text:
Is society the follower of Mara?
In day to day interaction, people treat me as if I exist. They say "'Dheeraj' would you like to see a movie?" They say "'Dheeraj' you are
    married." They say, "Would you like to eat spicy food or non spicy food?"
    Socially I am acceptable as an individual called 'Dheeraj'. If society is
    not collectively wrong in their view, then I exist. If society is
    collectively wrong about me, then myself is an error, illusion or
    dream, not just for me but for the entire society... Therefore if there is an escape for 'Dheeraj' from Self then it necessarily means that 'Dheeraj' has to escape from the society which believes that 'Dheeraj' exists. From Buddha's point of view if Self is Mara then Society is the follower of Mara as it encourages the growth of self.
So my question is: is society the follower of Mara , the evil one?

If society is collectively wrong about me then ,myself is an error , illusion or dream, not just for me but for the entire society...

Yes. Correct. The Buddha said:

174. Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.
Lokavagga

From Buddha's point of view if Self is Mara then Society is the follower of Mara as it encourages the growth of self.

Yes. Correct. This is the Buddhist view.

44. Who shall overcome this earth, this realm of Yama and this sphere of men and gods? Who shall bring to perfection the well-taught path of
wisdom as an expert garland-maker would his floral design?
45. A striver-on-the path shall overcome this earth, this realm of Yama and this sphere of men and gods. The striver-on-the-path shall
bring to perfection the well-taught path of wisdom, as an expert
garland-maker would his floral design.
46. Realizing that this body is like froth, penetrating its mirage-like nature, and plucking out Mara's flower-tipped arrows of
sensuality, go beyond sight of the King of Death!
47. As a mighty flood sweeps away the sleeping village, so death carries away the person of distracted mind who only plucks the flowers
(of pleasure).
48. The Destroyer brings under his sway the person of distracted mind who, insatiate in sense desires, only plucks the flowers (of
pleasure).
Pupphavagga

The Buddha taught individual people have different dispositions & inclinations (MN 12). This means people should find a religion that suits their disposition and to not harass other religions. For example, the Buddha did not harass other religions.

So my question is : Is society the follower of Mara , the evil one?

Of course society is the follower of Mara. In India, for 100s of years, there has been the evil caste system, with millions of people living in condemned institutionalized poverty. For thousands of years, there is war after war. Only 70 years ago, 50 million people were slaughtered in a world war, including fire & nuclear bombings of civilian cities. The current world has technology to be able to feed & house every person, but there remains war, poverty, greed, abuse. Nations & peoples lives are destroyed in unprovoked wars, such as in Iraq, Libya & Syria. The public internet has evil pornography on it, which governments allow & the people do not object to. The word is full of broken families. Slavery and slave labour has returned. A mafia of billionaires has just become the USA govt; which replaced a murderous war mongering government. Yet most of the American people agree with one of those governments. Of course society is the follower of Mara.

Note: Christianity appears to have the same view:

Question: "How is Satan god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)?"
Answer: The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age”) indicates that Satan is the major influence on the ideals, opinions,
goals, hopes and views of the majority of people. His influence also
encompasses the world’s philosophies, education, and commerce. The
thoughts, ideas, speculations and false religions of the world are
under his control and have sprung from his lies and deceptions.
Satan is also called the "prince of the power of the air" in Ephesians 2:2. He is the "ruler of this world" in John 12:31. These
titles and many more signify Satan’s capabilities. To say, for
example, that Satan is the "prince of the power of the air" is to
signify that in some way he rules over the world and the people in
it.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html

From this perspective, society reinforces the view of selfhood and calls it individuality, although it is a mere repetition of the movements of the social conditioning;
It also reinforces self-grasping creating an illusory cocoon and reifying it as something real.
Modern societies follow Mara, from the perspective of the golden ages, principle, insights and laws of ancient thought-systems. It seems like Kali Yuga.
One way to deal with that is to develop authenticity, and retaining a selfhood that you can use as a puppet on the scene, otherwise you would have to refrain from all social interaction.
As long as you command the puppet of selfhood, and are well-aware of its illusory nature, not grasping at it, you can play the theatre and further practice.
If you are pushed into the attachment to the selfhood by everyone else, you might at first feel encircled, but then it let's go.
These are not good times for people opposing Mara, soon there are newer and newer distractions, whims etc.
Of course, the other part is the danger of developing an elitist view, or air of superiority and inflation. When you separate yourself from the rest, who cherish selfhood and grasping at self at a societal level. Or even worse - doing so blindly and not knowing otherwise, you may risk self-attachment through aggrandizement and separate yourself into an even worse condition.
I have similar thoughts, and balancing between the mask and puppets of selfhoods (or selfhood) and attempt to be liberated from them is a rather difficult game, but it is doable.
There is no need to escape society, it is a question of developing a strong selfhood that deals with society, but detaching it as if non-existent when necessary.
Meditation most definitely helps, not only in regular practice, but also mindfulness in the streets, at work, whenever you go. Apart from (honestly admitting - scant) Samadhi meditation, Invocations, Prayers on Void-Level, I use my spare time on public transport too meditate and detach both from myself and society, yet attempting to embrace it, not separating myself as a "lonely island". I combine it with Neoplatonic Theurgy, as Occidental and Oriental minds differ, and sometimes it is necessary.
To answer your question, yes - globalized societies are by and large polluted by Mara.
Homage to Boddhisatvas, the heroes and conquerors.

There is nothing wrong in using personal pronouns like I, you, me, he, she etc. or addressing oneself or others. After all, the Buddha used personal pronouns and addressed others too.
For example, from the Akkosa Sutta, the Buddha said:

"In the same way, brahman, that with which you have insulted
  me, who is not insulting; that with which you have taunted me, who is not taunting; that with which you have berated me, who is not berating: that I don't accept from you. It's all yours, brahman. It's all yours.

In another example from the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, the Buddha said:

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have
  taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of
  dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite
  condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'? But
  you, through your own poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root] and produce much demerit for
  yourself. That will lead to your long-term harm & suffering."

It is not that the self does not exist. The self does exist, but it is not permanent, and it arises out of the inter-working of the five aggregates. The self does not exist standalone as an agent or entity by itself. The self is also not eternal.
In the Sabbasava Sutta, it is stated that both the views that "I have a self" and "I have no self" are wrong:

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
  arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
  established, or the view I have no self ....(cut)... This is called a
  thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a
  writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the
  uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, &
  death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.

Instead, the Buddha taught that the correct way to see this is through dependent origination (see Acela Sutta). He also taught that these false views arise due to the association of the self with the five aggregates (see Yamaka Sutta). Please see this answer and this answer for more details.
Hence, in my opinion, it is wrong to blame society or Mara or anybody else if anyone possesses wrong views regarding the self.
As stated in Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
  yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your
  island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.

Should you then blame yourself instead? Of course not. Instead, we should strive to seek a correct understanding based on the teachings.

the correct answer, i think

A letter from Mara.
An interesting reading.
https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/maracontent.html
========
Mara in Buddhism symbolizes the passions that overwhelm human beings as well as everything that hinders the arising of the wholesome roots and progress on the path of enlightenment.
Mara is the lord of the sixth heaven of the desire realm and is often depicted with a hundred arms, riding on an elephant.
According to legend, the Buddha Shakyamuni was attacked by Mara as he was striving for enlightenment, because Mara wanted to prevent him from showing men the way that liberates from suffering. Mara first called up a horde of demons, but Shakyamuni did not fear them. Then he sent his most beautiful daughter to seduce Shakyamuni, but before Shakyamuni's eyes she turned into an ugly hag, where upon Mara admitted conclusive defeat.*
*The Shambhala Dictionary of Buddhism and Zen

According to the Suttas, the Buddha and the Noble disciples used names to refer to or identify the various disciples: they spoke of the various disciples, by name.
There's the story of Nagasena and the simile of the chariot (in The Questions of King Milinda), who explains that "Nagasena" is just a name.
There are problems with society. And there are problems with attaching to form and so on, and identity view. And some people do "leave society" e.g. in order to become monks instead. But perhaps you should practice equanimity to society and the name 'Dheeraj'.
It's true that in the canon, people identify 'Mara' when some thought of self-identification occurs: see the Vajira Sutta (SN 5.10).

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
  Mara, have you grasped a view?
  This is a heap of sheer constructions:
  Here no being is found.

I wonder though whether identifying society as Mara might be another example of "grasping a view".

You do exist. You exist as a collection of processes. Buddha never said you don't exist. My understanding is that what he said is that what we think of as the self is not lasting or permanent. That the sense of continuity is an illusion. You clearly have a body and a mind and for people to function in this world we find ourselves in we need to label things hence your name is deeraj.


text:
Is Buddhism a syncretic religion, and then what would they say on the Abrahamaic religions?

Syncretism is a union or attempted fusion of different religions,
  cultures, or philosophies — like Halloween, which has both Christian
  and pagan roots, or the combination of Aristotelian philosophy with
  the belief system of the early punk rock practitioners.

I suppose some of my family are Christian, and though I wasn't really raised that way, I'm wondering, if Buddhism is syncretic, as with the Tao in China, how it has or will combine with the Abrahamaic religions.
Has there been any serious scholarship charting this, or even, though the idea seems off, predicting it?

i suppose i quite like the idea of god the father as some kind of wheel turning king, or perhaps ruling over some heaven, until reborn somewhere. :-)

It might appear that Buddhism is a syncretic religion because it apparently has some similar features to Hinduism and/or Jainism:

Rebirth
Concept of Karma
Samsara
Monks with orange robes and shaven heads
Beings like Brahma, Sakka / Indra, Yama, devas, gandhabba
Tendency to non-violence similar to Jainism
Some Mahayana deities resemble Hindu deities
The use of beads or rosaries in Mahayana Buddhism similar to Hindu
Tendency to non-violence similar to Jainism
Similar ritual elements like cremation and use of incense

In terms of philosophy, the oldest teachings of the Buddha are found in the Pali Canon, especially the Sutta and the Vinaya.
From there, we can see that some of the core and non-core Buddhist teachings, from the Pali Canon, are a stark departure from Hinduism and Jainism, and some are quite original:

The middle way between eternalism and annihilationism (both Hinduism and Jainism subscribe to eternalism of the self) - see this answer
The middle way between asceticism and indulgence (Jainism tends towards asceticism) - see this answer
The self is not eternal, not standalone and not independent - see this answer and contrast with Hindu BG2.24
The self or soul does not pervade the body (unlike the Hindu BG2.17) - see SN35.85
In terms of karma, not everything we experience is a result of past karma (compared to Jainism) - see this answer, SN36.21 and MN101
There is no Supreme Creator God (unlike Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions) - see this answer
The self or soul does not transmigrate (unlike Hindu BG2.22) - see this answer
Lay people eating meat that was bought dead and frozen from the supermarket is not sinful - see this answer

However, as also discussed in this answer, later on, Buddhist and Hindu philosophy influenced each other to produce Advaita Vedanta and Indian Mahayana Buddhist philosophy. Also, Tibetan Buddhism have adopted some Hindu deities. On the other hand, there has also been debates in later times between Hindu and Buddhist scholars (see this question).
However, Anatta and the lack of a Supreme Creator God, still keeps Buddhism very far apart from the other religions, and due to this, it is very unlikely that Buddhism will form a doctrinally syncretic relationship with Hinduism, Jainism or the Abrahamic religions. The syncretism is likely to remain at the cultural level, if it exists at all.

Hinduism did not exist before Buddhism. Only the Brahman Vedas existed before Buddhism &, purportedly, some of the initial Upanishads, which may have not circulated geographically where the Buddha lived since the Pali suttas only mention the Vedas and not any early Upanishads. The Bhagavad Gita is after Buddhism.

I discussed some details about this in this answer. Here, I consider Hinduism to encompass the Vedic religion (1750 - 500 BCE), some of the shramanic traditions (500 - 200 BCE), the Upanishadic movement (500 - 200 BCE), Classical Hinduism (200 BCE - 1100 CE) and (what I guess we have today is) Modern Hinduism. The Bhagavad Gita was written around 200 BCE. The Buddha was born either on 563 or 480 BCE, in the shramanic period.

The Pali suttas only refer to the Vedas, which would date the Buddha's birth much earlier. The post-Exilic writings of the Old Testment would date the Buddha as a reformer here, also.

Original Buddhism is not syncretic.
The core Buddhism teachings (namely, the four noble truths, three characteristics, dependent origination, emptiness, six elements, here-&-now Nibbana with feeling, etc) are 100% original.
The Buddha is said to have said: "These were realities he had never heard about before".

This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light. SN 56.11

If they were not 100% original, the whole idea of a 'Buddha' would be a falsehood since a Buddha is self-fully-enlightened  without the help of a teacher (SN 6.2).
Buddhism (MN 115) states there can only be one Buddha in a world-system.

He understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that two Accomplished Ones, Fully Enlightened Ones, could arise
  contemporaneously in one world-system ― there is no such possibility.’
  And he understands: ‘It is possible that one Accomplished One, a Fully
  Enlightened One, might arise in one world-system ― there is such a
  possibility.’

However, lots of modern Buddhism is syncretic. Theravada is 'Maha Vihara', which refers to a Hinduistic style Buddhism from Sri Lanka (which most of the posters on this chatsite believe in).
The less profound Mahayana Buddhist teachings are very syncretic, incorporating Hindu deities and esoteric Hindu & Chinese teachings about 'non-duality' and 'non-naming'.

Judaism is also very unique in its doctrine & does not appear syncretic.
However, Christianity certainty seems Syncretic, maybe the most syncretic.
Yet the Xtian fundamentalists believe it is the most original.

"Original Buddhism is not syncretic." i agree, independent of whether that is a synthetic claim

Buddhism is not a religion, it is a practice.  Likewise, Taoism is a philosophy.  ANd I would answer, no, it is not syncretic -- it stands on its own.
As to whether it's a religion, neither have any gods, so they can't properly be called a religion.  Because even though they may be said to have scripture, these are not given by god, but by humans and so properly speaking could be said to be a perpetually-curated set of guidelines towards the perfection of the practice.
To the Asians, I believe they see it like a religion, in that they abide with a devotion by which only religion compares, yet that similarity doesn't make it a religion, in any Western sense, or even probably Near Eastern.

Are you trying to distinguish "practice" from "philosophy"? There are Taoist practices, surely. Anyway I think the core of the OP's question was whether Buddhism is syncretic (not whether it's a religion).

@ChrisW:  Good point on the religion issue.  But, I was making a distinction between practice and philosophy.  One can believe in one without the other (people meditate without buddhism, and people believe in Taoism without any practices).

i don't know why my comment was deleted, it didn't seem offensive. you can say that communion isn't a religion it is a practice, but it doesn't make any sense to, i think

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Dukkha and happiness
Was reading the article linked to below about how happiness is merely the absence of dukkha in much the same way that darkness is the absence of light.  That happiness is alway there. All we need to do is change our mind. We confuse gratification with happiness. We think that accomplishing, achieving, attaining will make us happier but we are misguided. I understand this, it makes perfect sense however say for example I feel lonely because I have no friends. I can sit there and experience what it feels like to be lonely and make peace with that or I can take action to make new friends so that I feel more connected and thus less lonely. If I do the latter then aren't I accomplishing, gratifying etc? Surely it's a good thing to make efforts to connect. Buddhism seems to be saying it's all in your own head but then if this is so why try to change anything?  Why go out and try to make new friends when I feel lonely?  Why go out and try to make money when I don't have enough? Etc etc. doing these things creates a better life, one of less struggle. Surely that is a good thing and leads to more happiness?   http://www.raptitude.com/2010/07/good-news-happiness-doesn't-exist/

Both happiness and sadness are feelings. Both of them fall under the first noble truth or the noble truth of suffering. Sad feelings come under suffering for obvious reasons and happy feelings come under suffering for being impermanent, deficient, incompetent, unreliable etc.
There is something better than happy feelings. Something permanent and peaceful. That is what the Buddha experienced first hand while he lived. Guiding us to find that while we live is what Buddhism is all about. It's not about trying to experience happy feelings or going to a heaven after death and experiencing some more happy feelings for a while.
Feeling lonely is a form of suffering. That suffering cannot be eliminated by looking for company. Being with friends is just a temporary consolation. That does not mean you will not get bored in the future. Buddhism doesn't tell you not to make friends or not to experience the comforts of life, especially if you
 are a layman. Buddhism offers a permanent solution to your problems. Instead of simply relying on friends every time you feel lonely, what if you are able to uproot the cause of being lonely? Then you will never feel lonely in the first place.

"That is what the Buddha experienced" - allegedly.     What if what if what if.  It's just another non answer. Nothing concrete just more of the same shrouded suggestions that apparently something may be possible if you're fortunate enough to get your head around all the mysticism and vagueness about how to actually do it.

How to actually do it is explained in Buddhism in detail. Ever heard of the Noble Eight-fold Path? There is no mysticism. The instructions are simple enough. But you have to walk the path yourself. Nobody can inject enlightenment into you just to prove it. :)

Yeah of course I have heard if it. I read Buddhist stuff on a daily basis. The eightfold path is sold  as the magic yellow brick road.  It may be explained in detail but it's not clear or easy to comprehend. It's vague.  I been doing this now for 7 years and I still don't get it.

Find a better teacher. Here's a simple guide: https://www.sirimangalo.org/text/how-to-meditate/

There's a (non-Buddhist) "serenity prayer" that's famous now in North America:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
  Courage to change the things I can,
  And wisdom to know the difference.

I think that Buddhist teaching is slightly different. It says:

Make an effort (right effort) -- strive on with diligence
Be careful/discerning about what you strive for -- for example if you strive for friends then strive for good friends; if you strive for money, don't be attached to it nor make money your master; or consider simply what you need to live (e.g. food and clothing), rather than money; etc.

Why go out and try to make money when I don't have enough?

This matter is physical. I think it is not a relevant example.

I can sit there and experience what it feels like to be lonely and make peace with that

Although it might get scary initially, there is a 3rd option, namely, sit there and experience what it feels like not to be lonely. In Buddhism, this is called 'solitude', 'seclusion' or 'aloneness' ('viveka').
While not explicitly Buddhist, Chapter 23 of the following link distinguishes between 'loneliness' & 'aloneness': Think on these Things by J.Krishnamurti

I think you're doing skirting around the question

"I can sit there and experience what it feels like to be lonely and make peace with that or I can take action to make new friends so that I feel more connected and thus less lonely. If I do the latter then aren't I accomplishing, gratifying etc?"
Yes, it does seem so.
"Surely it's a good thing to make efforts to connect."
Yeah, if you put effort into connecting, and you end up having company, surely this  is the gratification of that.
Instead of framing the conclusion here as "Buddhism seems to be saying it's all in your own head", I would only say at this point that this gratification is temporary.
So, from the buddhist perspective, I agree with you when you say that "We think that accomplishing, achieving, attaining will make us happier but we are misguided.", but only if the happiness you refer to is one not subject to vanishing -- Nirvana.
Otherwise, that's not quite true: accomplishing, achieving and attaining can  makes us happy, it's just that it's a happiness that has an expiration date, a happiness that is subject to disappear -- often too soon -- and a happiness that is not really that satisfying in it's essence.
"but then if this is so why try to change anything? Why go out and try to make new friends when I feel lonely? Why go out and try to make money when I don't have enough? Etc etc. doing these things creates a better life, one of less struggle."
Indeed,  these are efforts for creating a better life with less struggle. We may be able to lessen the struggle like this, but one might wonder if one can eliminate it, like Gotama wondered:

“I too, being myself subject to birth, sought what was also subject to birth; being myself subject to ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, and defilement, I sought what was also subject to ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, and defilement. Then I considered thus: ‘Why, being myself subject to birth, do I seek what is also subject to birth? Why, being myself subject to ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, and defilement, do I seek what is also subject to ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, and defilement? Suppose that, being myself subject to birth, having understood the danger in what is subject to birth, I seek the unborn supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna. Suppose that, being myself subject to ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, and defilement, having understood the danger in what is subject to ageing, sickness, death, sorrow, and defilement, I seek the unageing, unailing, deathless, sorrowless, and undefiled supreme security from bondage, Nibbāna.’
-- MN 26

His reflection was simply this: something permanent can't be found in things transient (additionally, things that also pose a danger for more suffering).
So here, we end up facing the reality that trying to permanently eliminate suffering, to attain a permanent shelter from suffering by obtaining temporary things (company, loneliness, marriage, money, etc), things subject to birth, to aging, to death, sorrow, lamentation and pain...isn't going to work.
Hence the gradual path of Buddhism, to substitute gross gratifications by other gratifications that, while still temporary, pose substantially less risk of creating misery and promote the encounter with that everlasting happiness.

If by renouncing a lesser happiness one may realize a greater happiness, let the wise man renounce the lesser, having regard for the greater.
-- Dhp 290

This is the second point I'd like to bring up: method. For example, mindlessly abandoning friends and, say, food, simply because they are impermanent is probably not a good strategy for people looking for that greater happiness. It's important to point out that the Buddha supported his disciples in eating, wearing clothes and so on -- for he sake of sustaining their lives, and protecting them from diseases, etc. which is necessary for them to keep studying and practicing.
More generally, we are taught to scrutinize and reflect over each of these things in terms of their dangers and benefits. For example, would look for friendship (or certain friends) be an obstacle to well being, to ease, to Nirvana? Or would it support those involved in making their lives easier and their understandings of suffering deeper? And so on...

It all just feels so pointless. I can't even be bothered to go work out because what's the point?  My body is going to age and decay anyway. What's the point of pretending I can control that by exercising?  I certainly don't ever want to fall in love again and convince myself that I can maintain a happy lifelong relationship after the last one fell apart and I suffered a huge amount of trauma, feelings of rejection, abandonment, loneliness,  still am.  Even friends are nothing but a source of disappointment. Seriously what is the damn point of even being alive. I don't feel any joy.

@Arturia I'm sorry to read that :(

OP: Buddhism seems to be saying it's all in your own head but then if this is so why try to change anything? Why go out and try to make
  new friends when I feel lonely? Why go out and try to make money when
  I don't have enough? Etc etc. doing these things creates a better
  life, one of less struggle. Surely that is a good thing and leads to
  more happiness?

You have misunderstood this.
The purpose of Buddhism is really the pursuit of happiness. We can find plenty of advice from the Buddha on this, in the Sigalovada Sutta, for lay people.
Do you feel lonely and want to make friends? Choose the right friends and be a right friend yourself:

"Young man, be aware of these four good-hearted friends: the helper, the friend who endures in good times and bad, the mentor, and
  the compassionate friend.
"The helper can be identified by four things: by protecting you when you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when
  you are afraid, and in various tasks providing double what is
  requested.
"The enduring friend can be identified by four things: by telling you secrets, guarding your own secrets closely, not abandoning you in
  misfortune, and even dying for you.
"The mentor can be identified by four things: by restraining you from wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, telling you what
  you ought to know, and showing you the path to heaven.
"The compassionate friend can be identified by four things: by not rejoicing in your misfortune, delighting in your good fortune,
  preventing others from speaking ill of you, and encouraging others who
  praise your good qualities."

You can spend up to a quarter of your income for good enjoyments, including with your good friends. Manage your wealth the right way.

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

You can also get married to the right spouse and be a right spouse yourself:

"In five ways should a wife as the western direction be respected by a
  husband: by honoring, not disrespecting, being faithful, sharing
  authority, and by giving gifts.
"And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways:
  by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and
  household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods,
  and being skillful and diligent in all duties.

Similarly, have the right kind of relationship with your parents and children:

"In five ways should a mother and father as the eastern direction be
  respected by a child: 'I will support them who supported me; I will do
  my duty to them; I will maintain the family lineage and tradition; I
  will be worthy of my inheritance; and I will make donations on behalf
  of dead ancestors.'
"And, the mother and father so respected reciprocate with compassion
  in five ways: by restraining you from wrongdoing, guiding you towards
  good actions, training you in a profession, supporting the choice of a
  suitable spouse, and in due time, handing over the inheritance.

Sure, you can make money and enjoy from it and make yourself happy. There's more financial advice from the Dighajanu Sutta:

"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
  the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.'
These are the four inlets to one's store of wealth: no debauchery in
  sex; no debauchery in drink; no debauchery in gambling; and admirable
  friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie.

The Adiya Sutta speaks of five benefits that can be obtained from wealth. the first two relates to family and friends.

He provides his mother & father with pleasure & satisfaction, and
  maintains that pleasure rightly. He provides his children, his wife,
  his slaves, servants, & assistants with pleasure & satisfaction, and
  maintains that pleasure rightly. This is the first benefit that can be
  obtained from wealth.
"... provides his friends & associates with pleasure & satisfaction,
  and maintains that pleasure rightly. This is the second benefit that
  can be obtained from wealth.

Doesn't all of this make you happy? Sure it does. But it will not last forever.
If due to that, you want to be an ascetic completely withdrawn from the world, that would fall into extreme asceticism. If you want to enjoy the worldly happiness like it will last forever, that's extreme indulgence. Both ways will not end suffering. Hence, the Buddha introduced the middle way between the two, through the Noble Eightfold Path.
As a lay person, you should enjoy the happiness of this world, like wealth, family and companionship, but at the same time undergo the Noble Eightfold Path training process towards permanent happiness (which is the end of suffering).
If you feel fit and inclined, you can also choose the monastic order, which is a more intensive training program. But that's not for everyone. On that note, even monks and nuns can have friends but they must choose the type of friends found in the Upaddha Sutta:

Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie
  is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable
  people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to
  develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

You can find in this answer the four levels of "training programs" - lay Dhamma follower, anagarika, novice monk (or nun) and fully ordained monk (or nun).
Do read the Dhaniya Sutta which provides an interesting insight into this topic, based on the life of the cattleman and family-man Dhaniya:

Dhaniya said: "How great our gain that we've gazed on the Blessed One!
  We go to him, the One with vision, for refuge. May you be our teacher,
  Great Sage. My wife & I are compliant. Let's follow the holy life
  under the One Well-gone. Gone to the far shore of aging & death, let's
  put an end to suffering & stress."

Our original condition is unconstrained easiness and contentment. Imagine how a little baby feels in comfort.
No worries and concerns. Everything is simple.
Gradually children lose that state of satisfaction, because we attach to "good" and run away from "bad".
"Good" and "bad" create worries and concerns.
We develop thirst to "feel better" and start to chase something out there.
We lose our original unconstrained natural condition.
Oppositions start to rule our life: chasing and escaping.
Thirst and suffering.
Having lost the original paradise, we wander in search of satisfaction, we feel lacking something. We feel lonely and insecure, in oppositions with this and that.
Rather than perceiving the reality as non-divided wholeness, we perceive "myself". We think how to make "myself" happy.
But the original happiness has no "myself". There is non-divided unity and harmony.
It's not possible to cut out a piece - "myself" - and make it feel to be whole.
That separated piece will always remain lonely. To regain wholeness, "myself" and all the oppositions should be realized as illusory. All identifications should be realized as illusory, and we should drop reliance on them. Then there will be nothing to attach to, nothing to be concerned and worried about.
In Buddhism that is called awakening, liberation from suffering.
In practice, how would we act?
Not being lonely, not separated from others.
In Mahayana Buddhism we say that there are basically two approaches of awakened beings: Arhat approach and Bodhisattva approach. Arhat can just sit in contentment. The world is so perfect that Arhat doesn't need anything. Bodhisattva feels the same, but because other beings wander in illusions, then why not help them? So Bodhisattva stands from his sitting meditation and goes to work for others.

all in your own head but then if this is so why try to change anything?

Wholeness is a question of harmony. If you just keep idly sitting, when someone needs help near you, then is that harmony?
So when we live in awakening, there's satisfaction "in our mind" - but also we aren't passive - we act, as that is the way to remain in harmony: naturally being with fluid current of events.

Why go out and try to make new friends when I feel lonely? Why go out and try to make money when I don't have enough? Etc etc. doing these things creates a better life, one of less struggle. Surely that is a good thing and leads to more happiness?

Doing something not from oppositions, not for "myself", but out of natural harmony is the way of real happiness.
That's the Buddhist practice, especially in Mahayana. Not only through meditation, but also through non-egoistic work we dissolve habits of being dependent on illusory oppositions. Thus we come to awakening.
So when we make friends, earn money etc., how is Buddhist way different from ordinary life of suffering?
Observe, what is the difference:

between pain and the suffering we add on top of pain?
between joy and the thirst we add on top of joy?
between living this moment completely and rushing somewhere else, not satisfied, not being in the moment, half-here half-there?
between caring about me, mine - and having dropped uneasy oppositions with them, theirs?..

In awakening, we can feel pain and joy, but we don't entangle ourselves in suffering and unhealthy desire. We may have intentions and aspirations, but we don't attach to goals and objects. We don't escape from balance and completeness of here and now. Not concerned about illusions like "me", things live freely in their nature.

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


text:
The Buddha And The Beggar Story
I was watching this YouTube Video about the The Buddha And The Beggar
My question as mentioned in the comment of that video is why is that the beggar can have only 8 items in the possessions and what are those 8 items?
One of the commentator mentioned that the story in thai its  8/100 (eight-one-hundred). It,s not 8 items and the other mentioned that it has something to do with the The Eightfold Path. I have a fair understanding of The Noble Eightfold Path but I do not understand it's relation to my original question.
Can anyone shed more light here? What am I missing here? If there is no relation then what is the answer to my original question?

Presumably the "8 requisites" of a monk, i.e. the 8 items that a monk is allowed and needs: 3 robes, an alms bowl, a waistband, a razor, a sewing kit and a water strainer.

Nice! That makes sense!


text:
Meditation - how to practice it?
Is it more important to develop one's own meditation skills or follow a prescribed method of a teacher? After all I think the Buddha worked it out for himself. And I have noticed in my own practice that following someone else's method can be confusing, if I don't understand properly what they teach. Is discovering it for yourself, such as meditation, the best way?
N.B. I don't have any technique, I just sit there and try not to hang onto my thoughts. I think if we make out meditation to be difficult we set up obstacles to it in our minds. When I think its easy I find easy to do.

In tipitaka, Buddha very stick that the practitioner must have teacher. You have try to learn your teacher's behave, too. We can't denied teachers for the hard, wild, and deep course like buddhology. For the example, I use just google to learn programming. But I use more than 10 teachers, 3 languages, and wrote more than 5 tipitaka search engine, to learn tipitaka. There is just for "learn" tipitaka, not reach the meditation. That is why we use to have the professors for each   courses.

I have a friend that meditated after me about 9 years. At that time, I have not met any jhāna professor teacher and enlightened teacher, but he met at first time when he began to be buddhism. I still remember his innocent eyes. However, today, he is my meditation teacher, although I have an advance skill in tipitaka-pali. This is the power of professor teacher.

I also have many friends who have unskillful teacher,  and I have many friends who have no teacher, too . I can completely say no one of them can compare  to my above friend (who being my meditation teacher, now). It is so amazing for me.

First, the Buddha learned much from his teachers. See Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search. Eventually he noticed that their approach didn't really reach the goal, so he discovered another approach.
So we can say it's more important to develop our own meditation skills than mindlessly follow a prescribed method.
However, proper methods are based on knowledge and experience. Experimenting by ourselves, without knowledge and experience, we can make very stupid mistakes.
On the other hand, not all teachers are very good, so they can use not the best methods for you or they might explain them not so well.
The practice can be confusing, if I don't understand properly what they teach. That's very true. It's dangerous to practise what you don't really understand, so don't do that. First try to understand well, then practice.
Without good guidance and correct attitude, some meditators harmed themselves very much.
Thus my answer is: definitely be attentive and let your practice be your own exploration. Only under that condition people really develop talent. On the other hand, study from others. Otherwise you hardly would go far. It's like tree and grass: exploring totally on our own, we grow at the height of grass. Exploring with the help of previous explorers, we grow at the height of tree.

Both.  While it's pretty much impossible to make real progress in meditation on your own, under the guidance of any good teacher, you are still expected to figure things out for yourself.  I know this seems contradictory, but a meditation master can only guide your progress.  It's absolutely impossible for them to get into your head and show you how to practice.  Think of sitting as a skill like wood working.  While the master carpenter can give you instructions on how to cut a board, only through your own efforts and experience will you understand how much pressure to use on different wood types, how to work the grain to your advantage, etc.  Likewise, on the cushion, while your teacher will tell you to watch your breath, it's up to you to figure out how firmly to apply your attention, where the best anchor point is for your mind, how much to relax, and how to use your posture to your advantage.  Like any skill, mastery only comes through countless hours, many questions, ample feedback, and innumerable breaths.

or follow a prescribed method of a teacher?

In Buddhism, when we are beginners, we generally follow methods of a teacher because generally the method of a teacher has a goal, has structure and can bring some preliminary results that give a taste of the goal.

After all I think the Buddha worked it out for himself.

The Buddha did work it out for himself; which is why he is so esteemed because working it out for yourself is very difficult, close to impossible, which is why it took the Buddha six years to work it out.
But you seem to have overlooked the fact that the Buddha did not actually know what he was trying to work out; apart from looking for real peace. He was searching or groping in the dark.

And I have noticed in my own practise

What practice? What exactly is your own practise? This has not been made clear.

that following someone else's method can be confusing, if I don't understand properly what they teach.

An effort is made to work out what they teach; such as asking questions about what they teach.

Is discovering it for yourself, such as meditation, the best way?

Discovering what for yourself? Respectfully, you haven't mentioned what you are trying to discover.

OP: Is it more important to develop one's own meditation skills or follow
  a prescribed method of a teacher?

Both. You should follow a teacher, who teaches not just meditation, but also the rest of the Noble Eightfold Path. The teachings of the Buddha are called the dhamma.
The teacher of the dhamma should have the following qualifications according to the Udayi Sutta:

"The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  step-by-step.' "The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will
  speak explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].' "The Dhamma should
  be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out of compassion.' "The
  Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not for the
  purpose of material reward.' "The Dhamma should be taught with the
  thought, 'I will speak without hurting myself or others. "It's not
  easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma should be
  taught to others only when these five qualities are established within
  the person teaching."

While a good living teacher nearby is preferable, it is also OK to use the Buddha's teachings (the dhamma) as a guide through the scriptures and other books and commentaries, or Youtube videos of teachers far away.
After all, in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha said:

Then the Blessed One said to Ven. Ananda, "Now, if it occurs to any of
  you — 'The teaching has lost its authority; we are without a Teacher'
  — do not view it in that way. Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya I have pointed
  out & formulated for you, that will be your Teacher when I am gone.

This means that even the dhamma by itself is good enough to be a teacher.

OP: After all I think the Buddha worked it out for himself.

That's not true. As mentioned by chang zhao, the Buddha did learn from other teachers, as stated in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta, but it wasn't good enough. But luckily for us, the dhamma can be our teacher.

OP: And I have noticed in my own practise that following someone else's
  method can be confusing, if I don't understand properly what they
  teach.

This is where having a good living teacher nearby is helpful and you must ask them questions.
In the Alagaddupama Sutta, the Buddha says:

"Therefore, monks, when you understand the meaning of any statement of
  mine, that is how you should remember it. But when you don't
  understand the meaning of any statement of mine, then right there you
  should cross-question me or the experienced monks.

So, although the dhamma is our teacher, but a living teacher (who is experienced) would be able to answer questions. The earlier part of the sutta explains why it is good to gain a correct understanding and grasp of the teachings.

OP: Is discovering it for yourself, such as meditation, the best way?

You can use the dhamma or the teachings, as a guide, and then you can discover for yourself. If you explore on your own without leveraging on the teachings, you might not make much progress. But using the teachings as a guide, you can deepen your knowledge, enhance your practice and make more progress. If possible, get a teacher.
According to the Attadiipaa Sutta:

"Monks, be islands unto yourselves, be your own refuge, having no
  other; let the Dhamma be an island and a refuge to you, having no
  other. Those who are islands unto themselves... should investigate to
  the very heart of things: 'What is the source of sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, grief and despair? How do they arise?' [What is
  their origin?]


text:
Is financial speculation ethical according to Buddhism?
Imagine someone buys money in foreign currency, then sells it at a profit.
Does Buddhism consider such operations ethical?
Note: One possible reason why it may be unethical is the purpose of money -- to
facilitate the exchange of products and services. When money becomes subject of
trade, it cannot fulfill it main function and this hurts other people. Money to
the economy is like blood to human body -- the more blood you remove from the
body, the worse it will function.

Right livelihood in the old scripture is merely guidance from 2,600 years ago. Today, the world is far more complex. Many businesses not mentioned by the Buddha are obviously wrong livelihood.
In summary, the Buddhist standard for any behaviour is non-harming. For example, when George Soros shorted the Asian currencies in 1997, if this harmed those economies (causing financial & job losses) then this trading in currencies was certainly unethical from a Buddhist point of view.
For the average small person, carrying on a genuine educated skilled business of trading in foreign currencies (forex) is not unethical because it is not harming anyone.
While such trading is not an "investment" in productive assets (such as investing in the stock market) and thus the other side of a winning forex transaction loses, both parties are playing the same game & taking the same risks therefore it is not unethical; even when it is only a business that benefits oneself.
As for how large scale FX trading can harm an economy, read here: Forex Trading: Impact on the Dollar and the Economy

Even without outright price fixing, traders can create asset bubbles in foreign exchange rates. It may have happened with the U.S. dollar
  in 2014 and also in the last quarter of 2008. A strong dollar makes
  U.S. exports less competitive. It slows GDP growth. If traders bid the
  dollar down, then oil-producing countries will raise the price of oil
  as oil is sold in dollars. The impact of expanding forex trading needs
  to be better regulated in order to avoid potential bubbles and busts.

Actually, when you earn money by exchanging currencies, even as a average small person, you earn without giving back the value to the system from which you earned it. So by doing that, you are actually causing harm because you are taking something from the economical system without giving anything of value in return.

Sure. As I posted, in such trading against movements in currencies, there is always a winner & a loser. So, yes, contrary to what I posted, it is not 100% ethical. However, the other (losing) party is a willing participant & might have excess money to lose (rather than someone who is exploited). Thanks for your comment. Regards

No to mention that by taking something without giving some value in return you are also doing harm to yourself. Your process of self growth will surely be affected by that.

In the Vanijja Sutta (AN5.177), there is defined what kind of businesses a lay person must not indulge in:

"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business.
  Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in
  meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.

This does not include currency trading or other kinds of speculative trading.
In both the Dighajanu Sutta and Sigalovada Sutta, gambling is criticized by the Buddha and he states many negative consequences of it.

"These are the six dangers inherent in compulsive gambling: winning
  breeds resentment; the loser mourns lost property; savings are lost;
  one's word carries no weight in a public forum; friends and colleagues
  display their contempt; and one is not sought after for marriage,
  since a gambler cannot adequately support a family.

On the other hand, the Dighajanu Sutta also seems to be fine with trading:

"Four conditions, Vyagghapajja, conduce to a householder's weal and
  happiness in this very life. Which four?
"The accomplishment of persistent effort (utthana-sampada), the
  accomplishment of watchfulness (arakkha-sampada), good friendship
  (kalyanamittata) and balanced livelihood (sama-jivikata).
"What is the accomplishment of persistent effort?
"Herein, Vyagghapajja, by whatsoever activity a householder earns his
  living, whether by farming, by trading, by rearing cattle, by archery,
  by service under the king, or by any other kind of craft — at that he
  becomes skillful and is not lazy. He is endowed with the power of
  discernment as to the proper ways and means; he is able to carry out
  and allocate (duties). This is called the accomplishment of persistent
  effort.

The Sigalovada Sutta is also fine with investment in business:

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

So, the question is, would currency trading and other types of speculative trading be considered a form of gambling or a form of trading or a form of investment?
If it is gambling, then it is not good. If it is trading (like trading of goods e.g. retail sales) or a kind of investment, then it is alright.
So, which is it? This is open to interpretation, and is probably best analyzed by the experts at the Economics Stack Exchange.

Regarding the point that currency trading may be harmful to the economy - this is similar to the topic of meat-eating. Business in meat is wrong livelihood, but eating meat, that was bought dead and frozen from the supermarket, is not wrong for lay people according to the Theravada tradition. Please see this question for more details.
Similarly, if an individual does not have any direct intention to harm others, but the action indirectly affects others, this is not wrong but may not be preferable.
Also related, is the story of the hunter's wife from Dhammapada 124. Please read this answer for more details.

The purpose of money is to reward for provided value. When someone extracts money - not creating value for anyone - that's not healthy. People who did something useful don't get all the proper reward, when part of money was extracted by speculators. Thus speculation is a form of stealing.
PS. Some people misunderstand that I'm speaking not about trading in general, but only about speculation - as "not creating value". If traders transport goods, store them, provide comfortable access to them - that service probably has value for customers.
But there are cases where some people just remove cheaper merchandise from the market and replace it with the same merchandise at higher prices. For example, mafia boss Berezovsky forced factories' management to sell him cheap cars, and then resold them for many times more. So there's a difference between trading that creates value for customers and speculation.
PPS. So please re-evaluate your downvotes.

Theoretically, money-changing (converting currencies) is a service which a money-changer or currency-speculator provides to people (e.g. a merchant or traveller, who has euros and need dollars, will want the services of a money-changer). Money-changers are paid (rewarded) for taking a risk (i.e. they may lose money on their speculation), and for providing the service more cheaply than their competitors (assuming a customer deals with whoever provides the best rate and takes the least profit). So, "not creating value for anyone" and "a form of stealing" seems to me a bit too strong an answer.

@ChrisW, my answer was about speculation, not about money-changing. Providing service have some value. But some examples of "trading" activity are obvious speculations.


text:
Anicca (when and how?)
The Buddha put high emphasize on Anicca and thus it shouldn't be dismissed. Now my question: When should one remind oneself of the transience of all phenomena? I doubt in every occassion.
If I for example walk or do my daily chores, according to the Buddha I apply Sati on the sense that I remember to not to forget walking. So this then is a rather concentration excercise without pañña (wisdom), right?

If you would care to read the Anicca Sutta (SN4), the Tatha Sutta(SN5-2), Najeerathi Sutta((SN1) Cula Vedalla Sutta(M1), Maha Punama Sutta (M3) Sacca Vibhanga Sutta(M3) etc. you rightly will question whether ANICCA means impermanence. And whether have we all got it wrong. My guess is that it would take another five years for all of us to realize this (as to where we went wrong).

The Buddha put high emphasize on Anicca and thus it shouldn't be dismissed.

The Buddha put an emphasis on many dhammas.
The Buddha did not actually teach to constantly remind oneself of anicca because this would mean the mind is always thinking. Instead, one only reminds oneself of anicca when necessary.
The goal of meditation is to stop thinking so the mind has concentration so it can develop calm and then see anicca directly (rather than reminding oneself about anicca).
Reminding oneself about 'anicca' is called 'anicca sanna'. Where as seeing anicca directly is called 'vipassana'. Reminding oneself about 'anicca' is not 'vipassana'

Now my question: When should one remind oneself of the transience of all phenomena? I doubt in every occasion.

'Reminding oneself' is called 'mindfulness'.
The wisdom (panna) used with reminding oneself is called 'sampajanna' ('situational wisdom').
'Reminding onself about impermanence' is called 'anicca sanna'.
'Anicca sanna' is a preliminary practice (mentioned in MN 62 & MN 118) & particularly useful when there is a very strong hindrance that one cannot control and thus must endured; patiently waiting for the energy of the hindrance to dissipate & dissolve.
It is also done whenever necessary when something must be endured or when something is lost. Such as when you dislike a poster on the internet or lose a debate on the internet. You can think: "This internet is impermanent; this debate is impermanence".
For example, you have a good meditation, which then ceases, due to hindrances. If the mind clings to the good meditation wishing to have it all the time, one can reflect on impermanence to get rid of the craving.
Or if your mother nags you to do your chores, you reflect: "This nagging is impermanent; the sound is impermanent; doing the chores is impermanent".

If I for example walk or do my daily chores, according to the Buddha I apply Sati on the sense that I remember to not to forget walking.

No. The purpose of sati is not to remember you are walking. The purpose of sati is to remember to walk with wisdom or to do chores with wisdom.
For example, in a monastery, everyone must do chores. The chores are done with the wisdom that defilements lead to suffering therefore to do chores without defilements.

So this then is a rather concentration excercise without pañña (wisdom), right?

Sati is never without wisdom. Sati always has sampajanna. Sati is only remembering or calling something to mind. Mindfulness must remember to apply wisdom. Therefore, mindfulness & wisdom always operate together. There cannot be mindfulness without wisdom. This is why the term 'sati-sampajanna' is often used, as a compound.
Why would we walk or do chores without wisdom? If we do not have any wisdom about the purpose of walking meditation or doing chores & how to do it, why would we do it? For what purpose? With what method? For what benefit?
This video might help: Buddhist Meditation Sati Sampajanna
This book might help: Part II. The Use of Dhamma

So in essence if I have thought I bring my attention back whatever I'm doing and let it there? (unless there is a defilement). Is there then an appropriate time to think? And how possible is it to be mindful in all activities when living in society and not in a forest?

Yes. Whenever you can bring back your attention; just bring it back. But if there is a difficult defilement; apply reflection on impermanence.

It  is not easy to be mindful with all activities living in society. We can only try our best.

I just found a video by Ajahn Sona. He mentioned several methods the practitioner has to apply (Right Effort). https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NOJO4ezlxt0   So it's more than just impermanence. The effectiveness of using "reflection of impermanence" in the midst of a defilement will vary. The longer you contemplated on impermanence in your practice, the bigger your conviction. But using antidotes (replacing), distraction, fear (concern) & shame etc. is actually recommended according to Ajan Sona

Sounds like a good video. There are many methods, many antidotes & many wisdoms in Buddhist practise. Through practise & experience, one can discover which antidote or combination of antidotes works for different situations. For example, it may be self-evident a strong defilement is unwholesome however replacement is difficult due to the strength of the defilement. Therefore, replacement, endurance & anicca sanna all can be used. Regards

When should one remind oneself of the transience of all phenomena?

24 hours a day. Ideally. Until that becomes possible, practice as frequent as possible, while working on balancing the five spiritual faculties. Reminding is not enough - it should be insight meditation (vipassana) which is practiced. Intellectually reminding oneself, will lead not to insights.

If I for example walk or do my daily chores, according to the Buddha I apply Sati on the sense that I remember to not to forget walking. So this then is a rather concentration excercise without pañña (wisdom), right?

Depends on what kind of meditation practice you are doing. To gain insights into the impermanent nature of phenomena, one should practice insight meditation.
Walking meditation is very beneficial and its a great vehicle to carry over your sitting practice into daily life.
By doing a "moving" meditation it will also become easier for you to remain mindful throughout your day, while doing daily activities, such as taking a shower, brushing your teeth, doing the dishes.
Here are 2 videos on walking meditation by Ven. Yuttadhammo:

How To Meditate III - Walking Meditation
Ask A Monk: Why Walking Meditation Comes First

Also here is an article on "The Benefits of Walking Meditation" by Sayadaw U Silananda.

The transient nature of all experiences (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) is the forerunner of unsatisfactoriness.
So when doing your daily chores look what sensations associated with it. A certain posure may be comfortable, uncomfortable or neutral. When you are walking also there are many little sensations throughout the body. If you are walking barefoot on gravel it might be painful. If you have been seated and you legs are numb then walking may be plesent. Likes whise see how the sensations change. This is this is also the link to the 1st Noble Truth, Causality and Dependent Origination. This is further elaborated in this answer.


text:
In the top left corner there is a Tibetan Buddhist praying. Can you translate this prayer?

So, apparently, this won't let me post unless I have thirty characters, so I'm going to ask the same question in the comments. In the above image, a Tibetan Buddhist is praying (or speaking, what have you) in the top left corner. Can you translate this prayer?

Actually, it doesn't look like Tibetan, but rather like Sanskrit or Pali. It's a little hard to make out, but it could be part of the Prajna-Paramita (Heart) Sutra.
Having said that, Buddhism (and especially Mahayana Buddhism from which this Sutra originates) has little to do with faith. As opposed to the Abrahamic religions depicted here, Mahayana Buddhism is experiential, not axiomatic. The Buddha famously said in the Kalama Sutra:

Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing,
  nor upon tradition,
  nor upon rumor,
  nor upon what is in a scripture,
  nor upon surmise,
  nor upon an axiom,
  nor upon specious reasoning,
  nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over,
  nor upon another's seeming ability,
  nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher.

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


text:
Food that is chanted over with verses
In the Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta (Sn1.4 and SN7.11), the Buddha went to get alms from the brahman Kasi Bharadvaja, who hinted that monks like the Buddha, should also work hard by plowing and sowing, in order to earn their meals.
To this, the Buddha responded with details on how he plowed and sowed, and reaped the fruit which is deathless.
Kasi Bharadvaja then heaped up milk rice from a large bronze serving bowl, and offered it to the Buddha, who said:

What's been chanted over with verses shouldn't be eaten by me. That's not the nature, brahman, of one who's seen rightly. What's been
  chanted over with verses Awakened Ones reject. That being their
  nature, brahman, this is their way of life. Serve with other food &
  drink a fully-perfected great seer, his fermentations ended, his
  anxiety stilled, for that is the field for one looking for merit.

What does this mean? Is food chanted over with verses not good for consumption?
Does that apply to the chanting of all religions?
The next part of the sutta baffles me:

"Then to whom, Master Gotama, should I give this milk-rice?"
"Brahman, I don't see that person in this world — with its devas,
  Maras, & Brahmas, in this generation with its royalty & common people
  — by whom this milk-rice, having been eaten, would be rightly
  digested, aside from a Tathagata or a Tathagata's disciple. In that
  case, brahman, throw the milk-rice away in a place without vegetation,
  or dump it in water with no living beings."
So Kasi Bharadvaja dumped the milk-rice in water with no living beings. And the milk-rice, when dropped in the water, hissed &
  sizzled, seethed & steamed. Just as an iron ball heated all day,
  when tossed in the water, hisses & sizzles, seethes & steams, in the
  same way the milk-rice, when dropped in the water, hissed & sizzled,
  seethed & steamed.
Then Kasi Bharadvaja — in awe, his hair standing on end — went to the Blessed One

Why is it that this milk rice can be consumed only by a Tathagatha or a Tathagatha's disciple?
But then, in the earlier part, the Buddha said that the Awakened Ones would never eat it. Why is this the case?
Why did the milk rice hiss, sizzle, seeth and steam when dumped into the water?
Why was Kasi Bharadvaja in awe, on seeing that?

Initially food was not offered but only offered after the person was impressed by the teaching. Therefore this offering is like remuneration, i.e., what an actor might get for an act. The Buddha's intention in preaching is not for worldly gains, so in this case it is not suitable for the Buddha to accept it.
Also when there is a living Buddha, it is said what is offered to the Buddha is not suitable for consumption by other beings. The Buddha with his power of determination destroyed the food so that another being may not consume it as it would have been detrimental to the consumer.
Generally when you put milk rise into a stream it does not fizzle and destroy itself, so anyone seeing such phenomena would be in awe.


text:
How is Cakkhupālattheravatthu pronounced exactly?
I read stories about the monk called Cakkhupālattheravatthu, but still don't know how this name is pronounced? Can anyone please tell me the exact pronunciation of this name or word?

How is Cakkhupālattheravatthu pronounced exactly?

In the video "Dhammapada Verse One: Mind Precedes All Things", by Ven. Yuttadhammo, the pronunciation can be heard at 5:21 min. into the video.

I often use google translate. You can listen here.

Note that in this instance at least the pronunciation of Google Translate is incorrect.

No, google translate is right. But your ears must be the advance. The Thai language is not indo-europian language, but Hindi and Nepāli are. You can use Wikipedia to check the phonetic of that language. They still as alike as Pali.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devanagari#Consonants. But Thai is difference very much. I am a Thai nationality. Thai language is a barrier to learn Pali.

Its pronunciation of Cakkhupāla is right, but in "ttheravatthu" it misses the "a" between "r" and "v". But if you split up (“cakkhupālatthe rav atthu”), it becomes ok: listen here

@ShreevatsaR Thank you very much. You're right. Your answer gives me the way to develop my tipitaka pronouncer software.


text:
Did I exist ? Am I existing or Will I exist?
In Potthapada Sutta Buddha asks Citta similar question.

"Suppose they were to ask you: 'Did you exist in the past? Did you not
  not exist? Will you exist in the future? Will you not not exist? Do
  you exist now? Do you not not exist?' Thus asked, how would you
  answer?"
"... Thus asked, lord, I would answer: 'I existed in the past. I did
  not not exist. I will exist in the future. I will not not exist. I
  exist now. I do not not exist.'... That's how I would answer."

If I interpret it correctly Citta essentially says that he existed in the past , will exist in the future and that he is existing now.
This conclusion contradicts the position that self is an error, illusion or is like a dream because when an error is corrected it vanishes(self is annihilated).
Self has both origin and an end then how can Citta say that he is existing now, he existed in the past and that he will exist in the future?
I am simply repeating the question Buddha asked to Citta because the answer looked contradictory to me.
The questions are :
Did I exist ?
Am I existing?
Will I exist ?

Your conclusion is right. And you will know more if you connect it with paṭiccasamuppāda and 3 vaṭṭa. This sutta taught about paṭiccasamuppāda.

Do your dreams exist? What proof do you have of your dreams?

The questions are :
Did I exist ?
Am I existing?
Will I exist ?

Conventionally speaking, yes to all three questions. The self is a concept, an idea, a mental formation, belong to the 4th aggregate of mental formations.

Ultimately speaking, no to all three questions. Concepts are not part of ultimate reality. Experience is. When writing this post, looking at the computer screen, there is definitely a "seeing" going on, but ultimately, no "seer" can be found.

There are Four Ultimate Realities; Rupa, Citta, Cetasika and Nibbana.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

If I interpret it correctly Citta essentially says

You did not interpret it correctly because Citta here is not expressing a Buddhist view. Read the sutta more carefully. Citta was not a Buddhist when he said what you quoted.

This conclusion contradicts the position that self is an error, illusion or is like a dream because when an error is corrected it
vanishes(self is annihilated).

The sutta discusses the matter of "acquisition of self" (atta paṭilābhā), which is essentially "becoming" (bhava) & "birth" (jati), which is the "wrong path" (SN 12.3) .
For example, when you were a child, you identified yourself as being a "child". But one day, you met a woman & had a child and thus acquired a self or identity as a "husband" and "father". These subjective & conventional self-identities or labels are "acquisitions of self".
In the past, you were not a husband & not a father. Today, you are a husband & a father. In the future, your current wife may divorce you and you will cease to be a husband. These are the acquisitions of self the Buddha appeared to be discussing with the wanderers (non-Buddhists).
These acquisitions of self are wrong views in Buddhism, as follows:

This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having
been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I
not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in
the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else
he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not?
What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it
bound?'MN 2; MN 38; etc

Mara the Evil One... approached her and addressed her in verse:
By whom has this being been created? Where is the maker of the being? Where has the being arisen? Where does the being cease?
Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses:
Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'
SN 5.10


text:
Is working too much (for money) a form of indulgence?
I have a tendency to take up many job opportunities for the sake of earning money beyond what is necessary. Can working too much for monetary gain be considered a form of indulgence that leads to the development of greed?
Sutta or other textual references are appreciated.

Buddha admire wealthy people who earn their wealth by right lively hood.
However he encourage people to use their wealth wisely for their benefit and the benefit of others.
Link to two major Suttas are:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.06.nara.html

SN 3.19 criticises earning money for the sake of it & miserly hoarding money.
The Rāsiyo Sutta (12) praise people who can make lots of money when they are not attached to the money and, in particular, spend the money for the benefit of themselves & particularly others.
Other suttas that mention the beneficial necessity of money are Anana Sutta & Sigalovada Sutta
Therefore, the Pali suttas praise the having & using of money for beneficial purposes & criticise making of money motivated by greed.


text:
How important is javana to the jhanas?
What role if any do javana play in learning and entering the jhanas? I'm reading a book on jhana and javana was brought up but i couldn't really understand the role it play in the jhanas.

http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_4.htm

see: iii. Summary of Functions and 25. Javana derived from Ö ju, to run swiftly.  in http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_3.htm

I would say that this word has been conflated and in my experience unnecessary for entering jhana. please refer to the instructions on how to enter jhana found in the Sutta Pitaka.

This is picture that show consciousness's arising one by one (consciousness can  arise just one per time per person.)
Javana is Pr to Jh in the below picture.
When bhavaṅga vanish, then manodvāra arise. When manodvāra vanish, then parikamma javana arise. When Pr javana vanish, then Up javana arise. When Up javana vanish, then An javana arise. When An javana vanish, then Go javana arise. When Go javana vanish, then Jh javana arise. When Jh javana vanish, Next Jh javana arise. Infinite Jhāna javana arise until jhāna will stop.
Parikamma is practicing consciousness. Upacāra is up level of parikamma. If Upacāra can up level enough to change to be appanā-jhāna, then gotrabhū will arise to prepare for jhāna. The arising step of consciousness will be as alike as the below picture.
But if Upacāra can not upgrade to jhāna level,  1 parikamma javana arise then 6 Upacāra javana arise, step by step. Then bhavaṅga arise, infinity. Then loop again. In pali canon, teachers just called them the same as "javana", because no arising of jhāna-consciousness, equal to nothing.
This loop will be Upacāra-samadhi when the practitioner has not any unwholesome loops arise between  the wholesome loops. If just one unwholesome loop arise, the practitioner still being at khanika-samādhi level.

Cr. http://www.houstonmeditationc.com/?q=node/65#_Toc471645999

I am new to this and very lost to what this mean. I get each level advances you to the next and will keep going until jhana over. Unless you fail yhen will be in a constant cycle of repeating. But i don't understand what any of this mean or does. Can you explain or point me to a helpful source point

I'm sorry. I don't understand you question. My english is terrible. However, I guess this is the answer: Samatha means "tool for pause kilesa's arising with consciousness". So, the practitioner must learn consciousness and kilesa in advance to completely pause kilesa's arising by kusala's arising instead. (If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle).


text:
Similes of Attainment
Though to the extent of my admittedly scarce knowledge, decapitation as a simile for some level of attainment is not to be found in the Pali Canon, but I bet the Zen tradition offers countless koans and stories wherein, figuratively, the incumbent experiencer of realization is beheaded, very much to his surprise I would say.
If you happen to know a few of these stories, your kind attention in helping me digging out these similes is greatly appreciated.
My gratitude for having taken the time to read this.

There are two that come to mind from the Shoyoroku.  The first is Case 98 and it's entitled Tonzan's Heed.  In that instance, it more refers to reticence on the part of the teacher in not wanting to lead the student into intellectualism.  I'm not sure if that is the image you were after. The second is at Case 41:

When he was about to die, Rakuho addressed his assembly and said, “I
  have one matter to ask you about. If you say ‘yes’ to this, you are
  putting another head on your own. If you say ‘no,’ you are looking for
  life by cutting off your head.”

I don't think this is what you are looking for exactly, either.
I can't think of a single koan in the Mumonkan or Hekiganroku that has an image like that, however.  But kicked into mud?  Cat cut in two?  Finger cut off?  Nose pinched?  Now that's a different story!
(Note: the Shaseki-shu has something about heads being cut off.  Unfortunately, that collection does not contain any actual koans.  Those are parables.)

There's a story about "the head of a dead cat" being "the most valuable thing in the world".


text:
Who was ignorant about the Truth in the beginning?
In the dependent origin co-arising, ignorance came before consciousness and self.In fact we begin with ignorance. This ignorance is the ignorance about the 4 noble truths.
My questions are :
Who is ignorant about the 4 noble Truths in the beginning of dependent origin co-arising when there was no self or consciousness?
How can ignorance exist without consciousness ?

Related: "If there is no self, what or who is it that gets enlightened?"

"Who is ignorant about the 4 noble Truths in the beginning of
  dependent origin co-arising when there was no self or consciousness?"

You were ignorant.
Being ignorant, you created self.
Being ignorant, you created consciousness.

"How can ignorance exist without consciousness ?"

It cannot.
Where there is ignorance, there is consciousness.
Where there is wisdom, there is no consciousness.
It's because you don't know what is consciousness, that you are bewildered by my answer.
And what is consciousness?
It's a fabrication. It's made up. It's fabricated with mental and physical activities. That is consciousness.
It is you fabricating this consciousness.
Now ask yourself, who is that "you" that I'm referring to in my answer?
No matter where you'd look, you would not find this "you".
So, who is ignorant if there is no "you" that can be found?
You is ignorant.
It's because you don't know who you are, that you are bewildered by my answer.
Find out who you are. Meditate. You will not find this "you". It's when not being able to find this "you", that you are seeing who you are. Once you see, examine how it works and truth will be realized: from ignorance arises fabrications, from fabrications consciousness, from consciousness birth, etc.

There is no permanent eternal self. But there is still an impermanent self, that arises out of the inter-working of the five aggregates, that arises and disappears. This self is the doer. This doer-self (or rather the citta - mind-stream?) was ignorant.
Remember the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism.
The commentary on Attakārī Sutta by K. Nizamis:

“Natthi attakāro, natthi parakāro.” (‘There is no self-doer, there is
  no other-doer.’) Some people might have expected the Buddha to have
  approved highly of this naïve negative doctrine. The fact that he very
  succinctly and effectively refutes it is extremely instructive and of
  great significance for gaining a better understanding of the depth,
  subtlety, and holism of the Buddha’s actual teaching. Although the
  Buddha taught that there is no permanent, eternal, immutable,
  independently-existing core “self” (attā), he also taught that there
  is “action” or “doing”, and that it is therefore meaningful to speak
  of one who intends, initiates, sustains and completes actions and
  deeds, and who is therefore an ethically responsible and culpable
  being. It should be quite clear from its usage in this sutta, and from
  the argument of this sutta, that kāra in atta-kāra must be an agent
  noun, “doer, maker”: this is strongly entailed, for example, by the
  Buddha’s statement: “ārabbhavanto sattā paññāyanti, ayaṃ sattānaṃ
  attakāro ayaṃ parakāro”, “initiating beings are clearly discerned: of
  (such) beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer”

In the dependent origin co-arising, ignorance came before consciousness and self.

Very good. You are starting to learn. Soon, "you" might be a Buddha & become our teacher!

Who is ignorant about the 4 noble Truths in the beginning of dependent origin co-arising.

The mind (citta) is ignorant (rather than a "who" or "self'). Please read SN 12.12, which answers the question of "who". AN 10.61 (about ignorance as the 1st cause) is also helpful here but complex.

ignorant... when there was no self or consciousness?

Ignorance does not cause consciousness. In your studies of Buddhism, please avoid this materialistic error that most Buddhists have. As a beginning student, it is important to learn the right way, from the beginning. The suttas (SN 22.82) say consciousness is caused (hetu) by the mind-body (nama-rupa).
In reality, dependent origination is describing how ignorance pollutes consciousness, similar to how dirt pollutes pure water or how dust covers a mirror. SN 46.55 provides some good analogies.
This is why there are many suttas that describe how a Buddha has no ignorance but remains conscious, such as SN 22.53, Iti 44 and the end of MN 38.

How can ignorance exist without consciousness ?

This misunderstanding I have already answered above. However, this being said, ignorance can exist without consciousness however only as an 'underlying tendency' ('anusaya'). For example, when the mind is in deep sleep at night, it is not conscious. But whatever ignorance remains in the mind still remains dormant; similar to how memories remain dormant in the mind while the mind is sleeping unconscious.

according to you it is the mind which is ignorant and it is the mind which achieves Nirvana...am I correct ?

the ignorant mind cannot know nibbana and the mind that knows nibbana cannot have ignorance

Component in each dependent origination is not parent and child relationship.  One is not giving birth to the next. They all are circular dependency or depended on each other to exist.  Like planks leaning on each other, they both support each other and without one, it would fall.  And "who" is best to replace with "what" as seen as many suttas.
The Sheaves of Reeds

I have evolved a little since asking this question. I will try to answer the question.
First and foremost let us understand that not everything that has been written can be understood fully with proof as we generally stop at the theory. We never fully live the path as preached by Buddha. Only a Buddha can understand some part of the theory because he has experienced it directly.
Having said that it is clear that the question can be answered.
Who was ignorant about the Truth in the beginning? Answer is that we can not ask this question. This question is wrong. The question assumes existence of Self before the origination of Ignorance. The fact is ignorance led to the emergence of Self.  The right question should be : Ignorance is a condition for what ? Answer would be Ignorance is a condition to origination of merit and demerit.
Merit and Demerit are condition to what ? Merit and Demerit are condition to Consciousness. Consciousness is a condition to what ? Consciousness is a condition to body and mind ... and so on...
I must admit we do not know answers to some questions like :

How did Ignorance first arise?
To what ignorance was then attached?

I guess one needs to practice the Truth in order to experience the answers directly. If you have the answers please share.


text:
Personal Relationships while on the path?
Since studying and attempting to adhere to the buddhist path as a lay follower, lately I've been finding it very difficult to connect with friends who are not on the same path. I note that much of the time spent together centers on gossip, politics, and myriad of other self-centered topics. I try not to engage, and/or even change the subject, but I am the only one, so I usually resort to sitting there silently. Any words of compassion or love I attempt to offer to the conversations are generally ignored, or even mocked. I find myself asking "do I need to abandon these friendships?" If so, I would essentially be friendless. Do I seek out other likeminded folk? Where do I find them?

I have to say, that this is one of the best questions asked on Buddhism SE. Many practitioners face this at some point in their practice. Thank you for sharing, Kevin.

About 20 years ago I felt the same. People were talking about something pretty meaningless. It was not interesting. Also, according to the Buddhist precept of Mindful Speech, idle chatter should be avoided. So I stopped to spend much time hanging out with people.
Maybe 10 years later in such situations I was feeling that the talk could be deeper. We could address each other's hearts - contacting on deeper level, sincere and meaningful.
It doesn't happen just by changing subject to something more spiritual. It's more by looking deeper, into people's hearts, and opening your own heart to them.
Another 10 years later I can actually do that. People feel something interesting in me. I say something not for bringing a topic for discussion, but touching something meaningful for them.
People discuss with me their problems with children, health, alcohol, attitudes of others etc. Not in casual manner, but looking for wisdom. And I show how to discover that wisdom in themselves.
I still do not socialize much, and in companies I'm not like talking all the time.
Enjoying every moment, being present, with the mind of openness and wholeness is sufficient.
And then people feel interest in deeper talk with me, about our lives.
So I think it's a natural process. One day you leave useless samsaric concerns, later you come back to help others to expand their lives past those concerns too.

@Lanka, thank you for encouraging people in such discussions and thoughtful care in moderating, editing etc. Let our practice help all sentient beings!

When we are on top of a very high mountain, we look down on all the
  lower peaks.This brings
  us face to face with all kinds of unpleasant and unwanted experiences.
  To counteract
  this attitude we train ourselves always to think of them as supremely
  important by considering their good qualities and by reviewing our own
  faults and weaknesses.from 'Eight Verses for Training the Mind' by Geshe Sonam Rinchen

Also don't forget:

Associating with the wise,
  Honoring those worthy of honor;
  This is the greatest blessing.

This was said by the Buddha: “It is in accordance with their properties that beings come together & associate with one another. Beings of low dispositions come together & associate with beings of low dispositions. Beings of admirable dispositions come together & associate with beings of admirable dispositions.
Keep this two in mind while you judge others!