text:
Body scanning feels a little stressful
I feel a little stressed out when I move my attention through the body to observe the sensations. I am able to meditate far better if I focus on the entire body as a whole and feel sensations wherever they come up.
Is this acceptable in the S. N. Goenka Vipassana technique or is it important that a mediator scan the body part by part?

I can't speak for the method taught by S. N. Goenka, I only know the part by part sweeping method (link to a detailed talk by Ayya Khema about the benefits of it), but I guess you do the same thing. As for this method it is quite usual to get stressed or tensed, because you have to be much more focused on the experience you may or may not find at the current spot you're keeping your attention on.
 Ayya Khema said it would be a very good sign if you get a feeling of nausea coming up when practicing it for the first time. In another context I heard a different teacher saying that it's like after cleaning your clothes your washbasin is full of dirt (because it was on your clothes). It may be similar with this technique since you have to notice all kinds of feelings or emotions.
She also mentioned that if you really don't like to practice this certain method, you'll benefit the most from doing it :)

I can't speak for the method taught by S. N. Goenka but practise must always be balanced. It is not skilful to suppress or push down the mind (into the body) in such as way that suppresses or traps stress within the body (rather than allows stress to break up & rise up out of the body).
To release stress out of the body requires some degree of 'openness' of mind.
Focusing on the entire body as a whole sounds more closely aligned to the Buddha's teachings about letting go. As long as the mind is alert & quiet (i.e., not too lax in terms of letting distractions arise), focusing on the entire body as a whole is good method.
Below is a famous scripture about too much & too little effort.

Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to restlessness, overly slack
  persistence leads to laziness. Thus you should determine the right
  pitch for your persistence, attune the pitch of the [five] faculties
  [to that], and there pick up your theme.
Sona
   Sutta

I certainly feel like the guitar string is way too tight when I try to sweep my attention across the body. Perhaps... I think it is because somehow there is an attempt to co-ordinate my breathing with the sweeping. It's not like I am doing it consciously. It just happens. And that causes stress. OTOH if I focus on the entire body and just notice sensations as they arise then the breathing happens without any stress.


text:
Is it okay to seek financial gains as a layman?
I work in a highly competitive market, and often people around me only talk about money or finances or the global economy day in and day out. A few of my friends/interns were attracted to Buddhism after I told them about meditation recently. Some of them became lay practitioners, but are now questioning what seems to be a contradictory lifestyle.
In short, is having a goal of seeking financial success and money considered an attachment to the world? Is this contradictory to the Buddhist path of humility? Thank you.

Contrary to the popular belief, Buddhist way of life does not start with the eradication of attachment.Detached nature is a quality of final realization but definitely not the main part of the process. The noble eight fold path starts with right-view(Samma Ditti). If the path is correctly followed, the final destination will be free of suffering which is caused by attachment. Worldly beings are attached to the sensual world due to a false view(ignorance). Therefore, it is important to clear the vision first rather than removing attachment. Because it would be something forceful and artificial which leads to more problems.
This is clearly evident in Buddha's main lay disciples such as Anatapindika, Vishakha or King Bimbisara who were successful in worldly life as well as supra-mundane life.
All in all, aspiring financial success is not against the path as long as you are doing it in a right way(Samma Ajiva) and your main goal in life is the cessation of suffering.

A good sutta to read is Dighajanu (Vyagghapajja) Sutta: To Dighajanu (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.054.than.html)

Original Pali Buddhism makes a clear distinction between the monks & the lay followers. If you are a lay person, generally you must  earn a living or wealth, i.e., 'money'.
The Buddha praised laypeople who were skilled at making money in a harmless enough manner, particularly when they were not attached to & shared their wealth (SN 42.12).

There, Gāmaṇi, the one partaking sensuality amassing wealth by
  righteous means and non forceful means, who with that wealth pleases
  himself, shares with others and does merit, not greedy, not infatuated
  and innocent about that wealth he partakes in it seeing the danger and
  wise about the escape from it. Gāmaṇi, this one partaking sensuality
  is praised for these four counts. What four? Amasses wealth
  righteously and non-forcefully this is the first praise. He pleases
  himself this is the second praise. He shares and does merit, this is
  the third praise. He is not greedy, not infatuated, innocent about
  that wealth and partakes it seeing the danger and wise about the
  escape from it. This is the fourth praise.
Rāsiyo Sutta

In short, Buddhism does not extol poverty & recognises Livelihood as a requisite of life (rather than as an attachment).
However, if money is used for engaging in unwholesome types of sensual pleasures & vain luxury, which lead to strong addictions & egoism, this is contrary to the Buddhist way of life (since addictions & egoism generate suffering).
Some more quotes below:

he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation...This is the way leading
  to poverty...MN 135

~~~

There are these four kinds of bliss that can be attained in the proper
  season, on the proper occasions, by a householder partaking of
  sensuality. Which four? The bliss of having, the bliss of [making use
  of] wealth, the bliss of debtlessness, the bliss of blamelessness. AN
  4.62

~~

The wise and virtuous shine like a blazing fire. He who acquires his
  wealth in harmless ways like to a bee that honey gathers,  riches
  mount up for him like ant hill's rapid growth.
With wealth acquired this way, a layman fit for household life, in
  portions four divides his wealth: thus will he friendship win.
One portion for his wants he uses,  two portions on his business
  spends, the fourth for times of need he keeps.
Sigalovada Sutta

"Original Pali Buddhism makes a clear distinction between the monks & the lay followers. If you are a lay person, you must make money." Where? Where does the Buddha make first a distinction between certain livelihoods in regard of the law on cause and effect and where does the Buddha say that a lay person MUST make money, thinking only on the many ways people being not part of the Sangha but keeping 10 precepts or beggars or many others not after gain at all? Especially in regard of cause and effect, there is no hide and no justification to go around.

Please mention kinds of sensual pleasures of which one would desire for give money to gain it, does not harm others. As for Jhana, the pleasure that does not harm others, no money is needed. Maybe good to delete "unwholesome" in this sentences. Aside of this biases its looks well, Dhammadhatu.

Jhana is not a sensual pleasure. As for your other comment, it is very difficult to comprehend. Obviously the livelihood is different for a monk than for a layman. Unless your comments are written in clear English, they will cause confusion & waste the time of others. Regards.

Nope: with lots of money (or lots of anything valuable), you can influence/help people and have time to cultivate.
Thus, the Buddha would encourage making money--but not at the behest of ignoring the rest of the Eightfold Path! My teacher always said that the people with high cultivation in this day will strangely enough be the ones successful in business because they will have the right conditions to practice and share Dharma--while the others will not, minds plagued with un-managed concerns, need, greed, and suffering.
From Wikipedia entry for Right Livelihood:

"And what is right livelihood? Right livelihood, I tell you, is of two
  sorts: There is right livelihood with effluents, siding with merit,
  resulting in acquisitions; there is right livelihood that is noble,
  without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.
"And what is the right livelihood with effluents, siding with merit,
  resulting in acquisitions? There is the case where a disciple of the
  noble ones abandons wrong livelihood and maintains his life with right
  livelihood. This is the right livelihood with effluents, siding with
  merit, resulting in acquisitions.
"And what is the right livelihood that is noble, without effluents,
  transcendent, a factor of the path? The abstaining, desisting,
  abstinence, avoidance of wrong livelihood in one developing the noble
  path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without effluents, who is
  fully possessed of the noble path. (...)
The early canonical texts state right livelihood as avoiding and
  abstaining from wrong livelihood. This virtue is further explained in
  Buddhist texts, states Vetter, as "living from begging, but not
  accepting everything and not possessing more than is strictly
  necessary".[57] For lay Buddhists, states Harvey, this precept
  requires that the livelihood avoid causing suffering to sentient
  beings by cheating them, or harming or killing them in any way.[28]

TLDR:
Scripture says at the minimum so long as you're not taking advantage of people or harming them it is OK.
If you can't make an ostensible positive impact through your line of work then use the loads of cash that you are making to help others become more at peace and free.

I think of the Sigalovada Sutta as summary of practical morality for lay people:

Consider all the various types of people around you in society (the "six directions")
Don't harm people around you, instead protect and make peace with them
Don't squander wealth, but spend it and save it for the various purposes for which it should be spent and saved
Have good-hearted friends, rather than enemies disguised as friends

I also recommend a book, The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity by Bikkhu Basnagoda Rahula. It's a selection or anthology of suttas from the Pali canon, divided into various chapters by topic (preview the table of contents here). Many or even most of the suttas in the whole canon are for monks, so I found that this book (which selects those intended for lay people) gave quite a different impression of what lay life is supposed to be.

This article, Dhamma, says that "the Buddha's six-stage gradual training" begins with Generosity.

For more about Buddhist lay morality, consider the Five (or Eight or more) Precepts (including "don't steal" or "take what's not given", and "don't lie"), and the three factors (right speech, action, and livehood) from the "Virtue" division of the Noble Eightfold Path.
The advice for "Right Speech" is more detailed than the advice for a lay-person's Right Livelihood. If you're in a "very competitive" environment there may be a risk that people around you speak in harsh or cruel ways: maybe that (right speech versus wrong speech) is something to beware of more than simply earning a livelihood.
There are various types of wrong livelihood listed, and we're told to give up or renounce "false (or wrong) livelihood" which presumably includes lying and deception.

In short, is having a goal of seeking financial success and money considered an attachment to the world?
I think so, yes, but it isn't everyone who wants to be or who can be a monk (monks have no livelihood at all as such, and live via the generosity of laypeople).
Still, Buddhism (especially later Buddhism e.g. Mahayana rather than Theravada) has doctrine that includes "skillful means". Many non-Buddhist cultures think you're clever if you're rich but not attached to wealth. I can't confirm from my own experience whether that's possible in practice, though there are examples in the literature of rich people being generous.
Also your intention matters. If you're earning money to spend on showing off, to increase your pride, to spend on "recreational" drugs, etc., maybe that's not wise. If you're earning money to help other people or to repay your debts to society then maybe that's not unwise (and even if it may be attachment, isn't the same especially unskillful kind of attachment).
The Zen story Publishing the Sutras seems to me an example of non-attachment within attachment: attachment (or dedication) to collecting money with a specific end in mind, and non-attachment in being able to renounce or change that goal if circumstances change.
It's presumably easy, though, to spend your life on the accumulation of money.

There are incidentally different schools or sects of Buddhism.
One of the newer ones is Soka Gakkai International (SGI) -- I know next to nothing about them but perhaps they're quite keen on prosperity. I am probably misrepresenting them (you should find out for yourself, if you're interested) but I provisionally categorize it as a Buddhist version of Prosperity theology.

I purchased that book after reading your answer, and couldn't agree more. I also highly recommend it to lay Buddhist. I think in the west there is this problem of constantly interlinking what is supposed to be lay life and monastic life and this book helps to make it clearer.

Accumulation of wealth is not directly the problem in Buddhism, rather it is the attachment to wealth that creates suffering. Wealth and fame are ephemeral so relying on these for happiness is like walking on a frozen lake. You don't have to give away all your possessions or go to the top of the mountain for enlightenment/nirvana. Start with the present moment.
The Buddha does outline some vocations that go against Buddhism such as those dealing with the buying and selling of arms and poisons.
It's always possible to give away wealth to good causes which is helpful karma. Nonetheless, your question reminds me of the Tao Te Ching which is appropriate here: it is easier to carry a half-filled cup than one that is filled to the brim.

Keep up the good work

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
'Kaya-sankhara' in Anapanasati & Paticcasamuppada? Are they related?
The term 'kaya-sankhara' is defined in MN 44 as the 'in & out breathing'.
The same term is found in step 4 of Anapanasati & in the 2nd nidana of Paticcasamuppada, as follows:

He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming kāyasaṅkhāraṃ. 'He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming kāyasaṅkhāraṃ.'
  Anapanasati Sutta

~

And what are saṅkhārā? These three are saṅkhārā: kāyasaṅkhāro, vacī (verbal) saṅkhāro, citta (mind) saṅkhāro. These are called saṅkhārā.
  Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta

My questions:

Does 'kaya-sankhara' have the same meaning in both contexts, i.e.,  in & out breathing?
If not, is there another alternative definition apart from in MN 44?
If not, is it possible for both contexts to have the same meaning?

Might be related: How is the Pali Phase “Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami… passasissamiti sikkhati…” Interpreted as per Different Linage?

No.
Saṅkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda cause viññāṇā-resultant, nāma&rūpa-resultant, saḷāyatanā-resultant, phassa-resultant, and vedanā-resultant.
Kāya-saṅkhāra is breath, cause of body's living, breath's effect. But breath is an effect, cittaja-rūpa, of paṭiccasamuppāda's elements. Especially for this question, saṅkhāra-paṭiccasamuppāda cause kāya-saṅkhāra, breath, and many other effects.
In cūḷavedallasutta, MN 44, they talking about (1) concentration meditation then (2) three saṅkhāra than nirodhasamāpatti-attainment and  (3) nirodhasamāpatti-rising.
Because of above 3 contexts, the 3 saṅkhāra must relate with jhāna. And the proper relating saṅkhāra with saṅkhāra in MN 44 is kāya-saṅkhāra that we can found in ānāpānassati-pabba and ariyavasa-sutta. They are effect-saṅkhāra that are ceased by jhāna.
If breath is saṅkhāra-paticcasamuppāda, arahanta will can't breathe because buddha taught in cessation paṭiccasamuppāda:

With the fading and cessation of ignorance without a remainder determinations cease.

But the fact appear in many sutta that arahanta still breath, except arahanta who achieving 4th jhāna, and nirodhasamāpatti. For the example in dutiya –– ariyavasasuttaṃ:

Bhikkhus, how is the bhikkhu with appeased bodily determinations? Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu dispelling pleasantness and unpleasantness and earlier having dispelled pleasure and displeasure, abides in the fourth higher state of the mind. Thus the bhikkhu is with appeased bodily determinations.

The context of many sutta related with ānāpānassati, already described itself:

He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'
Alternative translation: He trains himself, 'I will breathe in decreased breathing effort.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out decreased breathing effort.'

Sāriputta described in paṭisambhidāmagga also:

What is "I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication, I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication"?
What is bodily fabrication?
Long breathing (that is the first element in ānapāna-pabba) relating with body = That long breathing involve with body, cause of body. The practitioner trains to calm=to stop=to cease that bodily fabrication.

In abhidhamma, vibhaṅga, is the same.
For more information, see ānāpānakatha in path of purification.

The very important information is: ariyavasasutta that memorized by anuruddha school, ānāpānassatisutta+cūḷavedallasutta that memorized by sāriputta school,  and mahāsaṭipaṭṭhānasutta that memorized by ānanda school, relating with each other with out any lacking.

Why?
Because they were arahanta who perfectly ceased every bias, then they recited and memorized tipitaka together, not just read.
No, they are not the same, they are used in very difference contexts.

In paticcasummupada, every condition is polluted by ignorance. For example, SN 22.81 refers to contact with ignorance (Avijjāsamphassajena).  Buddha has phassa but not Avijjāsamphassajena. Buddha has vedana (iti 44) but not Avijjāsamvedanajena. Buddha has breathing but not AvijjāsamBREATHINGjena. Ignorance does not end immediately but it gradual (SN 36.11). The calming of the sankhara in paticcasammupada & anapanasati is the same. When there is stopping reciting texts like a Brahman and start stream-entry like a Noble Buddhist, there will be right understanding.

I agree with this answer, these are two different contexts, so even though both refer to "bodily-components", the meaning is different.

If you would look into the edited previous version, I’ve said that 'kaya-sankhara' have the same meaning in both contexts, but the problem is in the “I” as in “'I will breathe out…” but now I’ve come to understand that there is another meaning to 'kaya-sankhara'.
The Buddha has taught the way to identify a thought based on the basis of kaya, vedana, citta and dhamma.  The common meaning given to “kaya” at present is “physical body”. But, when the term “kaya” is closely examined, it becomes evident that the term “kaya” has been used to represent the “action of a thought”.
These are actions of a thought leading to defilements, habits; It comes from “san” + “kära” or actions that involve “san”. All our thoughts, speech, and bodily actions are based on sankhara that arise in the mind. Therefore, it is important to realize that vaci sankhara and kaya sankhara also arise in the mind. Kaya sankhara are in “conscious thoughts” that make our bodies move.
In each section of the Satipatthana Suta we find the phrase “ iti ajjhattam va kaye kayanupassi viharati, bahiddha va kaye kayanupassi viharati...”. In terms of the common translations found in the books, Ajjhatta Kaya and bahiddha  Kaya are considered as one’s own body and the bodies of others. Even though a mediator could contemplate one’s own body, attempts to contemplate the bodies of others may lead to problems. That is why we need to be skeptical about the real meaning of this situation.
The Satipatthana Sutta analyses a methodical, gradual approach to bring happiness and make progress steadily for practitioners. The stages such as sabba kaya patisamvedi..., passam bhayam kaya sankharam..., ajjhatta kaya, bahiddha kaya could only be discerned by a calm mind devoid of defilements to some extent. In other words, it is the stage where the in and out breaths have become shallow (rassa stage). The mind reaches “Samadhi” (concentration) at the rassa stage. Ajjhatta and Bahiddha are an analytical vision gained as a result and strength of the Samadhi.
The misunderstanding regarding these terms has resulted from the misinterpretation of the word “kaya”. The Buddha has always emphasized the functional meaning of a word when analyzing the teachings. Therefore, the functional meaning of the term “kaya” is an “action”. In this context, “ajjhatta kaya” is the internal action, meaning the action of the “mind”.
A meditator is supposed to observe whether or not his mind gets distorted as a result of an external stimuli, in terms of the Buddha’s teaching referred to as “ajjhattam va kaye kayanupassi viharati”. To take an example… If a person is teasing you from afar, you could see his attempts to infuriate you with his foolish, insensible actions. You could hear his remarks aimed at disappointing you. Despite these provoking actions, if you could remain indifferent without letting these provoking actions distort your mind, then, your ajjhatta kaya (mind) is not subjected to any change, distortion due to bahiddha kaya (external action).  If your mind had any negative impact due to these external actions (bahiddha kaya), you need to understand that you lacked the thoughts of “letting go” which could have prevented the negativities in the mind. You did not let go of the causes responsible for your mental stress. At this stage, you become aware that your mind is still geared towards the four miserable states of existence'' (satara apa). In this circumstance, the meditator realizes that if he were to progress with happiness and contentment, he should not accept and link with any external stimuli, relations. He decides at this moment that what is needed to preserve happiness is to identify each thought without letting them in to distort the mind through further dealings. He needs to sever external sensory links by confining thoughts brought about by the sense faculties to “identify”, “become aware” only.
Now, we know that the root cause for our discomfort, suffering is getting involved, getting hooked up to the external world. With this first-hand knowledge, one is able to deal with any action of the external world, without having any negative impact on the internal world (ajjhatta kaya); without letting any external action shaken the internal world (ajjhatta kaya). This is the Satipatthana teaching known as “ajjhattam va kaye kayanupassi viharati...”.
A meditator who progresses to this stage would comprehend perfectly that suffering is brought about by getting involved in external relations, stimuli. This is a very important stage in the Buddhist teachings involving the Dukkha Sacca (Noble Truth of Suffering and Samudaya Sacca (Noble Truth of Origination of Suffering). This stage brings the understanding that whenever an individual’s mind gets corrupted, distorted and changed to another condition, it is due to an admittance and involvement with a sense – faculty- based object.
Bhavana is the advancement of mind which results from both, the practice of “letting go” and the discipline achieved by “letting go”. The anapana pabba (section on In and Out breathing) leads a practitioner’s mind towards a defilement-free state in three stages referred to as Sila, Samadhi and Panna. This is the stage known as “rassa” where a practitioner experiences shallow breathing during the anapana meditation. This is the composed state of mind known as Samadhi. So, it is clear that the cultivation of Sila and Samadhi is a direct result of subjugation of defilements due to the exercise of “letting go” and the discipline achieved by sustaining the process of “letting go”.  Panna is the understanding one gains at this stage. One realizes that one’s achievement is in line with the section “sabba kaya patisamvedi assasikkhamiti sikkhati… in the Satipattana Sutta. Accordingly, one experiences finer in and out breath, tranquility of mental factors (kaya-passaddhi) and tranquility of consciousness (citta-passaddhi), and less tendency for attachment at this stage.
'Kaya-sankhara' is also found in the 2nd nidana of Paticcasamuppada. Paticca samuppada begins with avijja (ignorance). What runs contrary to avijja is vijja (clear knowledge). It is the conduct based on non-attachment. When the conduct is geared based on non-attachment (vijja), formations (sankhara) cease to arise – vijja paccaya visamkara. As the Buddha’s conduct is entirely devoid of any attachment, the Buddha is known as “vijja carana sampanno”.
“kathameva bhikkhave sankhara…”; analysing the formations (sankhara) the Buddha classified three types of sankhara, namely , kaya sankhara ( in & out breathing – as defined in the Culavedalla Sutta), vaci sankhara (initial & sustained thought' -vittaka & vicara ) and citta sankhara (perception & feeling). These formations are shrouded in avijja (avijja) and function as a flow of energy associated with attachment which could be comparable to magnetic force.
Formations with high degree of heat energy are known as “apunyabhi sankhara”. Formations with moderate heat energy are known as “punyabhi sankhara” and the formations with lower heat energy are known as “anenjabhi sankara”.
As long as avijja is in existence sankharas are bound to form with resulting attachment. When a mind is cultivated to dispense with avijja, then, sankhara begin to cease. This is the stage where the mind is devoid of intense heat and attachment. This mental state is described in the verse,
” visamkhara gatham cittam , tanha nam khayamajjhaga…”.  When sankaharas are present, vinnana (consciousness) takes place, and so on, and so on….

The meaning is exactly the same.
MN 9 says asava & ignorance are the same.
When nama-rupa & consciousness are unaffected by hindrances, it will be discerned the most basic non-verbal non-volitional disturbance is asava disturbing in the in & out breathing (kaya sankhara). When nama-rupa has samadhi, it will calm the kaya-sankhara. But if the asava gives rise to a non-volitional distracting thought or memory, this distracting thought or memory is vaci sankhara (thought) & citta sankhara (perception & feeling).
When nama-rupa has samadhi, it calms the kaya-sankhara; calms the vaci-sankhara & can even calm the citta-sankhara (perception & feeling; nirodha samapatti).
When these sankhara are calmed (samatha), ignorance & asava can be destroyed (vipassana). When ignorance is destroyed by vipassana, Dependent Origination is also destroyed.
The most basic disturbance that can be experienced is non-volitional kaya, vaci & citta sankhara, which are non-volitional vibrations caused by underlying ignorance & asava.
This is the experience of sotapanna & higher noble disciples of the Lord Buddha. Every meditator with samadhi has a duty to confirm & verify whether the above answer is true or false.

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


text:
Doubt while Meditating regarding Breath
When i am meditating, my breath which was normal(means three seconds longer both in and out), is becoming one second long or only half second long(extremely short in length).
How to manage if breath becomes so short in length, am i going in right manner of meditation ?.
note: could any body say if i am going or doing meditation in intended manner.. or is there anything i could do to improve my situation or psychological state

The meditation taught in the old scriptures includes being aware of both long & short breathing.
Long breathing is calming & soothing, which is why it feels preferable.
Short breathing can be a sign of stored tension coming to the surface of awareness; therefore short breathing can feel uncomfortable.
However, it is sometimes important to allow tensions to rise up so they can dissolve. This requires patience & forbearance. Once tensions & short breathing resolve, the breathing will naturally become long again.
If short breathing becomes too uncomfortable, you can deliberately take some deliberate long breaths to slow down & calm your body & mind.
The old scriptures state:

There is the case where a monk...sits down...holding his body erect...setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes
  in; mindful he breathes out.
[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.'
[2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.
Anapanasati Sutta

stored tension in the sense, any recent psychological experiences causing anxiety which needs to be resolved by me externally or i have to just concentrate on meditation only.. specifically is there anything to do, if its happening continuously..?

If there is anxiety, you should try to resolve it both internally & (if possible) externally. External social relationships are part of our life & represent the moral aspect of the Buddhist path. Social conflict can offer an opportunity to develop skilful & honest communication skills. But if external resolution is difficult. we have little choice but to resolve anxiety internally by using meditation & wise reflection (thinking).

specifically saying, i am an anxious person, so i am thinking to understand my mind (what is it trying to say at any given situation or at any time).. so i thought gaining mindfulness is only way to that.. presently, i dont know whether while meditating , i am going in right direction or not.. thats why i asked this question

In meditation, habits of mind come to the surface. If anxiety has been common in life, anxiety will arise. If you are practising breathing meditation, anxiety will make the breathing short. About what is "right", in meditation there is not much choice. If anxiety is not strong, you can try to 'breathe away' the anxiety with deliberate calm gentle long fine breathing. But if anxiety is strong, meditation gives you the opportunity to patiently learn about it, be less anxious about it & to eventually resolve it. Meditation is a courageous path. It has helped people face & overcome anxiety.

Let go of control and any expectation of how it should be.
You have a misunderstanding that the breath should be like X and this is subconsciously making you go in circles.
Just watch it being however it is.
Totally be OK with how it is. No where in anapanasati does it say to force it to be in some way.
In any situation, life or death, it is important that you are treating reality with loving kindness/acceptance and wisdom (all of which lead to each other). In this case, it means accepting your breathing for how it is (it will change on its own according to your mental achievement).
**Focus on a calm steady mind by perfecting the Five Faculties. Breathe effortlessly, letting your breath go through its shifts. It will be long on its own. **

Anapanasati Sutta
There are 16 steps shown in this sutta.

"Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so
  as to be of great fruit, of great benefit?
"There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the
  shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs
  crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the
  fore.1 Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.
"1 Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or
  breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or
  breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or
  breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [3] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.'[2]
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.'
  [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily
  fabrication.'[3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily
  fabrication.'
"[5] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.' [6] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.' [7] He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication.'[4] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication.'
  [8] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.'
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming mental fabrication.'
"[9] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.' He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.' [10] He
  trains himself, 'I will breathe in satisfying the mind.' He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe out satisfying the mind.' [11] He trains
  himself, 'I will breathe in steadying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I
  will breathe out steadying the mind.' [12] He trains himself, 'I will
  breathe in releasing the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out
  releasing the mind.'[5]
"[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.'
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.' [14]
  He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion
  [literally, fading].' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing
  on dispassion.' [15] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on
  cessation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on
  cessation.' [16] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on
  relinquishment.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on
  relinquishment.'
"This is how mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued
  so as to be of great fruit, of great benefit.


text:
Is it helpful, how is it possible, to deal with anger by 'accepting' it with equanimity?
I'm new to Buddhism and I had just started to put some of the teachings into practice. But I'm having great difficulty dealing with my anger. I have always been rather intense in my emotions. I get angered quite easily. I've done some reading and I'm still stuck. I need some help on the way forward.
From the readings I've done, I was told to practice forbearance, which is something I'm actually quite used to doing. But the things is, instead of expressing it, the anger is seething inside of me, and I would be passive aggressive, which is also wrong. From doing this, I would get a headache and waste a great portion of the day.
Then, I've read that I should practice metta towards my anger, accepting it with equanimity. So, this morning when I was angry, I tried but failed. I would tell myself that being angry is normal, but the anger still remained in me for a long time.
So, actually, I'm rather confused with this acceptance of anger. How does it help in any way?
Thanks all.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources for new comers. Enjoy your time here.

There are several other questions (topics) on this site which are tagged [tag:anger], and which you might find helpful to read. So that this is slightly different and not a duplicate of other topics, I edited this question's title to make it more specific.

related questions: Dispelling anger, Anger management - How to manage bad temper?

In Buddhism, there are many methods to deal with anger.
The method of accepting anger is a method of 'non-conflict'. By fully acknowledging & accepting anger in an open way, you can develop some objectivity towards & independence from the anger (in that it will not control your behaviour) and, importantly, give anger the space to subside.
The method I personally prefer & the method most used by the Buddha before his enlightenment was to wisely reflect (think about) the harm & dangers of anger; in how anger can harm yourself & harm others.
If you are often habitually & uncontrollably angry:
(1) You feel bad about yourself (afterwards).
(2) You become tense & can harm the health of your body & mind.
(3) People may dislike, fear or avoid you.
(4) Important relationships can be harmed, broken & lost.
(5) You can lose your job (employment) & develop a bad reputation.
The scriptures state:

As I abided...a thought of ill will (anger) arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of anger has arisen in me. This leads to my own
affliction (harm), to others’ affliction and to the affliction of
both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties (vexation) and leads
away from peace.‘ When I considered thus…it subsided in me. Whenever a
thought of anger arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away
with it.
Just as in the last month of the rainy season, in the autumn, when the crops thicken, a cowherd would guard his cows by constantly
tapping and poking them on this side and that with a stick to check
and curb them. Why is that? Because he sees that he could be flogged,
imprisoned, fined or blamed if he let them stray into the crops. So
too I saw in unwholesome states danger, degradation and defilement...
Two Kinds of Thought

If you use the wise reflection method, it is important to focus on the anger rather than on 'yourself'. You must think: "This anger is harmful" (rather than "I am harmful").
The Buddha did not teach the 'self' or 'I' is the ultimate cause of problems & suffering. The Buddha taught 'ignorance' or 'not-knowing' is the ultimate cause of problems.
Therefore, we think/reflect: "Anger is bad & harmful" (and not "I am bad & harmful").

Thanks for your help Dhammadhatu! I would try to practise what you said the next time I get angry. I should view anger as a separate entity and distance myself away from it.

Thank you for your kind comment. And yes, precisely. You should view anger as a separate entity and distance yourself away from it. You are not anger & anger is not you. Anger is a element in nature but is not us & is separate from the clarity of consciousness that can observe anger. My best wishes.


text:
Two-arrows paradigm (Sallatha Sutta) -- in the Mahayana?
The Sallatha Sutta (SN 36.6) in the Pali Canon is well-known in the Theravada and MBI (mindfulness-based-intervention -- MBSR, MBCT, etc) worlds for the two-arrows paradigm.
The first arrow is a physical pain (or in modern readings, also primary emotional pain such as loss of a loved one). The second arrow, which ones shoots at oneself, is the emotional reaction to the first-arrow pain. The first arrow is inevitable -- it's part of being in samsara; the second arrow is not inevitable and is preventable dukkha.
It's sometimes expressed in the aphorism -- pain is inevitable; suffering is optional.
My question -- is this paradigm, aphorism or sutta discussed anywhere in the Mahayana? I cannot find it in the Gelug Lam Rim (via Pabonka), but maybe it's elsewhere, or subsumed under something else? But perhaps this sutta is not included in the Tibetan canon (the Kangyur) at all.
Below is the two-arrow (dart) excerpt, Bikkhu Bodhi's translation. (But you might want to read the whole sutta; even though it is fairly short, there is a lot more to it than what's covered by most contemporary teachers and commentators.)

Bhikkhus, when the uninstructed worldling is being contacted by a
  painful feeling, he sorrows, grieves, and laments; he weeps beating
  his breast and becomes distraught. He feels two feelings a bodily one
  and a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a dart, and
  then they would strike him immediately afterwards with a second
  dart,so that the man would feel a feeling caused by two darts. So
  too, when the uninstructed worldling is being contacted by a painful
  feeling ... he feels two feelings—a bodily one and a mental one.

  ...

  Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not
  weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling
  a bodily one, not a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with
  a dart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with a
  second dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dart
  only. So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a
  painful feeling ... he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental
  one.

Thanks! --David

It doesn't mean much, but as a Gelug monk studying intensely, I have never heard of it. If you really want, I can always ask my teacher.

Most Mahayana sutras are in Chinese Text, as a result someone who is good both in English and Chinese will help you.
I tried google, and found 2 results based on the titles: (however not sure how smart google is in buddhism, so i do not know if they are Chinese versions of your selected sutra)
http://tripitaka.cbeta.org/T01n0026_060
（二二一）中阿含例品箭喻經第十
http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T01/0094_001.htm
佛說箭喻經
However similar story might appear in some other sutras, the story below is one of them which I read before:
======================
http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T19/0945_005.htm
(From line: T19n0945_p0126b20(00))
畢陵伽婆蹉即從座起，頂禮佛足而白佛言：「我初發心從佛入道，數聞如來說諸世間不可樂事，乞食城中心思法門，不覺路中毒刺傷足，舉身疼痛我念有知，知此深痛雖覺覺痛，覺清淨心無痛痛覺，我又思惟如是一身寧有雙覺？攝念未久身心忽空，三七日中諸漏虛盡成阿羅漢，得親印記發明無學。佛問圓通，如我所證，純覺遺身斯為第一！」
======================
And the English version of above text:
======================
Pilindavatsa arose from his seat, bowed at the Buddha's feet, and said to the Buddha:
"When I first left home to follow the Buddha and enter the way, I often heard the Thus Come One explain that there is nothing in this world that brings happiness. Once, when I was begging in the city, I was reflection on this Dharma-door and did not notice a poisonous thorn on the road until it had pricked my foot. My entire body experienced physical pain, but my mind also and recognized the feeling of pain, I knew that in my pure heart, there was neither pain nor awareness of pain.
"I also thought, 'Is it possible for one body to have two awareness?' Having reflected on this for a while, my body and mind were suddenly empty. After twenty-one days, my outflows disappeared. I accomplished Arhatship and received certification in person and a confirmation that I had realized the level beyond study.
"The Buddha asks about perfect penetration. As I have been certified to it, purifying the awareness and forgetting the body is the superior method."
======================
May you be happy and at ease

According to Sutta Central, SN 36.6 has been translated into Chinese as SA 470 (Saṃyuktāgama). Sutta Central does not show a Tibetan parallel for it, but it might be incomplete.
On the other hand, as a Gelug monk, I have never heard of it. As far as I know, it is not an object of study of the Geshe program or other programs and is not referred to in any Lam Rim text. Apart from the Heart Sutra, we do not study Sutras that much, but commentaries.

There is some confusion here, whenever you are looking for a parallel in the Theravada Pali Canon, it's in the Agama Early Buddhist Scripture. They are generally preserved in Chinese and generally translated from Sanskrit (among other Indic languages), and they are actually not considered Mahayana Sutras by Mahayana Buddhism, as Mahayana is very clear about preserving Early Buddhist teachings separately from Mahayana, but they are the foundation of Mahayana.
So the best thing to do is to open up Sutta Central and look for the Sutta in question, then look for the neatly categorized parallel.
https://suttacentral.net/sn36
Where the Chinese Agama parallel is found at Saṃyuktāgama SA 470
https://suttacentral.net/lzh/sa470
箭 "Arrow"
Unfortunately there is no translation into English here, but it's about the same story of getting shot by arrows twice.


text:
Is dukkha conventional or ultimate? Is it different from the other two marks of existence?
Is the existence of dukkha a conventional or ultimate truth?
I am confused, because on the one hand, it is usually mentioned together with two other marks of existence, which clearly look like the ultimate truth: "self" is conventional, and ultimately there is no self, and permanence of phenomena is conventional too, and ultimately everything is impermanent.
On the other hand, dukkha looks like something conventional: suffering, or lack of satisfaction, depends only on the existence of the sufferer, and ultimately, there is no sufferer, there are only empty aggregates.
Moreover, if I were the last sentient being to become enlightened, there would still be no self, and phenomena would still be impermanent. But there would be no suffering. I don't know how to wrap my mind around this asymmetry.

There is no asymmetry because the word 'dukkha' in the context of the Three Characteristics (tri-lakkhana) does not mean 'suffering'; just as the word 'dukkha' in the context of feelings (vedana) does not mean 'suffering'. 'Dukkha' only means 'suffering' in the context of the Four Noble Truths.
'Dukkha' in the context of the Three Characteristics means 'unsatisfactoriness'; namely, the inability of impermanent (conditioned) things to bring permanent lasting true happiness. (Only the unconditioned Nibbana can bring true lasting happiness). Thus, the teachings state:

yadaniccaṃ taṃ dukkhaṃ, yaṃ dukkhaṃ tadanattā
That which is impermanent is unsatisfactory; that which is unsatisfactory is
  not-self.
SN 22.15

In the Pali, many words, such as 'dukkha', 'dhamma', 'nirodha' & 'sankhara' have different meanings in different contexts thus, in each different context, must be translated differently & appropriately.
The Buddha was fully enlightened thus perfectly coherent. There can be no contradictions in a Buddha's teachings. It is the famous translators & gurus who are misinterpreting the teachings.
In summary, as shown in the quotes below, only the ‘dukkha’ of attachment & egoism is real ‘suffering’ (mental torment/trauma). The ‘unsatisfactoriness' of conditioned things (dukkha lakkhana) and painful feelings (dukkha vedana) are not suffering (unless they are attached to).
Context 1 - Dukkha as suffering

In summary, (all) suffering is clinging to the five aggregates (as
  ‘I’, ‘me’ & ‘mine’).
1st noble truth

~~~

‘I am’ is a construing. ‘I am this’ is a construing. ‘I shall be’ is a
  construing. ‘I shall not be’… is a construing. Construing is a
  disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going
  beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace.
MN 140

~~

He is seized with the idea that ‘I am form’ or ‘Form is mine.’ As he
  is seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress & despair over its change &
  alteration.
SN 22.1

~~

By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments,
  clingings & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or
  cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases
  or obsessions; nor is he resolved on ‘my self.’ He has no uncertainty
  or doubt that just suffering, when arising, is arising; suffering,
  when passing away, is passing away.
SN 12.15

Contex 2 - Dukkha as pain

Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy
  life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the
  burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely
  released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties
  remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and
  disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of
  attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the
  Nibbana-element …
Iti 44

~~~

When the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in
  him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And
  the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and
  unperturbed.
DN 16

Context 3 - Dukkha as unsatisfactoriness

“What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or
  impermanent?”
“Impermanent, O Lord.”
“Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
  satisfactory?”
“Unsatisfactory, O Lord.”
“Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
  it proper to regard that as: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self’?”
“Indeed, not that, O Lord.”
SN 22.59

~~~

Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
  monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?
Thus asked, I would answer, ‘Form is impermanent… Feeling… Perception…
  Fabrications… Consciousness is impermanent. That which is impermanent
  is unsatisfactory. That which is unsatisfactory has ceased and gone to
  its end.
Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.
SN 22.85

Dukkha - contexts 3 & 1

All conditioned things are unsatisfactory — when one sees this with
  wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification.
Dhammapada 278

Contexts 1, 1 & 2, 1 & 1 and 1 & 3

Tisso imā āvuso dukkhatā, dukkhadukkhatā saṅkhāradukkhatā vipariṇāmadukkhatā.
There are these three kinds of suffering, my friend: suffering due
  to/about pain; suffering due to/of mental concocting; and suffering
  due to/about change.
SN 38.14

Note: That 'attachment is dukkha' is an ultimate truth because every experience of suffering is bound up in attachment.

According to the Wikipedia article Four Dharma Seals, some schools of Buddhism teach "Three Dharma Seals" as including Nirvana but excluding Dukkha (for example Google finds The Three Dharma Seals by Thich Nhat Hanh) because "suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence".

Is the existence of dukkha a conventional or ultimate truth?
Existence is Dukkha.
Existence is conventional.
By realizing ultimate truth /(four noble truths) one can liberate  from Dukka.
 They had fully transcended all existence, and were able to perfect the awesome deportment wherever they went.

Dukkha is one of those that have a conventional dimension and also an "ultimate" dimension--which means that it is happening at a microscopic level.
When speaking about the perceivable interdependent dissatisfaction especially in accordance with one's perfectionistic desires, this is regarding the conventional truth of things. For example: life being hard work, one's developments fading, not getting what one wants.
Ultimate truth regards the principles not perceivable, the micro-moment dissatisfaction, at a level that is disregarded by "conventional truth." This could be one's cells changing, energy being stolen from place to place, the hidden war of energy exchange, inevitable dependency and weakness, etc.
The difference between conventional and ultimate truth is delineated here and also here.


text:
Right livelihood with modern (potentially dangerous) products
Besides right livelihood described by Buddha, we also have to avoid action that is harmful.
Some people claim that the long-term side effects associated with various modern products are unknown, or unpredictable at best: including products such as GM foods, EM radiation from cell phones and power transmission lines, etc.
If you worked in an industry which makes or sells products like these, would you consider this as right livelihood or not?
Note that since this is not a science forum, I don't want to discuss whether these examples (GM foods or EM radiation) are actually harmful, these are just examples of a more general question.
I would love to hear your thoughts about how to consider the question from the perspective or right livelihood.

I edited to clarify that this is NOT meant to be a discussion about GM foods, and I hope that people don't use this as an opportunity to share their opinion about the safety of GM food.

Right livelihood is refraining from livelihood or jobs that harms other beings, such as selling weapons, poison etc. that could harm others. So it can be said that right livelihood is an extension of the rules of Right Action to one’s role as a  breadwinner in a society. In the earlier reply to your query @ Dhammadhatu  had mentioned the five kinds of livelihood that are discouraged for Buddhists. There has to be a reason to limit its definition to these five trades, without expanding on it, like what Buddha’s cousin & brother-in-law, Devadatta did, in coming up with stricter ascetic rules for the sangha.
Those five kinds of livelihoods are discouraged because they contribute to the ills of society and because they violate the principles of respect for life. It is very important to remember that dealing in intoxicants violates the principle of respect for the welfare of others. This contributes to the insecurity, to the suffering and discord in society.
The practice of good conduct creates within the individual an inner sense of peace, of stability, of security and of strength. Once he has created that inner peace, he can then fruitfully and successfully practice the other steps of the path. He can cultivate and develop meditation. He can achieve wisdom only when he has created both inwardly and outwardly in his relationships with others and in himself the necessary foundation of good conduct.
As Buddhists, it is our duty to practice, to follow the rules of good conduct as much as we can, but to over-analyze it, to include GMO foods etc. may sound a bit far-fetched. For the practice of good conduct, for the observance of moral rules, mental development is necessary. This is the next phase of the Path.

Buddhism is not about following set rules. Monks have 227 rules &, if you have ever lived with monks, you will notice certain monks trying to find loop holes to circumvent the rules (rather than live according to the spirit, purpose & essence of the rules).
The matter of right liveihood is something you must decide for yourself according to your spiritual conscience. While the scriptures list 5 kinds of wrong livelihood (trading in weapons, human beings, meat, intoxicants & poisons), there are many other jobs you may chose not to do due to their lack of ethicalness. If you personally find fault in GM foods, best you not work in that industry.


text:
If a monk sees a pin in his path, will he step on it and accept pain?
I read about Buddhism where I came to know, we learn to see everything from bare prospect and don't judge anything. And a random thing came to my mind: I even read that pain is seen as pain and nothing more, no bad or good feeling towards pain.
So suppose a Monk happens to see a pin in his path:

Will he step on it and accept pain, and think of pain as pain and detach from its feeling?
Or, would he judge the pin which will cause pain and move away?

Moving away shows that he knows its bad to step on the pin.
This was just a question which came to my mind. I don't mean any offence, literally I have no idea of it.

Hello Mukil and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have also a Help Center with resources for new comers that you might find useful.

I have not read in original Buddhism we learn to see everything from bare prospect and don't judge anything (apart from possibly one popular yet questionable teaching, at this link).
Buddhism teaches, about all things experienced by the senses, their origination, passing away, attraction, danger & escape from their danger should be comprehended (at this link).

...discern, as they actually are present, the origination, the passing away, the allure, the drawback and the escape from the six
spheres of contact.
Punna Sutta

What would the monk be accepting? The monk would likely accept walking around the pin. A well practiced monk knows the appropriate path isn't always the intended path. The path a well practiced monk trys to make is the most appropriate path and not necessarily someone else's idea of an  appropriate  path.

When Wisdom is gained through the practice of insight meditation one learns to navigate more skillfully in Samsara, i.e. to reduce the amount of suffering for oneself and others, through wholesome/skillful deeds, motivated by wholesome intentions.
Skillful action would not be to purposely inflict suffering onto oneself.

If that Monk have common sense he will avoid the pin. no one will accept intentional self pain.  if he cannot avoid the pain he will accept it.

A Monk trains himself in sila (moral discipline), which includes not intentionally hurting living beings. Since he himself is a living being, he should respect and protect his life as he would others.


text:
Wish to Circumambulate around Mt. Kailash
I wish to circumambulate around Mount Kailash on foot. This is roughly 33 miles of mountaineous terrain.
Many people do this for spiritual reasons, i.e circumambulate once to wash away your sins, circumambulate 108 times to attain nirvana.
I just want to circumambulate around Mount Kailash because I want to.
What type of physical and/or spiritual training do I require? I understand this can take years, even decades.
Some information about me.
lady in mid-30s (people swear I am in early 20s)
5'4", 140lbs (last time I weighed myself was Jan 2016)
mostly eat fruits, veggies, fiber
exercise 4 to 5 days a week, perform Surya Namaskar (started with 3 reps in Summer 2015, I'm up to 69 reps now, goal to reach 108 reps by end of 2017), plus light weights

Do you mean physical training or spiritual training? This might be more on-topic (or rather, you might get better-informed answers) at the Outdoors.SE site. There's an overview of the trip here. Summary: a difficult place to get to; 32 miles at 15000 to 19000 feet altitude; typically takes three days; foreigners usually need a guide, vehicle, permit, etc.

@ChrisW I think it's more physical training I'm looking for. But if you can advise Spiritual, that would be helpful. Will update the question. And thank you for the link.

Yes I assumed it was physical, which is why I thought that Outdoors.SE might likely be a better site for this question. My uninformed guess is that a problem is the altitude. When I was teenager I climbed a 10,000 foot mountain: I was panting at the top of that, and still panting after a 20 minute rest (i.e. even at 10,000 foot I was affected by the "thin air"). So maybe you need to get acclimatized to the altitude. And I suppose the answer depends a lot on e.g. how quickly or how slowly will you be doing it, and how much you will be carrying.

@ChrisW Great perspective. Will have to consider altitude as well.

What type of physical and/or spiritual training do I require? I understand this can take years, even decades.

I work as a physiotherapist in Greenland. We have large mountains here too. I hike in them now in summer where the snow is gone.
When hiking in the greenlandic mountains there are complete stillness. One can only hear the ocean, wind and animal sounds. There is such silence so one can hear when to ice blocks are drawn together by the wind and make a peculiar cracking sound. One naturally enters meditation with very little effort.
It is indeed a great way to support ones spiritual practice to undertake practice in Nature. It becomes very evident why the Buddha recommended that monasteries and hermitages were build in nature.
If you like I can give you some advice/exercises on how to train the physical body and some tips regarding clothing and gear, when hiking in the mountains.
It would not be considered on-topic to give such information here so if you are interested we can talk in one of the chat-rooms on Buddhism SE or via email.
Take care.

Hello! I shall email you at your address. Looking forward to receiving such helpful info. Thank you!!!

Your welcome. I will get back to you with an answer on email this week.

Your exercises are quite helpful. Is there an alternative to Backward Lunges? I love this exercise, but perhaps I bent too deep and now my right knee hurts when bending...resting from exercise a few days .... Thank you!

Hi Ronda. I'm happy it could help you. Let me take a look and see if I can find an alternative exercise for you. Also try to decrease range of motion so that you do not bend that far down. Instead only bent until just before pain arises.

I don't know much about Mount Kailash but I trekked in Nepal over 100km with my 18 year old sister when I was 24. My sister was not particularly athletic but we did fine. While I was an athlete, I had been meditating full time for the previous 5 months so I was not exactly doing vigorous exercise. One day of the trek included walking up the very steep 3200 stone steps at Ulleri. We made it fine.
69 Surya Namaskar shows a lot of fitness. Sounds like you will do fine. Maybe walk up a few hills to tone up the leg muscles.
The 'spiritual' part is having an open mind to take in the culture & atmosphere. Just go! With faith!
I always enjoy looking at the old photographs. Very warm & wholesome memories. It was a very worthwhile experience. Below is the Tibetan side of the Himalaya.

So beautiful, so breathtaking!!!!!

Before you walk all the way around the Mt. Kailash try to read everything that you can find on the internet about this very storied mountain, the equally storied lake and the storied flower in it. Mt. Kailash is the mythical Mt. Meru. Read about it in the "Saptha Suryodgamana Sutta" The Sermon of the Seven Suns (Anguttara Nikaya VII. 62). In it the Buddha explains in detail about the events that would unfold, and in it, this monarch of mountains will get consumed and burnt, that neither ashes not soot will remain.
The Lake Anavatapta is said to be so sheltered and covered that the direct rays from the sun would not fall and the lake would not dry up until the day this world would come to an end, as per the Saptha Suryodgamana Sutta. In this "Sermon of the Seven Suns" the Supreme Buddha, tells us about the end of the earth due to the expansion of the dying sun.
Lastly a bit about the storied flower that is found in its forest. It is the Kadupul flower - said to be the world’s most expensive flower. It survives around the Lake Anavatapta, because it is sheltered from the sun’s rays. The flower is said to be a midnight miracle, surviving during the night, and fading to nothing at dawn.

Lovely story and beautiful flower!

There are a couple of beautiful stories about this mountain and the flower in the scriptures. They are not really stories but incidents that took place at the time of Supreme Buddha.  I tried to recall one of the suttas but couldn’t. It is about King Kosala who was a Casanova. He wanted to get another’s wife, and gave him the impossible task of fetching a type of clay & Kadupul flowers from Mt. Kailash….. Here’s an interesting clip of the legendary flower of the Celestial Nagas, for you.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDrVmjI7PkA.

Circumnavigation of Mount  Kailash won't lead to Nirvana if we are going by what the Buddha taught. The Buddha never taught anywhere in the Suttas anything about this.

Ok, it isn't so much for nirvana, but one of those things I wish to do in my life. Perhaps it will give me perspective on how I realize nirvana, or inner-peace for myself.

@Rhonda We don't have to attain  Nirvana to benifit from the practice. I am so grateful someone showed me how to practice. It's mind boggling how much we are all asleep to the fact that we are all asleep. Too bad you couldn't practice right now. That's the best time to practice. That's the only time to practice.

Circumambulate once to wash away sins, circumambulate 108 times to attain nirvana
In Rohitassa Sutta: To Rohitassa

"Is it possible, lord, by traveling, to know or see or reach a far end
  of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away or
  reappear?"
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or
  see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth,
  age, die, pass away, or reappear."

I agree. But physical/spiritual training for this can lead to nirvana. Physical activity helps to remove negative energies, to channel energy properly, etc.

`"And when he had thus spoken, Kassapa, the naked ascetic, said to the Blessed One: ‘How hard then, Gotama, must Samaṇaship be to gain, how hard must Brāhmaṇaship be!’
‘That, Kassapa,** is a common saying** in the world that the life of a Samaṇa and of a Brāhmaṇa is hard to lead. But if the hardness, the very great hardness,"`  The Lion’s Roar to Kassapa


text:
Reference request: three types of actions
I'm looking for a sutta in which the Buddha is recalling past lives, including, I believe, lives as the great Brahma, and asks himself on account of what actions he ascended to a position of such great power; he investigates and answers that it was because of three things. I remember two--abstention and giving--but can't remember the third. If anyone knows what passage I am talking about it would be much appreciated.

i remember it.. i will look it up for you but maybe someone can help faster..  On this occasion, Buddha looked back 91 aeons and saw during that during that period he had never fell into anything unfortunate..   i recall 3 things at the end of this sutta,  Dana (giving), Dhabba (spell check me- self controlled when hit by sensual desires , and indriya samvara - sila or control of faculties.

The 3 qualities:

dānassa giving
damassa self-control (or desires can't control you)
saññamassā'ti restraint (have control over your faculties)

§ 22.   {Iti 1.22; Iti 14}

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, don't be afraid of acts of merit. This is another way of saying what is blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming — i.e., acts of merit. I am cognizant that, having long performed meritorious deeds, I long experienced desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming results. Having developed a mind of good will for seven years, then for seven aeons of contraction & expansion I didn't return to this world. Whenever the aeon was contracting, I went to the realm of Streaming Radiance. Whenever the aeon was expanding, I reappeared in an empty Brahma-abode. There I was the Great Brahman, the Unconquered Conqueror, All-seeing, & Wielder of Power. Then for thirty-six times I was Sakka, ruler of the gods. For many hundreds of times I was a king, a wheel-turning emperor, a righteous king of Dhamma, conqueror of the four corners of the earth, maintaining stable control over the countryside, endowed with the seven treasures[1] — to say nothing of the times I was a local king. The thought occurred to me: 'Of what action of mine is this the fruit, of what action the result, that I now have such great power & might?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'This is the fruit of my three [types of] action, the result of three types of action, that I now have such great power & might: i.e., giving, self-control, & restraint.'"
Train in acts of merit
  that bring long-lasting bliss —
  develop giving,
          a life in tune,
      a mind of good-will.
  Developing these
  three things
  that bring about bliss,
          the wise reappear
          in a world of bliss
  unalloyed.

Dean, Thank you!

yup.  i remember because self-control, and restraint were just too similar to me and required quite a few readings to put them together from many sutta.  I have to say- my own conclusion-,  anapanasati covers both self-control and restraint.  example in many sutta, when one is touched by an object of sensuality, he quickly discards it, goes back to breathing, and equanimity remains.  that's self-control or unmovable by sensualities.  Another sutta, anapanasati is a rope that ties 5 animals (5 faculties) to a strong post. That sutta explains the benefit of  controlling of 5 faculties.

MN 1 is also useful, which equates the above-mentioned godly states to various jhanas. That said, it is difficult to believe the Buddha would teach the above worldly drivel to bhikkhus, as though those bhikkhus would aspire to be Brahma (who is considered to be deluded in many suttas). Its easy to speculate the reason why Sunnata-Buddhism became instinct in India;

MN 1 is also useful, which equates the above-mentioned godly states with various jhanas.

In Sutta Nipāta - Māgha Sutta - 3.5. To Māgha on Giving

...
  Māgha
  Who can be cleansed, released and Awakened? With what does the
  self to the Brahma-world go? O Sage, when asked reply to me—one who
  doesn’t know— for the Radiant I’ve seen with my eyes as Brahmā today
  and it’s true that you’re the same as Brahmā for us. In the
  Brahma-world, how does one arise, O Refulgent One?
Buddha
  The sacrificiant who achieves triple success in sacrifice,
  achieves their results through such gift-worthy ones; so perfected in
  sacrifice and complying with others’ requests, that one arises, I say,
  within the Brahma-world.
  ...

Thank you for your answer but this isn't what I was looking for.


text:
Sampajañña: what is the correct action?
One of Buddha's four ways of training the mind for Sampajañña ("clear comprehension") is to know the suitability of an action. From an anecdote given by Joseph Goldstein, his meditation master was haggling with a seller. When asked why, he replied

The path of the Dhamma is to be simple, not a simpleton.

The following are two situations which I deal with on a daily basis, and I still am unsure what is the suitable or correct action to take.

Two people are walking towards each other on a narrow path, do you yield first and let the other pass?
Two people both make eye contact, who should avert their gaze first to avoid a staredown contest?

The more abstract problem here might be described as, the correct action to take when you and another have conflicting interests. An answer to that is appreciated as well, but I really do mean to ask, how do you deal with the two concrete situations given above?

'Sampajañña' means to be clearly cognizant in the application & use of various kinds of 'pañña' (wisdom; discernment) that relate to giving up craving & the cessation & suffering. The scriptures state:

The monk ardent (ātāpī), clearly-comprehending (sampajāno) & mindful (satimā) puts aside covetousness & distress with reference to the world.
MN 118

Despite Joseph possibly often having secular audiences, sampajañña does not relate to haggling for goods in the marketplace, which simply requires 'worldly shrewdness'.
When people are walking towards me on a narrow path, I generally always yield & let the other pass since I am generally walking without a particular craving (unless there is an inherent danger that must be decided on, such as when walking on a narrow path near a cliff).
Similarly, sampajañña would generally not be used stare-down contests because using sampajañña to apply the 8 fold path results in abandoning hostility & egoism.

And what is the faculty of discernment (pañña)? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is discerning, endowed with
  discernment of arising & passing away — noble, penetrating, leading to
  the right ending of stress. He discerns, as it has come to be: 'This
  is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the
  cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the
  cessation of stress.' This is called the faculty of discernment.
Indriya-Vibhanga Sutta

I really do mean to ask, how do you deal with the two concrete situations given above?
I am inclined to "yield first", although it doesn't often (or hardly ever) happen in practice that I'm walking on a path that narrow.
When I'm on a bicycle on a shared footpath, pedestrians are usually inclined to yield to me, and then I allow them to yield (they walk on one side of the path and I cycle past them); or you could say I yield i.e. I cycle around them. I slow, slow to a stop, or dismount when necessary (e.g. on a single-lane footpath under a bridge, when passing small children or off-leash dogs, or on a pedestrian side-walk).
Sometimes I drive a car on a single-track road. There is a (unwritten?) convention for which car is supposed to yield in that case, i.e. it's supposed to be whichever car is able to yield the most easily:

The car which has a lay-by in front of it, which it can pull into
The car which is closest to the lay-by behind it (i.e. the car which has most recently passed a lay-by) into which it can reverse
The car which can most easily reverse (e.g. the car which will be reversing down-hill rather than up-hill, or the smaller car)

Sometimes I stop for 4 ½ seconds to see whether the other car (which is probably driven by someone who's more familiar with the road than I am) goes into reverse, and if not then I start to reverse.
The more abstract problem here might be described as, the correct action to take when you and another have conflicting interests. An answer to that is appreciated as well ...
I don't see this as a conflicting interest. I want to get around in a friendly and more-or-less cooperative way, I want to be non-aggressive and I don't want to frighten people. I assume (and my experience has confirmed) that these ambitions are socially acceptable and not a "conflicting interest".
When one car yields to another is conventional for both drivers to do a small hand-wave to the other as they pass each other (each to acknowledge the other's politeness and savoir faire perhaps).
On foot if I make eye-contact with someone (outside a city) then I'm likely to say "Good day!" to them (and vice versa, they do too). Someone said once that according to the older and more formal rules of politeness in this country it's conventional that it should be the more junior person who should be the first to say "Good day!"; but I'm happy ignore that and wish a good day to anyone, older or younger.

A true disciple of the Supreme Buddha is humble by nature as he/she has gotten rid of arrogance in its entirety. On the other hand a person who is not sincere, humble and innocent enough to surrender to the true Dhamma, has a greater degree of arrogance. So when two people are walking towards each other on a narrow path…, it is the one who has the alertness and awareness ( sampajañña), and who has true humility that will give way to the other.
Then to the question about two people both make eye contact, who should avert their gaze first to avoid a staredown contest?…  it is the one who has the alertness and awareness ( sampajañña), that would give in as he/she is one who practises the five Sekha strengths. He/she lives in association with the five Sekha strengths and does not abandon them. What are these Sekha Dhamma? They are… Saddha (Confidence), Hiri (shame), Ottappa (fear), Viriya (energy) and Panna (wisdom). Such a person is humble enough to see what’s going on in that present moment, that would lead to a staredown contest, and to understand the eventual pain that would come as a result.


text:
Question on sexual immorality and a family situation
I recently, and accidentally, found out one of my very close family members has been watching pornography on my computer. He had borrowed it and had used it apparently for his own purposes one night. I am not too bothered by this, but I did find that in recent history he had watched some very extreme videos in sexual nature. I had to think about it for a long awhile. On one hand I know I cannot control his karma and what decisions he makes. On the other I still question whether or not it is considered a break of the sexual immorality precept.
I do not wish to judge anyone, but I was just so shocked to see one of my family members watching some very extreme videos in nature. Again, we are related, but his karma is not mine. I cannot push such a thought away, and I constantly wonder, not to my choosing, whether to consider it his personal free will and to let everyone be or if I should be worried if a relative was enjoying videos almost abusive in nature. I suppose some of this suffering stems from attachment to this relative, but I am just asking for advice from fellow Buddhists.
I am pondering whether or not pornography is considered a violation of the precepts? How should I view such a situation? Should I ignore it and move on? What is the buddhist response to a situation like this? I am dearly confused.
Thank you to all.

It is not officially a breach of the 3rd precept, which, per definition, relates to actual sexual activity with specifically defined people (such as another person's husband or wife or children/teenagers still living under the care of their parents).
However, pornography is of the kind of extreme "dangerous" (ādīnavā) potentially addictive vices found in the 'six causes ruin a man' in the Sigalovada Sutta.
Also, extreme pornography is particularly discordant with Buddhist views about the aims & needs of women (AN 6:52); it is often 'sexual objectification'; is a 'delusion' about reality; & thus does not abide with metta (wishing good welfare) & compassion (mitigating suffering).
Since, it was your computer, you have a duty of care (towards yourself) to mention it to your relative because it was a breach of your trust & something that could potentially have imperiled you (such as if it was an illegal kind of pornography that could be traced to your computer or if it was a work computer supplied by an employer).
If the relative is your child, again, the Sigalovada Sutta states a parent has the duty to restrain their children from evil & encourage them to do good.
Similarly, as a genuine friend, the Sigalovada Sutta states to protect a friend when he is heedless, to not forsake him in his troubles, to give good counsel, to discourage from doing evil encourage & to do good.
The Sigalovada Sutta contains most answers to Buddhist personal & social conduct.
As for pornography, it is a very powerful (alluring) sense object, even if looked at out of curiosity. Since it is freely accessible on the public internet, many people watch it or have viewed it.
I have noticed more than a few members on a certain Buddhist chatsite that have brought up their problems with & addictions to pornography.
About sensual pleasures (which includes pornography) the scriptures advise to be cognizant of: (i) the origin (all lifeforms are sexual/reproductive/filial beings); (ii) the allure/attraction; (iii) the drawback/danger; & (iv) the method to escape the danger (which is appropriate healthy use of appropriate sexual relationship or, otherwise, restraint). Some links below.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.010.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.054x.than.html
Pornography can have a powerful allure but I assume many people grow out of it (just as many people get addicted to it).


text:
Is this desire, to not be friendless anymore, healthy?
I have been friendless for around 5 years. The reason I'm in this situation is due to my bad traits alone. I have actually grown accustomed to this till recently, when I became increasingly unsettled by the constant silence in my house. Usually, I've been able to shrug off this loneliness by busying myself with my studies, but lately, the strategy is not working.
This desire for friends has been gnawing at me everyday. But I've been alone for so long now that I find it hard to make friends. So my question is, is this desire healthy in terms of a Buddhist perspective? And if it's not, how do I subdue this desire?

Hello Lim and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have also a Help Center with useful resources for new comers. Enjoy your time here.

You have to start somewhere  to make friends so I would suggest you go to dance classes, some social activities, learning a language class,yoga classes.

@UrsulRosu. Please post your comment as an answer, even if its a short one.

I changed the title slightly to match the first question which you actually asked. You can reverse my edit, if the edit makes the question less clear or not what you wanted to ask.

Any desire that cannot be achieved will cause suffering. Therefore, if (for some rare reason) you are intrinsically unable to make friends, you should accept this situation rather than suffer over it.
That said, the luminous or clear part of our mind is not the same as the bad traits of the mind. If your mind is actually able to see it has bad traits then that part of the mind that can see is luminous & clear. That is why Buddhism teaches we have the capacity to comprehend, work with & change the bad traits of the mind.
The very fact that you have concern about your personal situation shows you have the trait of friendship towards yourself.
If you are uncomfortable with pursuing friendship in an ordinary way, you can find a good Buddhist centre or temple to visit & discuss your personal concerns with a monk or teacher there. The Buddhist centre can be a place where you can learn to develop better traits & friendship skills with others.
The Buddha called himself the 'Kalyanamitta' or 'Noble Spiritual Friend', who does not offer superficial friendship but the gift of skilful methods & wisdom leading to peace.

I think your situation is made of two parts: dealing with solitude and getting to know more people.
From your description, it seems that you find solitude unpleaseant, so you've developted strategies to run away from it. Why do you find solitude so unpleasant? You have to investigate a little: what happends when you are alone? what kind of thoughts do you have? What do you find difficult to deal with?
As for the second part, try to think about what you understand about "having a friend" and "being a friend". What do you expect from a friend? Are your expectations realistic? Are you acting like a friend? Is there a behavior you can change so you come across as more gentle? Ask for feed-back from someone close ( a relative) and see what you can improve.
Can I ask you if you have a meditation practice?
Good luck and take care of you and others!

I am glad to see your answers again here!

Toate cele bune!

This sutta talks in detail about true & false friendship: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html

Your desire to have friends is healthy and normal. From a Buddhism perspective a layperson should enjoy life in such a way as to not harm himself or others. Having friends is not harmful if those friends are good people.
I would advise you to go to dance classes, yoga classes or other activities where conditions are such that you get in contact with other people. There you could also get feeback as Anca suggesteted in her answer. Be kind and gentle to others and to yourself and friends will come as a consequence. You don't have to cling to the ideea " i must make friends" because it will happen by itself if you plant the right seeds.
So enjoy life, continue your practice and accept yourself and others the way they are.


text:
My interests have changed. I wonder how to keep my previous life?
Lately, I have experienced a great breakthrough in my meditation. Being able to keep equanimous in front of deep sankharas I couldn't deal with before. My heart and mind are filled with happiness and joy, and I'm constantly deepening my practice. Although, I found that I have completely lost interest in my previous world. I was on the path of writing a dissertation towards doctoral studies, in philosophy, and now I can barely open a book without thinking - what nonsense this all is, philosophers, thinkers, full of ego and ignorance. How can I follow them? I ask myself, will my past life and interests come back to me or it is a true change of heart. I have considered now a way to contribute and give others the gift of dhamma. But dhamma should be given free. And I have a family to take care of. I wanted to share and ask for useful thoughts and other experiences like mine.
:)
Thank you

You have a family to take care of & livelihood is a factor of the Buddhist 8 fold path. You must earn a living.
If you have an intellectual talent for philosophy & have spent time & money in nearing completion of major studies, I would suggest you consider forcing yourself to complete your studies because your qualification can be used for livelihood. For example, once you complete your PHD, you can do some studies in Buddhism &/or psychology and thus branch out into that more practical & benevolent field (rather than work in pure Western philosophy). Formal qualifications can be very useful things.
For example, when I was young (23 years old) & first discovered meditation, I practised for a whole year, full time, and felt very free. I did not understand Buddhism well & left the meditation monastery to study psychology at university so I could learn to help people. I found the studies not practical at all; so I completed the 1st year of study, left university & returned to the meditation monastery. Some years later, after I discovered certain Buddhist teachings which are for helping ordinary people & returned to Western society, I regretted not completing the psychology degree. What you can do with a qualification is often more relevant than what you must study to obtain the qualification.
I don't wish to burst your 'enlightenment bubble' but it appears you are 'attached' to this 'enlightenment'. While I am being humorous here, often ideals must be abandoned or modified for more practical considerations.
I would suggest for you to consider (weigh up) how you could use the PHD in a more practical way.
While you are correct in stating Buddha-Dhamma should be given freely, I personally do not believe it is a crime to earn a living from Dhamma. Many universities have Buddhist studies; the lecturers/professors must have proper secular qualifications (rather than just be monks); therefore individuals, such as yourself, must fulfill these roles.
There are ex-Theravada monks who are now paid university professors, who still are part of the Theravada Buddhist community; including liaising with monks. They are never criticized.

Thank you friend for answering patiently and wisely. I do understand that old paths shouldn't be abandoned hastily. I will make efforts to connect between the worlds and hope they will grow together. Many thanks!

A few disconnected points:

"I wonder how to keep my previous life" might be your ignoring impermanence (your previous life was a combination of factors including your naivety which no longer apply), and ignoring dukkha, not to mention anatta.
Academic study can be used as training for the so-called 'real world' e.g. I studied Maths at school ... I decided I wouldn't spend a life-time doing Maths after I graduated, so I looked for other work and was hired as a software developer ... but the discipline of academic study may be useful in itself (e.g. studying Maths trained my brain to grasp symbolic logic which is useful for software development), and helps to persuade an employer that you're disciplined and motivated enough to learn whatever (more specialized) body-of-knowledge they need you to learn.
You say you have family, something like this answer suggests to me that you should have a conversation with your "partner" to discuss what you plan to do together, to help each other and/or help others.
You say, "I can barely open a book without thinking - what nonsense this all is, philosophers, thinkers, full of ego and ignorance". That doesn't sound to me like equanimity on your part, or even good will. If you wanted to teach or help people, would you need to learn to listen to their ego and ignorance? I haven't actually read any philosophy, hardly, except Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance which I like and recommend. Some people don't like it but surprisingly many have. If you haven't read it already you might find it a new insight into how philosophy can be practiced (it's about Western philosophers rather than Eastern).

Just my 2 cents. If you think that you once had a goal and now you have changed, you're just shifting goals probably for good karma. But either way you are being selfish. You cannot escape that. You are being selfish saying that now I wish to do this instead of that because this gives me larger satisfaction.
Notice the aversion you are having when commenting on those scientists or philosophers. They are just having thoughts like you do.
The point I am trying to make is, either way you're just thinking. You're just having opinions. Opinions are subject to change. The idea is to bring the mental vacillations down to a minimum.
Could you try to simply be involved in an activity, in this case, your studies? Without judging? You are now thinking of doing something else because your mind says whatever you are doing is nonsense. Next thing your mind will say this is nonsense too, try something else.
In this way, you're just being dragged willy nilly by your mind. It's all a vacillation. I would suggest you just be aware of it and simply involve yourself in an activity. And let it pass.
If you look at one of my previous questions, I said I keep having this feeling of being enlightened. Now that's what I call a vacillation. I am just deluded into thinking something by the mind. Like I am this greater self, and I am better than all of you. That's the huge ego my friend. Ego can expand itself. I bet you're having the same idea too going deeper and deeper into your "meditation" as you say. Like you are this larger than life thingy.  And you and your thinking is better than all the nonsense those scientists and philosophers of western thought spew. See what I mean?

I would like to talk about the last part of your question. It is very noble of you to share the gift of Dhamma with everyone and it is true that Dhamma is invaluable. Since you have a family to take care of, I suggest you carry on with your profession for at least one year and side by side open a YouTube channel and/or a website where you could share your knowledge for free. Check the waters for a year to see if you earn sufficient Ad revenues. Also you could open a Patreon account where your grateful subscribers could donate for your living. And if that works out, you could even make everything Ad free. As I said test the waters for at least a year.

Thanks so much. That's a wonderful idea! I did think about an idea like that a little bit. But I was still trying to realize of how to structure it. I am a writer in my profession (English is not my mother tongue, but hopefully readable enough) and wanted to try to describe the processes I'm going through. This place should, and hopefully can be, for a good benefit of others. But I have doubts about putting my name in the front. I don't want it to be about me, but about an experience. It is a joyful thought. I will update:) Thank you, friend. Much happiness and peace!

@Dhammadhatu has given you some valuable advice, and I do hope that you will heed this advice.  I sense that he is speaking from his heart. I have read that “Heart thinking is focused on reality and therefore unlikely to go too wrong.” To read that full write-up go to Moving from head to heart It further says…

“When Carl Jung, the great psychoanalyst, went to Taos Peublo in New Mexico in 1925, he met the chief of the native people, Ochwiay Biano. Biano told Jung that according to his people, the Whites were 'mad'-uneasy, restless, always wanting something.
Jung asked him why he thought they were mad, and the chief replied that it was because they thought with their heads, a sure sign of mental illness among his tribe. Jung asked him how he thought and he pointed to his heart. The response plunged Jung into a deep introspection that enabled him to see his race from outside himself and realise how much of the race's character was within him.”

Now to tell you a bit about myself… as a Sri Lankan Buddhist, the ‘Buddhism’ that I experienced within the Sri Lankan community in Sri Lanka and Canada until 2006, was a religion that is more to do with rites, rituals, icon worship, collection / transference of merits etc., similar to what happens in the sacred places of other religions.
As I did not know the true Dhamma contained in the Sutta Pitaka, which is more of a clinical evaluation of our existence, a way of life, a philosophy than a religion, I turned to other sources. For many years I took to reading other books - both relevant and irrelevant material that are rich in intellectual content - such as “Zen and the art of motor cycle maintenance”.   I took to such authors as Hermann Hesse, Erich Fromm, Ayn Rand, J. Krishnamurti and Deepak Chopra.  But none of these could compare to what I learnt within the last ten years about the Buddha Dhamma contained in the Sutta Pitaka.
I am not the only one. There were many others who got this invaluable opportunity of learning the true Dhamma without any adulterations or distortions that are widespread in most of today’s preaching and in the written material found in book stores and libraries. This spiritual development in us that took place within the last ten years is the start of a beautiful journey that is continuing to unfold. Now that a full 10 years has come to pass, the time is ripe for us, as a group, to be Kalyāna-mitta (noble friends) to many others who haven’t had this good fortune of knowing the Dhamma. The awareness in us - that we are Saddhānusāri and Dhammānusāri - is enough reason to start helping others too to realize this unshakable confidence in the Three Jewels. Being a ‘Kalyana-mitta’  (noble friend) to others is the one way that we could show our gratitude for what we have gained.  Why I told you of this, is that I feel you too have had a turning point in your life. But going forward you have to be a bit cautious.
It is because I’ve seen quite a few families breaking up because they ignored the advice given to them to tread this path carefully. It is because we live in very unfortunate times. The outside forces (both within and without, both of this world of our friends and loved ones, and of the other unseen world (that are far more powerful than that of the known world) are too strong for us to overcome by ourselves. That is why the Buddha said that it depends 100% on our association of Kalyana Mittas. So for example if your mind says one thing and for instance a noble friend says another, you’ll have to do weigh very carefully what the noble friend advices you before going forth.

Thank you very much for taking the time, commenting and meditating on the first comment. Your words and experience are very valuable to me. I will keep it all in mind and try to keep my eyes on past and present life. May Dhamma grow strong for us all:)

Maybe you can practice to be equanimous while writing about the philosophy. Philosophy can be a deep sankhara.

Ho. Very deep indeed:)