text:
Distractions in Meditation
Upon asking questions previously, I wondered some things about my meditation. In meditation, I often experienced greatly reduced thoughts, almost no thoughts; but, the sensations at the tip of the nose are almost always lacking.
Is it possible that, despite the absence of thoughts, something other than arising cognitions pulls my attention away from the meditation object?
Just to be clear: I am asking what specifically are the type of possible distractions which may arise in meditation. I'm also wondering what is the relative strength of these distractions, for example: does a single thought break concentration? Does paying attention to some external object merely once break concentration?

Welcome to the in-betweens!  When someone starts meditating, there are generally a few phase that they will pass through.  These are all well documented, though I personally think they find the best expression in the 10 Ox herding pictures from Zen.  The first is quieting the mind.  In the series of Ox herding pictures, this is the state of seeing and taming the ox where the mind's unruly nature is first seen for what it is it's thrashings are subdued:

Once the mind settles, however, there is a very lengthy process of riding the ox to the mountain:

This seems to be where you are at now.  Take special note of that second painting.  I selected this artist's rendition specifically because I think it beautifully characterizes this phase of training.  The adept is riding the ox backwards.  He literally has no idea where he's going.  Indeed, this stage of training is very much categorized by a feeling of bumping around in the dark.  And it can go on for years.  Or it can be over in a matter of days.  There is literally no way of knowing how long it will take.  The adept doesn't even know if there is a mountain awaiting him!  He has no idea what's ahead!
The only thing you can actively do at this stage is practice with sincerity. Sit daily for at least an hour.  Apply your mind to your object of meditation.  Don't worry about what is a distraction and what isn't. The mind is entirely too complicated to sort those things out at this stage.  Moreover, much of what drives us into distraction is completely unconscious!  As you go forward, you might even find your mind filled with thoughts again as deep, forgotten memories or unseen, habitual obstacles begin to rise to the surface.  Lastly, I would strongly suggest that you go on retreats of three days or more.  This will go a long way to loosening the hold those subtle, unseen, and unconscious distractions have on your mind.  As they begin to fall away, your concentration will strengthen almost seemingly without effort.
If your practice has sincerity, eventually you will arrive at the foot of the mountain.  You just have to persist.

Upvoted for being a great answer.

Anapanasati is not something easy because breath sensations calm with awareness upon them; often making them difficult to discern.
Often, a hindrance to anapanasati is the very intention to watch or focus on the breathing because intention itself is also a thought that diminishes the awareness of the mind.
Its like "listening" to another person talking. If you really want to really hear what the other person is saying, you must abandon thoughts and have an open quiet mind.
If the mind can abide without thoughts; then the meditator should also abandon the intention to "focus" on breathing. If the mind is quiet & silent yet also soft & fluid, it will naturally flow into the breathing; similar to how water naturally flows into cracks and crevices.
The Tao Te Ching Verse 8 says:

The highest good is like water.  Water give life to the ten thousand things and does not strive. It flows in places men reject and so is
like the Tao.

The 3rd Zen Patriarch said:

The Supreme Way is not difficult If only you do not pick and choose. Neither love nor hate, And you will clearly understand. Be off by a
hair, And you are as far from it as heaven from earth.
If you want the
Way to appear, Be neither for nor against. For and against opposing
each other This is the mind's disease. Without recognizing the
mysterious principle It is useless to practice quietude.
The Way is perfect like great space, Without lack, without excess. Because of grasping and rejecting, You cannot attain it.
Hsin Hsin Ming

Is it possible that, despite the absence of thoughts, something other than arising cognitions pulls my attention away from the meditation object?

Yes, of course. If you are attempting to focus on something, any other experience can pull your attention away.

Just to be clear: I am asking what specifically are the type of possible distractions which may arise in meditation.

Sights, sounds, tastes, feelings, smells, thoughts.

I'm also wondering what is the relative strength of these distractions, for example: does a single thought break concentration? Does paying attention to some external object merely once break concentration?

The strength of a distraction entirely depends on how much time you devote to observing it. If you hear a sound and focus on it for only a moment, it was a small break in concentration. If you smell something and keep focusing on it over and over, it is a large break in concentration.
If your intention is to cultivate concentration skills, keep doing what you are doing. You sound as if you have extremely good concentration skills already and are now grappling with only very small breaks in concentration.
If your intention is to cultivate wisdom and see the truth, you have already overcome one of the largest hurdles, quieting the mind. Now it is time to start observing all experience, and not focusing on a meditation object.
Cultivating concentration is one method of learning to quiet the mind. Once you have achieved that, on the path to wisdom, there is no more benefit to enhancing concentration.
As you most likely already know, when we think, there is an automatic process of identification and labeling that occurs. When you hear a sound, you immediately think "that is a bird". This is why we always meditate with our eyes shut, for we see/identify/label "different objects" in our sight without even thinking about it. By cultivating concentration, we learn to quiet these thoughts.
You sound like a very advanced meditation practitioner that is extremely skilled in concentration! If I were you, I would stop concentrating and without thinking observe experience. While you do that, try to find answers to questions like:
What is I?
What is not I?
What is internal?
What is external?
What is experience?
How far away from you does experience occur?
How close to you does experience occur?
What is physical?
What is non-physical?
Thoughts and preconceptions mask true experience. Do not believe you need to have unbroken concentration for X amount of time to advance knowledge and gain wisdom. If you rarely ever have thoughts during your practice, you already have the tools you need. You have done a great job, well done! I wish you well on your path and hope you get where you'd like to be going soon. Forgive me if I made too many assumptions of your intentions. =]

Entering access concentration and then leaving access concentration can pull you away from the meditation object. 'Pull' is probably the wrong word here. It's more of a transition from one state to another; a higher absorption where, in some cases, bodily phenomena is left to fall away and this can include the meditation object. This is sometimes termed entering a jhana. You may have just fallen backwards though but it's helpful to recognise that you may be developing here. Regular visitations and experience will give you more awareness about what may be happening for you.
Alternativly, loss of the object may be related to one of the hindrances...
The Five Hindrances

Does a single thought break concentration?

Concentration can be broken by the degree of attention you put into that thought.

Does paying attention to some external object merely once break concentration?

So, for instance, there is a sound... but the sound is being interpreted by your body. Watch how your mind and body responds to the sound. Concentration can be broken by investing your attention into the thought about the sound. Thought will arise. Observe thought with curiosity. After some time, sound becomes a happening that passes through you as opposed to making a dense impact.


text:
Beards or no beards
I know that there were rules for the Disciples to shave only on the New moon and the Full moon. Did the Buddha follow this practice , too? Or, did Buddha usually have a beard?'

See also Hair of the Buddha

what's in it for you ?

Is there anyone who knows about the actual day to day activities of the Buddha, after His Enlightenment? I got one very terse answer and one other that did not really make sense in relationship to my question. Thank you for any and all efforts to answer this actual question. "Did the Buddha cut or trim his head hairs and facial hairs, after His Enlightenment?" Thank you , all.

The Buddha said in MN100:

I shaved off my hair and beard, dressed in ocher robes, and went forth from the lay life to homelessness.
There is, however, one clue that the Buddha didn't shave his head
after his enlightenment. The disciple Upali originally was working as
a barber when the Buddha came to him for a haircut.

O'Brien, Barbara. "Buddhist Monks and Shaved Heads" ThoughtCo, Jun. 25, 2018:

The early scriptures tell us that the Buddha lived in the same way as his disciples. He wore the same robes and begged for food like everyone else. So why isn't the historical Buddha depicted bald, as a monk? (The fat, bald, happy Buddha is a different Buddha.)
The earliest scriptures don't tell us specifically how the Buddha wore his hair, although stories of the Buddha's renunciation tell us he cut his long hair short when he began his quest for enlightenment.
There is, however, one clue that the Buddha didn't shave his head after his enlightenment. The disciple Upali originally was working as a barber when the Buddha came to him for a haircut.

Please reread the question. I did not ask for that. I asked for actual practices from , day to day , month to month, year to year. Did Buddha shave on those two days?

see edit pertaining to post-enlightenment

This was helpful "There is, however, one clue that the Buddha didn't shave his head after his enlightenment. The disciple Upali originally was working as a barber when the Buddha came to him for a haircut." Do you have more information about that event?

Here, I found this on another website, posted by a Bhikkhu Pesala.

Hair of the head.
The hair of the head should not be worn long. It should be shaved at least every two months or when the hair has grown to a length of two fingerbreadths — whichever occurs first, says the Commentary. In Thailand there is the custom that all bhikkhus shave their heads on the same day, the day before the full moon, so that the Community can present a uniform appearance. Although this is not obligatory, a bhikkhu who does not follow the custom tends to stand out from his fellows.

A razor is one of a bhikkhu's eight basic requisites. He is also allowed a whetstone, a razor case, a piece of felt (to wrap the razor in), and all razor accessories (such as a strop). At present, this allowance would cover all types of safety razors as well. The Commentary to Pr 2 insists that the razor case not be multicolored

Unless ill — e.g., he has a sore on his head — a bhikkhu may not use scissors to cut his hair or have it cut. The question of using electric razors to shave the head is a controversial one. Because their cutting action — even in rotary shavers — is like that of scissors, many Communities will not allow their use in shaving the head.

You seem to have researched well and found your own answer. You can post your own answer and accept it. :D

The Buddha rebelled against the theistics.

141. Neither going about naked, nor matted dreadlocks (hair), nor filth, nor fasting, nor lying on the ground, nor smearing oneself with ashes
  and dust, nor sitting on the heels (in penance) can purify a mortal
  who has not overcome doubt.
Dhammapada

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How Lord Buddha's Way Make Me Out Of This Depression!
I don't know If I should ask this here or not. But I am depressed enough and not able to find a way to get out of this situation to live life happily as I used to do before.
In my office I met a girl who is so stunning and met my expection which I wanted to see in my life partner. I then and there fallen in love with her without knowing anything about her life. After getting known by each other, I felt she also likes me. But something in my mind always ran than she is hiding something from me. One day somehow I get to know she is resigning and going to a different city. I asked her why she is resigning and leaving the city. She didn't ever told me the reason. She became very close to me and one day I asked her that I seriously think you are hiding something from me which I want to know. After requesting quit a few times, she told me that she is engaged and getting married to a guy who lives in the city she is going.
After that day, I can barely eat, drink and even breathe. I love her with everything I have, I saw all my life with her, now I am lost. I am not finding any ways to live life happily. I feel like I lost my purpose of life.
Is there any Lord Buddha's way that can take me out of this situation so that I can live again.

Buddhism represents a guidebook on how to detach (relief) yourself from passions and desires, not to show you how to overcome your depression in order to get re-attached to such (worldly) desires again. If you want to benefit from Buddhism you should be prepared for such detachment. I'm not saying it's best for you to go cold tukey on the love-addiction, but I'm saying that Buddhism doesn't recommend attachment to any kind of material or emotion.

@Gabe Hiemstra: I don't want to get attached to anything materially or emotionally, I want eternal peace without being attached to any living or non living things. :) This is where I need suggestion from you guys how to get that detachment. :)

On the subject of "life partners", see Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

Can you summarise what (if anything) you know about Buddhism already? What have you already tried (not yet successfully) to help you with this problem?

I am pretty much into spiritualism from my childhood as my father and mother both are spiritual. We have taken Diksha from Satsang founded by Sri Sri Thakur Anukul Chandra. Where we are advised to live life with some specific rules like doing meditation every day before sunrise, how to behave with people, what to eat and what to not, like I am a vegan by birth. But somehow due to got influenced by the modern world and working on an IT industry I got distracted by some materialistic and emotional things from which I want to get rid of and get back on track again.

@Anonymous I have placed an answer but this was prior to knowing about your previous experiences with spirituality. You might want to mention this in your question :)

Is this a duplicate of "How can I forget my old girlfriend?" (and see my answer to that)

@Andrei Volkov♦: I am mailing you on your personal email, please check once when you have time, Please get back to me if possible.

@Anonymous sure, no problem. I did not receive your email yet.

@Anonymous  Please talk to your parents/spiritual-guide in private because you already set-off on spiritual journey along with your parents. We ,here are strangers only ,can't advice you properly because we don't  know you like your parents/spiritual-guide do. It's better to bring these type of matters infront of your most closed/2nd closed one...most basic advice would be to take a small gap & do meditation retreat & try to REALIZE connection between Lust_In_Mind , Emotions , Body_Temperature & clinging towards these. You might also want to understand Sexual(Kaamnaa)-Energy during meditation.

What you describe is suffering. Intense mental suffering. I am very sorry you are going through this and will try my best to help as I once went through something very similar and it was extremely unpleasant.
The true cause of your suffering is ignorance. In short, you are under the control of a delusion right now and the only way out is through knowledge and understanding of this delusion. You need to try and see the situation clearly with sober eyes.
So what is this delusion? This person you are so attached to and yearning/aching for... this woman of your dreams... she is utterly unreal just like a dream. She exists as nothing more than a figment if your fevered and frenzied imagination. You conjured her up based upon a whole slew of endless cravings and yearnings that you mistakenly believed would lead you to happiness and now you are discovering it only leads to suffering.
So what is the solution? Simple. You have to wake up from this dream of her and realize that she is utterly unreal just like a dream. When you realize she is nothing more than a mirage... the fever will dissipate and the attachment will dissolve.
How do you wake up? Also simple. Meditate on her to see her for what she really is: like an illusion.
Some suggestions:

Is she a fixed and permanent thing that never changes? Has she changed even slightly over the course of your relationship? Or is she changing moment by moment?
Is she really as perfect as you make her out to be? Consider all of her faults. Really look at them and don’t turn away.
Is she really capable of providing you lasting happiness? If that were true, then why are you so miserable right now?
Is she subject to aging, sickness and death? Is she going to die some day? Is your eventual parting from her an absolute guarantee?

I think if you really look you are going to find she does not exist as you have been imagining her. That imagination of her is just that: pure imagination. See that imagination for what it is and wake up from your day dream of her.
I really hope this helps!

Here is a video of Venerable Thubten Chodron giving a teaching on the above in a much more eloquent and useful way than I can: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aq1fpjEe0Q Please have a look and see if it helps.

Since I'm not sure how long you've been studying Buddhism, what I'll say might be what you've already known. Basically you've just had first hand experience of the Three characteristics inherent in life: Impermanence, Non-self, and Suffering. The most obvious one is Impermanence. Even if you and that girl were together, there's absolutely nothing that can guarantee that impermanence won't strike again at a later time: one partner might pass away before the other, or there might be constant quarrels and the marriage breaks up, or the personalities are simply incompatible, the list goes on and on. And the interesting bit about impermanence is that your current sorrow is also impermanent! Your pain will fade eventually and life goes on. There might be another girl showing up who has similar or even better attributes than the girl who left. Then the whole cycle of the Three Characteristics repeats itself again and again and you'll be drawn into that happiness/sorrow merry-go-round again and again. You see, the Buddha taught the Dhamma like a scientist showing his empirical data, so that you yourself can directly experience it and see how things work. But that's where His responsibility ends. Once you've seen how things work, it is your responsibility now to decide to stay or leave the merry-go-round.

A good start would be looking for local Buddhist communities that pertain to a particular tradition. You can also read upon the numerous available literature but would likely end up reading either 1) modernized books on Buddhism often not in agreement with traditional teachings, or 2) classical literature which is hard to understand without a qualified teacher.
Of course, there is always the category of literature which is modern, stays true to tradition and is not hard to digest. Take for example the following article by Ajahn Sumedho, a teacher of the Thai Forest Tradition:

If we contemplate desires and listen to them, we are actually no longer attaching to them; we are just allowing them to be the way they are. Then we come to the realisation that the origin of suffering, desire, can be laid aside and let go of.
...
So the way is always working with the moments of daily life. When you are feeling depressed and negative, just the moment that you refuse to indulge in that feeling is an enlightenment experience. When you see that, you need not sink into the sea of depression and despair and wallow in it. You can actually stop by learning not to give things a second thought.
(source)

Another author, Sayadaw U Pandita, belonging to Theravada Buddhism, explains that even yogins experience depression but also says that listening to a good Dhamma talk can help fight such depression.

Many times a yogi may feel depressed and discouraged, having no mindfulness, thinking that his or her practice is going terribly badly. Mindfulness may not be able to pick up objects as it has in the past. At such a time it is essential for a yogi to pull out of this state, brighten the mind. He or she should go in search of encouragement and inspiration. One way to do this is by listening to a good Dhamma talk. A talk can bring about the enlightenment factor of joy or rapture; or it can inspire greater effort, or it can deepen the enlightenment factor of investigation by providing knowledge about practice. These three factors of enlightenment — rapture, effort and investigation — are most helpful in facing depression and discouragement.
(source)

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


text:
Choosing a Buddhist partner ain't beneficial to spreading Dhamma?
Recently seeing questions on Buddhist stack exchange community I thought to ask this question.
My understanding that we can choose anyone as life partner the way Buddha said all about is kind of qualities and so on.
And Because of Buddhism is nothing but liberty that's why Buddha didn't impose this thing to followers just like in other religions.
So if it was like we should marry to Buddhist only then it were Dhamma's sake and would helpful to spreading Dhamma.
One another question is if both partners are from different religions then how they could lead their children?
May other partner have influence of it's own religion and may this would worse everything partner's child's and own life.
I seen in other religion they are super religious to choose a partner.
Even my own experience my ex was a Muslim and she has great impact of religion on her since my thinking is being like that.
See we Indian mostly choose Buddhist to marry but absence of practicing Dhamma.
So I'd choose the one who is Buddhist and practicing Dhamma as well then we could spread it well.
Finally since both are Buddhist then its kind of package we have got everything in it. All qualities and as Buddha's way to choose a life partner.
So why Buddha speak about qualities instead advising people to find Buddhist partner that could one of the way to spread Dhamma?
Thank you.

What is the question here?

@PeterJ I've changed little and still not effective edit yourself and help. Thank you.

Choose a person with compatible generosity, compatible morality, compatible faith and compatible wisdom. That means even among Buddhists, you still have to filter out the potential spouses.
Marrying a person of a different religion could be highly problematic if you are a practicing Buddhist. I have seen some people make it work, but those are mostly people who are simply Buddhist by birth and not interested in it much and don't care about what religion their children pick. So either you have to be that way or the other person have to be that way to make it work.

Thank you
Sankha Kulathantille Yes I want to filter out spouse grow Dhamma between family and teaching Dhamma to kids from childhood so they won't distract from path. I always try to teach my cousins but since under influence of tradition, superstition and false faith they merely doing deeds that may against Dhamma and not about Dhamma. Thank you for your invaluable time. :-)

You're welcome!

@Sankha kulanthantille Came across this post, what if your husband or wife-to-be has a job whose duty is to control the quality of wine or alcohol product prior selling them out. Right livelihood is not doing business in intoxicant, taking part in manufacturing it I believe can be considered "not right." Is this type of spouse-to-be can be considered right according to Buddhism?

@B1100 There's some advice in this topic: Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?

@B1100 That's not an ideal job for a Buddhist. But if you are not able to find anyone better, you can either stay single or see if she is open to changing the profession.

@Sankha kulanthantille  What is the purpose of looking for a partner that has right livelihood? I believe mainly it's for the sake of spiritual progress for both of them. If she changes her job, she still has to reap the consequences of doing such profession one day and both of you suffer. Is this the reason why we are advised to look for a person with right livelihood, or is it only to protect the society from harmfulness of intoxication? Other people may frequently engage in other unwholesome activity, it's imperfect. What is the difference?

@ChrisW Thanks for Amazon link, I'm looking for more specific answer.

@B1100 If you are looking for spiritual progress, don't get married. Stay celibate and meditate. Marrying is not something you must do. On the other hand, if she changes her profession, you were successful in bringing her to the correct path. That is something to be happy about. It also means she listens to you and values your opinion that much even to make such a drastic change. That means your relationship has a high chance of being successful.

Good to see that Nyom Swapnil seems to do fine.
The way to really support and be able to transport the Dhamma is to leave house and walk the Holy Life.
Why should the Buddha give advices for different dangerous path one might like to choose?
And yes, to grow in Dhamma is not a matter of birth or religion/tradition one has grown up in, but a matter of past nissaya paccaya, even more 'strong condition cause' (upanissayapaccaya).
[This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for trade or exchange]

No @Samana Johann I'd say birth or religion/tradition impact on person and it distract from the path. In India I seen Dhamma isn't growing well. Still people following false faith superstition though Dr. B. R Ambedkar gifted Indians this holly Dhamma. What I've asked is any dangerous way to choose life?  So I don't know what you all people think about me if I'm wrong or right.  Thank for you invaluable time.

Welcome back Bhante. Have a pleasant time on Buddhism SE.

Spreading/growing dharma to others is not an obligation of a Buddhist. Only place it needs to grow as far as you are conserned is in yourself. You gain very little if not nothing by others following it.
If you want others to see the light, best thing you can do is to become the light.

I know not obligation of a Buddhist but I want to do. It's always my pleasure to bring people on right path if they're distracted. I like to tell Dhamma. I observed my relatives listen carefully and like to listen it's sign I'll make a big change or maybe little doesn't matter. Thank you for your time.

I'm with RRR here. Charity begins at home.

For practice if one finds a friend—
  prudent, well-behaved, and wise,
  mindful, joyful, live as one
  all troubles overcoming. --SNP1.3

It seems to me there is no simple answer for this one because there are many subtleties and possible scenarios. Some first thoughts...
It would all depend on what sort of religion people are practicing. A Christian and a Buddhist might be indistinguishable or utterly distinct depending on their approach to religion. A Buddhist believes there is only one true religion since there is only one true doctrine and its proponents may be called Christians, Buddhists, Sufis, Taoists, Muslims or have no name at all.
If we take the view that it's all about discovering truth then names don't matter. In real life, however, many religious folk are dogmatic rather than truth-seekers and where this is true it seems best to marry within our own belief-group to avoid endless arguments.
If a Buddhist and a Christian feel they cannot marry then I'd suggest that one or both of of them is misinterpreting the teachings of the founders. The Dalai Lama does not recommend that we abandon the religion of out birth for Buddhism or insist that we marry within Buddhism. Why would he? But marrying someone with similar spiritual or life goals and the same level of seriousness is bound to be sensible.
And in the end marrying another Buddhist is not going to help spread the Dharma unless we know enough abut it to know how to choose a partner. Buddhists are advised to spend their time with people of like-mind and helpful character but there's no mention of the name of their religion.

Yes true. But my thinking is being like that to spread Dhamma and I'm afraid to see it's not growing well in here so we both could lead ourselves then family, society here I can see like-minded couple can achieve it. It doesn't mean just want to have one born as Buddhist as I mentioned. Like Sankha Kulathantille said I need to filter out  spouses for  that I've ask to monk to find me one good partner. Thank you for your invaluable time.

So why Buddha speak about qualities instead advising people to find Buddhist partner that could one of the way to spread Dhamma?
I don't get the impression from the suttas that, at the time, the Buddha counted on lay-people to even really know what the Dhamma is, let alone to propagate it.
Very generally speaking the function of lay-people was, at best, to be virtuous and to support the monks (and so be able to hear the Dhamma, to take refuge, and so on).
Note that the suttas which we have are as were recorded by monks (at the "councils"), so...
One another question is if both partners are from different religions then how they could lead their children?
If you exclude violence, perhaps some of the fundamentals of ethics and wisdom may be quite similar across different religions -- see Golden Rule for example. Something like the sutta of the six directions may be good advice and well-said, but it seems to me universal, i.e. advice that might come from any parent of any religion.
Or, if or where ethics are not compatible across different religions, it was enough to say "look for a partner with compatible morals" (without specifying "compatible religions").
Also, to a certain extent, there were no "Buddhists" at the time when the Buddha was advising people.
I guess a main difference between different religions is in the different "rites and rituals", but I'm not sure that matters in the grand scheme of things (i.e. there are more important topics to be concerned with).
Another difference (between religions, or between Buddhism and other religions) is in the doctrine or view, of eternalism for example -- but maybe that (view of eternalism) isn't very far from what Buddhism might call "mundane right view", which I gather was maybe about the best you might expect from a lay-person anyway.

That would be the best answer. I'm agree with your answer Golden Rule  as I mentioned Dhamma is nothing but liberty and so Buddha didn't imposed it.  I expect that what Buddhism call "mundane right view" I expect beyond it that is growing Dhamma and spread it as much as we could. Thank you so much ChrisW.

The mundane right view is the belief of Karma. It has nothing to do with believing in an eternal soul. Also your answer neglects "Sama Saddha"- compatible faith

@SankhaKulathantille The mundane right view is the belief of Karma. It has nothing to do with believing in an eternal soul. Are you saying that it isn't like, "If I am good now, then I will go to heaven later?"

Also your answer neglects "Sama Saddha"- compatible faith Perhaps you're right. Samasaddha is mentioned in AN 4.55, which also mentions equal rites (samasīlabbatā) as well as equal kindness/generosity, equal virtue, and equal wisdom.

@ChrisW believing in a eternal soul is ignorance. It's not mundane right view. Mundane right view is "There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.’

@SankhaKulathantille Thanissaro Bhikkhu says, in summary that Mundane Right View is "actually a negation of a set of tenets ... a materialist doctrine that DN 2 calls annihilationism ... So the first implication of mundane right view is that generosity does matter, gratitude to one’s parents is a virtue, and that death is not annihilation" and " In particular, these results tend to influence the level of one’s rebirth" etc. You're right, of course, that eternalism is also described as one of the wrong views.

Negation of materialistic views does not require one to embrace eternalism.

Also, someone with eternalistic views may not believe in karma. Ex: One may think doing something horrible in the name of a God is good. One may think doing something that is actually good is bad if it's forbidden by one's God.

@SankhaKulathantille My impression of the Abrahamic religions, rather, is for example that they include commandments (or precepts) like "honour your parents" ... and charity ... also don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery ... not very unlike Buddhist ethics.

@ChrisW That's not Karma. That's a belief in a punishing God. Don't they also have confessing and being saved regardless of what they have done? There's a considerable difference between a person who believes Karma and a person who believes God.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.


text:
What is the opposite of love?
There have been many questions about what love is, ranging from non-attachment and compassion. I am not looking for a clear definition of the opposite of love, i.e. what love isn't, but feel free to do so if you think it can help answer the question. Rather, I want to know if love can exist without suffering: in much the same way that happiness cannot exist without suffering. I don't mean to equate love with happiness but love does have an element of joy to it. So, to what extent is pain the opposite of love? Or, to what extent can pain be separated from love? Principle of non-duality answers this, but I want to hear other opinions.

I don't think this question is asked in the right frame of reference to be answerable from Buddhist perspective with references to either texts or verbal tradition or experience. The way this question is asked the answers will tend to be opinions and philosophizing by the authors.

@AndreiVolkov Any question has a degree of opinion to it, the extent to which that opinion is backed with facts and references is entirely up to the author. The nature of Buddhism is that every thought leads to the next(or is inter-connected) and limiting questions to a specific standard defeats the purpose of asking questions. I can see how this question doesn't work in other stackexchange communities but at some point this rule becomes an obstacle.

@AndreiVolkov Outside of being a moderator, do you have anything interesting to add to this question? That is what I am here for after all.

Yes, IMO the opposite of love is judgment. Pain is just something that comes from attachment to one of the sides in a judgment.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

Loving kindness(Metta) is a state of the mind that arises and vanishes. It's not something that exists. For loving kindness to arise, one should see the lovable nature of beings. It does not require suffering. On the other hand, compassion requires seeing the helplessness in those overwhelmed by suffering.
Happiness is also a state of mind that arises and vanishes. It does not require suffering. Happiness arises even in the minds of enlightened beings.
Far enemy of love is hatred/aversion. Near enemy of love is lust.

Happiness and suffering are inseparable: if a person has never suffered, how can one know what happiness is?

Perhaps include delusion as third part of dukkha and not-metta? Insight requires absence of delusion.

@user29568 you can distinguish a happy feeling from a neutral feeling. Enlightened beings only have happy thoughts and neutral thoughts. They are fully aware of it when happiness arise in the mind.


text:
What can one do with knowings that occur from strong intuition?
Please see a breakdown of how one may approach the question...

'Knowings' in this sense has not been influenced by external stimulus. One can know things about our environment using the six senses as a substrate between the seeming reality out there and the seeming mind in here. However, one can also have a knowing that occurs apparently separate from this process.
Intuition in the question here refers to an instinctual awareness that something is so but interestingly the intuition hasn't arisen through the conventional methods of learning; there has been no previous auto-suggestion.

The knowing itself is the knowing of rebirth. It has been something I've steered well clear of but, suddenly, there was the clear knowing that rebirth is so.
Thus the conflict occurs - if I have relied on my six senses all my life to know things, how could I know rebirth to be so?
What on earth is 'Mind'??? Where is Mind'??? (Rhetorical questions but if you're feeling cognitively malleable then feel free to answer these also!)

Why do you need to do something with it?

Because Buddha had these intuitive events and he gained knowledge from them. As I currently understand, it is beyond my capacity to try and comprehend this stuff.

I somehow doubt that one could know the truth of rebirth and not know the nature of Mind but perhaps I'm wrong about this. Either way the only answer for 'what is mind' would be apperception and 'being'. 'Where is mind' would be easier since it is clearly nowhere. You talk of intuition but this not usually considered knowledge, albeit it may be an intimation of knowledge. .

Grab the book Thinking Fast and Slow and have a read. Basically intuition is nothing but pattern recognition (according to the book)

Knowing is not dependent upon the external senses, otherwise, how would you know that you have dropped the senses in 2nd Jhana? How would you know the 3rd and 4th Jhanas? Now to answer your question about what is mind. Mind is created or produced by that-which-flows. That-which-flows is the activity of the unborn. Do not think that the unborn is static. It is not, but mind cannot access it. Knowing of the unborn comes by that-which-flows. A glimpse of that-which-flows is the attainment of Sotopanna. Realizing that-which-flows is the fulfillment of Sotopanna (obtaining the fruits thereof). This realization is often called self-realization (not of the ego self). Self-realization is beyond mind. It is the “turning in consciousness” spoken of in the suttas. Consciousness is changed when this realization happens. The first three fetters are dropped and you are never the same.

It’s a good question user14082. Although I gave the answer to your question of “what is mind”, I see that you have not received a direct answer yet to the relationship between knowing and intuition. Let me say that intuition is not of the mind, but knowing is. Maybe that’s enough to get you on the right track.

This is the question for a genius people who has photographic memory, it's not for an ordinary people, so be careful for reading various answer which some never understood the genius's mind.
At Pa-Auk Tawya, they manage and develop the  strong intuition knowing in the tipitaka-pali systematically.
They meditate all kinds of meditations follow tipitaka and the path of purification to manage and train  strong intuition knowing and it's photographic into entire real process because some (good) ordinary people can get the strong intuition knowing but they don't know how to understand the entire process and they can't create the methods to manage them all to get out of the suffering completely.
The methods to manage and train the strong intuition were taught by the Buddha in Tipitaka. That's why the Tipitaka Memorizer, Pa-Auk Tawya, use Tipitaka to manage and train them.
That's the answer of "what can can one do with knowings that occur from strong intuition".

In the tradition I follow, if I understand my teachers correctly,
the best thing to do is to leave it as it is.
If that feels inaccessible at the moment, you can try just resting in the knowing.  Allow your confidence in the path to increase based on your own direct experience.
Another thing you can do is use it as a support for practice; for example, to turn your mind to look at itself.  (You seem to already be doing this.)
Lastly, it is also possible to develop this intuitive sense, and different traditions have different methods for doing that, but it is not necessary to go down that road unless it particularly appeals to you.
Try not to get hung up on any of these things, but if you must, here’s an article that might help:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43300365

'Knowings' in this sense has not been influenced by external stimulus. One can know things about our environment using the six
  senses as a substrate between the seeming reality out there and the
  seeming mind in here.

There five external senses rather than six.

However, one can also have a knowing that occurs apparently
  separate from this process.

There is no knowing apart from the six senses.

Intuition in the question here refers to an instinctual awareness that something is so but interestingly the intuition hasn't arisen
  through the conventional methods of learning; there has been no
  previous auto-suggestion.

A living organism has a nervous system that functions based on feelings (of pleasure and pain) and underlying tendencies (such as survival instinct & fear). Often "intuition" is based in fear of the unknown; which gives rise to a certain sense of "caution". Since life is full of unpredictable & impermanent events, often the sense of cautious intuition seems valid (even though its validity is actually only due to the probability that most worldly scenarios won't be successful).

The knowing itself is the knowing of rebirth. It has been something I've steered well clear of but, suddenly, there was the clear knowing
  that rebirth is so.

There is no evidence for such thing as "rebirth". "Rebirth" ideas arises from the fear I mentioned above; the fear of the "self" or "ego" not wanting to die.
Note: In the Buddhist suttas, the word "rebirth" refers to the future results that occur due to past actions. For example, killing leading to rebirth in "hell" (trauma; prison; regret; etc). "Rebirth" is not the intuition you existed before due to fear of "ego-death".
As I already posted, people practise meditation and then the ego does not want to die. Therefore, the mind, due to fear, starts creating ideas of past & future existence.

Thus the conflict occurs - if I have relied on my six senses all my life to know things, how could I know rebirth to be so?

Ideas of rebirth are mental thoughts and objects. They are known by the 6th sense; similar to how dreams in sleep are known by the 6th sense. Dreams at night show how creative and imaginative the mind can be.

What on earth is 'Mind'??? Where is Mind'??? (Rhetorical questions but if you're feeling cognitively malleable then feel free to answer
  these also!)

The above question falls outside of the scope of Buddhism. Buddhism says there is mind and, to be free from suffering, mind must not be clung to as "I", "me" or "mine". Buddhism is only about ending suffering.

Thank you for correcting my mistake of the senses. Thank you also for the very detailed response. You've made some assumptions about how the knowing of rebirth occured but that would be due to the lack of information I provided. There is an important message in your answer though: fear arising from the cessation of the imagined concept of me. That's very intriguing and I should perhaps let go of this. Thank you. :-)

@Dhammadatu Sir, If there's no rebirth/reappearance do everything end with death? If so, Ajita Kesakambali had the very same idea; "Bāle ca paṇḍite ca kāyassa bhedā ucchijjanti vinassanti, na honti paraṃ maraṇā’ti."

This comment shows no understand of Dhamma; similar to Vacchagotta. This is because of lust for eternalism.


text:
Is there a reason not to practice jhana?
From a chemical point of view, there has to be an after effect of the amount of joy and happiness one feels, right ?
In a spiritual point of view, I know one should be aware of attachement to jhana.
I am wondering because I experienced first jhana for the first time this week, and my natural tendency was to repeat this experience as much as I could in the following days.
Is it advisable ?

See my aswer in this topic https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/29238/10100

Absolutely not! Go for it! (Assuming when you say first Jhana, you actually mean first Jhana and not something else).

"There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana: rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought and evaluation. He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.
"Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; just so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...

Yes, this description fits exactly !

It is unlikely the mind experienced jhana because, if it did, there would be no doubts in the mind. 'Doubt' is one of the five hindrances that exist when jhana has not been reached.
This said, the Pali suttas say jhana is a pleasure not to be feared. This is because real jhana arises from letting go. Therefore, there is no reason to not abide in jhana. Since jhana is the 8th factor of the noble eightfold path, why would there be a reason to not abide in it?

I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I
  thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to
  do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities.
MN 36

There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go, attains concentration, attains singleness of
  mind. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful
  mental qualities, he enters & remains in the first jhana...
SN 48.10

The Pali suttas (SN 36.11) also say speech ends with the 1st jhana. Therefore, there is not a reason to not practice jhana however there is a reason to not talk about jhana. It seems the questioner is confused here about the difference between practising jhana and talking about jhana. Jhana is something to be practised but is not something to be talked about.

When one has attained the first jhāna, speech has ceased.
SN 36.11

" It is unlikely the mind experienced jhana because, if it did, there would be no doubts in the mind. 'Doubt' is one of the five hindrances that exist when jhana has not been reached. "
In first Jhana the 5 hindrances are paused, but not yet destroyed. Doubts may still arise in mind when not in jhana.
Why is jhana something we shouldn't talk about ? ( Put aside the fact that we lack words to describe it ). Pali sutta ending with first jhana doesn't seem like a convincing argument.

Perhaps you are talking about first supramundane jhana while I am talking about first material jhana, hence the confusion.

I think what Dhammadhatu is getting at is that there is utterly no doubt that one has achieved jhana.  It's an experience that is unmistakable.

I didn't state that I had any doubt about that in my question.

This would be a good answer without the weird statements about "doubt" and "talking about jhana" which doesn't make any sense


text:
Is there a 'dead zone' in meditation effort?
Is there a 'dead zone' in meditation and the effort applied? So to explain

Going from no meditation at all to meditating even a bit (10 mins every few days) - benefits felt quickly
Going up to intense meditation in a retreat situation (meditating many hours a day for several days to several weeks) - benefits felt and quite long lasting
Meditating for an intermediate amount -(meditating 30 mins a day 5-7 days a week over months / years) - meditator plateaus and feels stuck. Little benefit felt

This is just my experience but I'm wondering is it a thing - has this been pointed out in any texts or by established teachers. Or is it just me?
Many Thanks

Don’t be afraid to experiment … perhaps longer periods, perhaps a new technique, perhaps new life experiences. Intelligent effort can’t hurt. The path is not straight as an arrow, sometimes what looks like lack of progress maybe the foundation for a great leap.

The benefit that you felt initially was akin to an out of shape person who decides to go for a walk every day for a week.  The act makes them feel immensely better, but it isn't enough to effect any lasting change.  The same goes for your period of intense practice.  Just imagine the same out of shape person suddenly doing a month of CrossFit!  Sure, they may drop a few pounds, but that month isn't enough to develop any lasting habits.  That weight is also going to come back after a few weeks.
What you really want to be aiming for in practice is something resembling meditative periodization.  You want to be doing a consistent daily practice that you "peak" out every once in a while on a retreat.  That's actually the protocol that monks have been following since the time of the Buddha.  Monks would sit everyday and would go into a period of intense practice during the rains retreat.  Zen does something similar - alternating between a regular sitting periods and the more intense practice periods known as sesshin.
I think the answer to your conundrum here is actually pretty simple.  Assuming that you are going on regular retreats, I just don't think you are sitting long enough day to day.  You've got the peaking part down, but you aren't putting enough into the grunt and grind of daily practice.  It really takes at least a half and hour for the mind to begin to settle.  When you only sit for thirty minutes, you are getting up right when the mind is beginning to quiet.  It's during the periods after the mental chatter subsides and the mind is focused that meditation starts to do it's magic.
My advice here is that you start by bumping your practice up to at least an hour a day.  See what that does.  Personally, I think no sit should be shorter than 90 minutes!  There's something about those last ten minutes of a lengthy sit that's utterly purifying.  Maybe you try to work up to that over time.  If you put this into practice, I also think you'll find that your retreats are even more fulfilling.  After all, who does better at a marathon - the guy who has been running eight miles every day or the dude who just got off the couch?

Yes, it has been pointed out in texts:

During the K'ai Yuan era (713-741) an ascetic Mazu was dwelling in the Ch'uan Fa Temple. All day he sat meditating. Zen Master Huairang knew that he was a fitting vessel of teaching, and went to question him:
“Great Worthy, what are you aiming at by sitting in meditation?”
Mazu replied, "to become a Buddha."
So Huairang leaned over and picked up two tiles off the floor and started rubbing them against each other.
Mazu asked, "What are you doing?"
Huairang replied, "Trying to make a mirror."
Mazu asked, "How can you make a mirror by polishing a tile?"
Huairang said, "How can you become a Buddha by sitting in meditation?"
Mazu asked, "Then what shall I do?"
Huairang asked, "When an ox-carriage stops moving, do you hit the carriage or the ox?" Mazu had no reply. Huairang continued, "Are you practicing to sit in meditation, or practicing to sit like a Buddha? As to sitting in meditation, meditation is neither sitting nor lying. As to sitting like a Buddha, the Buddha has no fixed form. In the non-abiding Dharma, one should neither grasp nor reject. If you try to sit like a Buddha, you are just killing the Buddha. If you attach to the form of sitting, you will never realize the principle."
Upon hearing this Mazu felt as if he had tasted ghee. He bowed and asked, "How should one's mind be so that it will accord with the formless samādhi?"
Huairang said, "Your study of the teaching of the mind-ground is like planting a seed. My teaching of the essentials of the Dharma is like heaven bestowing rain. Because you have natural affinity, you will perceive the Way."
Mazu also asked, "The Way is without form, how can it be perceived?"
Huairang said, "The Dharma-eye of the mind-ground can perceive the Way. It is the same with the formless samādhi."
Mazu asked, "Is that still subject to becoming and decay?"
Huairang said, "If you see the Way through such concepts as becoming and decay, meeting and parting, then you do not truly see the Way. Listen to my verse:

The mind ground contains various seeds,
Which with rain will come to sprout.
The flower of samādhi is formless,
How can it decay or become?"

Mazu was awakened and his mind became detached. He stayed to serve Huairang for ten years, gradually deepening his understanding of the profound mystery.

Buddhist Enlightenment is not something that can be achieved through mechanical repetition or by waiting, like one would wait for a kettle to boil or for a train to arrive. Buddhist Enlightenment involves shedding layers of bullshit and meeting reality. This is a process that requires courage to go forward into the unknown without a map. Only then one's practice can become alive and one can meet the real dragon face to face.
This includes meditation, that has to get less and less scripted and more and more an authentic presence and discovery with no preset agenda.

The stream flowing to Nibbana is entered by letting go (vossagga), as written at the end of MN 118 and in SN 48.9 and SN 48.10.
Most meditation taught (Visuddhimagga, Mahasi, Goenka, etc) are not based in letting go. Instead, they are "yogic techniques" based in mental manipulation.
Because these yogic methods use thought, the mind remains coarse or gross. Bodily formations only calm to a certain degree without the mind calming enough to bring more refined progress. Thus meditation "plateaus" or progress becomes "dead".

If you do something steadily for a long period of time you will personally see the "gains" in a rather slow manner. If, however, you stop doing something for quite some time and practise that thing again, the skill comea back quickly again. Once learned (in the brain), never able to unlearn. Unlearn is the key here. Neurons that aren't used become dormant. If a smoker hasn't smoked for a couple of years and starts again, the habit will be back quite quickly because the pathways were only dormant. If you want to become better at something you have to increase both quality and quantity


text:
I am confused with my life. In most of the time I fill that, My husband don't love me don't care of myself
I am suffering from mind disturb. I am living alone one city for job purpose and my husband living with his family also for his job. All time he prefer his family more than me. If I told very small thing , he angry on me. Most of week he had some work in office that why I go to home and spending time with family. When I want to get him alone. That's time I fill that he has not much happy with like with he spent with his family. Now he don't want talk me so much. If I call him more than 2 in morning ,he fill irritating for this. If I told more than 2 to 3 for same thing , he angry on me. Please do suggest me advice from Buddhist traditions.

The Buddha taught to maintain a good marriage, the husband & wife must speak to each other with loving gentle words and also have the same goals for life. Please read this in the Samajivina Sutta.
The Buddha also taught in the Sigalovada Sutta the duties of a husband & wife, namely:

A husband:
(i) being courteous to her, (ii) not despising her, (iii) being faithful to her, (iv) handing over authority to her, (v) providing her
  with adornments.
The wife:
(i) she performs her duties well, (ii) she is hospitable to relations and attendants  (iii) she is faithful, (iv) she protects what he
  brings, (v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.

Using the above teachings of the Buddha as a guide, you should: (i) discuss these with your husband &/or his family; (ii) visit a monk or priest for counselling; or (iii) visiting a professional marriage counselor.
Also, try to find a 'support group'; either Buddhist, religious or secular.

Sorry that you're unhappy. I suppose you might like two kinds of advice:

How to cooperate with your husband
How to feel peace of mind independently

I don't know of good, specifically-Buddhist advice for cooperating with your husband.
I guess you might want to talk with him -- perhaps ask him what he wants, or talk with his or your family? It's hard for me to give general advice, even hard for me to know whether "ask him what he wants" is good advice, because I don't know your culture (society's expectations), personal history, etc. Perhaps you can find advice from someone locally?
The one thing from my personal experience, you said, "Now he don't want talk me so much. If I call him more than 2 in morning, he fill irritating for this" -- I remember myself, that I found it strange, distracting, unexpected, unfortunate, when I was newly married and I was newly employed as well, and my wife was at home (and not working), that she'd want me to phone her during the morning and afternoon while I was at work. Being new to society in the workplace , I was trying to learn to fit in there, and taking "personal calls" on the phone was an unwelcome distraction and a symptom of dependence (a lack of independence), and symptom of not being "on the job". Maybe your being being a bit more independent or confident, knowing what your work is and doing that while he is doing his, would be a way to be more cooperative with him.
In the social development of young children there's something called "social play" and "cooperative play" (when children play together). There's also something called Parallel play when they both play, next to each other, but without interfering with each other -- maybe any times when he's doing other things, with other people, is a time for "parallel" play.

I guess I have four bits of advice for learning to feel peace of mind independently:

Learn the elements of Buddhist doctrine, if you haven't already. The four noble truths for example teach me that "suffering" arises from wanting things (or people) to be other than as they are.
I don't know whether it's possible to change (or improve your view of) his behaviour, by changing your relationship.

Part of what causes suffering are "self-views", which I guess in this case include, "I am his wife", as well as, "I am suffering", and so on. Perhaps you have "views", from society, about how an ideal marriage ought to be, about all the roles and behaviours of an ideal wife and ideal husband. If or when these "ideals" don't match "reality" then I think that results in suffering -- maybe think again about ideals you hold and whether they're worth clinging to (i.e. whether it's skilful to cling to them).
You might also find it helpful to learn other "views", perhaps for example to read what the elders nuns wrote in the Therigatas.

Read about, try to practice, the Brahama-viharas (see e.g. here or here). I think we're taught that they're the right attitude to have towards everyone and I suppose that includes towards our husband or wife.
Doing this might help with trying to balance being loving with being independent (i.e. how to manage being both "loving" and "independent" at the same time).

You might want to find a reason for happiness other than (or addition to) the fact that you're married.
A way to do this is to be "virtuous" -- e.g. kind, generous, self-restrained or disciplined, purposeful, beneficial -- then you might feel, "I am happy that I did good", or at least, feel "no remorse" about what you do.


text:
Ancient Indian sites, where Jataka stories are illustrated through sculpture and painting?
I know that many Jataka stories are illustrated, through sculpture and painting, in ancient Indian sites like Sanchi, Bharhut, Ajanta etc. I have found some of them in various books and websites. What I need is a comprehensive list of such illustrations. Can anyone please help me?

There's The Illustrated Jataka & Other Stories of the Buddha
Some are also covered in this documentary
A simple comprehensive list can be found here


text:
Developing Positive Qualities and Diminishing Negative Qualities
I wondered recently whether the ideas of developing positive qualities and abandoning negative qualities are different. To me, it seems developing positive qualities requires an active effort, a type of striving. In contrast, abandoning negative qualities requires a relinquishing, a restraint.
Are these endeavours two different aspirations? Does achieving one ascertain the achievement of the other or not?
In other words, does one lead automatically to the other, or should one intentionally implement both?

Perhaps I meant whether these are linked with doing and non-doing respectively.

In my opinion, this boils down to the differences I previously outlined between "formless" and "form-full" paths.
The formless path is about relinquishing negative qualities without explicitly striving to generate the positive ones - an activity which would require creation of (contrived) forms.
On the formless path, the positive qualities are expected to manifest implicitly, as a by product of removing the negative. We say the positive qualities "co-emerge". While the form-full path involves strong emphasis on defining objectives and reaching them, which is an explicit way to generate the positive qualities.
In terms of drawbacks, the formful path is prone to issues associated with Form, such as attachment, reification, and pride. While the formless path is prone to the opposite set of issues such as loss of motivation, uncertainty, and low self esteem.
It seems that most people naturally incline towards one or the other, and so in practice it becomes a matter of recognizing the pitfalls associated with either path and knowingly compensating for them.

What about combining both?

If a person could maintain his/her mind on what that should be taken in (kusala or moral) and those that should be gotten rid of (akusala or immoral)” daily without fail, that itself lead to the removal of greed, hate and ignorance. Nibbāna is removal of greed, hate, ignorance: “rāgakkhayō dōsakkhayō mōhakkhayō idaṃ vuccati nibbānanti“. -  Nibbāna pañhā Sutta (SN 38.1).
In Sri Lanka, parents tell their child to clean his/her room by saying, “kämaraya (room) assa passa (or aspas) karāganna”. When cleaning the room, the child needs to get rid of the clutter (passa), but also can take in (assa) something like a flower vase to make the room look more pleasant, or to take in a chair that can be useful. So, one does not throw away everything or take in everything. One needs to be selective in taking in “good things” and throwing away “bad things”. That is where mindfulness comes in.
Similarly in the practice of Dhamma we should make a habit of taking in kusala & getting rid of akusala, or, equivalently, taking in the Noble Eightfold Path/discarding the miccā eightfold path, this eventually lead the practitioner to the getting rid of dasa akusala.
In the assāsa Sutta (SN38.5), it is specifically said what needs to be “taken in” (assāsa): “Katamo panāvuso maggo katamā paṭipadā etassa assāsassa  sacchikiriyāyāti (what needs to be “taken in”). Ayameva kho āvuso ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo etassaassāsassa sacchikiriyāya (it is the Noble Eightfold Path that needs to be “taken in”). Seyyathīdaṃ (namely): sammādiṭṭhi sammāsaṅkappo sammāvācā sammākammanto sammāājīvo sammāvāyāmo sammāsati sammāsamādhi”.

While the Four Right Exertions share a common goal/objective of ending dukkha and attaining liberation, each has its own purpose and function. A quick analogy is the case of a chain smoker. His objective is to regain a strong healthy body. So not only s/he'd need to exert effort to abandon his negative habit of chain smoking, s/he'd also need to exert effort to cultivate positive habits like: sleep more regularly, eat more healthy fruits/vegetables, and perform more frequently physical exercises, etc.