text:
Help with balance between meditation practice and lay life
The more I meditate the more weird I become. I feel stressed out while being with groups of people. I don't know what to say and I find the conversational topics deeply boring, meaningless and useless.
As a consequence of this I tend to isolate myself, communicate via social media and meditate many hours daily in my apartment. I don't really like to be around people when I meditate intensely.
I feel this life is more and more useless and sometimes I want to become a monastic and live in a jungle or forest. I can't do that right now because of paying off my student loan. If I didn't have that loan I would have gone forth by now.
It seems like I can't find a balance between the life of a meditator and as a lay person. Meditation pulls me inwards and makes me not want to be around people but the lay person in me still wants lay life type of things. I'm deeply ambivalent and conflicted about this. I feel like I'm being pulled in opposite directions and it feels like the meditation practice is ruining my life.
Is it possible to find a balance and still live in this world as a meditator or do I have to give up either the meditation practice or the lay life?

nice question, maybe also some aspects of The Middle Way appropriate to question  :)

I struggled with a similar problem for years, maybe decades. You see, the goal I set for myself back in 1995 was to figure out what that enlightenment thing was all about without leaving the world.
My logic was simple: if ego is the root of suffering and confusion, and it is the ego that tells me that I'm not satisfied with the worldly life and want something better, then wouldn't it be the perfect practice to actually not let the ego get what it wants? And so I practiced the path of pure egolessness while staying fully embedded inside the worldly circumstances.
Egolessness is a tricky game. You cannot allow yourself to indulge in any disbalance, since leaning in any direction would be used by the ego as its support. You can't be too worldly, too spiritual, too real, too nice, too anything - the only way to not feed ego is to not take any identifiable determinable form. You can't even be egoless. This rabbit hole goes pretty far :)
Needless to say, as I was mastering this, I went through phases similar to yours. I could barely talk to people at a BBQ party. I could not enjoy corporate lunches. I was rather conflicted about having a family, I certainly didn't enjoy it as a normal person would. I felt like I was playing this game without being part of this world. Sometimes I felt I was the most fake and the most egoistic person in the whole world. At other times I felt I was one with God. At yet other times I felt EVERYTHING was wrong. Or I felt I was losing my mind and could not concentrate on my own thoughts, as even my thoughts were fake.
Somehow in parallel with all that I did okay taking care of my job and my family, not because I was interested in it but rather as an effect of my effort to be as egoless as possible... But as much as I tried to always do what was necessary and required of me at each moment, I just couldn't pass for a normal person. My friends thought I was weird. They couldn't decide if I was a pushover or a jerk or maybe a sociopath. Can't blame them, I'm guessing it's hard to be a friend of someone who methodically tries to stop being anyone.
Fast forward to present, looking back at those 20 years I can tell you three things:

It's okay to be weird. There are all kinds of weird people out there, weird in their funny ways. Why don't we have our right to be weird in our own ways?!
It's just a phase. One day your practice will bear its fruit and things will get clear. The conflict between "is" and "should" will get resolved (not necessarily through reconciling the two).
You can't run away from Samsara nor from your ego. If your mind is not at peace and you go somewhere, you'll take your problems with you. The only way to solve this is by solving the root problem, which is our innate ignorance about the nature of peace. Once we get clear in our own head how things work, the source of that perpetual conflict disappears and you don't have to be in the Himalayas for that.

Thank you kindly for this answer - it means a lot to me. You describe exactly what I'm going through. Especially bullet point number 3 is so true. It's not possible to run from this because the problem resides in the mind. Thank you again.

You are welcome, sweetie.

Is it possible to find a balance?
Yes. In fact, it is necessary to find balance.
The path is more than immersion. In fact, the practice is three-fold and comprises: wisdom, ethics, and immersion:

MN44:11.2: “The three practice categories are not included in the noble eightfold path. Rather, the noble eightfold path is included in the three practice categories.

”Right view and right thought: these things are included in the category of wisdom.

Right speech, right action, and right livelihood: these things are
included in the category of ethics.

Right effort, right mindfulness,
and right immersion: these things are included in the category of
immersion.

Although one may see the wisdom of the Noble Eightfold Path and practice immersion, one cannot omit ethics. Just like a three-legged stool missing a leg, so too would we topple over without the third practice, ethics. The middle part of the path is firmly rooted in ethics. And what are ethics? Ethics are what we practice when in the company of others.
MN8 has a good list of 44 ethical considerations that apply to all. Here are the first five:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

MN8:12.3: ‘Others will kill living creatures, but here we will not kill living creatures.’

MN8:12.4: ‘Others will steal, but here we will not steal.’

MN8:12.5: ‘Others will be unchaste, but here we will not be unchaste.’

MN8:12.6: ‘Others will lie, but here we will not lie.’

Being mindful of ethics when with others and will strengthen wisdom as well as immersion. Practice of ethics paves the way for the practice of immersion, which is later in the path. If any step on the path is difficult, look back at the steps that may have been skipped! All the steps on the Noble Eightfold Path matter. Right Immersion is the eight step. Seven steps precede and are quite important.

Thank you very much for reminding me about the ethics of our practice.


text:
Non Buddhist can say Hello to Buddha or Monk?

I understand this hand sign is to respect and say hello to Buddha or greeting to monks.
Ques 1: Where is this written in Sutta exactly what the hand sign means?
Ques 2: Can non Buddhist bow to Buddha when they visit temple? Most articles says no.
If no, then what other hand sign more standard or more acceptable widely to greet Buddha or Monk from Buddhism perspective?
Post note: Buddha is not for Worship

I don't think the meaning is described in a Sutta. Wikipedia's Thai greeting article says that it's derived from the Añjali Mudrā.

@ChrisW Buddha or Monk is not a God. --> Nameste - The term namas is made of 2 words na meaning “not” and mamah meaning “i” or mine. It is therefore “not I”[citation needed]. This implies being open to the person being greeted and sometimes when “namaste” is said to God it refers to bowing or adoration.

respectful & sincere, re clergy, maybe depend on venue & region & situation; eg, in English, ~Hello/ wave, etc, respectful & sincere, just as for anyone; could also depend on the ranks/ titles

Then the monks, delighting in & approving of the Blessed One's words, rose from their seats and — bowing down to the Blessed One and circumambulating him, keeping him to their right — went to Ven. Sariputta. On arrival, they exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, they sat to one side.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.002.than.html
Perhaps it was a very old tradition to respect the elders and worthy people or even people with power.

This answer appears to be about Buddhists bowing to Buddha rather than non-Buddhists.

Hands on heart seems appropriate and more general for non-Buddhist
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-13/coronavirus-namaste-greetings-handshakes-noncontact

He's just a sattva standing there falling all over himself... either kick his butt and tell him to renounce his sattva vow or prostrate yourself before him and say have a step or a seat.
If he tames you like an ox he wins if not off to sit under another tree.
Is that a plum under your butt or are you just happy to see me? Would make a nice meme :) I've met another incarnation of him in this very life; I wonder if they know about each other?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does the Buddha subdue fear in MN4?
In MN4 does the Buddha subdue the fear by:

Observing it with mindfulness until it goes away, thereby seeing the Three Characteristics?
Subdue it with samatha meditation, i.e. to shift attention away from the fear, thereby gaining temporary seclusion from it?

So when fear & terror came to me while I was walking back & forth, I
would not stand or sit or lie down. I would keep walking back & forth
until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear & terror came to me
while I was standing, I would not walk or sit or lie down. I would
keep standing until I had subdued that fear & terror. When fear &
terror came to me while I was sitting, I would not lie down or stand
up or walk. I would keep sitting until I had subdued that fear &
terror. When fear & terror came to me while I was lying down, I would
not sit up or stand or walk. I would keep lying down until I had
subdued that fear & terror. MN 4

Good question! Not everyone finds this episode interesting - and yet it illustrates a very important point.
Buddha subdues his fear by bringing all of his attention to the present moment.

As I was staying there a deer came by, or a peacock snapped a twig, or the wind rustled the leaves. Then I thought, ‘Is this that fear and dread coming?’ Then I thought, ‘Why do I always meditate expecting that fear and terror to come? Why don’t I get rid of that fear and dread just as it comes, while remaining just as I am?’

Normally when we are afraid, our mind gets split. Half of it is in the present moment and another half runs to a hypothetical future, imagining the dreadful scenario. Buddha said, why do I always do that, why do I imagine things? Rather than worry about them why don't I focus on what I was doing?
This happens a lot to us. We imagine what our neighbors think about us, we imagine our audience judging us when giving a lecture, we imagine things lurking in the night when putting the trash can out for pickup. The more we worry about them the more we lose our ground and our connection with the real situation.
Instead if we can focus on doing what we started - which is what actually matters anyway - then we will not only stop experiencing fear, we will do better in terms of meeting an actual danger if it should ever come.

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


text:
Was anapanasati and other meditations ever taught to lay followers?
This question springs forth as I haven't found yet any sutta showing this premise, has the Buddha ever taught anapanasati to lay followers ?
And if not, what could be the reason ?
May you be well.

This question springs forth as I haven't found yet any sutta showing this premise, has the Buddha ever taught anapanasati to lay followers ?

And if not, what could be the reason ?

While the audience in MN 118 happened to be monks, there's no rules in the suttas that forbid lay folks from practicing Anapanasati. Also notice that monastic/lay is all relative. How would one define a monastic if s/he's only wears the orange robe with shaven head, but breaks all the prescribed precepts? And vice versa, how would one define a lay person, if s/he's still wearing civilian clothing but follows all the precepts whole-heartedly??

If you truly understand the practice of generosity, then you'd never have to look for outright expression of gratitude from the receivers. The act does and will benefit you in this life and many future lives to come. It's the donor who should express the gratitude for the opportunity to build up his great kammic storehouse.

this above confusion was addressed here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/41823/is-it-demerit-to-give-donations-to-sick-non-buddhists

Many Buddhist laypeople claim to practie anapanasati when they are,  in reality, not.
Every stage of anapanasati is practised or unfolds with an absence of gross thought. For example, about cittanupassana (watching/experiencing the mind), MN 118 says:

I do not say that there is the development of mindfulness with
breathing for one who is forgetful, who is not fully aware.

Can you tell me how many laypeople can sit for 3 hours, without any thoughts, with right concentration (which is concentration founded upon silent letting go) and experience the 16 stages of anapansati sequentially unfold?
Anapanasati appears too lofty for most laypeople.
While I personally do not believe SN 55.53 is real & do not believe what it teaches about the stream-entry of those laypeople is true, SN 55.53 is a good example of the probable limits of laypeople in respect to being able to let go & manifest a degree emptiness required for anapanasati.
In respect to anapanasati, most lay buddhists are practising Hindu yogic fondlings.


text:
Did the Buddha teach receivers to be ungrateful?
I read the following on the internet:

If you truly understand the practice of generosity, then you'd never
have to look for outright expression of gratitude from the receivers.
The act does and will benefit you in this life and many future lives
to come. It's the donor who should express the gratitude for the
opportunity to build up his great kammic storehouse.

Did the Buddha teach receivers to be ungrateful?

The Buddha taught people (especially monks) to be "worthy of offerings" -- that's in the Saṅghānussati for example, which also says that such a recipient is "worthy of respectful salutations" and  "a field of merit".
Apparently that (being "worthy of offerings") does not imply fawning on laypeople in gratitude.
On the subject of fawns though, AN 2.31-32 does talk about gratitude and especially in relation to parents:

Now what is the level of a person of no integrity? A person of no integrity is ungrateful & unthankful. This ingratitude, this lack of thankfulness, is advocated by rude people. It is entirely on the level of people of no integrity. A person of integrity is grateful & thankful. This gratitude, this thankfulness, is advocated by civil people. It is entirely on the level of people of integrity."
"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. [etc.]

Did the Buddha teach receivers to be ungrateful?

No, of course not. The quote that you refer to is using a hyperbolic statement, “It's the donor who should express the gratitude for the opportunity to build up his great kammic storehouse,” to make the point vividly that true generosity benefits everyone, both the giver and the receiver. The key point being made, though, is the first line of the quote: “If you truly understand the practice of generosity, then you'd never have to look for outright expression of gratitude from the receivers.” This is key, because if one acts generously in order to receive gratitude from the receiver, then one is not being authentically generous, but is merely flattering their ego, or attempting to garner social standing, or even, perhaps, seeking to elevate themself above the receiver who was in need. As the gift is done in expectation of a return, it is only a transaction, and as such, binds one to the mundane world of suffering. It neither benefits the giver, nor the receiver, in a spiritually significant way. The Buddha would never have promoted transactional generosity.

You still can use your discretion when you give.
For instance, giving by an unvirtuous person to another unvirtuous person bare little fruits.
======
What is the Sanctification of the Gift?
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=25889&p=372098&hilit=katha#p372098

i think giving by a highly virtuous person to an evil rude unvirtuous person  bares little fruits because the virtuous person already has enough fruits

I do not think that works that way.


text:
Scriptural evidence for the role and compatibility of polytheism within Buddhism?
First of all, I would like to clarify that I am extremely new to Buddhism, Hinduism and Indian philosophy in general. I do not particularly consider myself an adherent of any of these traditions. I am doing research on Buddhism as part of a project I have to study the scriptures of every religion.
With that out of the way, I would like to ask practicing Buddhists here if polytheism is compatible with Buddhist doctrine or dharma, and what the role of said polytheistic traditions are within Buddhism. I am a European polytheist who worships many members of the European pantheons, such as Germanic, Celtic, Roman and Greek deities. Is the worship of multiple Gods discouraged or encouraged within Buddhism?
I know that the Buddhist scriptures mention Hindu deities like Mahakala and Hayagriva, but I have no idea where they are mentioned within the scriptural canon, and I have no idea what is said about them or in what context they are referred to.
In summary:

Is polytheism dharmic or adharmic?
If it is dharmic, what is its role within Buddhism?
If it is adharmic, why is this the case?
What is the scriptural basis for your answer?

1st, your use of the word "dharma" is incorrect. "Dharma" is not something exclusive to Buddhism. Most or all Indian religions use the word "dharma".
"Dharma" means "bearer/supporter" and refers to any doctrine or thing that purports to support or maintain social order (such as the dharmas of social duties & morality) or to maintain the well-being or peace of the mind (such as beliefs in god, gods, reincarnation, rebirth, meditation, wisdom, Nirvana, etc).
It follows a monotheistic religion can also be 'dharmic'.

The Dhamma of the Buddha is merely one many Indian dharmas. The Dhamma of the Buddha is of two types, namely:

dhamma for 'common people' (most called 'puthujjana') about social obligations (DN 31), morality (AN 10.176), kamma & 'rebirth'; and

Dhamma connected to Emptiness & Nibbana for those individuals (called 'sāvaka') with enlightenment potential.

The two types of dhamma is explained in MN 117 in the teaching of two sorts of right view.
For example, on this forum, i explain the 2nd type of Dhamma and my adversaries preach the 1st type of dharma.

Prior to the Buddha, the predominant organised religion in India was called Brahmanism. The scriptures of Brahmanism, called the Vedas, use the word "deva" ("god/deity") to refer to various powers & potentialities, including the devas of earth, wind, fire & water. Refer to Wiki, here. Therefore, the types of "devas" or "gods" are numerous; some gods appearing to be conscious godly beings and other gods appearing to be merely (unconscious material) natural forces. For example, even the Buddhist scripture have written in them: " Are the moon and sun in this world or the other world? Are they gods or humans? They are in the other world, Master Kassapa, and they are gods, not humans.” (DN 23)
The oldest Buddhist ('Pali') scriptures often refer to various gods. Most of these appear to be from the Vedas of Brahmanism however possibly some are not.
In conclusion, it appears gods have at least three roles within early Buddhism:

A probable type of religious propaganda showing the Buddha & his Enlightened Disciples are superior to the Brahmin gods, such as when the Brahma Sahampati requested the Buddha to teach his Dhamma to the world (MN 26) or when Sakka, the Ruler of the Gods, became a disciple of the Buddha; as in MN 37 & DN 16. There are many scriptures like this, including the ridiculous MN 49 & DN 11.

Used in moral teachings for ordinary (primitive superstitious) people where such common people aspire or crave to be reborn as one of these gods (refer to MN 120 for example). Since a Buddha understands most people cannot attain enlightenment, it is possible a Buddha may use what is in other religions to guide people to practise morality so these people do not engage in harming themselves & others with immoral actions.

To explain the actual reality of the world, such as to explain the various powers & principalities in this world, namely, benevolent political rulers,  cruel political rulers, compassionate beings, beings with special powers, etc. For example, refer to SN 11.5 about different kinds of rulers. For example, Iti 106 refers to the parents of children as "gods".

Does this imply that the Devas don't exist, or that they are simply inferior to people who have attained Buddhahood?

It is does not necessarily imply Devas do not exist; but, in Buddhism, devas are certainly held to be inferior to people who have attained Buddhahood.

To add to this answer, it appears a polytheistic religion that does not have an ethical component cannot be dharmic. For example to regard a certain pornographic actress to be a “goddess” is not dharmic

That makes sense now. Thank you for your answer.

"my adversaries"! Don't you think it's right to assume that the same Buddha taught both "types" of Dhamma?

yes but one type of dhamma is not the Buddha's teaching. The explicitly said what exactly is "his" teaching in a number of places. You can ask a formal question about it.

Is polytheism dharmic or adharmic? Dhammic
If it is dharmic, what is its role within Buddhism? Different level of consciousness leads to different rebirth.
If it is adharmic, why is this the case? NA
What is the scriptural basis for your answer? There are many suttas with the Buddha encountering Deva (Gods) in Samyutta Nikaya, such as in the Devata Samyutta and the Brahma Samyutta etc.
Also refer to the popular blog about the 31 planes of existence.

Thank you for the edit Dhammadhatu -)


text:
I believe I have done bad things in a past life can I fix my curse that causes people to turn against me what kind of Karma is this?
What kind of karma is it that causes people to suddenly go 180 on me when I seem to give 'too much' info about a certain point then they turn against me and give me the 'cold shoulder'? or have excuses to not be near me even if I currently haven't done anything wrong other then open up about myself?
Then I regret wishing to be born and I have had dreams that I may have had done bad things to  people in the past and went on the run instead of facing my trials as I'm always dreaming I'm escaping the police and often succeed in doing so leading me to think I ran from my crimes and haven't yet faced justice.
Is it even possible to have been a dictator in a past life and your put in this as punishment? When I die and go to the 'pearly gates' is a big arrest warrant going to be shown in my face instead how do I retcify this crap and heal myself?

Hi, welcome to Buddhism Q&A. I removed the parts of your question that were about Christianity and left the parts relevant to this site.

On the contrary, the fact that you came to this site, or even thought about Buddhism and karma means you actually inherited some very good karma from the past lives.
Having dreams about being chased by police means you have some guilt on your mind. Only you can tell what it is, but you must know - and it must be something obvious to you, it always works that way. If you just stop and look at it, you will see it.
People turning against you could mean one of two things: either you are saying careless things or you are in a wrong place. The only way to fix that is to be always real: true to yourself and true to others (without being either harsh or careless, it not easy but can be done).
In short, never regret that you were born. You have the same right to be here as these trees and stars, and just like they don't have to be something else to deserve to be here - you don't need to be someone else to deserve a place in the universe. If you can be always real, honest, and kind, things will work out fine.

I believe I have done bad things in a past life can I fix my curse that causes people to turn against me what kind of Karma is this?

Unless one's already attained the supernormal power of seeing one's previous lives, it won't do you any good trying speculate on what kind of evil deeds you did in your previous lives. Intead, it'd be very helpful and productive to start cultivating the Buddha's Dhamma in moral virtues, meditation, and insight/wisdom right now in this current life. It'll bring you great benefits not only in this present life but also many future lives to come. Regarding the various different results of Kamma, please refer to the Salt Crystal Sutta, MN 135 and MN 136

Buddhism explains what right speech is. Generally, right speech keeps our life free from  social problems & conflicts. You should compare your habitual speech to Buddhist right speech. Right speech is explained at this link.
The above said, even if you practise right speech, there are always nasty people in the world who attack others, even for their goodness.
Buddhism teaches about many skills to help our life be free from problems, such as right speech, right ethics, associating with good people and avoiding bad friends.

How come some people verbally attack good, wholesome and helpful people?

Greed, hatred & delusion and ignorance

One of the reason for miserable life is lack of good deeds.
The most important thing you need to do is read the scriptures daily and memorize the sutras , fast on every full moon and new moon, abstain from alcohol and non-veg food and donate to buddhist monks.
Wrong livelihood is another reason for such karma
Do good deeds and use it to overcome bad karma.

Which "sutras" are you suggesting be memorized? Thanks


text:
Buddhist magazines
I'm looking for Buddhist magazines - relevant for lay practitioners - and would like to request a list of these if anyone can help
Examples of the sort of magazines i'm thinking of:

Turning Wheel
Mindfulness Bell

I'm grateful for help with this

specific organisations/ local groups may also have newslaetters/ magazines

Here are some more links to Buddhist Magazines and Journals:
Tricycle Magazine | The Buddhist Review. One has to subscribe in order to read the magazine.

The Tricycle Foundation is dedicated to making Buddhist teachings and practices broadly available. Tricycle soon became the leading independent journal of Buddhism in the West, where it continues to be the most inclusive and widely read vehicle for the dissemination of Buddhist views and values.

Lion's Roar Magazine.

Lion's Roar is the website of the Buddhist magazines Lion's Roar (formerly Shambhala Sun) and Buddhadharma, with exclusive teachings, how-tos, news and commentary on Buddhism, dharma, meditation and mindfulness.

Buddha Weekly Online Magazine | Buddhist Practices, Mindfulness, Meditation.

Buddha Weekly is an online magazine covering most important areas of Buddhist living and practice, with special focus on Teachers, Meditation Practices, Buddhas, Dharma and Sangha. Buddha Weekly Magazine has published on different platforms since 2007. We often profile specific Buddhist practices, teachers and Gurus, and insights into problems we personally may have faced in our practices.

Buddhism Now Magazine.

Buddhism Now digital is an online magazine giving advice on how to practise Buddhism in everyday life. The articles are drawn from a variety of practitioners and traditions.

Mountain Record.

Mountain Record is the oldest American Zen quarterly, a spiritual journal by the Zen Mountain Monastery with Rinzai & Soto Zen Buddhism teachings, poems & more.

Buddhist Door.

Offers regular Buddhist news, glossary, art, and Bodhi Journal, featuring articles on Buddha's life, sutra commentaries, zen stories, and more.

Buddhist Society UK.

Publishes quarterly journal The Middle Way presenting articles by noted Buddhist teachers and scholars on various aspects of Buddhist theory, practice, history, etc.

Engaged Dharma.

Articles and commentaries about Buddhist practice from a contemporary Western Zen perspective.

Daily Enlightenment.

Free weekly Buddhist email newsletter.

Daily Zen.

Produces On the Way journal - monthly selection of Zen, Buddhist, and Taoist classics.

Fearless Mountain.

Newsletter of Abhayagiri Monastery (USA), a Buddhist community in the tradition of Ajahn Chah.

Gentle Voice.

Newsletter informing about the activities of Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche, as well as other Buddhist teachers and their teachings.

International Journal of Tantric Studies.

Scholarly journal dealing with both Buddhist and Hindu aspects of Tantra.

Journal Of Global Buddhism.

Scholarly journal established to promote the study of Buddhism's globalization with a particular focus on non-Asian countries. Includes research articles, discussions, critical notes, bulletins, and reviews.

Pragmatic Buddhist.

Official newsletter site of the Center for Pragmatic Buddhism (CPB). Pragmatic Buddhism is a form of applied pragmatism, and can also be viewed as a naturalistic approach to spirituality.

Urthona.

Selected articles from magazine exploring the arts and Western culture from a Buddhist perspective.


text:
How to deal with people and colleagues who are angry, complaining or seeking attention?
For some reason I'm a magnet to bad people or people who are chronic complainers or attention seekers. They often come to me when they need to talk or vent. Especially at work. I don't really want to talk to them but I'm too friendly and not good at setting boundaries and I often just listen to them offering advice. It stresses me, especially when they are angry and they come to me to talk about it.
How can I deal with this in a skillful manner? I tried practicing Metta towards them which didn't work due to their negativity being too strong.

Praying will help. " May I be happy. May my enemies be happy. May all sentient beings be happy     ". You may make your own prayer. I'd suggest you to leave the workplace if needed. Peace is priority.

Difficult question because you wouldn't want these angry people turning on you because such people in the workplace often do. These people are often loitering in the workplace and can be a real danger. I left my last job due to such a person, who for years, I listened to, so often helped them with their work & at times even did their work for them. They were a talk-aholic, who had very low productivity (who I could manage due to my high productivity). But, during a certain issue, they turned against me & were used as a pawn to attack me.
Your 1st priority is your work. You don't want to be seen by your employer spending your time talking to others rather than working. The suttas say:

The employees thus ministered by their employer show their compassion
to him in five ways:
(i) they rise before him, (ii) they go to sleep after him, (iii) they
take only what is given, (iv) they perform their duties well, (v) they
uphold his good name and fame.
Sigalovada Sutta

In Buddhism, it is taught to never harm oneself for the sake of another.

Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be
intent upon the good.

Dhammapada

You can possibly begin by replying: "I am really busy now and must focus on my work. Maybe we can talk during the tea break or lunch break".
You might find these people won't want to waste their tea & lunch break talking.

Thank you very much for this! Very helpful. As a matter of fact one of them, the worst one, turned on me and is now angry with me. He's the worst of them because he's so angry all the time and he talks loudly, yells, curses and has intense body language. I'm enjoying my peace now due to him not contacting me at the moment. I hope it lasts. I don't want to reconnect and have decided that if he approaches me again I will tell him that I can't have contact with him anymore, except when its purely work-related. The verse 166 really helps with this. Thank you.

nice advice and good question & nice gracious comment: maybe just be less explicit re why can't be talking as much, and also simply say less, or if see them outside of work; telling them theyre rejected/ignored isn't really necessary & doesn't really add any value and so is merely a risk & in itself also a form of interaction: so maybe just be pleasant & simply engage less: description of workplace & work could also be helpful for advice  :)

Good listeners are often magnets for people who talk. Significantly, any emotional affirmation given while listening can perpetuate that very talking. Such emotional encouragement can stem from our own cravings and aversions. Therefore this is an opportunity for practice that can benefit us. In particular:

MN62:8.5: This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Such practice will at least curtail involvement, but good listeners are often sought out for new problems. Because of this, good listeners often have to do more than merely listen, especially when time is short and other needs more pressing. And in this case the limitless release of the heart can help.

MN127:7.2: It’s when a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.  They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion … They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing …  They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. This is called the limitless release of the heart.

So after listening, one can ask what love, compassion, rejoicing or equanimity can be found here. And if the answer is "none", well then that complainer will become speechless under your gaze and walk away mute. And if the answer is a thoughtful silence, then that complainer will have found a new perspective to be grateful for.

That's very helpful, thank you!


text:
What is "Devputra Mara"?
Tripitaka talks of four kinds of Mara. It says that to begin with there were 3 attempt of mara to stop Buddha ...

First in Skandha mara (self view)
Then Klesh mara (Desire, hate and ill will)
Finally Mrityu mara ("now you going to die")

... and when all attempts failed, he appeared in person. May be that being Buddha talk of Devputta Mara. Devputta literally means 'son of God'!
The natures of the first three maras can be known or understood from the general meaning of their names; but what about the "Devputra Mara"?
How to identify him? What are its characteristics?
If the first three are 3 obstacle of evil forces, to stop one from achieving enlightenment or liberation, I am asking the fourth one!
Did Buddha said about the Devputra Mara in detail? Does he says about him and give caution to not to fall for his trap?

Further details on Mara: http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ma/maara.htm

Deva,
Devaputta means Deva by birth, one with a lot of merits, enjoying pleasant things, your-kind's largest trap, here in the realm of internet, in union with Maras host.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for release from this wheel]


text:
A seeming contradicion in meditation
In Buddhism I have often heard the idea that there is nothing wrong with what you are feeling, thinking and sensing, it is only our relation to those things that define/judge them to be bad.
Well this has me thinking. If there is such a thing as a "wrong relation" to our thoughts, that relation is itself a thought, which would mean that suddenly there is "something wrong" with our thoughts.
So to me this is an apparent contradiction. Either there is something wrong with your thoughts that can be fixed by sitting, or there is not.
If there is nothing wrong with your thoughts, feelings, senses, then why sit at all?
If there IS something wrong with your thoughts or your relation to your thoughts, that seems to go against the whole non-judgemental awareness idea.
In other words, in meditation we say that we are not trying to achieve anything and get anywhere outside the current moment. But getting to that state of mind DOES take effort and training. It IS trying to achieve something. It is moving towards something. It is applying effort in some direction.
I can't seem to reconsile these two thoughts.
It has been bugging me for a while now, I hope you all can help.
Cheers!

good wellwritten question, if Asker could list specific sources/ translations/ quotes of these statements could be helpful. thank you :)

Excellent question. You're definitely onto something.
As everyone here said, wrong thoughts are real, these are thoughts that have a nature of conflict: thoughts of wanting more, thoughts of not wanting anymore, thoughts like "it's not supposed to be like this".
Our tactical goal is Peace, a state of mind when there's no inner conflict, no conflicting thoughts. (Our strategic goal, at least in Mahayana, is Enlightenment and full Liberation, but let's not get ahead of ourselves).
To attain that tactical goal, you need to eradicate the conflicting thoughts (of both craving and aversion types). Now, if you were to judge your thoughts as "wrong", you would only create more conflict right then and there. So the trick is to eradicate conflict without creating even more conflict. How is that to be done?
Instead of sitting there and hating yourself or hating your bad thoughts or blaming them or suppressing them - we just don't feed them and let them dissolve. We let our attention naturally move on to other thoughts. Or, if attention keeps getting stuck, we gently move it onto other topics, deliberately.
Depending on where you are in your practice this may require less or more effort. When you are very advanced, you just watch them and they dissolve like the writing on water. When you are a beginner, you may have to speak out loud on some positive topic in order to distract your attention. And everything in between.

Buddhism teaches there is wrong thought, as follows:

And what is wrong resolve? Being resolved on sensuality, on ill will,
on harmfulness. This is wrong resolve....One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong resolve & for entering right resolve: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right resolve.
MN
117

The path of Buddhism is about making an effort to change wrong thought into right thought, as follows:

And what, bhikkhus, is right effort? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu
generates desire for the nonarising of unarisen evil unwholesome
states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and
strives. He generates desire for the abandoning of arisen evil
unwholesome states…. He generates desire for the arising of unarisen
wholesome states…. He generates desire for the maintenance of arisen
wholesome states, for their nondecay, increase, expansion, and
fulfilment by development; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies
his mind, and strives. This is called right effort.
SN 45.8

Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an
unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my
thoughts into two classes. Then I set on one side thoughts of sensual
desire, thoughts of ill will and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on
the other side thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will and
thoughts of non-cruelty.
As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of sensual
desire arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of sensual desire
has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to others’
affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes
difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I considered: ‘This
leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I considered:
‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me; when I
considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided in me;
when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and
leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of
sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with
it.
As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of ill
will arose in me…a thought of cruelty arose in me. I understood thus:
‘This thought of cruelty has arisen in me. This leads to my own
affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it
obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.‘
When I considered thus…it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of
cruelty arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.
MN 19

There's no contradiction. Questions such as this one arises when trying to understand Buddhism and meditation from an intellectual point of view,  which is not really possible due to the depth and profundity of the Dhamma.
Go practice meditation and questions such as these naturally get answered and settled.
This question belongs to the 5th mental Hindrance about Doubt (vicikiccha)

interesting point, maybe also from attempting to Pigeonhole Buddhism Concepts/ assimilate Buddhism Concepts in terms of pseudoscientific jargon & assertions of pseudoscientific Western European assertions & hypotheses about thought processes, psyche, religion,& existentialism,& then to try assert Buddhism Concepts as trivial cases of concepts ungraspable by primitive nonWestern people, rather than as Buddhist Concepts having depth & profundity. thank you  :)

@MH. Yes exactly, well said - In the west we have a tendency to analyze stuff to death but that won't move us any further towards Nibbana since we're still in the realm of concepts. Only experiental knowledge (wisdom) of reality can set us free.

I can't seem to reconsile these two thoughts.
Expressing thoughts as "your thoughts" may be a source of vexation. There is a possessiveness here that can be relinquished--they're just thoughts. Relinquishing the possessiveness here, meditation becomes tranquil:

SN35.246:4.25: As they search in this way, their thoughts of ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or ‘I am’ are no more.”

The work of meditation is to ease the clutching grasp of "I and mine." That clutching grasp, that grasping is dangerously vexing.

SN35.246:1.6: Any monk or nun who has desire or greed or hate or delusion or repulsion come up for sounds … smells … tastes … touches …  thoughts known by the mind should shield their mind against them:  ‘This path is dangerous and perilous, thorny and tangled; it’s a wrong turn, a bad path, a harmful way. This path is frequented by bad people, not by good people.  It’s not worthy of you.’  The mind should be shielded from this when it comes to thoughts known by the mind.

Reconciling thoughts is basically just assessing them: "do I want this thought or not?"  This assessing is actually suffering. This assessing is a possessiveness towards thoughts. There is a craving for "good thoughts to be possessed" and "bad thoughts to be avoided". Give up the possession and simply notice that thoughts disappear on their own and bubble up on their own. There is no need to possess them.

DN15:9.1: So it is, Ānanda, that feeling is a cause of craving. Craving is a cause of seeking. Seeking is a cause of gaining material possessions. Gaining material possessions is a cause of assessing. Assessing is a cause of desire and lust. Desire and lust is a cause of attachment. Attachment is a cause of possessiveness. Possessiveness is a cause of stinginess. Stinginess is a cause of safeguarding.

Thoughts are impermanent and unsatisfactory.

Case 19 of the Mumonkan Nansen's "Ordinary Mind Is the Way"
Jõshû asked Nansen, "What is the Way?" "Ordinary mind is the Way,"
Nansen replied. "Shall I try to seek after it?" Jõshû asked. "If you
try for it, you will become separated from it," responded Nansen. "How
can I know the Way unless I try for it?" persisted Jõshû. Nansen said,
"The Way is not a matter of knowing or not knowing.
Knowing is delusion; not knowing is confusion.  When you have really
reached the true Way beyond doubt, you will find it as vast and
boundless as outer space.  How can it be talked about on the level of
right and wrong?"
With these words, Jõshû came to a sudden realization.
Mumon's Comment
Nansen dissolved and melted away before Jõshû's question, and could
not offer a plausible explanation.  Even though Jõshû comes to a
realization, he must delve into it for another thirty years before he
can fully understand it.
Mumon's Verse  The spring flowers, the autumn moon; Summer breezes, winter snow. If useless things do not clutter your
mind, You have the best days of your life.

One thing I really enjoy doing is sitting in the woods.  I'll hike out to some spot, doesn't really matter where, throw down a poncho or, if it's dry, just plop my butt right down on the duff.  I'll usually sit there for the better part of an hour, sometimes longer.  It really depends on the day.  It's really interesting to see what happens as you sit there for an extended period of time.  At first, the woods are completely silent.  No bird flits or animal stirs.  I mean, let's be honest, you scared the bejesus out of them as you came barreling into their home with your heavy hiking boots. After about fifteen minutes, though, you'll start to hear a few chipmunks chirp and robins chatter.  After twenty five minutes, the chickadees move back in.  Soon after the squirrels and the nuthatches return.  Sit there long enough, completely still, and after forty five minutes, it's not that uncommon to have birds start landing on you or to have a squirrel scurry over your foot.  Sit there for an hour or longer and maybe you even see a bear or a fisher.
Your mind is a lot like the woods. Meditation is a lot like sitting in the forest.  At first, there's just too much that's been churned up.  All of that detritus clouds our senses.  Just like the woods we see at first isn't the woods in its baseline state, so to is our day to day mind a completely divorced from our true, ordinary mind.  Sit long enough, and all of that nonsense begins to fall away.  (Oddly, it follows about the same schedule!)  Sit long enough and there's no telling what you'll wind up seeing.  That's half the fun.  We don't know what will appear - in the woods or in our meditation.
What effort was there in my sitting in the woods?  Did I lure the birds back in?  Did I hunt them down and drag them into that glade with me?  Was I doing some magical ritual that resulted in that junco landing on my boot?  Of course not.  If I did any of those things, those creatures would just run farther away.  They were drawn in by my non-effort.  They were attracted to my ordinary mind, plain and undisturbed.  When we sit in meditation, we just sit.  Our mind falls onto one spot like a leaf falls onto water.  We do not press it there.  It's held aloft by the calmness of the waters below.  Any coming or going, goal, or destination will sink us.
Where is there any effort?

The answer to your question is that it is not what thoughts  you think, but how you think them. The thoughts that arise come from your mental basis. From it you think a certain way. Your basis determines if you like or dislike the thoughts which arise. Practicing Sila and Metta will change, transform, your basis and better thoughts will then arise. If hatred or ill will are present in your feeling, then Metta practice will change your basis and these feelings dissolve and simply won’t rise again, as long as you keep up the practice.

Imagine that you have received ownership of a garden, and you have came to see it.
It looks horrible in all possible ways. Disarray and garbage everywhere. It couldn't serve its purpose well in its present state.
Now, is there something wrong with the garden?
Not at all; there are no ghosts, aliens or supernatural forces; the garden have came to that state according to its causes and conditions.
But it might need some work if it should feed people.
When we mature in Dharma practice, we stop worriying about things being wrong, because we see that they happen in accordance with causes and conditions.
We just work with those causes and conditions, arranging them in more efficient manner.
PS (Edit 28.10.2020:)
In other words, Dharma is not for making us into something else.
Practice is not for doing anything with ourselves.
Doing something with ourselves is the position of manipulations based on the image of self. As long as we keep it, there is no actual wholeness or freedom.

It appears you got some misinformation. Buddha taught that there are wholesome and unwholesome pursuits performed by body, speech, and mind.
=============
Then King Yama says, 'My good man, through heedlessness you did not do what is good with body, speech, & mind. And of course, my good man, they will deal with you in accordance with your heedlessness. For that evil kamma [2] of yours was neither done by your mother, nor done by your father, nor done by your brother, nor done by your sister, nor done by your friends & companions, nor done by your kinsmen & relatives, nor done by the devas. That evil kamma was done by you yourself, and you yourself will experience its result.'
https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.130.than.html


text:
which is better staying in present moment or being aware?
How staying in the present moment(here and now) is different from awareness and mindfulness, and what according to you is better?

it could be helpful if Asker could expand in detail the specific meanings intended to be implied by the terms, since there can be varied meanings encountered. thank you :)

which is better staying in present moment or being aware?

To counterpose such sentences they should have particular definitions.
I think that "staying in the present moment" is used as a synonym to "being aware", because minds of people usually aren't collected, i.e. they are scattered, distracted. They tend to be involved in repetitive thoughts about past mistakes or joys, future plans, anticipations and fears, etc.
For example, when you are eating, you are in scattered thoughts rather than here; when you are walking, you want to be at the destination already. So the physical body is walking, but mentally you are not quite here.
Perhaps it isn't compatible with living truly happily, because if you want to be happy (or to be in nirvana), it would mean you would be living through this very moment, with satisfaction. Otherwise you just waste the time of your life, throwing moment after moment away.
In nirvana you would use — live through — every moment with complete dedication, completeness; not escaping the present into thoughts, daydreaming etc.
Thus focus on this real perception, let your mind be collected: that's a starting point for actual awareness and mindfulness. That's re-educating your mind, pulling it back from habits of being unaware or half-aware.

Welcome back! We missed you /|\ - please stay and post more answers.

Thank you @andrei-volkov ... with knowledgeable & kind people like you and others here, there's not so much need in that. (I work in other places helping people with Dharma though).

@changzhao Thank you for your answer, I followed your other answers in quora and BSE, your answers are deep, simple, and practical, I am highly impressed by your answers. I was searching for such a teacher from so long who can answer the problems in everyday life.. Please visit regularly here, we need your wisdom.

Good householder "Son of liberty",

The Agendas of Mindfulness

Mindfulness Defined

might help, once on the path section of concentration.
Being, aware, actually means eating, eating off, burning away. If that isn't done in higher spheres, then it's just eating of ones merits.
As for the place where he might be: sati, mindfulness toward ones duties in ones relation, toward Sila, toward Generosity, toward reflecting backwards.
Keeping precepts in mind, train right there, will make the further way accessible by itself (given causes).
And right concentration has right mindfulness (remembering, keeping in mind of what is kusala) as it's prerequisite.
(And pull the hands out of your trousers, and stand straight, as such is a good sign that one prefers eating off past merits over the sati of a son of liberty)
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades and gains, wrong concentration, but for exit from this wheel]

The translation  of "anupassi" as "remaining focused" in the 1st link is wrong & foolish. "Anupassi" means "to watch closely" and is a fruit of mindfulness. The definition of "mindfulness" ("keeping in mind") in the 2nd link appears reasonable.

Wrong and foolish is to belive being smart... a common micca-sati of those bond to households an Mara. Yes, a matter of missing anupassi as focusing on gain. Maybe possible to watch closely in this regard.

Best to not revile Noble Ones. It leads to hell. Thanissaro was wrong regarding "anupassi". The Noble Ones are correct. The Buddha said understanders & explainers of the True Dhamma in the world are rare.

Hopless fool, lacking anupassi.

Thanissaro was wrong. Whatever Thanissaro says contrary to Dhammadhatu is wrong. Dhammadhatu is The Path.

If having a little wisdom one would not see any different between "staying (right focused" and "watch closely (to the right)", but the fool seeks to accumulate knowledge just for gain and to pave his way downwardly.

Sure he would catch the point of rebuke, his discerment and anupassi very weak and attation toward gain.

No sati for one without silas...

But good to have a sample of what was told in the answer.

nice answers & comments, also, if could please write with a little less complicated English style & with more plainly connected pronouns(or less usage of pronouns, eg he/ his/ one ) & determiners, and meaning of the term attation would be appreciated. thank you  :)

That's as well a sample of improper attention... and lack of virtue thought good to be cool rather then restrain.

Are you using automatic translation tool? Then OK, fine. But if you actually speak English, then could you please rewrite your answer more clearly? For me it's hard to understand what you are saying, and how is that related to the question. Thank you in advance!

In Buddhism, the official terminology is mindfulness (sati) & clear comprehenshion/ready wisdom (sampajjana).
Mindfulness means 'to remember' or 'keep in mind'. Sampajanna refers to whatever wisdom or right view is required in relation to a specific situation.
In summary, mindfulness remembers to keep sampajanna (ready/situational wisdom or clear comprehension) in the mind.
Staying in the present moment (here and now) or samadhi (concentration) can be a result of mindfulness & clear-comprehension, as described in the sutta MN 131.
Alternately, staying in the present moment without wisdom can be a type of concentration that is both wrong and short-lived. If there is no right mindfulness & clear-comprehension, concentration in the present moment cannot last long nor can develop into genuine samadhi.

nice answer; also, if could further expand the definitions and explanations of the terms/concepts, & also with inclusion of additional English synonyms would be appreciated. thank you :)


text:
Is "anupassi" translated as "focused" accurate?
I read the following on the internet:

If having a little wisdom one would not see any different between
"staying right focused" and "watch closely", but the fool seeks to
accumulate knowledge just for gain and to pave his way downwardly.

From the Pali suttas, the word "anupassi" is translated as follows:

On that occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of
itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress
with reference to the world. Thanissaro
on that occasion a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body,
ardent, fully aware, and mindful, having put away covetousness and
grief for the world. Bodhi
That’s why at that time a mendicant is meditating by observing an
aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful, rid of desire and
aversion for the world. Sujato
a monk lives contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
comprehending and mindful, having overcome, in this world,
covetousness and grief Nyanasatta Thera
a bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the body, ardent, clearly
comprehending (it) and mindful (of it), having overcome, in this
world, covetousness and grief... Soma Thera
a monk fares along contemplating the body in the body, ardent,
clearly conscious (of it), mindful (of it) so as to control the
covetousness and dejection in the world... Horner
that bhikkhu is considered one who lives constantly contemplating body
in bodies, strives to burn up defilements, comprehends readily, and
is mindful, in order to abandon all liking and disliking toward the
world... Buddhadasa
in regard to the body a monk abides contemplating the body, diligent,
clearly knowing, and mindful, free from desires and discontent in
regard to the world. Analayo
Contemplates the body in the body with effort, sampajañña and sati,
eradicating covetousness and distress with regard to the world...
Payutto
These unpleasant feelings are dukkha-vedana and the contemplation of
these feeling is vedananupassana, contemplation of feeling...
Mahasi Sayadaw

It appears, from the ten translators above, the American Geoffrey DeGraff (also named Bhikkhu Thanissaro) has uniquely translated "anupassi" as "focused".
Questions:

Is Thanissaro's translation accurate? Is the English word "focused" synonymous with the other translations of "contemplating", "observing", "watching closely", etc?

Is there a possible downward path, misguidance &/or confusion in adhering & attaching to Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Is there a possible downward path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Is there a possible upward & even Noble path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Anupassi is watching (by understanding) continuously.
You can translate into many words because when mind arising, there are many mind factors arising together with each mind.
However, according to each Sutta's context, the selected words are the most proper words for that Sutta.
For the example, Anupassi in DN22 MahasatipatthanaSutta.
Anupassi in that Sutta has many situations, many objects, etc., so Anupassi is the conclusion, Uddeso, of the whole  comprehension styles in DN22.
Anupasī is including Viharati, Ātāpī, Sampajañño, Satimā, Vineyya, Pajānāti, SatiPaccupatthitā, Nāna, PatisatiMattāya,Anissito, Na Upādiyati, SampajānaKārī, Paccavekkhati,  Upasanharati, Ariyo Atthangika Maggo, Sammāditthi, SammāSankappo, SammāVācā, SammāKammanto, SammāĀjīvo, SammāVāyāmo, SammāSati, SammāSamādhi, and every word in it's explanation such as Vitaka, Vicāra, pīti, concentration (focusing), etc.
You can see that if you want to translate Anupassī in DN22, you need to translate all of those words together, however you can't. So in this case the translation which is same as in Pāli is better, except you are the Tipitaka Memorizer who teaching one who is going to enlighten immediately. In this case, the proper words for that enlightening person are allowed. However, they need to get back to the original version in Pāli after enlightened to keep Buddha's teaching to 5000th B.E.

Colloquially, the word "to focus" means you keep your attention on that one thing and don't attend to the other distracting things around it.
That is what Thanissaro is trying to say there: you attend to "body in and of itself" and don't attend to whether it looks sexy or handsome or fat or young or old - etc. any worldly judgment or association.
He explains his idea in detail in a foreword to his sutta anthology Handful of Leaves that "body in and of itself", "feelings in and of themselves" etc means looking at things phenomenologically, putting aside their worldly significances and worldly referents.
Hence the choice of word, to stress that one should tune one's lens onto the phenomenological aspect, and tune out the other stuff.
In general, this interpretation is characteristic of Thanissaro's approach. He summarizes the entire Buddha's method as shifting away from the worldly perspectives and worldly goals, rewards, weaning off the worldly mind sustenance ("nutrition") - through methodical cultivation of the phenomenological perspective and correspondingly phenomenological goals, rewards, and sustenance.

anupassi appears to be a factor of clear seeing rather than a factor stability

"Focused" there means selectivity, discernment - not stability.

Is there a possible downward path in rejecting, admonishing &/or even ridiculing Thanissaro's translation? Why?

Yes, garanted (being Brahman Element's firm gained agati). At least because it's total lack of anupassi used toward Samanupassati, the aim, liberation. Crasping after sañña and garanted fail to get the meaning even on conventional level, caught in a forest of view and bound by conceit.
No need to speak of the many other demerits around the appearance of improper attention and putting strew-mans around for ones lossy gains...
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, world-bindin trades... but for an escape from this wheel]


text:
How to learn to trust one's fundamental goodness?
In this answer it says "Learning to trust one's fundamental goodness" is one of the way to practise seclusion.
I want to understand what this means in context of the question on Rhinocerous sutta. Also how can this trust be cultivated so that it leads towards meditative absorption?

If one interprets Buddha's teaching superficially, one may assume - and some indeed do - that the world is fundamentally broken. The world is samsara, its nature is dukkha, our journey begins with primordial ignorance, the senses inevitably tempt us to hell, and the best we can do is stay cold and constantly on guard against our own flawed nature.
The more mature understanding paints another picture. In this interpretation, the world works a certain way, and in that sense its not broken, in fact we can say everything has its reasons and works due to its causes, resulting in every thing and even every person taking their places accordingly. From this standpoint the world is Perfect and works perfectly well according to its natural laws.
In the same vein, before the conceptual mind develops while building its subjective world and its notion of self or ego, there's indeed that great nondifferentiation. Rather than painting it in dark colors as "ignorance" we can see it for what it is - a blank slate! Starting from that blank slate there's a process of learning, driven by the mind's innate instinctual attraction to Peace. Yes, the childish mind's methods for seeking peace are very naïve - it clings to its pleasant experiences, resists change, fights enemies - but fundamentally it's driven by its instinctual desire to make things good.
From this standpoint, the ego is a process of seeking peace, or as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said, "our sense of self is an activity, a strategy for avoiding suffering, for maximizing happiness" -- it's just that its a childish and naïve phase of the larger Path ("Ultimately, though, self as a strategy can only go so far. This is where the not-self strategy comes in." - T.B.) The path into and through samsara is the beginning of the path to Nirvana, it is the path in the right direction - not away from it, even if it gets stuck in this childish phase for a few hundred billion lives - eventually it moves on and graduates.
Based on the above, we arrive at the Fundamental Goodness or Fundamental Sanity as a key Mahayana concept. To cultivate it in our lives means to be at peace with the larger picture, at peace with our past, our mistakes, our baby steps, our growing pains. It means to cultivate a deep confidence that at our core we want Peace, we want Goodness, and that our mind is fundamentally capable of figuring things out right, even though it takes time.
Ultimately, to cultivate one's fundamental goodness requires accepting the fact that the Buddha came from the same evolutionary background as we did, and therefore every one of us is a buddha in the making. Hence Buddha-Nature.
We are not wrong, we are not bad, we are just growing - that's the mantra.
"I may be confused or mistaken when it comes to particulars - and indeed I keep reviewing and adjusting my understanding all the time. I may have done some crazy things in the past, as part of my learning - but all of that was driven by my intent to do the best according to my state-of-the-art at the moment. I'm not an evil person I swear my intentions are pure - but I am not perfect, I'm only learning, and I will keep at it." - that's how.
And of course the physical practice of moving around gracefully, keeping good posture, sitting down slowly, mindfulness of the body.

Learning to trust...goodness
Let's first agree that goodness exists without limits:

SN41.7:6.2: Greed, hate, and delusion are makers of limits.

Considering the limitless opens up boundless vistas of love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity. And each of these four vistas culminates in a meditative absorption. Here's the first:

SN46.54:12.1: And how is the heart’s release by love developed? What is its destination, apex, fruit, and end? It’s when a mendicant develops the heart’s release by love together with the awakening factors of mindfulness, investigation of principles, energy, rapture, tranquility, immersion, and equanimity, which rely on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripen as letting go.  If they wish: ‘May I meditate perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive,’ that’s what they do.  If they wish: ‘May I meditate perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive,’ that’s what they do. If they wish: ‘May I meditate perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive and the repulsive,’ that’s what they do. If they wish: ‘May I meditate perceiving the unrepulsive in the repulsive and the unrepulsive,’ that’s what they do.  If they wish: ‘May I meditate staying equanimous, mindful and aware, rejecting both the repulsive and the unrepulsive,’ that’s what they do. The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

To "...trust one's goodness" is to experience or have faith in the limitlessness of goodness. The only paradox that remains then is "one". Because if "one" exists to the exclusion of others, then that would be suffering, a limit. The spiritual path is the quest for limitless goodness (i.e., the end of suffering). And that quest inevitably takes "one" to consider:

MN62:3.2: “Rāhula, you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’”

And the paradox resolves itself when the delusion of self disappears, when goodness becomes one.

There isn't such as inherent goodness, good householder. Right in the moment - in addition - when one thinks goodness as own, it's a garant for not toward the Deathless, a garant that path isn't touched yet.
In regard of "trust" (ones own ideas), the Buddha has been clear in telling that ones own opinions are the lowest refuge.
The point where one could start to relay on knowing is the point of stream-enter. So to cultivate toward this can open ways to goodness which is a path-element. But even there, real goodness, quality of Bhagavato hasn't been reached.
As for the foolish ideas (for those not having developed "path goodness" yet), one isn't adviced to seek for loneliness at this point, but only if one already possesses the samadhi-section (= freed of the five lower fetters).
The path starts on association this admirable friend (those actually "possessing" goodness) and the very hindrance is association with fools...
Such suggested Mohayana-drug, if taken on, leads people in areas where they, although firm bond to the five string, common consumer, believe that they are right on the track, trusting their "goodness" and simply consume without work, without to pay... that doesn't even lead to merits for a better in the world.
As for cultivating goodness (merits, Dhamma-guṇa, ability to give), there is a set of 10.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, world-binding trades... but for an escape from this wheel]


text:
Is emptiness conventionally non-empty?
Is emptiness conventionally / provisionally non-empty?  Please include reference to whose perspective you are replying from.

By empty I mean non-substantial, how dharmas are constantly arising and perishing, and nothing is the same from moment to moment, but in flux.
By conventionally I mean in the sense that enlightened beings can use "I" to refer to themselves, even though they ultimately lack any self identity at all or sense of "me and mine".
BY non-empty I mean permanent.

I know that there are debates about the identity of the conventional truth and emptiness, and Nagarjuna said that emptiness is empty.
I read Gelek Rimpoche - Geluk lama - say that he'd "love to say emptiness is impermanent, but emptiness is meant to be permanent", because it is uncompounded and uncreated. And a translation of The Great Prajna Paramita Sutra, saying it is neither permanent nor impermanent.
Personally, I would guess that it is identical to impermanent dharmas (there's discussion about that in early ch'an, seemingly explained by Zongmi), not permanent, and yet does not arise or cease, is not impermanent.
Then it's both empty and non-empty: changing in accordance with conditions, but not dependent on any individual conditioned thing. Arguably, I am rich independent of any one of my financial investments, even-though it changes with all of them. Not a great analogy, but I can't think of anything else that could be "permanent".

good wellwritten question; very good that Asker specifically describes what the intended meanings are for the topic words of the question: in a lot of recent writings in English there's misinterpretation because of specialised meanings for standard English terms/words, so it can be tedious to try transmit intended ideas: especially nicely understandable done by Asker re 'permanent' & 'emptiness' etc; trying to describe these Existential Concepts with conventional language isn't typically vague enough: the concepts are different from conventional concepts & conventional descriptioning;  good :)

No, of course not. Sorry, I don't have any references to back me but it just seems to be common sense...
How can emptiness be non-empty even provisionally if it [emptiness] is not a distinct existence, it's just a label for not having anything solid enough to serve as an absolute reference point?
Emptiness itself can't be an absolute reference point either. So even in conventional sense, you can't say "here's emptiness and there's the seeming solidity of samsara" or "here is emptiness and there's nirvana", or really for any other X, you can't juxtapose it with emptiness, you can only say "X is empty".
The only counterargument to that I can think of, is the fact that the noun "shunyata" exists. Every time we casually use the noun, especially with someone who does not really know it's meaning in-depth it's kinda like we are pretending that emptiness is non-empty.
We are not really claiming it is non-empty we are just saying the word with this face as if it were a something, and that slay of hand is the closest we come to reifying the concept to a level of something semi-non-empty.
Lol. I'm sure actual philosophers would give me an F for this, but here we go :)
P.S. I mean, if you get to the bottom of it, the real question is, does any "sign" (in the sense of semiotics) have a referent which itself is not a sign? When we say "X is empty", that is what we mean, right? that it is merely a sign? So how can we use "emptiness" as anything other than a sign, even conventionally, especially conventionally?

The analogy i can give is to a role-playing game. There is a way to role-play and there is a way to analyze the mechanics of the game itself.
Similarly Ariya analyze the game based on logic and their verbal system of understanding is based on philosophical inference for demonstrable basis. They understand what can be rightly inferred even about thinking by thinking. They understand intellect in and by itself and here 'how one thinks' is the thing they solved for.
Existence is of delusion, delusion can be spoken of as faulty notions of objectification, objectification is thinking about and 'naming' what the five senses present and the intellect which knows and thinks about thinking.
When ariya rightly think about the senses & what the senses present, in that context they infer various elements but 'a self' isn't inferred.
The doctrine of self is known to be false and is also [by them] known to be adhered to by many other beings who grasp with wrong view the senses and what the senses present complete with intellect.
The doctrine of self is an unsubstantiated interpretation of reality [the RPG] and most beings adhere to it [role-play].
It so happens that role-playing here is abandoned by role-playing.
The thing is that, as the world role-plays, the use of role-play language for communication is required to interact with others to do anything in-game as it is to the only mean and it to an extent describes the environment even tho it is flawed & incomplete understanding.
In other words, one stuck in this game is here required not only to understand the predicament but is also required to play out the role-play scenario and if he is going to interact with delusional people then he has to talk in terms which are common norm.
If those he interacts with are favorably predisposed the Aryan can teach the Dhamma and those with eyes to see will be able to abandon adherence to the doctrine of self and come to agreement with the proposition that all which can be thought about as being existant in the game or being in-game or of the game, all that they call existence and it's rightly [due inference] categorically classed as repulsive.
They eventually know & see that which isn't objectified nor included in the allness of that all, isn't included in word 'existant' nor associated with game, the principle by which game is extinguished is by them classed as 'good and pleasant'. They do not delight in the discernment of principally changing persistence, they incline their minds to the discernment of the principal cessation of changing persistence, the principle of cessation becomes the primary happiness and a destruction of taints.
In regards to the world [the game] it does not occur to them 'this is good' they know that it's wrong, should not be and shouldn't occur. There being no longing the game ends as it is only conceived & sustained in-game by intellect subscribed to the doctrine of self [wrong view].
I could use the word 'convention' to describe some of these circumstances but i am disinclined to do so because it's imo become somewhat of a buzzword and i guess people might have preconceived notions.

good point re 'buzzwords'/ terms which arenot clear(if at all) unless carefully described in detail for & within particular contexts & venues; also, wasn't readily able to follow the initial the analogy utilised  :)

The following is taken from my longer article on this subject. This quote is jumping in at the end of that article, but it summarizes my answer to the question asked. This answer may not seem to respond to the OP’s question as asked because it is coming from the non-conventional view, but it is responding to the incorrect view encoded in the question. The OP is very clear about what he/she/they is asking, but from the non-conventional view the question is meaningless. The Two-Truths doctrine is important to our understanding, but it shouldn’t be a justification for making-believe we still understand the conventional world today as humanity once did two and a half millennia ago.
"Forms are Empty, Emptiness is Form"

...please note that Emptiness is not Suchness, and is not the nature of anything—because then suchness wouldn’t be empty of an intrinsic self. We can say it is the essence of Suchness, elevating the absence of what we thought was there in the appearances to the stature of the absolute source of all, but that is just overkill and so wrong. It’s useful for a while, but it has the nasty effect of retarding our progress.

“Know that pointing out appearances as mind and mind’s nature as emptiness (thus making the duality of appearances and emptiness into a unity) is not the method of Nyingtik pith instruction. Such instruction may be given occasionally, but only as a provisional means to elevate the mind of an individual initiate, certainly not as a definitive truth.”

“Neither existence nor nonexistence nor space-time is to be found here. Appearances and emptiness are indistinguishable, so that neither eternity nor the void are anywhere perceptible.”

(Quotes above  attributed to Longchenpa in the “Yeshe Lama,” Jingme Lingpa)

Suchness is the presencing of forms (otherwise there would be no distinguishing anything), and forms are empty of any intrinsic self. Yet we can discern the inherent essence of each form. Where we get lost is in confusing the “nature” (inherent essence) of a form, which sets it apart from other forms, with an intrinsic self. Our problem lies in the confusing multiplicity of meanings for the word “nature.” If we just thought of it as “intrinsic self-naturing” versus “essential character,” we'd be on our way to lessening our confusion.
Thus, “Emptiness” (note the capitalization) is a form also—it’s a thought form, called a “concept.”
So repeat after me: “Forms (suchness) are empty, Emptiness is form.” This will remind us that “Emptiness” is just an idea that took hold when we noticed we were originally wrong about everything.
The essential character of Suchness is Pure Spontaneous Presencing. And I feel the need to again remind you that suchness is not a thing, it's the name we give to this activity—“presenting as form.”
And the nature of this is not something else, it’s the activity. So Pure Spontaneous Presencing is not a thing. It’s simply a description of the salient characteristics of the activity that is our phenomenal existence—of suchness.
Thus, it defines nothing, because there is nothing to define. As Garab Dorje said:

“Transcending all discrimination in its arising, Transcending all discrimination in its release.”

And as Jigme Lingpa said:

“While safeguarding the continuity of the wonderful intrinsic perfection of our existential presence, if the thought “the nature of pure presence is empty” springs up in the rational mind, by ascribing an objective focus of emptiness to pure presence, buddha is precluded.”

Forms are empty, Emptiness is form.

Addendum in response to the OP’s comment to this answer (placed here because of length)
By “permanent” you mean all of time? Time is the epitomization of arising and passing away—tick toc, tick toc—so would we say Time “itself” is permanent? I think we do, and yet even scientists are starting to say Time is just a convention that organizes events into orderly sequences. They are being forced into accepting a Two Truths doctrine because they and we share the same reality (i.e., Buddhism is right on this point). We say Time arises and passes away, but our experience of the arising and passing away of all things is only contingently factual because Time as we conventionally understand it, doesn’t exist.
But what does that word “reality” mean? The set of all events? A container in which everything “comes to pass”? What’s missing here?
It’s the motivating ‘force’, which in Buddhism is sometimes called “emptiness”. (It’s a terrible word because it’s an abstracted quality of all that manifests, but we conventionally use it as if it is something, but it’s truly only the absence of any intrinsic self-nature.)
So how did the absence of something become a motivating force? Habit. Lazy thinking. Misunderstanding. Because the truth is more bizarre than we imagine. Pick one.
The word “Emptiness” is a dialectical term. This means that when you apply it to things, you are asserting that they have no substance, no self, no intrinsic self-nature. And when you apply it to Emptiness, that also is without substance, no self, and no intrinsic self nature. It all just dissolves away. Thus, as you mentioned, Nagajuna said Emptiness is empty, which means Emptiness is just a mental form that has no intrinsic existence, but also that there is no Nature—just naturing.
So no, Emptiness is not permanent, because even what it points to (the absence of an intrinsic self-nature) is ultimately empty of meaning.
And because Time is not permanent, nothing that exists is permanent.
But your comment opens up the possibility of looking for something “relatively” permanent.  Is there some conventional quality of experience that does not arise and pass away?
Emptiness is empty, awareness stops and starts in lockstep with what arises, so what’s left?
The motivating ‘force’, which is called Mahākarunā in Buddhism (or just Buddha nature, but that sounds like some thing). This simply means that stuff shows up in response to extant conditions. But not deterministically because the responses are stochastic in character and show a certain drift or creativity in what actually happens. The show is endless and it is spontaneous—but always coherent in some way from appearance to appearance. This is conventionally so, but not because we are ordering the appearances, but because the truth is a little bit different.
What is Reality? The Absolute truth? Time is impermanent, and not to be found absolutely. Awareness therefore is empty of meaning, for what would an awareness of no duration be? Emptiness is empty, as we said. So how, and to what, does Buddha nature respond?
This. This is all there is. The past is just the conventionally ordered conditions that made This possible, and they are intrinsic to This, not something attached like a string of moments of time that we remember. The Now we conventionally speak of as being the time that This is happening is not a moment in time because there is no such thing. Rather, it’s a vignette consisting of the conditions and the response to the conditions—all showing up Now—without any intrinsic substance or self. Just This, awesome beautiful display. And it never ends because it never begins. All there is, is this Now.  That’s the stage. The how is beyond thought.
So to recap, conventionally, the appearances show up, and that is true. Ultimately, there is only the responsive naturing of appearances, and because time doesn’t exist ‘we’ somehow manage to organize these appearances into a moving image—the prior images in the sequence being the conditions intrinsic within the vignette Now. It’s like the entire ‘universe’ is just the imputed motion in a sequence of still images in an endless epiphanic display of Mahakaruna—and it is this that we break down into me, you, we, doing stuff to things, and making things happen.

I mean to ask whether emptiness is permanent and whether our idea of it refers to conventional existence: i.e. if there is some conventional quality of experience which does not arise and cease.

My response to your comment, Anon, got long, so I appended it to my answer above.

nice answer and comments; the clarifying explanation of the terms & contexts is helpful. thank you :)

It depends.
At the start of your emptiness contemplation you experience both emptiness and non-emptiness. However when you attain Nibbana you experience total emptiness.
Please refer to Cula Sunnata Sutta and Maha sunnata sutta.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.075.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html

Good householder Anon,
All saṅkhāras are anicca, good householder. What ever in that all, and most ideas, are void of any substance, yet have causes.
And of course, the sense of the common, common run-a-mill people, doesn't see, taking inconstant for constant and constant for inconstant, seeking refuge in an emptiness...
And what is all?
How ever, and that is importand, the run-a-mill person, one who's still a householder, does good to investigate form, the five senses and it's objects first, otherwise one become simply an "merit-off-consumings"-BSE star, head and heedless spreading useless comments to try to maintain ones identifications.
This might help to find back from Mohayanas and their brothers in arm to the Buddha and his Sangha: The Concept of Emptiness in Pali Literature - Medawachchiye Dhammajothi Thero but at least, brain-mastubation stays just brain-mastubation, is neither the path, nor it's aim.
So here on it: The Essence of the Dhamma
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, wprld-binding trades... but for an escape from this wheel]

Emptiness means that nothing exists in the ultimate sense.
It's like in sciences: all theoretical knowledge we have there is hypothesis. Newton's laws were good for centuries, but a time has came when we needed some other laws and equations to describe seemingly the same things (Einstein's etc). So any moment some new facts can arise, which would require to change our formulas.
That's what emptiness means. It means that everything in our "knowledge" is just a piece of experience: we have experienced something in perception; then we experienced some thoughts about that; that's how some piece of knowledge was created.
We say "we know it", but it's still a hypothesis based on experience; it's not an ultimate truth which would be true absolutely.
Likewise, "emptiness" is our concept. We assume that this concept is always true. We make that assumption on a basis of our experience and how we imagine the world.


text:
What is the Buddhist interpretation of the flow state?
Rephrased question:
Sometimes we become absorbed in an activity, such as writing an article, with intense focus and absorption (intentionally). How would Buddhist principles address this state?

Previous question as definition of mindfulness incorrect:
In being mindful we are aware of our thoughts, feelings, emotions and physical sensations
Sometimes we become absorbed in an activity, such as writing an article, with intense focus and absorption (intentionally). On the surface this appears to be in conflict with mindfulness. Is this the case?

good interesting question; helpful that Asker provides precisely what's intended meant by the topic words of the sentence; there are diffences of opinion & intended processess & outcomes from contemplation, so that might be part of it: and material's also sometimes presented which is at a remedial level or even incorrect, especially depending on viewpoints

also, specific 'interpretions' it sort of depend on the specific Buddhist persons: & there's a lot of variation, especially perhaps recently and the sort of new age type of material which has been recently marketed as Buddhism, cf Teachings of The Buddha, Dhammapada, etc

Although meditation/immersion is, in general, unification of the mind, one must be careful.

“Yā kho, āvuso visākha, cittassa ekaggatā ayaṁ samādhi;

“Unification of the mind is immersion. MN44

One must be careful here because there is Right Immersion and Wrong Immersion. Flow unifies the mind with a feeling of effortless, peaceful, and expansive limitlessness in the pursuit of an activity. Yet flow always ends and is therefore unsatisfactory. One can actually crave flow--let's go surfing (or whatever) for the rest of our lives. So flow can lead to suffering. A flowing surfer who cannot surf due to old age and illness is suffering. Although flow is peaceful, it is incomplete. We need to look beyond flow.
If we observe any well-practiced Buddhist monk, we see something quite interesting. The robes of a monk flow, but the monk is invariably steady, imperturbable, radiant, and equanimous. The world flows around the monk without clinging.
What is that monk doing?

That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how the Teacher or a respected spiritual companion teaches it. Feeling inspired, joy springs up. Being joyful, rapture springs up. When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss.
And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. AN5.26

Although this sounds "flowy", notice that the focus is the Dhamma, not some random activity.
Read the suttas, study the Dhamma, learn from good teachers and good friends. May that flow lead to peace.

Mindfulness does not mean being aware.
It means bringing & keeping Buddhist principles in the mind.
It appears the question is about fake Buddhism.

Thank you for the clarity. Then what do the Buddhist principles say regarding flow state?

if the mind has thoughts and emotions it is not a "flow state"

good point in answer and good comments; also, may be some of the question is somewhat from more at new age type recent texts, maybe Asker try find pretranslation text and go through & consider the original words  :)

samādhi, undistractible-lucidity, having singular preoccupation, a singular focus would be the closest to 'flow state'. What makes samma samadhi or samadhi-sambojjhanga really start to stand out, is when the passsadhi (pacification) awakening factor is properly done, so one's energy is smooth, relaxed, effortless, which gives samadhi its distinctive quality of excellence in anything it is directed towards. In other words, without passadhi, one could still have samadhi, but with strained, unrelaxed effort the result is of much lower quality. For example, picture a clumsy unathletic person running, compared to an olympic kenyan marathon runner with effortless, relaxed, pacified and perfectly efficient movement.

The state of meditative absorption is called samadhi.
Zen master Sheng Yen distinguished three kinds of samadhi:

Worldly samadhi can happen during usual worldly activities, e.g. singing.
Samadhi of Dharma practice, leading to awakening and liberation.
Mahayana samadhi, which means awakening and liberation applied to helping sentient beings in usual daily life.

It's important to not get attached to samadhi. Even if it feels pleasant, it has transient nature and can become a trap, a dead end in practice.
Sometimes it's called "the trap of solitary peace", or "Mara's cave".
Sheng Yen said that perhaps the best way of Zen meditation (according to the Silent Illumination method) is to not become consumed by meditation but to stay aware.
Our actual way though depends on our abilities and conditions:

One kind attains arahatship through samadhi, and the other attains this state without experiencing samadhi.

As a Mahayana practitioner, I try to develop samadhi — to be more stable under various influences and conditions; but also I try not to attach to samadhi and keep the practice natural, not losing active karuna attitude.
"Being in a flow" doesn't seem to be a proper goal, because I imagine liberation not as being caried by a river; rather it's like hanging in the air, being attentive and open and easily able to move instantly in any direction.


text:
How is the Tibetan Kangyur actually laid out?
I have been trying to gather Tibetan etexts like the Kangyur, and have found two sources:

Adarsha
AsianClassics

Later I realized there are multiple editions of the "Kangyur" composed at different times. Kangyur seems to be as Wikipedia says, "loosely defined set of texts" meaning the "translated words" of the buddha. But digging into this deeper and looking at the above two sources, they are organized into chunks of text like this:
རྩོད་པ་དང་། །དགེ་འདུན་དབྱེན་རྣམས་བསྡུས་པ་ཡིན། །རབ་ཏུ་འབྱུང་བའི་གཞིའི་སྤྱི་སྡོམ་ལ། ཤཱ་རིའི་བུ་དང་མུ་སྟེགས་ཅན། །དགེ་ཚུལ་གཉིས་དང་བྱ་རོག་སྐྲོད། །དགྲ་བཅོམ་བསད་དང་ལག་རྡུམ་གྱི། །སྡེ་ཚན་
ཡང་དག་བསྡུས་པ་ཡིན། །སྡོམ་ལ། ཤཱ་རིའི་བུ་དང་རབ་འབྱུང་དང་། །བསྙེན་པར་རྫོགས་པར་གནང་བ་དང་། །ཉེ་སྡེས་ཚོགས་ནི་བསྡུས་པ་དང་། །ལྔ་པའི་སྡེ་ཚན་བསྡུས་པ་ཡིན། །བྱང་ཆུབ་སེམས་དཔའ་དགའ་ལྡན་གྱི་གནས་ན་བཞུགས་པ་ན།
ཡུལ་ཨང་ག་དག་ན་ཨང་གའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བས་རྒྱལ་སྲིད་འབྱོར་པ། རྒྱས་པ་བདེ་བ་ལོ་ལེགས་པ་སྐྱེ་བོ་དང་མི་མང་པོས་གང་བ་བྱེད་དུ་བཅུག་གོ། །ཡུལ་མ་ག་དྷཱ་དག་ན་ཡང་རྒྱལ་པོ་པད་མ་ཆེན་པོ་ཞེས་བྱ་བས། རྒྱལ་སྲིད་འབྱོར་པ་རྒྱས་པ་བདེ་བ་ལོ་
ལེགས་པ་སྐྱེ་བོ་དང་མི་མང་པོས་གང་བ་བྱེད་དུ་བཅུག་གོ། །རེས་འགའ་ནི་ཨང་གའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་དཔུང་དང་མཐུ་ཆེ་བ་ཡིན་ལ། རེས་འགའ་ནི་རྒྱལ་པོ་པད་མ་ཆེན་པོ་དཔུང་དང་མཐུ་ཆེ་བ་ཡིན་ནོ། །གང་གི་ཚེ་ཨང་གའི་རྒྱལ་པོ་དཔུང་དང་མཐུ་ཆེ་བ་དེའི་ཚེ་
ན། དེས་དཔུང་གི་ཚོགས་ཡན་ལག་བཞི་པ། གླང་པོ་ཆེ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། རྟ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། ཤིང་རྟ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། དཔུང་བུ་ཆུང་གི་ཚོགས་གོ་བསྐོན་ཏེ། ཡུལ་མ་ག་དྷཱ་རྒྱལ་པོའི་ཁབ་མ་གཏོགས་པ་བཅོམ་ནས་ཕྱིར་ལྡོག་པར་
བྱེད་དོ། །གང་གི་ཚེ་རྒྱལ་པོ་པད་མ་ཆེན་པོ་དཔུང་དང་མཐུ་ཆེ་བ་དེའི་ཚེ་ན། དེས་ཀྱང་དཔུང་གི་ཚོགས་ཡན་ལག་བཞི་པ། གླང་པོ་ཆེ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། རྟ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། ཤིང་རྟ་པའི་ཚོགས་དང་། དཔུང་བུ་ཆུང་གི་ཚོགས་གོ་བསྐོན་ཏེ།

On Adarsha's Derge Kangyur specifically, it looks like every chunk is 6 or 7 lines. I am assuming this is because it was carved on wood blocks that look something like this:

But I haven't been able to find anything in images that match the length of the text on each line. The images such as on tbrc look like this, which has much shorter lines of lets say 50 characters instead of 200 in the unicode (i.e. the unicode text is much larger):

But then you look to thlib and see their catalog. They list works such as འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་ཁྲི་པ་ཤེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ་ (actually I got that name from the RigpaWiki). Scratch that, they list works like འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་ཁྲི་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ, "The Perfection of Wisdom in 10,000 lines". Searching Google for འཕགས་པ་ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ་ཁྲི་པ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ clicking around a bit gives this, which looks closer is length to the unicode one:

Wikipedia says "Perfection of Wisdom in 10,000 Lines" is ཤེས་རབ་ཀྱི་ཕ་རོལ་ཏུ་ཕྱིན་པ, so that's 3 different titles for the same text from 3 places.
First question is, where are these people getting the titles from? The texts are just on these slates seemingly without titles. Are the titles only added after the fact when classifying them in their corresponding library?
Second question is, since say the Adarsha texts are divided into these 6 or 7 line chunks. How does one invent the "Perfection of Wisdom in 10,000 Lines" boundary? Are these "books" just a shelf of slates in a certain order? Are the slates kept in order? How do you know what constitutes a "complete book" like Perfection of Wisdom in 10,000 Lines? Who says that it's a book, the writers or the catalogers?
Third part of the question is, what is the most important aspect to keep in the structure of the text:

The physical layout?
The spacing between "tibetan words"?
The ordering of the slates?
The grouping of the volumes like in the Kangyur?

Basically, I want to know how to build an easy to consume Tibetan script collection of "texts". In the same way the Bible has a bunch of books, each with Chapters, each with Verses (all of which were added later, only books were the first thing to exist). Can you remove all the formatting and physical layout of the texts like shown above, and just make it one solid block for a whole book? What would be the most appropriate way to divide it up to make it easier to consume? The slate or block idea I don't fully understand and it seems (a) valueless and (b) a legacy factor, i.e. they had to carve it into wood because those were the tools at hand. But now with today's technology, what should be a good structure of the "texts", which can then be collected into a "canon" like the Kangyur?

Just out of curiosity - are you a professor or scholar of Buddhism? If so, do you have a website or blog where one can follow your work? You seem to have a great amount of knowledge about the texts.

I would encourage you to contact Dr. Phil Stanley of Naropa University. His doctoral thesis, if I recall (I was a student of his at Naropa) involved detailed analysis of various versions of the Kangyur and the Tengyur.
"Canonicity in Buddhism and Christianity" describes a bit of his work; you can decide if he can be of help.
Good luck!