedule, you meditate all the time? You have thoughts about having to meditate - say "thinking,  thinking" etc. Give it a try.

From where or from whom did you hear, or read, the expression, "Be like water"?

@ChrisW. My guess is Bruce Lee. He says it in one of his videos.

If "be like water" is Buddhist, it sounds to me like an Eastern form of it (i.e. Chan or Zen).
One view/aspect of Chan or Zen is that it's the result of Buddhism's mixing with Taoism.
If you want to know more about "be like water", one place to find that might be in the (Taoist, not Buddhist) Tao Te Ching, for example,

The supreme good is like water,
  which nourishes all things without trying to.
  It is content with the low places that people disdain.
  Thus it is like the Tao.
In dwelling, live close to the ground.
  In thinking, keep to the simple.
  In conflict, be fair and generous.
  In governing, don't try to control.
  In work, do what you enjoy.
  In family life, be completely present.
When you are content to be simply yourself
  and don't compare or compete,
  everybody will respect you.

For example, you wrote,

because water dont fail - they dont take a break - so when i do fail and not meditate and get lazy it breaks my whole motivation cause the "be like water" theory dosnt work cause water dont stop and get back up

The Tao Te Ching has imagery of water occupying the low places, the valleys:

All streams flow to the sea
  because it is lower than they are.
  Humility gives it its power.

I'm not sure I understood your question, but if you find yourself in a low place, maybe that (where you are, in the low, in the place) is where you meditate: without self-striving to get back up before you do.
Also, water has three states: vapour rises, water flows, ice is more solid. When you wrote, when I read, "I fail", I thought of that as being more like ice than being like water: because it sounds like a fixed/solid view of "I" ... instead of a natural/flowing view (I'm not sure how water could be said to fail).
Also I think that Zen meditation posture includes being solidly planted/rooted on/with the ground.
Also, on topic, a different example of being like water, here is one story: Great Waves. I'm not sure what "bashful" means in the story, I suppose it's a harmful or confused or ignorant form of being 'self-conscious'.

im meditate for some years - always falling back and stoping the meditation - i cant get a constant regular practice - i have a teacher - he dosnt have any advice to motivate me - from theravada tradition    -   i tried meditating 1 minute each day -  meditating 2 hours full force -  tried listening to dhamma talks - avoiding meditation
im really desperate now  - if i dont have self striving than i just wont meditate
i liked the "be like water"  thing - though it falls apart for me because water dosnt stop for a few weeks

also im getting a why try attitode - its not as if i didnt try i did 3-4 retreats - i practice for some years - and try several different approaches but i always stop - even when i say i wont  - cant meditate constantly (each day)  more than a month maximum - and usually its much less - 2 weeks tops
and i retried to get a constant practice so many times - i need some motivation or some technique and i cant find it in buddhism at least now - so thought maybe i can "translate" the be like water thing to my needs

Isn't it like breathing: i.e. you meditate when you have/feel a need to?

never - i dont enjoy meditation at all - dont feel a need for it - if i have a good meditaiton it can be bearable  /// and the way i meditate which is how youttdhammo teaches -  it brings up a lot of stuff - which you are mindful of and let go of  - but it brings up a lot of stuff - and they are not nice stuff - at least the ones i notice more lol

This is wrong. Chan and Zen is not Taoism.
"As a master of the Buddha Dharma, Dogen naturally regarded Taoism and Confucianism to be of minor significance in contrast to Buddhism.  ... Moreover, Dogen describes the failure of distinguishing between them as slandering Taoism and Confucianism as much as slandering Buddhism. ... To recklessly discuss them as all having one and the same principle is to slander the Buddha Dharma"
http://dogenandtheshobogenzo.blogspot.com/2010/07/shobogenzo-tao-of-mythical-expression.html

@Yinxu My apologies ... I thought that, historically, Chan and Taoism are somewhat connected (see e.g. Introduction of Buddhism in China (ca. 200-500)). I didn't recognize the OP's "Be like water" statement from the suttas, but it did remind me of the Tao Te Ching.

I would say they are connected in the sense that many of the converts were themselves formerly Taoists, but they also perhaps unsurprisingly stated the superiority of the Buddhadharma - Taoism after all does not have an explicit way to end suffering. Many masters such as Kukai of Shingon even wrote essays discussing Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism and stating that Buddhism is ultimately superior. They are not denying that there are truths within Taoism per se, but that Buddhism go much further than the other two.

@breath. Vipassana meditation is not meant to be pleasant or to make one feel good. Its meant to allow one to see reality clearly - to see our own defilements and work with them. This is not a joy ride. Its hard work looking at the stuff we normally wouldnt want looking at. Don't be too hard on yourself. This is not an easy path. The easy path would be to just let the mind attach to whatever it wants and don't care about purification of mind.

You're clinging to your theory. Clinging causes fear of letting it go. And hence your predicament. Let it be.

Sounds like you're in some kind of meditation crisis. From what I've read it seems to me that you on the one hand think of meditation as something beneficial (because you want to practice it daily), but on the other hand are currently a bit aversed to meditation and yourself (when you find yourself unable to do it). And as a result you experience frustration because your practice is not as you want it to be.
You should definitely check if you push yourself too hard or if you are too serious about your practice. Because if you try too hard and are too hard with yourself, a natural response of the mind is to resist and dislike. This makes it hard to meditate and you feel guilty because you can't keep up with your expectations...
I've read in one comment you practice according to the technique of Ven. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu. I don't think I'm in a position where I could give you the right advise how to deal with this. But according to this technique you would try to be objective about your emotions when they arise or are present by saying to yourself "unmotivated, unmotivated ..", "disliking, disliking ...", "frustrated, frustrated ...", "overwhelmed, overwhelmed ...", "thinking, thinking ...", "bored, bored ...".
It's probably best to discuss this with a teacher. If you don't meet with one, you can start an online course with Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu at https://meditation.sirimangalo.org/schedule and ask him for advice. This would probably help you with your motivation as well.

"Be like water" - so when you fail you keep going. There is no going back. You keep going and learning will happen (almost) by itself.

Nothing will happen if you fail Buddhist practise, apart from not have higher (non-sensual) free happiness & not being able to be free from suffering when inevitable life changes occur, such as aging, illness, loss & death occur.
If you don't have higher happiness, you can still chase pleasures in the world (if you enjoy them) as ordinary people do, such as watching TV, relationships, family, traveling, sports, etc.
If you don't know how to end suffering, you can still suffer, cry, hug & celebrate at funerals or fear your own death, as ordinary people do.
That's about it. If you fail Buddhist practise, God or Buddha will not punish you and there is no nasty reincarnation waiting for you.
Please try to relax about Buddhism because Buddhism exists to free people from suffering rather than to create suffering in people.
If you listen to the wrong teachers, Buddhism can certainly create suffering for you.
Ideally, Buddhism is practised to overcome suffering a person is already aware of. There is no point consuming medicine if you are not sick or using a fire-water-hose when there is no discernible fire occurring. A fire-water-hose is heavy & will just bring weariness if used for no reason.
The reasons why we practise meditation should come from motivation from within us (rather than from what other people & teachers tell us).

Everything comes in cycles.  There have obviously been times you feel very dedicated and enthusiastic. There are times you are completely the opposite.  Keep it in your head that these are both constructs, basically just ephemeral thoughts and feelings that pass and don't cling to them and call them me. You are most definitely attaching yourself to "be like water".  Stop it. Know that that too is a mental construct and not real - let go of it. You just go to the mat and sit and keep pulling yourself back no matter how distracted you get. Everyone goes though these periods - just sustain. Maybe instead of "be like water" you should take a practice of "let go" and give it a try - whatever mental image you get just "let go".

There is a lot of confusion here. "Be like water" is a quote popularized by Bruce Lee. His philosophy is to become fluid and adaptable like water, being able to fit into any container, with special attention to the application of martial arts and fighting. This is a goal founded in Taoism, aiming to harmonize with the universe.
The Buddha although often using the metaphors of the elements including water in his discourses for the practice of the Dharma. For example: entering the stream of the Noble Eightfold Path, which steadily flows towards the ocean of enlightenment.
The problem is when you stretch the metaphor too far. Like you pointed out, water is passive. This is great if you are trying to resist the pulls of external forces of aversion and craving, you still your mind into non reactivity.

"Develop the meditation in tune with water. For when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with water, agreeable & disagreeable
  sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your
  mind. Just as when people wash what is clean or unclean in water —
  feces, urine, saliva, pus, or blood — the water is not horrified,
  humiliated, or disgusted by it; in the same way, when you are
  developing the meditation in tune with water, agreeable & disagreeable
  sensory impressions that have arisen will not stay in charge of your
  mind.

Maha-Rahulovada Sutta: The Greater Exhortation to Rahula
However, a fundamental aspect of the Buddhadharma Noble Eightfold Path is Right Effort.

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

The definition (the four Right Exertions)
We cannot possibly be 'non reactive' like water without some serious work cultivating ourselves when faced with cravings and aversion, because we are steeped in our bad habits.

Abandoning the wrong factors of the path "One tries to abandon wrong
  view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve:
  This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This
  is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This
  is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right
  livelihood: This is one's right effort."

Without doing so, we are not actually practicing the Buddhadharma and will go nowhere. And our claims of being like water will only be empty conceptualizations.
Further more, else where in the canon, the Buddha compares a mind that is overwhelmed by afflictions to a bowl of water that is tainted:

"Well, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and
  overwhelmed by sense-desires, and does not know, as it really is, the
  way of escape from sense-desires that have arisen, then he cannot know
  or see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, nor can he know
  and see what is to the profit of others, or of both himself and
  others. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not clear to
  him, not to mention those he has not studied.
"Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark
  green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the
  reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it
  really was. In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart
  possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires... then he cannot know or
  see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of
  others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long
  studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not studied.
"Again, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and
  overwhelmed with ill-will... then he cannot know or see...
"Imagine a bowl of water, heated on a fire, boiling up and bubbling
  over. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of
  his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was...
"Again, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and
  overwhelmed by sloth-and-torpor... then he cannot know or see...
"Imagine a bowl of water covered over with slimy moss and
  water-plants. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the
  reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it
  really was...
"Again, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and
  overwhelmed by worry-and-flurry... then he cannot know or see...
"Imagine a bowl of water ruffled by the wind, so that the water
  trembled, eddied and rippled. If a man with good eyesight were to look
  at the reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it
  as it really was...
"Again, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and
  overwhelmed by doubt-and-wavering... he cannot know or see...
"Imagine a bowl of water, agitated, stirred up muddied, put in a dark
  place. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the reflection of
  his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it really was. In
  the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart possessed and
  overwhelmed by doubt-and-wavering... then he cannot know or see, as it
  really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of others, to the
  profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long studied are not
  clear to him, not to mention those he has studied.

Sangaravo Sutta: Sangarava The Hindrances
Here the goal isn't simply to be/have water, but to have pure water.

I didn't know that quote was popularized by Bruce Lee. I guess that Bruce Lee may have got that simile from martial arts -- apparently Bruce Lee's teacher taught him chi sao (sticking hands), and I guess that chi sao is more or less the same as tuishou from (taoist) Tai Chi, therefore a soft/internal style (although the little I remember of Bruce Lee's "fights" in movies looked like a 'hard' style).

Taoist based martial artists like to make this distinction between 'hard' and 'soft' style, often as a form of promotion, ultimately hard and soft are only relative distinctions. The soft styles still hit pretty hard, and the hard styles often have subtle techniques.
Speaking of which, when I was younger I used to practice wushu, which was a good healthy exercise, but it's only from learning Buddhism that I have found solace from the feelings of anxiety and stress.

Well "water" seems relatively soft or yin to me, which is why I mentioned that; but I suppose water can be/become hard, too. I learned and liked to practice a Tai Chi form (the Chen first/long form, which takes about 20 minutes). I found that to be exercise (strengthen legs, improve posture), and stress-relief: stress-relief, partly from having an activity to think about, and as learning and practice was a social activity, but most especially when I learned to coordinate my breathing (inhale and exhale) with the form.

When I first began my path as a Buddhist practitioner I faced a very similar problem. It can be hard at times especially when you're not feeling motivated. It can even feel like a war between the ego and the will. I hope by giving you a few practical tips which maybe useful for your practice. Remember to only take what works for you. No one is the same and what works for one person may not for another.

Make it a personal habit to listen to the Dharma both in the morning and at night. The Dharma will help guide you, motivate you, and support you through the help of the Sangha. For myself, I enjoy listening to Dharmaseed.org and the San Francisco Zen Center. Both offer talks which I find very encouraging especially on my harder days. Sometimes if I'm feeling miserable I will even listen to a talk by Ajahn Brahm. He has a true gift in making personal matters just wash away.
learn to build discipline through the simple things in life. Believe it or not I first began my discipline through drinking black coffee. It may sound small to most people, but through it I found a wonderful practice. Now, because I began with small steps I only eat two meals a day; and occasionally do whole day fasts.
Remind yourself to live without any goals, with no aim, and with no targets. This isn't to say you're avoiding your responsibilities, quite the contrary, instead you're now focusing on your responsibilities without adding stress, impatience, and other hindrances caused by desire. You'll never become a mathematician by thinking of becoming a mathematician, but only by doing math.

Now let's consider your quote on "Being [/ Becoming] like Water". A quote I found by Bruce Lee gives a fantastic overview by what is meant by becoming like water,

"Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend."

The lesson behind becoming like water is to separate the notion of doing and the doer. Suzuki Roshi, an American Zen teacher, once said

"There are, strictly speaking, no enlightened people, there is only enlightened activity."

If you are looking for a more practical approach to "Being like Water" than I recommend practicing Shikantaza also known as "just-to-sit" or "just-sitting". That is, we don't practice sitting Zazen to gain anything but to sit. There is nothing more and nothing less. There are no distinctions between the sitter and the sitting. There are no distinctions between the walker and the walking. There are no distinctions between the sleeper and the act of sleeping. It simply just is. The moment you say "I am walking" or "I am sitting" you are no longer the water.

Be fluid water.
Grab it stab it unchanging.
Resilient rock.

Your answer sounds like a Haiku Poem, but it does not have the 5 syllable: 7 syllable: 5 syllable format.  I wonder whether this is a "seriously bad haiku" or what?

@SapthaVisuddhi The OP's simile was "Be like water" and I think the purpose of this answer is to add adjectives to explain that simile: be fluid (like water), e.g. not rigid or static or attached to obsolete mental conceptions; be unchanging (like water), i.e. unaffected/untroubled/unchanged when someone or something tries to grab or stab you; and resilient like rock, i.e. impersonal, don't take things 'personally' which would make you fragile.

Great explanation @ChrisW. I am so sorry but I never so it in this light. Now I'll have to take back the above comment that I made. At the time of my writing the above, I was thinking of Ven. Sariputta's lion'n roar, that he is by nature, like the earth, water, fire and wind. It was that quality of water that I had in mind.


text:
How many countries did Lord Buddha travel?
While reading about Lord Buddha I found that he traveled to some other countries. But I couldn't find exactly how many countries. Does anyone know the answer for this?

Solosmasthana are 16 sacred places in Sri Lanka, that Gautama Buddha is said to have visited. Buddha is said to have visited the country three times and on one occasion, the  footprint of the Buddha was placed symbolizing the Buddha's presence. The sacred left footprint is said to be imprinted by Buddha on his third visit to Sri Lanka at the apex of the Sri Pada Mountain. There are two other places that the Buddha is said to have visited and placed the sacred footprint. One is in Thailand, and the other is at Sunaparanta – the present day Saudi Arabia, & at the Kaabah.

What is your source about the Buddha visiting present-day Saudi Arabia? It doesn't sound very likely, and the documents you linked don't mention it either.

It is said that Buddha came three times to Lankapura from Janbudveepa (Mahavamsa Commentaries written by Bhikku Mahanama). This was written  after 600 years of Buddha’s parinirvana.  The footprint that is left by the Buddha @ Sri Pada (Adam's Peak) during the third & final visit to Sri Lanka, is said to be identical to that of the Kaabah, Mecca. The Muslims believe that it is the footprint of Prophet Hazrat Adam. The footprint in Sri Pada is there for everyone to see, but no one will ever get to compare and contrast the two footprints, as the precinct of Kaabah is out of bounds to everyone.

It is possible that Buddha visited Saudi Arabia but wasn’t Jambudvipa earth and other three continents are invisible to people who doesn’t have the divine eye?

i tried to look for document i read a few years back but no luck. Maybe someone saw the same document as i did and has a better luck finding it.  Someone have compiled a list of places mentioned in the beginning of suttas to map out Buddha's where about at each raining season.  He stayed in Jettawana grove the longest for 20 years, next was monastery (i dont remember the name) built by lady Visaka for 10 years, 5 years or less in other places such as one built by his physician Jivaka (i believe it was mango grove), Bamboo groove (Veluvana) etc.  If you go by the record in these sutta, Buddha did not travel beyond what currently are India and Napal.

Maybe just over what is currently the border with Nepal, too?

oh yes, and Lumbini, Nepal.

During the rains retreat (vassa), Buddha generally stayed in one place. See HERE  for a detailed description of these places.

FYI, I know Lord Buddha Visited Sri Lanka 3 Times..

@RANSARA009 I suppose that 'knowledge' is based on Sri Lanka's Mahavamsa, and/or on its precursor the Dipavamsa.

Load budhdha was born in jambudeepa in india(nepal). Srilanka is not budhdha's born contry. jambudeepa is not ancient srilanka. some one early mentioned  "janbudeepa is ancient sri lanka " this details are not correct. Its completly wrong so used refferences also wrong.that refferences were writen by some crazy person. If this writer's age is 75y he is think only his experience he was wrote books what he think about budhda it is not through and there is no other histrorical sourse say like this. But sri lanka has 2500 years histrorical books so eny one can understand read with mahawanshaya and thripitakaya. Gawthama budhda was born in India(nepal ) not sri lanka.thats the historical through.

Buddha traveled other than by foot. Hard to explain to those who are restricted to a sentient world. Best way to explain is teleportation through the mind. The Buddha is an enlightened person whose mind has become one with the cosmos. He sees and feels the universe. In Buddhist literature, it is known that the Buddha visited other domains or realms. He is even said to have visited his mother and preached the dhamma. Travelling on foot is the sentient perception, which cannot see how the Buddha traveled through teleportation. For this reason, historians and observers around him would have never seen or known where he went in this form of travel, because all they would know is him in deep meditation. That they confirm and mention that between 2 and 4 am he preached to the devas (gods). The historic record in Sri Lanka of Buddha's visits is similar to teleportation, which in Sanskrit was called Iridi.

In the case of Lord Buddha visiting countries out of India, there are no credible evidence to show that he left the Ganges Plains during his lifetime. He mostly travelled on foot. The stories of him miraculously flying or appearing in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia or otherwise were mere stories generated by Buddhist missionaries working towards establishing the religion in those countries after the death of Lord Buddha. This was done in order to invoke religious legitimacy by making Buddhism relate to the inhabitants of those lands. It worked well I must say its a smart missionary tactic.

Welcome to the site. Please don't disparage or "attack" other schools of Buddhism -- it isn't necessary, instead it's enough to explain what your own view of a topic is.

Noted with thanks. I was not trying to attack a sect trying to mislead and edit Buddhist history, I was trying to show that they were wrong since the topic is in discussion in the comments below. Thank you.

India is not the land of lord buddha. The british conquers changed and misunderstood the history of india and sri lanka. Lord Buddha born in JAMBUDEEPA. Jambudeepa is ancient sri lanka. A part of ancient sri lanka was known as Jambudeepa. Sri lanka is the lowest gravity country in the world where the Lord Buddha born. India was never known as Jambudeepa. Indian history has no records of buddha. But Sri lanka has many records. Buddha never visited any country. Lord Buddha travelled only in the island of ancient sri lanka. (helabima). Mahawansa is about the histroy of ancient sri lanka. Dambadiva and Jambudeepa refer to sri lanka. But people misunderstood it.
References:

Gautama Buddha was born in Hela Bima
Gautama Buddha was born in Hela Bima (Volume II)

Could you share citations?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2m3yxwhl8zgaS1EZmx3b2VteTQ/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2m3yxwhl8zgMk9kSFFnVkJVM0k/view


text:
Why should I study the Suttas?
If the Buddha said that we shouldn't take his teachings as dogma, but rather try to experience for ourselves what realization is--why should we study the scriptures?

Why / why do you study Buddhism?

Is that a question or an edit suggestion?

It's appended by a "?", does that help you?

It's still not clear to me. Is that just a question or an edit suggestion?

My guess was that @avatarKorra asked the question to get more insight into Javier's motives and reasons, and/or their history and their current relationship with Buddhism: perhaps avatarKorra is thinking that if the question were longer, if it explained more about "why do you study Buddhism", then we'd be better able to give a personal/specific answer your question which was "why study the suttas". All we've been told about Javier at the moment is that they're a Soto Zen meditator, and even that's not explicit in the question.

I'm not a Buddhism scholar. I'm just a practitioner. I love Zazen, but I'm not into dogma. So I guess I'm here in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. @avatarKorra

If the Buddha said that we shouldn't take his teachings as dogma, but rather try to experience for ourselves what realization is--why should we study the scriptures?

First, one should study the scriptures so one is not caught on hearsay of what the Buddha might have taught. Moreover, how can one expect to learn the teachings of the Buddha while at the same time ignoring the teachings of the Buddha?
Having said that, besides being understood as a religion or carrying a philosophy, Buddhism carries a pedagogy and much of what the Buddha taught is a training, and like all training, it is intimately associated with technique (pretty much anything that requires repetitive practice is an exercise on technique).
By comparison, take anything else that requires training and technique, like martial arts, for example. With the dedication to study and practice guided by a master, one can expect you to become a master yourself, perfectly fluent in the craft, in this life time. But turn your eyes away and ignore those who came before you, and the likelihood is that you might not develop yourself at all, much less, become a master yourself -- possibly, will hurt yourself before there's any significant progress.
In another analogy, take calculus. It's not so hard to learn what Newton created by studying his work. However, it's very hard to come up with and invent calculus yourself.
Now note, it's not impossible to progress alone in any path -- some of them did have someone to pave the way after all. It just requires a certain commitment, a high endurance to failures and skills that is really rare. On that vein, some people may entertain the idea of trying alone anyway -- but then, the goal is not something like achieving nirvana (or understand calculus) but something else (like being recognized as someone who did it all by oneself -- a strange devotion to the very ego one is trying to destroy, one could say).
Now, to explain why a teacher would say to avoid taking the lessons as dogma, imagine for example a martial arts student copying and memorizing the lessons and boasting others by how well he has memorized -- but who could not perform a single move of what has been taught. Such student would likely have the teacher telling him "hey, don't take what I say as a dogma, but experience [the movements in order to learn]".

"Moreover, how can one expect to learn the teachings of the Buddha while at the same time ignoring the teachings of the Buddha?" Good point but  It could be helpful for some types of students to learn , at least in the very beginning, from a good teacher without studying a word. All the strong wrong view a student can develop even with a teacher explaining can profoundly retard progress. There is nothing like directly experiencing the teachings. Then again not everyone can have that kind of faith in a teacher.

Indeed! if one is studying Buddhism with someone who teaches what the buddha taught, one is certainly not ignoring the teachings of the Buddha.

Yes of course. I was just making a comment that I thought was worth mentioning, I certainly wasn't disagreeing with you :)

The suttas say to realise the Buddha's teachings. If we do not read any teachings that provide a guide to what is to be realised then doing it all by ourselves will be very difficult; maybe impossible.
Even if we master meditation and have strong realisations of 'emptiness' ('sunnata'), there remains important knowledge (both mundane & transcendent) necessary for mature realisation found in the suttas.
Many individuals in various esoteric traditions have realisations of 'emptiness' ('selflessness') but lack the maturity of vision as the Buddha, including within what is currently known as 'Buddhism'.

The term that the Buddha used to describe his disciples was ‘savakas’, that is to say, listeners or hearers. The importance of listening to Dhamma is clear from this, [and THIS ]. Today we are unable to hear his teachings directly from the Buddha. The next best thing is the Suttas that contain a close record of the Buddha’s own words. Meditation without the Dhamma is not sufficient. The Suttas describe five conditions through which we can become Ariya, a Noble One. They are: Listening to the Dhamma, Teaching the Dhamma, Repeating the Dhamma, Reflecting on the Dhamma, Meditating. This shows that only one of the four factors are within meditation, the other four are out of meditation, ie. listening, teaching, repeating and reflecting on the Dhamma. For this we have to refer to the Buddha’s original discourses found in the Anguttara, Samyutta, Digha and Majjhima Nikayas.

"If the Buddha said that we shouldn't take his teachings as dogma, but rather try to experience for ourselves what realization is--why should we study the scriptures?"
The Buddha isn't saying his teachings aren't true. He wants his students to  be objective, be impartial and not just believe the teachings because he is saying words.
He want's his students to put the eightfold path into practice and see for themselves.
   Most people can't just spontaniously become enlightened. Everyone can't be as lucky as Krishnamurti.
Have you heard of J Krishnamurti? If not, maybe you would like him.  He is supposed to have had some kind of spontaneous enlightenment and after that he gave many speeches were he always strongly advocated no method, no path, no scriptures and no teacher.
What Krishnamurti talks about is very similar to the Buddha's teaching but in in my opinion, Krishnamurti misunderstood what the Buddha's teaching  is about, ironically.

I would like you to explain a little about dogmatism in degree.
There are three containers-

One is opened, you can put anything what you like. It is like a general container in garage. You do not limit/categorize what you are going to put inside the container. There no specific rule or guide that what can store in it or/and how to. You just put things just like that.
Second container is open too, but you cannot put anything you like. It is like labeled container in kitchen. You can only put certain things related to kitchen.
Third and last container is closed, sealed. You can put nothing inside. Extreme of disapproval, no standing ground.

Here, people who study Buddha's Dhamma is like second container. They read Suttas as guide, or manual book to understand how to choose good ingredients to store them in it.
When "Buddha said that we shouldn't take his teachings as dogma", it means you should not follow the guide/manual book blindly. (Let's say if the pickle are not safe to be consumed, you will not put it in container and store for later use.) In Buddhism, you have your right to criticize Buddha's teachings. You can discuss, consult with anyone here/anywhere about what you seem not in the right way in Buddha's teachings. But you have first yet to know what Buddha teachings are. That is where you should read Suttas in where you can find the teachings. If you don't listen to someone when he/she is saying, you will not know his/her saying is good or bad.

One factor of the Noble Eightfold Path is Right view (sammaditthi).
Without Right view as taught by the Buddha whatever you practise is not Buddhadhamma.
Suttas study allows one to find out what actually goes into the Right view.
Besides this suttas contain a lot of advice with regard to the practice and explain many finer points of the Dhamma.
I'm not sure that the Buddha said verbatim that we shouldn't take his teachings as dogma. However what I know he did say is that the Dhamma is a raft, when one needs to cross over the stream (samsara) to the other shore (nibbana) this raft is indispensable, but it can be discarded when the other shore has been reached.
So without the Dhamma as it has been taught by the Buddha the prospects of realizing nibbana are extremely faint, practically non-existent.
And if one adheres to the idea that the Buddha's teaching shouldn't be taken as a dogma, how then one is to verify that what they practises and follows is the genuine Buddhadhamma and not their own diluted makeshift version of that?
The Dhamma is not only hard and fast rules, but also principles by which to be guided in life so it's skillful, conducive to personal development and leads to good kammic results. It's not about dogma, it's about what's beneficial. One either accepts these principles, seeing their benefit, or one doesn't, and the latter case means that a person doesn't accept the Dhamma in its entirety, which indicates deficiency of the Right view.