text:
Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself and instigate others as well?
Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself with the choice of becoming a Buddha (avoiding extinguishing dukkha) and instigate others as well to do so?
Given that this world is full of "Bodhisattvas", there is not one being who is not just here to help others out, why does a Bodhisattva instigate others to stay on this normal course of birth and death?
Does he need food to nourish his undertaking and fearing to find nobody and nothing as reason for further becoming?
Or what is the reason to instigate others to do such a work?
Just to become one day wise and listen to what the Buddha say and trap others who have the same blindness for it? (Given that the Teachings of the Buddha of our time is still available)
Or do they assume that there are no teachings which lead them out for now?

Could you please clarify in what regard you see Boddhisatvas as having burdened themselves, and how you see them as instigating others to do the same? I do not understand your question, thank you.

To speak in with a simile, Mr Ryan: to need 1000 arms one actually needs to have a real problem or burden with ones task. And why "instigating others to do the same" is simple the question "why instigating others to do the same" since it is obvious that "Bodhisattvas" do such in a big manner.

I've edited to try and make it more explicit what I understood of your question. Feel free to change it back if the result misrepresents the intended question.

That's tricky, but let it be like that :-) if Thiago Silva thinks it give food for thought.

Maybe it was not clear that the question was more about why does one likes to become a Bodhisattva at the first place not why does one like to get ride of dukkha. That was meant by tricky change and now even obvious no more visible what was meant with it, Mr. @ThiagoSilva

Yes, I got that. Sorry, these editions where trying to clarify what "burden" you referred to -- at first sight it is not clear why this choice of path is a burden. My thought was that given that a Bodhisattva is one who is resolute to become a sammasambuddha and avoids extinguishing dukkha until this is done, I just added the qualifications of the choice to make it clear in what sense it is a burden -- in the sense that one chooses to be subject to dukkha. In any case, feel free to edit it

BTW, what school or lineage do you practice in.

In the case Upasaka Dharmasena (@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena ) asked my person, Buddha Dhamma, or Dhamma Vinaya. Atma has no afflatus in anything aside the Lineage of the Noble ones which is not easy to trace. But in line of the question here, its maybe worth to say that a Bodhisattva would never tell about his tendency or that he walks that way. Such a noble aspiration of such a path was maybe destroyed in times of Millarepa and his lamenting approaches, now it has become a "hero" path.

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena Or if that question was addressed to Thiago, see his profile.

Addressed to Ven. Sir so I can better align my answers when there might be common ground to thing I picked up.

A Bodhisattva 'instigates' others because he wants what is best for others (full enlightenment together with its causes). From this viewpoint, 'abiding nirvana' is thus not what is best for others,  because it is not the one final result of the one final vehicle (i.e. the Mahayana path).
There are two obscurations:

Afflictive obscurations - all the afflictions - which prevent one from achieving abiding nirvana, and
Knowledge obscurations - the imprints left by previous moments of ignorance - which prevent one from achieving perfect enlightenment, omniscience.

If he completely abandoned afflictive obscurations (which an arya bodhisattva does anyway from the 8th  bhumi), the practitioner would be free from the conception of inherent existence, but he would not be free from the appearance of inherent existence because such a mistaken appearance is  caused by knowledge obscurations. A bodhisattva does not aim at merely abiding in 'abiding nirvana', but wants to be completely free from all mistakes and thus be able to enact the welfare of others.
The bodhisattva does not set out to merely get rid of afflictive obscurations and achieve abiding nirvana. He set out, from the entry into the Mahayana path, to get rid of knowledge obscurations and achieve what Mahayana call 'full buddhahood', 'perfect enlightenment', 'omniscience', 'the four kayas', 'non-abiding nirvana'.
The wisdom directly realizing emptiness is said to be 'the mother of all three types of enlightenment - that of the shravaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the bodhisattva' because it is a cause of enlightenment. However, it is a Mahayana belief that full enlightenment (that of the arhat-bodhisattva, an arya buddha) can not be achieved by cultivating the wisdom-side alone. One needs the method-side, namely bodhicitta, the six perfections, and so forth.
Knowledge obscurations can only be removed by way of developing the two wings that are method and wisdom. When the wisdom directly realizing emptiness is conjoined with bodhicitta, that wisdom becomes what is called 'ultimate bodhicitta' and that puts an end to what prevents one from achieving omniscience, the omniscient mind of a buddha, buddhahood, perfect enlightenment. That is why a bodhisattva cultivates bohdicitta, which is 'the wish to achieve enlightenment for the benefits of all sentient beings'.
The classical analogy goes: the wisdom realizing emptiness is like an axe while bodhicitta is like the strong arm. You need both the axe and a strong arm to cut the tree (that is here knowledge obscurations).
We say that from the path of seeing, an [arya] bodhisattva comes back in samsara but is not wandering in samsara. So his aggregates are not contaminated anymore, and there is no 'true suffering' involved. It is not the case that he will suffer for eternity. This is because he does not come back under the power of karma and afflictions, but under the power of compassion and aspirational prayers.

Sadhu for the effort to try to answer that, Mr/Mrs Tenzin Dorje. But actually it does not real. Given that such is needed (to help others) to find a way out, why instigate others as well to do so?
And an additional question accuses or a previous gets more blatant with "Mahayana believes...", what if there believes effect if they actually believe such since a long time and even get one being after the other on there track. There is a lot of causing harm, dukkha and death involved in only one turn of live, so it is somehow assumable how big the mountain of corps is, caused by such ideas.

I added a few things in order to answer what I believe was your question. Please, feel free to tell me if I'm still besides the point.

Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself with the choice of becoming a Buddha (avoiding extinguishing dukkha) and instigate others as well to do so?

Many people misunderstand Nirvana as permanent happiness or permanent absence of any trouble - which is impossible due to Impermanence. So Bodhisattva explains that such "Nirvana" is impossible, and invites all who has ears to hear to partake of true Nirvana, which is suchness - true extinguishing of dukkha by not clinging to what passes and not rejecting what is and not craving for what is not.
Second, if one wants to teach others Dharma, dukkha will inevitably be generated due to mismatch between "what is" (the confused student) and "what should be" (the student that understood). So in order to teach one has to be Okay with dukkha - which in itself is extinguishing dukkha.
So Bodhisattva really only consistently applies Dharma to its completion.

Given that this world is full of "Bodhisattvas", there is not one being who is not just here to help others out,

This statement is false. There are millions if not billions of selfish people here - and you know this. Sarcasm is a form of false speech too.

Or what is the reason to instigate others to do such a work?

Compassion.

Or do they assume that there are no teachings which lead them out for now?

The desire to get "out" is the desire that Bodhisattva overcomes to attain the non-attainment of suchness, the true Nirvana.

Could I ask you to please give a quote from an authoritative text to explain 'Bodhisattva explains that such "Nirvana" is impossible, and invites all who has ears to hear to partake of true Nirvana, which is suchness', though?

There are many motivations.
One of the main motivations is loving kindness. You do this to the benefit of the others.
Though this might not be generally considered, a small strain of sense of challenge, achievement, accomplishment or to achieving the ultimate can also be present. These may fade away depending on the stage you are in but surely a motivation early on to wish for Buddhahood. Buddhahood is at the pinnacle of working towards a most perfect form of existence. This on it's own right becoming.
Also external influences can motivate this. I have heard when there were no Buddhas for a long time some beings who are is some stage of sainthood  in higher planes influence possible earthlings to aspire to become a Buddha by telepathic influence and planting the seed or initial thought of aspiration.

Why, Upasaka Dhamasena, would those "beings who are is some stage of sainthood in higher planes" inspire others rather to just do it themselves? That goes back to the OQ "Why burden others?"

It is said manomaya nidana happened this way in the Jataka

Well wanting to become a Buddha it self is "manomaya", but that was not the question in this specific case, Upasaka Dharmasena. Its just a reasonable question. As I would for example say to Upasaka "Come on, you could free your self form suffering. Do not waste your time with fantasies of becoming a Buddha" What does Upasaka Dharmasenat thinks, which of both would be the voice of Mara and which the Buddhas advice?

FYI I tried to follow on this comment which recommended explaining "the 4 types of nirvana."
There's a description of that in this video, Four types of nirvana starting at about time 13:05.

Natural nirvana -- the emptiness of the mind
Nirvana with remainder -- an arhat (the "remainder" being their body)
Nirvana without remainder -- an arhat after death

Some schools believe that an arhat's mind and body cease at death, which begs the question "who has nirvana?" The venerable's (Gelug) school teaches that, instead, when an arhat dies they shed their polluted body, acquire a mental body, and reside in a Pure Land in meditative equipoise (on emptiness) until the Buddha arouses them and says they need to enter the Boddhisatva path: at which they have to start on the Boddhisatva path (even though they've realized emptiness before) and acquire the great merit of a Boddhisatva. And that's why (she says) we're encouraged to enter the Boddhisatva path directly without become arhats first ... because that (entering the Boddhisatva path directly) is the quicker (than becoming an arhat first and being in meditative equipose for a while) way to enter full awakening, accumulate all the merit that you need to accumulate to become a Buddha.


text:
Can anyone recommend a good diacritic keyboard for rendering Pali, Sanskrit, etc?
This isn't particularly about Buddhism, but I'm wondering what people are using for unicode characters.

Maybe move this to meta?  It does pertain to Buddhist languages.

I don't know... Doesn't belong on the meta either. If anyone has an answer they can reply here in the comments I guess. The rules are just rules but there is a reason we have to keep enforcing them...

No worries.  Other than a little comp sci dabbling, I have the technical skills of a slightly sophisticated caveman.  ;-) I just wasn't sure where else to look than here.

I don't know if this will be useful for you but when I need to write Pali letters, I find them on google and copy/paste them into Buddhism SE. Of course this might not be helpful if wanting to literally write the language. For small sentences, words and letters the copy/paste-method can work.

Found one - http://fsnow.com/pali/keyboard/ .  I can write Pāli now!  It's certainly a more effective solution than hammering on my keyboard with a large brontosaurus bone!

Pali is usually rendered in Roman/ Latin characters with diacritical marks - the same ones used by Sanskrit. Pali doesn't have its own script. However, I think it's possible to render Pali also in the Sinhala script and the Devanagari script (used by Sanskrit). Hence, you can also use keyboards that render Roman/ Latin characters with Sanskrit diacritical marks, Sinhala script and Devanagari script.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Spirits in Buddhist Folklore
Are there any references to spirit of ancestors in Buddhist folklore? As seen in some movies, communication with spirits is shown. Is this practical ? What is the Buddhist view on spirits?

"Spirits" are lower ranking devas that occupy the realm of the Four Great Kings, and include earthbound devas too, that live invisibly in human cities and influence human beings telepathically. These correspond to the nature spirits found in all traditions. I cant think of any examples of spirits of ancestors as such, but King Bimbisara appears to the Buddha as a king in the realm of the Four Great Kings after the former's decease.

There is actually an English version of the Peta-Vatthu, but since it does not gives any references of its origin and certain other shares are not very in the frame of the original giver, you should be aware that it could be actually not really given, put simply pirated like it is very usual today. So beware of do not becoming a hungry ghost in this realm, a therm that is very proper for may kinds of existences here in this world, on googlyana: Offerings for hungry ghosts in Googleyana
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of trade and keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

Not exactly, there are stories where relatives want to find out where a recently deceased loved one was reborn. However no communication happens between them, the Buddha just states, they were reborn here, because of X.
Communication with deities is sometimes mentioned, but spirits or ghosts, not so much in my knowledge.

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


text:
What is the best way to develop a mind observation habit?
Different spiritual traditions, including, but not limited to Buddhism, emphasize that it is important to always keep in mind that one's thoughts and emotions do not constitute the essence of a person.
That is:

When some thought crosses my mind,
makes me like or dislike something (emotion),
then these thoughts and emotions are not my true self in that they come and go like they want (similar to breathing, blood circulation and other bodily processes, which most people can't consciously control). The true self is the entity that observes them.

Theory and practice shows that realization 3 often leads to an increase in happiness (e. g. I feel pain, I acknowledge the thought I'd rather prefer to experience pleasure and the emotion of sadness as inevitable by-products of the activity of my brain, which usually eliminates suffering despite presence of pain) and - as a result - higher productivity (less time and energy is wasted on useless thoughts emotions).
Right now, I occasionally do the whole process (observe thoughts, observe emotions they've generated, remember that they aren't my true self), probably when the pain gets too hard.
I want to develop a habit of doing this routine so that I'm automatically doing those 3 steps all the time (as frequently as possible). As a result I expect my stress resistance (ability to do productive work in suboptimal conditions) to dramatically increase.
What routine can I use to develop that habit (apart from the process described below), ideally scientifically proven?
Notes:

I need some practical, actionable recipe for developing the desired habit, which is better than the option below. I do not need some theoretical, philosophical stuff.
If your routine is well-suited for people with tendency towards premature action and ADHD, it's even better.

Standard habit formation process

Install on your mobile phone an application, which vibrates every 20 minutes.
Every day in the morning, turn on the application.
Whenever you feel the vibration, do the three steps (observe thoughts, observe emotions they've generated, remember that they aren't my true self).
Before you go to sleep, turn off the application.
Repeat steps 2-4 for at least 40 days.

Update 1 (05.01.2016 12:13 MSK): Below you can find a selection of techniques, which seem to help me observe the mind. I don't guarantee that they will work for anyone else. And I don't guarantee that it really helps me - it just seems to help.
Morning observation ritual

Write out at least 10 thoughts that are running in your head.
For each of them do the 3 steps (observe the thought, observe the emotions it generates and remember that you aren't either of them).

Imagine the thoughts on a diagram
It helps to imagine the different thoughts as diagrams with time on the horizontal axis and the intensity of a particular thought on the vertical one.

Music
Some music seems to be more conducive to mind observation than others. I noticed it when listening to the Focus at will music, section Focus Spa.

I'm not affiliated with Focus at will, I'm not getting any remuneration for this and you probably can get the same music in other ways.

Is this new question related?

Has anything that you have tried before worked for you? Anything that helps you stay mindful? Understanding what worked before might help

Dmitri I use Google calendar to remind me of mindfulness thrice a day. I set them up as 5 minute appointments at three times in the day. Other (perhaps) natural, but more random, reminders could be traffic signals, the doorbell of your house, incoming call on your mobile, whatsapp messages, etc.

@user3547 In my update 1 you can find some techniques, which seem to help me recently (after I asked this question).

@DP_ One year later, are you still following the same techniques? Did they work for you or did you modify them? Would be interested in knowing your results...

Well this is a suggestions question because your mileage may vary based on what you do and what's your environment. I'd suggest to use the most natural way available.
The main idea here is to have a reminder in place. For this maybe you can use the entrances at your home or workplace to be a reminder. Or an action like drinking coffee or water or using the toilet. Or you can mark a person you see around you everyday.
Side by side, cultivate a more natural inside reminder. Can't beat this one. This could be autosuggestion like telling yourself to be mindful and relax. Or it could be some action like scratching your head or ear. Or it could be any time you are walking. And you could use rubbing your knees when you're sitting.
But you see all this requires predisposed awareness. Try to be aware of your body movements. This will certainly help in future.
In formal meditation, cultivate awareness of your sitting and the environment by using the sounds or smell or feel of the place. This would help in cultivating general environmental awareness in other places also. In the sense, this is more habit-forming.
These are some tips. But beware of the fact that any external thing you use, should not become a crutch such that when you are away from it, you lose all reminders altogether or you cannot be mindful at all.

Can you give an example of a natural inside reminder?

I have edited the answer with a few more pointers.

For some people, the "natural inside reminder" is related to the experience of an "Observer" or "Witness". I asked a question about that, but there seems to be no one who agrees with my experience of what an Observer is. I have heard many other people (probably not Buddhists) talk about it, so I know that the term is in common use. I can't tell you how to "get" one, I think it develops on its own as we progress. Eventually, we outgrow it.

Since you mention "autosuggestion" as a helpful technique, if you're willing and able to I think that this question would appreciate your input.

External help like apps can be a hindrance when you get to rely on them. Even guided meditation instructions can become as you get used to them.
The issue with habits is that most of the action is not strictly mindful.
Having said this much of the standard advice is to systematically bring your attention to a chosen object and then to continuously keep re targeting this object, while continuously reviewing if your attention is with the object. This is like 1st looking at the object and then looking under a magnifying glass, or taking aim and shooting with a machine-gun to the object. When you practice this your mind will stay with the object. After sometime this will become pleasant also. Also this will increase your concentration. Ideally this redirection should be aimed at the 4 foundations of mindfulness or Metta, Muditha, Karuna and Upekka.

Observation is always there.
There is no need to do all this tracking. Just being able to be clear when one thought is coming and the next coming is more than enough. Then you will be able to find the peace that exists in between every thought.
Do concentrated practice sessions and strengthen this awareness muscle.
And then be lightly aware of your skandhas through the day, powered by your trained mindfulness. Be aware of yourself trying to be aware as well. Awareness of everything comes before your attachment so just let go of the attachment when you notice.
I reccommend this guide on observing your thoughts and eventually flowing it into your daily life.

As I read your post, and the answer given by @BlackFlam3, some ideas came to me about the question. I think it is easy to turn these spiritual practices into the focus of your worship, and thereby miss the moment. You start turning your focus to the thoughts about your thoughts. Making it into a routine is what the mind wants, as to take control away from awareness.
I would re-emphasize @BlackFlam3's suggestion in bringing the focus back to something inside. As I read the recommendation about "scratching your head", it occurred to me that I've developed a habit of stroking my beard. Ironically, I'll get lost in thought and have my arm twisted in a strange way, which causes my shoulders to become tense as I do this. In this, I can give awareness to my habit and perhaps laugh at it - use the pain as a reminder. Then, perhaps, I can use my beard as the reminder directly.
My favorite author, Eckhart Tolle, talks about this. I paraphrase, but something like, "in the act of observing your non-presence, you become present."

You are on your way. There is an old saying: "What you focus your attention on grows." So, you will develop a mind observation habit. It is inevitable, you cannot fail. It just takes time and effort.
The way I see it, the mind is like a big party or caucus, or place where opinions are debated: some become more popular, others less. The most 'popular' are those that hold your attention the majority of the time, and which control most of your awareness. The large get larger and the small get smaller, because you only have so much focus at any one time.
Mindfulness is a way of crowding out the unwanted, distracting aspects of awareness, which brings the act of being aware to center stage. When this is the case, the important truths about life can be experienced, confirmed, deepened, and made more primary / automatic. If you build it, it will happen. You are doing it.


text:
Right view of the external modern world
Did Gautama Buddha make any statements about the justices or injustices of the world?
I would like to elucidate the right view to a person who has undergone a certain injustice. The person in question has not got a particular position she rightfully deserved due to a conspiracy of people blocking said person from achieving it. I would also like a parallel to the contemporary world so that it is more practical when reaching this society's person.

As this seems situational some details on what the injustice is specifically would help to answer this question.

@hellyale  the edit has been made

The way Buddha explained these things, was not as much about justice/injustice as with references to how the world/society works.
For example he would say, if someone were to rob people, he will likely get caught by the king and get his feet and hands cut off. Dharma is not as much about justice as it is about understanding how things work.
Same way, when your friend had people conspire against her - this would mean she probably did a bad job making friends with people. When someone is good at making friends, people don't conspire against them. There could be exceptions but this seems a general rule of thumb, right?
As per the Occam's Razor principle, the explanation with fewer assumptions is more often the right one. So in my experience, more often than not, our social problems are caused by our own behavior.
This would be the most Buddhist advice, to start with yourself. Even if you are not THE source of the problem, in reality you are the only thing you can control (to a degree) - so whatever you want to achieve you have to achieve it by changing your own behavior. Unless of course you are in a position of authority to tell people what to do, but that's not the case here.
The key to the right view is to shift the focus from personal preconceptions ("this is not fair" etc.) to the context of kusala/akusala action-and-result: this action leads to this result - that action leads to that result, these words will have this effect - those words will have that effect, these thoughts of mine will result in this - those thoughts of mine will result in that.
Not sure if I can find any quotes or anecdotes for this. Hopefully someone else can think of some canonical story.

Yes this is what I told her . The world is not to be fixed . Your perceptions are. But they just don't seem to get it. So... I guess I'll leave it there in the hope that there is a time when the person will get it from their own experience

The first thing that the story (i.e. "not got a particular position she rightfully deserved due to a conspiracy") reminded me of was verse 3 of the Dhammapada (i.e. "he robbed me" etc.).

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

The associated story is here.
I hesitate to tell this story because it seems like blaming the victim, not sympathetic.
I don't want to say, "you were robbed ... and I expect you to like that!"
But if the friend to whom the injustice was done now continues to hate their situation (or, it's called, aversion), if you're continuing to hold hate, then that's continuing to 'suffer', prolonging the suffering ... and that's maybe part of the types of suffering (see here and see also "not getting what is wanted is stressful") that the Buddha certainly made statements about: not injustice so much as our reaction to it.
Of course he also made statements about justice; for example,

Sila (virtue, moral conduct) is the cornerstone upon which the entire Noble Eightfold Path is built.

There's also,

The Vinaya Pitaka, the first division of the Tipitaka, is the textual framework upon which the monastic community (Sangha) is built. It includes not only the rules governing the life of every Theravada bhikkhu (monk) and bhikkhuni (nun), but also a host of procedures and conventions of etiquette that support harmonious relations, both among the monastics themselves, and between the monastics and their lay supporters, upon whom they depend for all their material needs.

And actually the Dhammapada does say more on the subject of justice. The story behind Verse 331,

Verse 331: It is good to have friends when the need arises; it is good to be content with anything that is available; it is good to have merit when life is about to end; it is good to be rid of all dukkha.

... starts with people being "ill-treated by some wicked kings".

The world is perfectly just in the sense that the law of karma is ubiquitous, i.e., every cause results in an effect, and every effect results from a cause. Therefore, right view is to regard every experience as a personal opportunity for change and growth, rather than blaming others, which merely magnifies the suffering. Also, because everything is illusory (except one thing, which is therefore the only thing that really matters), it is as absurd to agonize over it as it would be to agonize over something that happens in a video game. In this regard Buddhism inculcates an attitude a bit like stoicism.

I was guessing that the OP's friend might be naive and that statements like "every effect results from a cause" (is that blame-the-victim, are you saying it's my fault? does it imply predestination, inevitability?) and "everything is illusory" (what, suffering isn't real?) might not be easy to understand without a little more explanation.

Those are meaty questions that IMHO go beyond the scope of a comment. I understand there is a chat feature here but have never used it. See, however, David Loy, ""Rethinking Karma," Tricycle, located at http://www.tricycle.com/columns/my-view-rethinking-karma?page=0,1.

I'm not insisting on a chat. I think my comments are often meant as a 'request for clarification' when I find some point in your answer which I think you could make clearer, not by your adding comments or chat but by your adding to (i.e. editing) your own answer ... add a sentence or two, a reference, whatever you think best. Or ignore my comment if you think it's unnecessary (and/or you can 'flag' any comment which you think is obsolete, unnecessary, or whatever). In this case I'm not sure my comment is worthwhile: it was (just) fantasizing about how someone could misunderstand the answer.

The questions you raise are legitimate and have indeed been a subject of very considerable discussions. However, I dont feel able to do justice to the extent of the discussion that would be required to elucidate your points. I do try to be concise and keep to the question. Any answer to any question can of course spin off many additional questions especially in this kind of format.

In the Dhammapada, is the chapter called 'The Just', which states:

He who does not judge others arbitrarily, but passes judgment
  impartially according to the truth, that sagacious man is a guardian
  of law and is called just.

Your friend is caught in the cronyism of unjust, unethical & non-impartial people. This is very common. Your friend should look for a new job in an ethical workplace.
The Buddha taught the world has many defiled unethical people. It is not a matter of your friend not being good at making friends because true friends don't collectively conspire against individuals.
Generally, befriending such people requires the diminution of one's ethical values.
In the Sigalovada Sutta, it is taught in life there are true friends & false friends. We should try to associate with good people & good friends (even though they can be difficult to find).


text:
Software programming/Art and Buddhist Practice - Pursuing creative activity
I have read this question but I'm seeking more advice.
So it is quite obvious in the activity of software programming that we cannot help but think about programming concepts and also end up creating objects as concepts (as in Object Oriented Programming) and make something work.
Now, I understand their usefulness in the context of what I am working on.
Invariably, I get flustered and frustrated sometimes when something doesn't work because I am lost in the process of creation of that thing which I am currently working on, the cause being I am not mindful. Because mindfulness means there is an observer observing the mind and thoughts, which may lead to emotions. But in this activity the mind is busy creating things which would work on a system.
Also, sometimes work is incomplete, and you do get an urge to work on something but also you could spend the time to do samatha or vipassana. How to decide efficiently in these cases?
How to balance mindfulness, be equanimous and pursue this kind of creative activity at the same time? Or is this a curse that you cannot do it effectively in the process of creativity?
I would like to know if someone dealt with this and how? Thank you.

learn to walk in two directions at once

A beginning would be to give his skills, what about programming and doing art for those who are walking the path, or are interested to walk it. As for livelihood, let it be livelihood, just doing your task and avoiding to harm others as well as your self with you. As for the practice after you have fulfilled the first step generosity, the second virtue, concentration: there is no place for creativity at all. Creativity it's just needed to fight against of all what is an obstacle for the path., Mr/Mrs BlackFlam3. So what comes up that hinders you just to make your duty or just to give?

@SamanaJohann I think what you're saying is a good simplification . Since my job involves creativity, there might be hindrance to mindfulness. Anyway. I understand what you said and I think that's good enough.

There is seldom a livelihood that does not requires creativity aside of walking the holly live as a strange beggar. So let the job be the job and just observe what is going on and why. Changing ones livelihood it not so easy even it is the end of the virtue path and entrance of the concentration path. It does not mean that it is not the best to make live one, also not to work just like a robot. Its a fine ans step by step work, like making a Buddha image, the same is with the creativity to make your self perfect and it would not always work. Would you give up?

Yes it's a problem.
To some extent an impossible problem, in the sense that ...

The Difficult We Do Immediately. The Impossible Takes a Little Longer.

Quote Investigator also gives that as,

"If it's possible, it's done. If it's impossible it will be done.

I get flustered

Anyway, I read "I get flustered" as saying that when the going gets difficult then you suffer a crash.
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance talks about this (which can happen as the result of some "set-back") as a "gumption trap" or "loss of gumption".
The way I perceive it as that I need to use my head for storage: my head is meant to be running (or at least simulating the running of) the software, simulating input data (possibly several data, all possible data), keeping in mind the expected output, comparing my model of the needed software with my observtion of the actual software, understanding the "steel threads" while using hygienic techniques to sanitize any errors paths. If there's a setback (e.g. an emotional setback) then I might lose all that and it takes a while to reconstruct it. If I'm (emotionally) unwilling then the afflictive emotion is what occupies (clouds) the head. And repeated setbacks might tend to train you to feel aversion (which is a vicious cycle).
See also Are mindfulness and flow related -- I wanted to find the answer[s] to that useful, but haven't yet.
My little understanding of flow is two-fold:

If you use a scanner (perhaps an MRI) to look at brain activity, they say a a brain in 'flow' state is less active than unusual, i.e. there are various parts of the brain which aren't active; perhaps that's like, those other parts of the brain are distractions, or like, various flaps and spoilers and undercarriage and so on is folded away when an airplane is cruising.
Flow state happens when the difficulty of the work is in a Goldilocks zone: not too easy (which is so boring that it doesn't hold your attention), and not too difficult (which a mind that wants to experience success might be averse to).

Consequently, two bits of advice:

Avoid distractions
If the work is too difficult then simplify it (e.g. analyze it, write it down, automate testing, etc.).

Furthermore:

If you stop working because you care too much, because you identify with the failing software, then try to be a bit more dispassionate
Conversely if you stop working because you care too little, then maybe reflect a little more on the (real world) consequences

A technique which can help is incremental development: take it from one working (satisfactory albeit non-final/temporary) state to the next ... perhaps like Tai Chi walking where you maintain balance during and after each step, or like rock-climbing where you move from one safe hold to another.

and frustrated sometimes when something doesn't work

It's not going to "work" until it's 'finished'. The majority of your time is with it unfinished and therefore in a non-working state ... so you can't afford to get too personally upset about that, perhaps like a doctor couldn't afford to get too upset with everyone's illnesses (or a garbage collector with people's garbage).
Perhaps ideally you'll see that "not working" as a fault of the software (not a fault of you), and identify what and how to add to or remove from the software (including, your model of the software).
However the dissatisfaction you feel with non-working software is why they're paying you (to work with it) and why you're motivated to fix it: the subjective experience needn't be entirely pleasant all the time.
I guess that I may be more of a "feeler" than a "thinker" (than most other programmers are) on the MBTI, so I use my feelings (e.g. "satisfying" or "not satisfying") as a tool which gives me feedback of whether the software is working. I can't wholly recommend that (it has drawbacks) but that's maybe what I have to work with.
If you're aware you've become "frustrated" then a change in pace or situation might help (see also "the aha! moment"); I won't recommend you go for a cigarette, but maybe take a walk outside.

How to decide efficiently in these cases?

A traditional way to do that is with a clocked schedule:

"For the next hour, I'm going to be working"
"I'm going to work from 14:00 to 17:30 with a short break each hour"

Whether that's "efficient" I can't tell you. Some other people swear by "being in the zone" at irregular hours.

I would like to know if someone dealt with this and how?

Perhaps it's obvious they do. Maybe they master it, continue to practice it, and experience its "three characteristics" too.

Another "Feeler" programmer! Yay! The thing I tell my students most is that programming can be very frustrating...

I get frustrated when something doesn't work ... the cause being I am not mindful ... which may lead to emotions.

Frustration is a good example of Dukkha (the painful feeling of wrongness). It is generated from mismatch between "how things are" and "how they should be". If you look carefully once you are already frustrated - you will see this mismatch right in front of your nose. Then it's up to you to let go of "how they should be" idea. If you let go, the dukkha will subside. If you keep grasping, the dukkha will keep getting generated. Sometimes the right choice is to pay with dukkha for something bigger. But most often accepting "how things are" is a wiser choice, even if it goes against our foolish heart.

Also, sometimes work is incomplete, and you do get an urge to work on something but also you could spend the time to do samatha or vipassana.

Same problem. You have a conflict between "is" (work) and "should" (meditation). Let go of this conflict and you will be good. That is the real mediation, the higher kind of meditation.

This is a good question, because in the modern world, we mostly create benefit by using our minds, and most people cannot simply become immersed in traditional mindfulness practices and retreat situations most of the time. We need to discover the "one mind" in our little minds, while minding what we do, without minding what happens along the way. Mind you, this is a lot to ask.
I was a programmer for 12 years, creating complex things that got used commercially. I am familiar with frustration, and elation. Now I teach programming to adults making a career change, and I tell that that programming is frustrating! But, as my Guru says, "There is no 'problem'. We are the problem." You are frustrated. As you say, there is observation of this fact. With observation and reflection come the possibility of awareness and knowledge. So you are on the right track.
It might seem that using the mind to create mental models and concepts (such as in programming) is somehow more ensnaring than other types of work. Perhaps. But if your observer sits with you and helps you remain connected inwardly, then this gets better. There is no fundamental obstacle to conceptual work being also mindful. Eventually, your observer has done a good enough job and dissolves. Then there is no one to get ensnared, frustrated, or wonder if it is being done correctly. (This is nonduality.)
For your other question, deciding what is best to do, how to balance work, practice, rest, etc: that is more practice. Make a decision, observe what happens, reflect. There is no way out of this, it is how life is. Good luck!
ADDITION: Whew, this is a thicket if I ever saw one. Related questions about Mindfulness and so on swirling like a storm of words... Here is how I experience all of this, if it does not clear it up for you, perhaps your mind simply functions differently than mine.
My consciousness is a collection of points of view. I see the functioning of the mind as a bunch of "bubbles of awareness" of varying sizes, more or less known to me at any given time. In an alpha state, or perhaps a nondual state, it feels as though my entire consciousness is a single, silent point of view, but of course small bubbles are constantly arising below awareness and causing small effects, which might grow and distract me again. One cannot live one's life in an alpha state! My model of multiple points of awareness in the mind has scientific backing, but I came to it from my own experience.
My mind includes 4 past life personalities (which I no longer have a view on whether they are "true" or not, they are relics of earlier in my life). A few years ago, I created about 5 "personality facets", based on my understanding of the Archetypes, in an attempt to develop more areas of my abilities. I have other experiences of "voices" and things going on inside that I will not attempt to categorize. To me, all of this is just the simple functioning of a creative mind. We can model other minds, so it is obvious that we can model and construct personalities in our own minds. This is the basis for part of Transpersonal Psychology. (I found out about that long after I created my facets.) Also, I have one "Accompanying Voice" which I do not see as part of myself at all. I learned what it was once, but the understanding was so powerful that my mind halted and rejected it. (So I can't tell you what it is.) My facets and past lives comment on my life, have emotional reactions (often two or more of them at once), converse with each other, paint, write books and do other things. It is like living in a busy household. This is my normal state. Everyone I have described it to understands and finds me sane, although different from themselves. I call it, being a Creative Person.
I have long thought of my mind as my "experimental laboratory": I get to try things out and see how they work. When we come to questions like "who is watching the watcher" etc, I see these as just silly. Consciousness is "whatever it does" and does not need a definition from us. However, it did not come with an Owner's Manual, so we need to discover how it works as best we can and learn how not to fall in to error. Some ideas are approximations, some are tools, some are crutches, and many are crippling.
Krishnamurti's Master when he was a boy said: "You are not your mind, but it is yours to use." Have fun!

I'm grateful you will answer this. The core of the solution you propose seems to be the 3rd paragraph: i.e., "your observer", and "being also mindful". Re. the latter, I'm not sure what "mindful" means: mindful of, i.e. remembering, what? Or if mindfulness is an egoless/involuntary state of attention (e.g. "remaining mindful of the software without being distracted") then maybe that begs the question: how to do that, what or who does that, isn't the need to decide that itself a distraction (e.g. in the way that this site has a separate "meta" site)? What technique will overcome "frustration"?

As for the former, maybe "(distinct) observer" implies some personified detachment ... should I assume that "observer" is not observing the software, but is supervising "you" to ensure you are "keeping your nose to the grindstone"?

Perhaps ^ this was my question more so than pursuing creative activity itself. The "observer" observing the mind. The extra layer that is installed. What does it do when we are off creating these complex concepts?

@Chris I hope that the Addition I made will question all your answers. Stop. Reverse that... Wait. Got it right the first time. Proceed.

@BlackFlam3 I hope that the Addition gives you some things to consider. I cannot propose my way as "the best way", it simply works for me. To answer the question in your comment "^": the Observer functions without doing anything. Think of how you behave when you know people are able to see you (in a cafe) vs alone. Do you pick you nose in public? To paraphrase Rumi: the intensity of the (feeling of being observed) does all the work. It is very simple. Some day, all the awarenesses begin to fuse, and it gets very exciting (the Neo state), and later it all burns up and goes away. Inevitable.

Vedana is also a cetasikacetasika (mental concomitant). When the Buddha says, sabbe dhamma vedana samosaranasabbe dhamma vedana samosarana, it means that the experience of all mental concomitants includes and is inseparable from vedana.

Why Vedana and What is Vedana?
Whenever you are doing creative activity it creates sensation or mental stimulations which are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. In situations like this you have to keep equanimity and knowing the arising and passing nature of the sensations. The following answer has more detail.

Good link about Vedana. Need to read more. Thank you and +1

Its a major problem but .I think if you do it unconsciously it comes with the frustration of not working rightaway as well as finding out later that you've been short sighted and hasty .But doing it consciously lets you respect the size of the work and direct your effort wisely .
Unconscious mind works like parallel processing it has a rewarding effect in finding creative solutions through relations between seemingly unrelated information and sometimes if you are attuned you can work so fast thats why you and I get attached to it in the creative process sometimes you don't even know how you solved the problem but if it takes over the mind completely it will be chaotic undirected and your programming will be narrow and shortsighted.
This is where the conscious mind comes in it works like serial processing it takes one piece of information after another sends feedback with instructions to the unconscious like you input values to a calculator then the unconscious produces a solution to it back it works in a loop and the unconscious gets hardwired to doing the operations in the process.So it essentially programs the unconscious.It is slower than the unconscious because its not automated but it is open to new information and acts accordingly.
So in understanding the relationship one should be conscious/mindful about the thoughts received from the unconscious by first giving instruction asking a question .Ex: "what can I do to solve this problem ?" .then watch whatever that arises and know its there its quality and according to that information you ask another question correcting the direction of your work as you go on.
If you became advanced in this then you reach effortless effort where you become aware of the thoughts mentally real-time this is the ultimate mastery.
This is the best I have understood so far hope you find solace in your seeking.
Now let me finish with this quote

In the cognized there is only the cognized
  lord Buddha

Actually very unsuitable, not only because IT-section and virtue are two different worlds, but because steady focus on reaction, requiring a lot of resources and do not easy give mindfulness on the foundations place. Also the use of the most stuff produced is not really for beneficial objectives but focuses on binding others and so one get"s of cause bound as well.
As less programmers actually really know their job at the base, but take form here and there, all the time, a great punch of debts is always co-created.
Huge and fantastic concentration is required, great if capable in such, yet one should think about ones potential to use it for something that goes toward lasting.
If caught in such a livelihood, one should put much effort, like always, into developing right view, resolve and right virtue (ending with right livelihood).
The IT-ideas are a good sample how unwise people thought of giving others more independence and in effect make all more and more defuse depending on each other. Think on the relative clear dependency of a ordinary painter or brick-layer, someone who had learned a skill by a master, something that IT-world is totally void of and therefore huge physical and mental problems in this area with fast growing tendency.
(Note: Not given for trade, exchange, stacks or other that binds to the world but for liberation and beyond)

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


text:
live as if it was your last day?
So there is a lot of teaching out there focuses on meditating on death. A lot of it talks about living life as if it was your last day, week, month... in that this way, you don't take life for granted and it wakes you up instead of just passing time...
These same teachings talk about how life should be lived in reality and not in your mind.
My question is... isn't "pretending" it is your last "day", "week", "month"... itself a construction of the mind? Doesn't that distort reality? Is that really the "correct" thing to be practicing?

Mr. Jason this should solve your question, in regard of what the Buddha taught: Maranassati Sutta: Mindfulness of Death

The "meditating on death" sounds like it's meant to be a meditation on impermanence, and on the unattractiveness of the body (i.e. an antidote to lust); as well as on the "just seeing" and so on that may be an antithesis to a excessive mental fabrication.
But there may be another aspect to it (beware this is something I've been thinking about myself, and is not a thought that I've been reading or hearing about from others, so don't take this as an authoritative answer) which is 'real' in a different way: which is to do with how you handle time.
If you consider not time but money for example, if you borrow money then that's a burden. "How will I pay the money back? I owe the money, I spent the money, how can I accumulate more money (more than I need) to pay back what I owe?" If someone says to me, "Would you like to...?", or, "Can you...?", if I have a debt then maybe I'm meant to say, "Sorry, I owe a lot of money and instead of doing that good thing you suggested I have to work to try to pay it back." In any case that doesn't seem like sukkha.
According to this one of the questions they ask someone who wants to be ordained is, "Are you free from debt?"
I think something similar happens with time: if I accumulate a time debt, if I have a lot of things to do, which I haven't done and which I need to do, which I owe to someone, then maybe that's not conducive to being free (in the "liberation" sense of enlightenment), it means that you're unable to do what you want or should.
So I think that it may (at least for house-holders) be (not a mind-construction or reality-distortion but) a sīla practice, which ties into the notion that a result of virtue is the lack of remorse. I think a consequence of "living each day as if it's your last" might be that you have done (and continue to do) everything that you need to.
It might fit into the notion of karma too, somehow: if you go around saying, "Sure I'll (promise to) do this, that, and the other..."

I'm not sure if you are even answering the question, but it doesn't matter.

To try to even answer the question, then, the "last day" doctrine or something a bit like it might be traditional in Zen -- see Three Days More.
I was watching this video recently which I think is introductory Zen (if you don't have time for all of it, try up to 10 minutes from time 29:00 onward).
Or see also the subsection titled "Yes, I Speak Zen" in A Still Forest Pool which ends, "Perhaps the Zen student glimpsed that the heart of vipassana is no different from the heart of Zen."
IOW I'm guessing that the point of "live this as your last day" is meant to be the opposite of "pretending" -- for example, the intention isn't, "pretend that now is tomorrow and that you are dead" -- instead maybe the intention is, "tomorrow is not now."

wow, I like your answer. I'm not sure if you are even answering the question, but it doesn't matter. I like your time and money debt concept. Thanks for sharing.

There is no pretending. It is the fact that you are not sure if this is the last period or not hence what needs to be done in case you die.
No one can plan the time of death and many die unexpectedly. This is what you have to look at. So consider each breath your last as there is a chance that it is very well your last breath hence establish your self in mindfullness.

I'm not sure if agree with that... yeah the fact is that you don't know... but if you expect every day is your last day... then chances are you will be wrong for a long time before you are right... so the "reality" is that... yes there is a chance you will die, but the odds are that you don't... it's very different from.. "ok, you will be executed in a week"... it is reality to just say you don't know so you assume you will?

It is a means to develop urgency on what you do. If it is your last day you will settle your what needs doing without postponement than actually being correct or not.

If you think it is the last breath on each breath you will try your best to be mindful of the breath as if you miss it it can your last chance to win your liberation.

If a teaching seems contradictory it is probably because teachers of Dharma utilize both  conceptual  and ultimate realities at the same time and this can appear very confusing if the student doesn't understand the dance between conceptual reality and ultimate reality.
The purpose of conceptually reflecting on death is to increase motivation so we can practice seeing reality as it is by way of mindfulness of what we are individually aware of in the present moment.

where do i go to learn more about conceptual vs. ultimate realities?

@jason Uilium might explain tt better but here are two topics about that: What is the difference between relative and absolute truth in Buddhist philosophy? and Conventional versus Ultimate

It's a metaphor, another one of these is "you should strive as if you had your head on fire". Doesn't mean we have to pretend there's fire on our head! We often procrastinate meditation and/or reading, as if we had endless time - which we don't.

It is not pretending, like Suminda said.
One way to very truly understand this is to enumerate the number of X you have.
You have X amount of breaths in your current life-body-mind.
You have X amount of times you will be able to visit Buddhism SE in your current life-body-mind.
You have X number of smiles you will give to another person in your current life-body-mind.
You have X number of meditation sessions you will be able to practice in your current life-body-mind.
Etc.
Patiently enumerate it.
It is not false to realize that life is not permanent.


text:
Is Mindfulness the same as having an Observer?
If this was bone-obvious to everyone else, then silly me, but I just thought of it because I heard these two words separately long ago and connected them while answering another question...
Are "the Observer" and the process of being Mindful, in essence the same thing? Does one involve the other inherently?
I have used them differently and never connected them before, because I thought:

The Observer is a developed system within "me" (which is a collection of points of view of varying levels of awareness) and not everyone has an Observer or is aware of it all the time.
Mindfulness is something I do and is not the activity of another point of view within "me".

But, trying to be mindful when I have only one point of view is not very possible, and who would be mindful, other than the Observer?
Finally: is transcending the Observer (and the need for Mindfulness) the same as Nonduality? I think it is. (Don't worry about answering this question, it is just an idea.)
EDIT: My Healing Teacher said that I have to get people to "define their terms", so here are my definitions:
The Observer is the experience of being aware of myself. It feels like I am witnessing my own thoughts and actions.
Mindfulness is the process of being aware of what I am doing. (To me, this does not require an Observer, but that is what I am asking.)
"Being aware of myself" means... Well, that I know what I am doing right now. Different from the other two.
A Mind - is something that could do otherwise, it exercises choice on some level.
Awareness is the action of a sufficiently developed mind.
Consciousness is awareness of being a self.
A Self is something that knows it is a self, and that other selves know, etc.
(Don't even get me started on the idea of Mindfullness being a way to empty the mind!)
Has this made it any clearer what I am asking? Please try to use words such as these for an answer, supplementing with the appropriate Buddhist terms.
ADDITION: here are some links which I hope can help people understand what I am asking:

This RYUC one is a bit of a muddle, but the Observer corresponds with what I am asking about, and also is similar to what I call a Neo state. The Witness is more like how I would describe nonduality.
This one about Energy Healing says that "In Buddhism, developing the witness/observer is a foundational piece of their teachings." Ha!
In this one, they use the words observer and witness interchangeably.

Is this question related?

Beware that Lanka is suggesting that "mindfulness" is a term used rather loosely (I presume that's from the perspective of the Theravada school and according to the vocabulary of the Pali canon). Mindfulness might be the English word used to describe something which is also translated as "bare attention" but there are nuances (other kinds of mindfulness and/or attention).

@ChrisW Ask a simple question, get a complex answer. sigh

My mum dislikes my using non-English words (for example I lost her interest as soon as I tried to mention dukkha).

For future reference I guess you mean the word "observer" e.g. as you used it in this answer.

@ChrisW The best translation I have heard for dukkha is simply "unsatisfactory": no matter what you do, things either don't work out as you wished, or they ultimately fall apart. I am trying to use simple English words here. Cannot there be a simple English answer? As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

Also if the question is primarily about observer-as-agent versus mindfulness-as-activity, or about mindfulness-as-I, then a related topic might be Why talk and think about self as noun?.

@ChrisW Indeed. That is the question that I answered which caused me to think of the question I am asking now. If light traveled long enough, would it come around and hit you in the back of the head?

@ChrisW In the self/noun thing, the OP commented: "A relation that relates itself to itself, not the relation itself, but the relation’s relating itself to itself in the relation. That's what I mean by action" Gack! No six year old would get that.

Maybe we can cut through the verb noun issue by saying: the Observer is being aware of yourself, Mindfulness is being aware of what you are doing. They seem different to me, but are they? Or are they intimately connected?

Einstein, eh? It reminds me of this video I saw today where he says that we're trained to expect an answer to every question (e.g. "what is the date today?"); but there's one type of question (i.e. "who are you?") that's especially difficult to answer. In this question, you make some statements using vocabulary and ask whether those statements are true. If Wolfgang Pauli were being rude he might reply to your Einstein that the statement is "Not even wrong".

It seems to me that using vocabulary like "being aware of yourself" begs the question (e.g. that there is some well-defined "yourself"). IMO that can't be done unambiguously using conventional (for six-year-olds) words, and instead you might (or then again might not) want to use technical vocabulary with more precise definitions.

@ChrisW you must have been talking to me while I was making lunch, just now, because I was realizing that... Time for an EDIT to the Question...

You already gave defintions for both mindfulness and observer. From then, since it's a model you are conceiving, you are instrumented to tell if you regard them as the same or not (e.g. do you understand processs and experience to be the same? and so on). Unless you are asking the relation of these to Buddhism?

If I do algebraic substitution (i.e. logic) using the first three definitions, then the question resolves to, "is 'the experience of being aware of what I'm doing' the same as 'the process of being aware of what I am doing'?"

@ThiagoSilva OK, so: do other people (such as Buddhists) have the same model as I do, or am I the only one? I can't be, since I got these words from other people. Either I understood them correctly, or I am in a complete muddle. Please instruct me.

@ChrisW I will accept that as a statement of the question, although I suspect you have either reduced it to nothing, or I have misunderstood the ramifications. I am not a Philosopher, and not so great on Mathematics, either. If the answer does not now leap out at you from your own experience, then I think we have to call it a dead-end inquiry.

In Buddhism, developing the witness/observer is a foundational piece of their teachings. That's a bit hard to fathom. It's true that practice like "watching the breath" is pretty orthodox.

The Observer is the experience of being aware of myself. It feels like I am witnessing my own thoughts and actions.

In Buddhism, "myself" as an entity would be a mind-object: a concept, something one conceived / imagined, which receives attention -- a 'self' is taught to not be in the range of actual experiences such as a touch, a smell or primitive mental phenomena (such as a mental image, or mental sound) that can be contacted.
In Buddhism, one is "aware" of the detailed micro experiences (that, among other things, give rise to a concept of self). In buddhism, this "detailed awareness", or "attention" to a specific "primitive experience" is called consciousness (vinanna), which is formulated in buddhism as six-fold: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness1.
Then, it's said that if there's  eye organ and visual forms,  eye-consciousness arise. The coming of the three is contact. For example in my visual field now there are bed sheets, wall frames and a TV. But while I write this, I'm not conscious of any of these forms, only of this visual character I'm typing right now.
For example, I just realized there was a lamp in the ceiling with lights on in my visual field, even though it has been reachable all the time. Until that moment, there was no contact (my consciousness was not directed) to this particular visual object.
The same occurs with mind as a sense: there are mind objects (e.g. thoughts) a "mind organ", and a mind-consciousness arise; the coming of the three is contact (e.g. when one gives attention to a particular thought). With contact, pleasant, unpleasant (or neither one) occur -- and so on.

Mindfulness is the process of being aware of what I am doing. (To me, this does not require an Observer, but that is what I am asking.)

I think this is close to what  mindfulness (sati) is in buddhism. It has different/related meanings depending on context but without going into details, I would summaryze as Thanissaro Bhikku put it: "What does it mean to be mindful of the breath? Something very simple: to keep the breath in mind."

"Being aware of myself" means... Well, that I know what I am doing right now. Different from the other two.

I'm not sure how your "being aware of what I am doing" is different than your "know what I am doing".

A Mind - is something that could do otherwise, it exercises choice on some level.

In buddhism, I think this could be mano, sankhara, or even possibly cetana.

Awareness is the action of a sufficiently developed mind.

I don't quite understand what you mean on this one.

Consciousness is awareness of being a self.

I would not say one is aware of a self (or 'myself', see first point) -- e.g. as if 'self' was an experienced object grasped by any of the 6 sense faculties. But one does elaborate a (by buddhism, incorrect) understanding of being or having 'a self'.
Now, to the question...

Is Mindfulness the same as having an Observer?

In Buddhism (and if you understand mindfulness to be sati), no.
For a detailed investigation on the meanings of mindfulness I suggest  Tse-fu Kuan's Mindfulness in Early Buddhism

1: The point, I think, is not to say that there is such a thing as consciousness and it can be perfectly divided in six part (an ontological statement). Rather, it is that understanding the mind in this way is useful / helps with training and understanding of dhamma, and consequently, with final liberation.

I agree that the answer to my question is No. I am not sure how you can say that you know you have a self (even knowing it is illusory) yet not be aware of being a self? It seems like "awareness of self" is the only thing that can be said about selfness. Not being aware that it is, renders it, not. I am not sure that you would pass the Turning Test under that criterion. By contrast, "knowing what you are doing" means that you can answer questions about why you did it. Shrdlu could do that.  The Observer, in essence, is like a friend who sits there being aware of what you are doing.

As far as I know, Observer (kṣetra-jñaḥ - "the knower of the field [of experience]" or Vedagu - "the one who enjoys [the objects of senses]") is a Hindu concept. It's an ancient expression for the subject of experience, the spectator in the Cartesian Theater:

The king said: ‘Is there, Nāgasena, such a thing as The Knower?’
[Nagasena:] ‘What is this, O king, The Knower (Vedagu)?’
[King Milinda:] ‘The living principle within which sees forms through the eye, hears sounds through the ear, experiences tastes through the tongue, smells odours through the nose, feels touch through the body, and discerns things (conditions, “dhammā") through the mind—just as we, sitting here in the palace, can look out of any window out of which we wish to look, the east window or the west, or the north or the south.
  ...
  Then the Elder [Nagasena] convinced Milinda the king with discourse drawn from the Abhidhamma, saying: ‘It is by reason, O king, of the eye and of forms that sight arises, and those other conditions—contact, sensation, idea, thought, abstraction, sense of vitality, and attention —arise each simultaneously with its predecessor. And a similar succession of cause and effect arises when each of the other five organs of sense is brought into play. And so herein there is no such thing as The Knower (Vedagu).’

Mindfulness in Buddhism is entirely different. It is not a thing, it's a quality you develop. In my opinion and in contrast with modern trends (DBT etc.), mindfulness in Buddhism should not be understood as open-ended awareness. It is mindfulness of something specific you are trying to cultivate, habituate, get used to - in order to change your patterns.
EDIT:
From Buddhist perspective, we misinterpret our experience of awareness to implicate an entity that is aware. "I am aware" we say -- and this recipient of data, the point of view, the source of light, is what ancient Hindu's used to call Vedagu. Buddhists say such "point of view" is merely a perceptual illusion - like a bush that looks like a dog until you look closer. If you look very carefully, they say, you'll clearly see that there is no "you" that is aware. Instead (this is a Yogacara explanation) there is a simple feedback loop. The current dharma (state of mind - citta) serves as an input into the associative perception mechanism (sanjna) which finds matching imprints of previous experiences (samskaras) among those recorded in memory (alaya-vijnana). These imprints become the new state of mind, which serves as an input into the next iteration of the cycle and so on.
If you look at it this way, it is easy to see why we are fooled into thinking there is a subject of experience, "the point of view" that does the watching. As yet another thought takes shape, the gap between it and the next thought seems like there is "I am watching", then from this gap comes the association - this seems like "I think", but all it really is, is the associative perception mechanism (sanjna) that closes the loop by connecting the mind with the memory. "I am this thing that perceives" / "I am the observer" - is the mistake of identification with sanjna.
I guess you could shift the emphasis from the associative mechanism to the repository of past imprints that serves as the source of the next thought - and alternatively say that it is our memory that is The Observer, that it is our memory that "pays attention" to our thoughts/experiences and comes up with associations - which can lead some people to identify with samskara-skandha (the imprints group, basically memory) - another view that Buddha rejected.
The subjective experience, the virtual life-of-I created by our mind that we mistake for reality, is called "vijnana". This is the whole story that includes The Observer, the observed, and everything that happens between them.
What looks to us as self-awareness, with its sense of depth, is merely the recursive nature of the associative loop. It is a similar kind of effect you get when you point a video camera at TV that shows its own output - with a filter in the middle that adds matching elements of past memories. The same basic principle is at work behind Google's DeepDream:

We ask the network: “Whatever you see there, I want more of it!” This creates a feedback loop: if a cloud looks a little bit like a bird, the network will make it look more like a bird. This in turn will make the network recognize the bird even more strongly on the next pass and so forth, until a highly detailed bird appears, seemingly out of nowhere.
  ...
  The results are intriguing—even a relatively simple neural network can be used to over-interpret an image, just like as children we enjoyed watching clouds and interpreting the random shapes.
  ...
If we apply the algorithm iteratively on its own outputs and apply some zooming after each iteration, we get an endless stream of new impressions, exploring the set of things the network knows about.

Glossary:

Cartesian theater
state of mind (Citta)
associative perception mechanism (Saṃjñā)
imprints of previous experiences (saṃskāra)
recorded in memory (ālaya-vijñāna)
the imprints group, basically memory (samskāra-skandhas)
subjective experience, the virtual life-of-I created by our mind that we mistake for reality (Vijñāna)

No, I was not positing a homunculus at all. my "observer" is the sense that I am aware. It is like feeling your fingertip even though it is not touching anything (which happens if it gets injured, is too hot or cold, among other possibilities). So, the Observer I was asking about is just a point of view in the mind, one among many points of view. It is special in that it is a prompt for self-awareness, or IS perhaps the "feeling" of self-awareness. This is recursive, reflexive. The Observer, in my experience, acts like a tool to help one cultivate Mindfulness. (Back to noun-verb again.)

You are totally positing a homunculus my friend, and you call it "I am" ;) - I hate to say this but you are very confused as far as Buddhist theory of mind is concerned. Your "point of view in the mind" is a perceptual illusion, like a bush that looks like a dog until you look closer. The recursive/reflexive process you are describing is the associative loop. The feeling of self-awareness, with its sense of depth, is the same effect you have when you point a video camera at TV that shows its own output :) I added more details to my answer above. I hope some of it makes sense to you.

Thank you for explaining that cycle of consciousness or data flow diagram, i.e. citta -> saṃjñā -> saṃskāra -> ālaya-vijñāna -> citta. It looks plausible! I haven't seen it before. I have (previously) found those Wikipedia articles impenetrable, as if they were (static) entity-relation diagrams, but without any (runtime/dynamic) thread/sequence diagram; so it was hard to see how they 'run' in practice.

I know it is an illusion, hon. Everything is an illusion. We have no choice but to discuss illusions. I was simply asking about two of them in particular, and how they accord with the illusions of Buddhism. I will peruse the additions to your answer.

It's not enough to say it's illusion and yet to keep talking about them as if they were real. We need to look inside the bush to see for ourselves how there is no dog.

Especially if one is dyslexic. Or Agnostic. : )  It appears that you are saying that everyone who answered should rather have kept silent. I sometimes agree with the saying: "It is good to say little. Better still to say nothing." But people did respond, and from what I can tell, not one person has actually understood what I mean by the Observer. Since many people do know what I mean, I wish to warn you that this is likely to arise again, and a storm of words is not going to settle the question. It is a difference among people, which merely needs to be understood, not explained away.

No, I don't mind talking, as long as both try to hear each other's point. I think I hear what you're saying - your question is, can what-you-call-mindfulness function without what-you-call-an-observer. And my answer is, yes of course such "mindfulness" does not require such "observer" - because "point of view in the mind" is a fantasy you keep on make-believing with your own thoughts. Also, what you call "mindfulness" is just paying attention, the opposite of absent-mindedness. It's not what Buddha calls mindfulness. What is your goal with these questions, to confirm your views or to learn?

OK. I wish to stress that the Observer experience that I am talking about is not a thought that one has. It is not chosen, it simply arises, like an itch. It is a particular sort of mental experience that apparently, few people have. It occurs, then goes away. I regret even bringing it up. My goal was to learn, something about Buddhism. I thought that I was using a term that at least a few people would be familiar with. I was wrong. I agreed with you all along that the answer was No, but it occurred to me to ask, because it interested me as a way of understanding people, and so to help.

Like I said, Observer is a standard term in Hindu (Samkhya yoga) that refers to the subject of all experience, the end goal being to discover it to be identical with Ishvara (the absolute). But in Buddhism instead of grasping on things as "this is real" we tend to "explain things away" like you said. So we say there is no Observer. Now, if you are talking specifically about intermittent self-awareness, that is called "manas" - as in "mano-vijnana" (the experience of one's own mind) and "man-indriya" (the "organ" of self-reflection).

So I guess the answer is: "There is Manas, and there is Mindfulness, and they are different." Which is what I thought. Note the links I added, and see that many many people have this Observer thing happen within them. It is not the same as a posited entity - the Hindu subject of experience. Not the same at all. I have "felt" that the Observer is there, without identifying with it in any way, it feels like not-me, like someone else watching "me". It is a very distinctive thing to have occur. Not a choice. But, it can be developed, whether wisely or not I no longer know.

Yes, I think we are on the same page now. Mindfulness, in the sense of "non-absentmindedness" or "paying attention to what you are doing" does not equate "observing your mind". This being the case, I'm saying this type of mindfulness is useless and not what Buddha taught. Not thinking about anything else while eating, defecating, driving your car - is not the path to enlightenment, otherwise idiots would be Buddhas. Right mindfulness means mindfulness of something useful, something you're trying to cultivate - while going about your day - like mindfulness of body or mind or breath or death etc

According to Mahayana abhidharma,

Mindfulness is a non-forgetfulness of the mind with respect to a familiar object. It has the function of non-distraction.

It is one the five object-ascertaining mental factors, and it is called 'object-ascertaining' because:

These mental factors hold [an object] through apprehending the
  individual features of the object. They are said to "individually
  ascertain objects."

As it is a mind, it is by nature clear and knowing, and it is a basis of designation of the person but is not the person. It is an apprehender, an object-possessor, but it is not a 'observer' because an observer is a person.
A mind, a cognizer such as mindfulness and so forth is possessed by a person (the agent), it has a function (the action) and apprehends its object.
There are various levels of nonduality. In general, a realization that occurs in a non-dualistic manner is free from the appearances of objects and subjects. So it is necessarily free from the apprehension of the object and the subject as being different substances.

In addition, mindfulness is not a process, it is a mind. As such:

It has the nature of being clear
It performs the function of knowing

That it is clear refers to the fact that it has the ability to take the aspect of its object. An eye-consciousness seeing blue takes the [subjective] aspect of blue.
That it is knowing refers to the fact that it apprehends its object. This point is quiet complicated and there is much debate. By nature a mind experiences its object. I hope this answer helps you, as you defined your "Observer" as an experience.

Thank you, I am chewing on this, as the word references are complex. Perhaps Buddhism does not use 'Observer' in the manner I am familiar with? To me, it is the sense that something watches from within, unmoved by whatever happens. Many people refer to it, such as Wayne Dyer who said, "The Witness inside never ages. It can't." Is this witness / observer just a New Age concept, or is it described in Buddhism also? I call a self without ego a Neo, and it is essentially only a witness, an experiencer with no values, goals, ideals, etc. Nonduality comes after the self / witness dissolves.

@nocomprende My "chewing on those word references" rewords the answer as follows -- 'Mindfulness' is the ability to keep something in mind without distraction. It's one of the 'five mental object-determining mental factors', which are listed here. So "mindfulness" is defined as (or is a translation of) Sati or Smṛti. Mindfulness means a mindfulness of the features of the object in question.

The mind is not a person (I guess in the same way that the eye, or vision-sense-discrimination, isn't a person). The mind is a 'basis of designation' of the person (which is defined here as meaning, "The parts or attributes upon which something is labeled. In the case of the I, it is the aggregates." ... where 'aggregates' is probably Skandhas). A person (the agent) has a mind, which has a function (its function is to apprehend an object).

A non-dual realization doesn't have the appearance of "subject and object" so of course it's free of that apprehension (where 'apprehension' is now understood as 'what the mind would do to an appearance').

@ChrisW: if non-dual realization does not apprehend, and apprehending is the function of mind, then does non-dual realization occur in a mind? Does the mind go away in that case? But if a person "has a mind", then the person goes away too. Maybe that is what she meant when she said, "there are no 'other people'." That is a lot to be mindful of. Without observing it, of course :-)

Thank you ChrisW for clarifying. @nocomprende Prasangika say that generally, the wisdom directly realizing emptiness realizes it by way of emptiness not appearing to it. In this case, what it realizes is the 'object of engagement'. In this context, if a Prasangika was to say 'there is no other people' he means 'no other people appearing at that time' because nothing appears at the time of direct realization of emptiness (except in the mind of a Buddha)

@nocomprende if non-dual realization does not apprehend, and apprehending is the function of mind, then does non-dual realization occur in a mind? Maybe that first "if" is wrong. I think the quote was that, "a non-dual experience doesn't have the appearance of subject-and-object, and is therefore not apprehended as a dual subject-and-object". To consider a concrete example, a violinist and their violin might appear to be non-dual; and (I hope someone will correct me if this is a bad explanation) the mind apprehends (experiences) that non-dual appearance.

There is no thing 'watching and unmoved by whatever happens', a consciousness is always consciousness of something, in a way 'moved' by that something.

@TenzinDorje You wrote, "Mindfulness is a non-forgetfulness ... (and) has the function of non-distraction" and that it's "one the five object-ascertaining mental factors". Can you confirm whether the function of non-distraction is "mindfulness" (Smṛti), or is non-distraction instead "concentration" (Samādhi)?

I confirm it is smṛti (Sati), not samadhi. Here is the text I refer to http://www.fpmtabc.org/download/teaching/geshe-chonyi/bp/lorig/handout/Mind%20MentalFactors%20Textbook_KachenYesheGyeltsen.pdf

Yes @Uilium, this is when the idea of an Observer dissolves, and the person realizes nonduality. I have seen people on both sides of that awareness. I recall making a joke to someone about the Observer, like what you said. He looked puzzled.

mindfulness analysis and meaning(s) by Joseph Goldstein: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://insightsd.org/transcripts/&ved=0ahUKEwi0-9HX1IvKAhVE6iYKHQuRDUoQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEvFDsF0F16fOiI5S9VuUB3kNCuzw&sig2=6cUyBxHvZIA8EzKv0Ab1Zw

@Uilium: It is right here in the page you linked, whether there is an Observer or not: "on a more subtle level, even when Mindfulness is spontaneous, unprompted and effortless, we can still discern whether there is a presence of an observer.  We can notice the presence of a reference point in that Mindfulness, whether there is a sense of someone being mindful or not." This is a little different from what I meant, but it is pertinent.

@nocomprende Are you saying the sense of someone being there is atta?

@Uilium: to me, atta is a thought, a concept, an attitude, if you will, something that one consciously identifies with and defends. But the sense of an Observer is more like a feeling, that is not wanted or sought, it just arises. I don't know of anyone who identifies with their Observer, they just notice that it is there, like noticing a blister on your foot. It can be useful, in calling your attention to awareness, which is probably why it develops, like how a blister lets you know that your foot is having a problem. Why can no one recognize what I am talking about?

@Uilium I think that in the reference you linked, the stated distinction of "someone being mindful or not" is like the distinction of saivikalpa samadhi ("with difference") and nirvikalpa samadhi ("without difference"). Awareness without the sense of someone there is what I would call nonduality.

What is realised at the experiential level is the Dhamma for you. What someone else experiences is not the Dhamma for you. In this sense there is no nonduality as people experience reality in different way (as for what I have learned.) There is nothing similar between experiences of disciples, though perhaps experience of among Buddha's may be similar since they experience all what is conditioned. The main goal of experiencing "reality as it is" to develop revulsion to the 5 aggregates. So what you you experience should be to the extent to avoid unwise attention of attention tained by perverted perceptions, thoughts and views. In this context there is always an observer who experiences phenomena though consciousness aided by the faculties, or one that who feels1.

1

“It is to one that feels that I teach Dhamma,
  not to one that does not feel.”
  —The Awakened One

Also see: To one that feels by Luangpor Teean Juttasubho

Sati (mindfullness) has the agenda of remembering, keeping in mind, so its quite proper to give it the name "observer" on the level of being an "overseer". Samma sati (right mindfulness) keep the right things in mind. It is often compared with a door-keeper (of the fortress of practice), a good one.
Some short but very usefull essays, to get out of common misunderstandings are:

The Agendas of Mindfulness
Mindfulness Defined
Untangling the Present: The Role of Appropriate Attention

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

I briefly read your reference: "Untangling the present". For me, the Observer is like where it says: "we focus not on what we are, but on what we are doing." The Observer is like a part of the mind that develops to help with awareness. It feels like someone has sat down next to me, saying nothing, just watching what I do, which is that I am being aware. It reinforces awareness by also being aware. It is a help, not a hindrance.

'Mindfulness' ('sati') means to 'remember' rather than to 'observe' ('anupassi').
In the context of basic meditation, 'sati' remembers to observe rather than forgets to observe.
'Mindfulness' & 'observing' are two distinctly separate functions & activities of mind, even though they function together in mediation.

And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous,
  remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said
  long ago. SN 48.10

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

The Blessed One said, "Suppose, monks, that a large crowd of people comes thronging together, saying, 'The beauty queen! The beauty
  queen!' And suppose that the beauty queen is highly accomplished at
  singing & dancing, so that an even greater crowd comes thronging,
  saying, 'The beauty queen is singing! The beauty queen is dancing!'
  Then a man comes along, desiring life & shrinking from death, desiring
  pleasure & abhorring pain. They say to him, 'Now look here, mister.
  You must take this bowl filled to the brim with oil and carry it on
  your head in between the great crowd & the beauty queen. A man with a
  raised sword will follow right behind you, and wherever you spill even
  a drop of oil, right there will he cut off your head.' Now what do you
  think, monks: Will that man, not paying attention to the bowl of oil,
  let himself get distracted outside?"
"No, lord."
SN 47.20

Do you ever have the feeling that you are being watched? Does it ever feel like the point of view of that observer is inside your mind? It is like a déjà vu of being oneself, but it is happening to an awareness-stream that one doesn't have insight in to... It felt so good when it stopped.

I thought that my experience was fairly commonplace, but after reading several answers from people in this community that I have great respect for, and no one seeming to understand at all, even after a year, I admit that I feel perplexed. It would be as if I wrote about having a pebble in my shoe and no one could relate or had ever heard of such a thing.
An Observer is as if there is a whole other self inside my mind, just sitting there watching what happens. If you haven't had it, then there is no way it can be described. It is not like anything else, it is not a function or factor of anything else, it cannot be reduced to anything else or explained in any other terms. It simply is an experience, like feeling sad, or wanting to go outdoors. It just happens to be the experience of part of the mind observing the rest of the mind. It happens. It is not a thought that I am having, because it has itself.
My sense of it is, that as one strives to be more aware, the mind develops an extra awareness track that helps one to do that. It is the persistent feeling that even if I get lost in phenomena, that Observer will not get lost, and so realizing that it is watching me, I tend to act with more awareness. Eventually, one outgrows it or something. I won't even get started on describing how it is to have an Accompanying Voice, which is entirely different, and which I also thought was common, but is apparently known only to me?

Yes the observer and the mindfulness are the same in essence they are the ability to import information of your environment,world and self this observation is the key to apply mindfulness to reason and logic why the observer is interacting with self and environment.the observer needs the mindful to reassure the self awareness of ones thoughts and further how these thoughts are influencd and influence the environment.it is a duality of many dualities all becoming the one non dual reasoned logic which further builds character both inner and outer.awareness of the self is further built by mind fullness to know oneself.autism means to know thyself this autismal or automatic duality leading to no dual is the observer and mind as one.


text:
Pure Land Schools' version of the Three (or Four) Marks of Existence
I'd be grateful for references to some of the major Pure Land schools' versions of the Three (or Four) Marks (Seals) of Existence:

Impermanence (anicca)
Suffering (dukkha)
No-self (anattā)
Liberation (nirvāṇa)

Addendum -- pointers to the individual topics in any Pure Land tradition would be fine -- does not have to be all together.
Jan 6 -- beyond my own answer, with three references, I would still be grateful for further items, plus explanations of where the three marks (that is, the somewhat philosophical ideas so crucial to Theravada and Tibetan schools) fit into Pure Land in general, and on the specific texts I found.

Here is something on Shin, with a bit of discussion on the individual topics -- http://www.nembutsu.info/primshin.htm -- plus this at the very end (emphasis added):

Conclusion
We urge readers to examine the following essentials because, when
  viewed in isolation from them, a skewed view of Shin Buddhism will
  result: the Four Noble Truths; the Three Signata, namely, anatman or
  'non-self', anitya or 'impermanence' and dukkha or 'suffering'; and,
  finally, Nirvana, which - as we have seen earlier - in Shin Buddhism
  is synonymous with Amida Buddha and the Pure Land. These are the
  teachings upon which Buddhism is grounded.

Also, from the book:
Pure Land Buddhism
Dialogs with Ancient Masters
by Patriach Chih I and Master T'ien Ju
translated by Master Thich Thien Tam
at http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/pureland.pdf

Merely achieving rebirth in the Pure Land is attaining the stage  of
  non-retrogression. As stated in the sutras:
“Those who achieve rebirth all dwell in correct samadhi.”
It is also stated in the Amitabha Sutra:
“Sentient beings who are reborn in the Western Pure Land are  all at
  the stage of non-retrogession.”
The Treatise on the Ten Doubts [Question 6] states that there are five
  reasons why those who are  reborn achieve non-retrogression:
...
c) In the Western Pure Land, the birds, water, forests, trees, wind
  and music all preach the Dharma of ‘suffering, emptiness,
  impermanence and no-self.’ Upon hearing this, practitioners  begin to
  focus on the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha;
...

Does anyone know the significance of The Treatise on the Ten Doubts in Pure Land? I cannot find much online.

In -- The Sutra of Visualization of the Buddha of Infinite Life -- at http://www.fodian.net/world/365_sutra_1.htm III, VI, XVI -- here it is in III:

Pure breezes of the eight pleasing qualities are produced by these
  rays of light, causing the musical instruments to play in voices which
  proclaim the truths of ‘suffering, emptiness, impermanence and
  non-self.’

Interesting that in these last two, emptiness is added to make 4 marks.