text:
Why did Marco Polo say the Buddhist religion originated in Sielan?

Read page 295 here.
Also refer to the editorial note on p.289 “this is the well known island of Ceylon, both direction and distance are extremely correct”.
A Summary.
Until 1890 the world knew Buddha was from Sri Lanka. In addition to Marco Polo, Pre-1890 historical references from Robert Knox, a Bible commentary and Sir, Henry Charles are provided.  More here -> https://jambudipa.quora.com
How the history was allegedly distorted is mentioned here. Does this sound credible?

The OP is a Sinhalese, my bet. I read the front and back total 3 pages from his link, it doesn't say as the OP hoped: "Why did Marco Polo say the Buddhist religion born in Sielan?" Marco Polo only described he encountered the islanders (Sielan residents) worshiping an "Adam" (the Buddha image). It's an old task in the internet arena many Sinhalese trying every means to promote the Buddha and Buddhism born in Ceylon. Good luck for your clause here! Hope the world do hear and accept your countrymen's claim, bravo!!!!

"Origin of Boodhist Religion in Seilan" is in the title. I think you missed it.  I have added a new link with other references including from a Bible commentary.

I don't understand the question. According to this map he travelled via Ceylon i.e. he visited there. And the page you quoted says, "They describe this last as the first man [etc.] son to a king [etc.]" So is the answer is because, he says, that's what "they" (i.e. the "idolaters" i.e. statue-worshippers) on Ceylon described to him. He's saying that because, according to him, that's what he was told. Does that answer your question, what else is there to ask about that?

The First Tipitaka was written in Sri Lanka in Sinhala letters. Buddha's hair, bones, tooth relic, and his robe all exist in Sri Lanka. Names like Ananda, Kosala and Anurudha are all Sinhala names even still in use. Sinhala is derived from Maghadhi and a large number of words are common still.  Nepal did not receive Buddhism till 6 CE. (Read the link above).  So add these together with commentary by Marco Polo and see where that takes you,

The further reasons you give in the comment aren't relevant to explaining the question i.e. "Why did Marco Polo say...?" Instead, that most-recent comment would only be relevant to answering a different question i.e., "Why do I believe that ...?" or "Why do I teach that ...?"

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this site is meant for question-and-answer, i.e. for asking questions -- and not for pushing (preaching) views or doctrines, and not for holding (initiating) arguments or discussions -- and what's posted as a "question" doesn't seem to be an actual question, it can only be intended and understood as part of a longer argument being pushed.

Yes so people of Sri Lanka 800 years ago tells Marco Polo Buddha lived there and he is the best ever lived in the island etc.  He visits India, China and many other countries too. No one told him anything contradictory when he visited those countries. So the answer to the question is Buddha living in the island was the world opinion at that time.

Its about Buddha and history. Not "off-topic".

Also, the "why they did this"-type questions are hard to answer objectively. Who knows why, and how can we know? We can only speculate, while this site is about knowledge sharing.

I asked on Meta -- Should this question (about the historical Buddha living in Sri Lanka) be reopened?

@Mishu米殊 that was harsh tone in your comment, please avoid.

Well, if the history I have presented here is right, everything you know about Buddhism is wrong. So instead of petty rules I would focus on what is in the best interest of the Buddhist community.  Do you want to learn the truth or continue pursing something that never works. The ball is in your court.

OP: "The First Tipitaka was written in Sri Lanka in Sinhala letters." It conformed to my insight after reading Wikipedia on Pali Canon stating the Pali commentaries were written in Sinhalese until Buddhaghosa translated to "Pali" and burnt the original texts - suspicious. With access to Chinese historical documents and texts, the truth is too prominent to hide; but the rest of the world still don't know. You shouldn't reveal what was the original favour of the Pali Canon if you wish to raise the importance of Sri Lanka in Buddhism, my thoughtful advice, @user2615131

This is not a nationalistic thing trying to promote Sri Lanka etc. Say you found a book on the floor gathering dust and dirt. You pick it up and leave it on the table isnt' it? Its like that. The history is wrong. The attempt here is to correct the history for everyone's benefit.

I think this is a great question to ask on History.SE but not suitable here. I propose to migrate this question to History.SE.

@ruben2020 I don't think I should migrate it. The OP could post it as a new question on History.SE (I don't know what the guidelines for posting there are).

Probably because he was told so and never started to investigate the real origin of things? Even today there are many Sinhalese people claiming the origin in the country they live. One may find such similar thoughts in all other countries and one also may find Jesus with balck skin or Chinese eyes in other countries. That's the nature and requirement for all -isms and -ists: Strong Self-identification.
Dhamma and means for liberation should not be dig up be focus on objectification (pacanca) although it is usually refined identification what gives one rise toward interest and can be used of course also strategical wise "What, if I let go of it, would lead to my long term happiness?", thought of "who ever defines one self, limits and suffers with it", especially if not something leading to go beyond.
If Marco Polo ever had met the good Dhamma, real "Buddists", he would not have returned. So it's probably good to investigate travelers who found the way that leads to rest.

“Is it possible, lord, by traveling, to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away or reappear?”
“I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.” ...
  But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.” Rohitassa Sutta

{Note that this has not been given to keep one on wandering on by trade, exchange, stacks, or use it for such, but for liberation}
To answer a further argument, actually not leading to liberation at all:
"Well, Marco Polo visited India and China along the way too. If he found Buddha existed in India then he would have mentioned it that way instead."
Why should he have traveled around and possible ask everywhere the same question, everybody he meets? If one lives amoung people with a certain believe, then one might be missinformed, since not knowing. As the Dhamma is about seeing your self (to gain liberation), what is not possible of thing which have already decayed (history), it does not support the feed the attention on improper means but to come there where reality happens and why. Once again in other words:

“Is it possible, lord, by researching, to know or see or reach the Buddha or Dhamma, where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away or reappear?”
“I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by research to know or see or reach the Buddha or the Dhamma where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear.” ...
  But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without researching after the Buddha and the Dhamma. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is The Buddha and the Dhamma, the the origination of The Buddha and the Dhamma, the cessation of the Buddha and the Dhamma, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of The Buddha and the Dhamma.”

In regard of places, as the Buddha told, there is no place to be found in the world which is not actually a cementery, and ther is not a singe moment in the world in which no aging, sickness and death takes place. So what does one cling on here? Be wise. Don't waste your time, what ever might have been does not matter on the fact, that a raw possibility to be born as human, possible not stupid (?) and meeting the Dhamma, might be wasted away!

Well, Marco Polo visited India and China along the way too. If he found Buddha existed in India then he would have mentioned it that way instead.

Probably at that time period, Buddhism were established in Ceylon at early stage, just because that we can not tell that it is true. Even the places which mentioned in Dharma, can not find here in Ceylon, like Mount Himalaya, Gijjakuta Rock.


text:
Addictive Withdrawal and Buddhism
It's well documented in psychology that the cessation of any type of addictive behaviour causes a period of withdrawal. During this period, less pleasure is experienced overall as well as mental difficulties.
Does Buddhist have any advice about such periods and way to help the recovery process?

What are the circumstances of the withdrawal, especially, is it voluntary ("I choose to withdraw") or involuntary (e.g. a person is imprisoned, or their opportunity for addictive behaviour is cut off, even if only temporarily)? Are you looking for advice for the patient (the addict or former addict), or their care-givers, or both?

I guess I mean more specifically not the action of withdrawing but the symptoms of a withdrawal, voluntary or not: lack of pleasure, lower mood, cravings, etc. But for the current question I would say a voluntary withdrawal.

I gave an answer about addiction and the change process. It's of course just a tiny fraction because addiction are often not easy to undo. Setting realistic goals (SMART goals) & being commited is fundamental for change.

It seems to the practice is all about overcoming addictive behaviour, including mental behaviour. The technique would be to stand apart from mind-body and simply watch with dispassion. Sages speak of sinking the body into the mind, thus reducing it to a mental phenomenon and dealing with it as such. Buddhism is surely the right tool for the job of overcoming addiction, but putting the techniques into practice would require some existing skills or a teacher. .   .  ,   .

If withdrawal (especially "voluntary") is unsuccessful, then it's better to view that as a temporary failure (not permanent), and try again: resume the effort, and avoid repeating the same mistake. With practice, more experience, you become more skilled at withdrawing (and eventually succeed).
I think experience matches conventional advice, and matches what can be inferred from the suttas.
Successful withdrawal tends to happen for one or more reasons (possibly several reasons):

You "consider the disadvantages" of addiction (or the advantages of non-addiction) -- and so decide that you prefer withdrawal or abstinence. This "preference" (even if it's only a moral or intellectual preference) might be a sufficient substitute for "pleasure" -- it's a new form of "I want" (e.g. "I want freedom and harmlessness") which replaces the old "I want" ("I want the so-called pleasure associated with the addictive behaviour, which I now see the several disadvantages of").
We're social and maybe highly-motivated to conform to social behaviour. So spending time (possibly all your time) with people who don't exhibit that behaviour can help you quit -- they're good role-models, they're not bad role-models, if you successfully imitate their (not "addictive") behaviour then you too will  be behaving that way -- and maybe we're really good at imitating who we're with, we've been learning how to imitate people since we were infants.
There are reasons for the behaviour, and/or conditions in which the behaviour occurs. If the reason disappears, and/or if the conditions change (e.g. you move to a different place or visit different people), then the old conditions no longer exist (and so the behaviour can be different too)
Substitute or replace the behaviour: maybe you can't just stop, and instead you need to do something else -- that something else (new behaviour) might be meditation or it might be sweeping the yard. Non-stressful activities might be best, at least initially (partly because you may be distracted by cravings); maybe some "mindful" activity though (to learn the new situation and behaviour), not an "escapist" activity.
Anything you do is learned behaviour, a skill which takes practice, maybe you weren't good at it to start with. If you practice (make the effort) it gets better, easier, more skilful -- maybe the hardest part is the beginning (e.g. the first day, the first few days), and the longer you do it the easier it gets.
You might find that being generous is rewarding (as a substitute behaviour), so consider that -- that might take your mind off your own (temporary) cravings and thus make "withdrawal" easier. Maybe beware though that addictive behaviour might be addictive because it's rewarding or because you're reward-seeking (e.g. pleasure-seeking); so maybe that (generosity) is behaviour to attempt when you're a little more stable (and maybe can enjoy it for its own sake and not just for immediate reward).

Also:

Cravings come and go. The craving is just a thought, "Suppose I were to now repeat that action to which I'm addicted?" It's distracting and you might need to stop (activity) and do nothing (temporarily), except breathing of course and e.g. standing still, until the craving goes away. Perhaps that's what you mean by "mental difficulties" in the OP. I think craving does go away (and come back again, and go away again).
If you don't reinforce the craving by repeating the habit then the craving returns less and less often and with less intensity. Eventually it doesn't even bother you, you stop thinking about it, and if you do ever think about it then you're glad it doesn't even bother you anymore
The addictive behaviour might be part of a thicket of views, e.g. "if I don't do this then I'll get angry, and I can't (afford to) get angry so I must do this (behaviour instead)." That's a typical "false dichotomy".
You might think, "I'm doing well, I can just do it (that addictive behaviour) once now." But maybe if you persuade yourself it's OK to do once, then by the same logic it's OK to do once more after that, and so on -- so once might lead to twice, and falling back -- if you do try that and that leads to failure then try again, and maybe decide that "never" is safer and more sustainable.

As for "lack of pleasure" I'd hope that you'll begin to benefit -- e.g. from freedom and non-intoxication -- to whatever extent you become unaddicted. You might want to re-evaluate what's pleasurable, what pleasure is -- or to re-evaluate your preferences (e.g. to prefer what "praised by the wise", "skilful", "blameless", and so on e.g. as detailed in the Kalama sutta or other suttas).

Maybe this too (which has parallels in the vinaya, as well as being conventional addiction-recovery advice):

Define a rule (about the behaviour) for yourself to follow, a rule which limits or restricts the behaviour to when it's necessary and harmless, or a rule which cuts out the behaviour completely. Make following that rule a priority, the top priority, your only priority at least initially (until it becomes a second nature).
Maybe choose a specific date on which to start to follow the rule: "Yesterday I didn't follow that rule, but today I will follow that rule, today I am, today I did."
Keep track of the success: an hour, two hours ... a whole day ... another morning ... a week, two months, the first whole year, etc.
Maybe confess to someone else (not only to yourself), a friend or teacher or support-group, someone who knows what you're trying to do and wants to help: confess if or when you break the rule (maybe promise the confess and then even if you break the rule take care not to lie about it as well), and discuss the problem. Maybe it's easy to confess (when there is any behaviour to confess) if you schedule a regular meeting for the purpose of confession, and to talk about problems and successes.

This last section -- e.g. rules and confession -- can be quite effective.
It's so effective that there is a view (i.e. many people say) that it may be the only way to succeed -- and that whether you succeed depends on whether you're willing to agree to participate in this method: to accept that the behaviour is a problem, to commit to following the rules and to confessing, to attend (and continue to attend) the meetings.

Seclusion can help too. Maybe the addictive behaviour requires something (a addictive substance like alcohol, an addictive thing like access to the internet, and/or another person). If that something is within easy reach -- and especially if you wilfully keep that thing within easy reach -- then "back-sliding" is easier.
So part of success might be to deliberately (in whatever moments of sanity you may have) do something to make your access to that thing more difficult: e.g. remove the substance or the thing from your home (or e.g. leave home to go on a retreat). Then when the craving happens it would require a longer and more deliberate effort to re-acquire that thing.
Addictive behaviour might be something you can do easily and without thinking about it much, it might be successful to replace that with a situation which requires some intentional effort, for example, "Craving: suppose I were to have that thing as usual?", answered by, "No the situation is different now, I'm following a different rule. And the thing isn't here, it isn't available to me. I could make the effort to get up and walk out and go and get it -- but I don't want to do that and I don't have to, I will not do that, I am not going to do that, that would be a wrong effort, instead I'll simply do nothing and stay relaxed until another, different (wholesome, acceptable) thought occurs to me instead of this (temporary) craving."
That may change the equation, the balance:

Instead of being a behaviour that happens automatically, without thinking (or even instead of thinking), almost by accident (except that it happens again and again and again), and which only takes a (thoughtless) moment, it becomes a behaviour which you'd have to think about, to do deliberately, something which requires some sustained effort (over several minutes at a minimum), something that you'd have to be conscious of doing (and which you can therefore decide not to do, not to "enable")
Your new situation makes it easier to follow the rule than to continue the addictive behaviour. The situation is seclusion or isolation from whatever "thing" the behaviour involves -- also seclusion from any other "trigger" that might be associated (e.g. if addiction to X is to escape from Y which makes you angry, then the seclusion from X is also a way to escape from Y).

There are maybe specifically-Buddhist techniques as well -- e.g. non-identification, guarding the senses, mindfulness (remembering), calm (peacefulness), even virtues -- and maybe you know something about those already. But I think all the above (including friendship and mentoring) are Buddhist and also overlap with non-Buddhist addiction-recovery advice and methods.

Sure, the way to have clarity of perception is with sati sampajana and the way to have pleasure is to go beyond sati sampajana, ie, with samadhi. nobody can have ''withdrawal'' without being ''happy''. happiness stems form withdrawal and clarity of perception.
So it is  minduflness and turning minduflness into samadhi, as usual, like so

Whomsoever it may be, Ananda, bhikkhu or bhikkhunī, living, having got
  by heart the four settings-up of memory — of such a progressively more
  excellently refined self-awareness is to be expected."
Of what do these four consist?
Here Ananda, a beggar living in body oversees body ardent, self-aware,
  recollected, disciplining worldly covetousness and depression.
In such a one, living in body overseeing body, promted by body or
  arising from body, passions[3] of the heart or sluggish externals
  destract the heart.
Then, Ananda, that beggar should set his heart on the track of some
  happy state.
In the heart set on the track of some happy state joy is born.
With enjoyment entheusiasm is born.
Entheusiastic in mind the body becomes impassive.
Impassive in body happiness is experienced.
Happy at heart one is serene.
He then determines:
'Such as was the attainment of heart to which I aspired, such
  attaiment has been produced in me.
In that case, it is now time to withdraw!'
And thus he withdraws and does not think and does not ponder.
Understanding:
'Without thinking, without pondering, internally recollected, I am
  happy.'

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/sn/05_mv/sn05.47.010.olds.bd.htm#p1

Another repeating of the same question and here the altenative to paint a green point on the forhead:
Re-ligion, being a disciple, means to agree voluntary to an imprisoning to get ride of a harmful habit.
The only outwardly help in this period, and that is the same in psychology, is to associated with the teacher (more advanced), and get "isolated" from lower, using equal "just" for dayly needs: i.e. concentration&working camp (monastery), or if such is not found "walking alone", but not recommended if possible to find.
As the Buddha told, it is impossible to get support from one not beyond a matter that one tries to solve.
Again here: admirable friend and withdraw from equal and lower till insight and path is reached.
Since for this kind of training a social network is required, the re-ligion, the Sangha of monks has been established, especially for those not having reached the stream but confidence, since it would be hardly possible living an common life.
The practice ot Thudongas is highly supportive, not at least by shrinking ways of wrong association and activities.
Mindfulness is of course the key, but the defilments would have and ease if the governing principles are weak, i.e. no outwardly support and guidance and to less preasure, to much space for cheat you self.
(not given for trade, exchange, stakes and to use for bounds in the world, but to bind toward liberation)

What is "Thudongas"? The only other place on the internet where that word is found (according to Google) is here. Perhaps it's a mis-spelling, or an unusual word?

Also, please add a reference to this statement: "As the Buddha told, it is impossible to get support from one not beyond a matter that one tries to solve.".

google what ever you search for, and may it solve your problem. Sure, for those without refuge, killing, deleting and pysical force seems to be fine and without effects for at least short release.

I've never heard that there is a Buddhist schedule for withdrawal from substance abuse. For serious addiction a 3 stage process is recommended, first (1) hospitalization (to control dangerous side-effects of withdrawal), then outpatient (2) rehabilitation for a certain number of weeks, until the patient is healthy enough for a residential (3) recovery program of several weeks.
Hospitalization is suggested for some alcoholics because withdrawal can trigger heart attacks. All these services are usually done by specialists. In a case of mild alcoholism or drug addiction 90 days should see them physically stable, but they need ongoing support groups and might not ever be able to return to their former way of life. The vast majority of alcoholics and drug addicts never survive their disease, but it might take a long time before they die or become institutionalized safely.
"40 to 60 percent of drug addicts will relapse from their plan of treatment"  National Institute on Drug Abuse
"In the midst of a serious addiction crisis, in which 72,000 people died from overdoses in 2017, it can be easy to forget that recovery is not only possible but is the reality for nearly 10 percent of U.S. adults."
https://www.statnews.com/2018/08/30/measure-addiction-recovery-rates/

It's not enough to set goals, it's equally important to elicit commitment to change.
Conduct a Cost-Benefit-Analysis, where you oppose two options, i.e., Giving into alcohol vs Being free from it, and write down every short & long term advantage & disadvantage you can come up with for YOURSELF & FOR OTHERS. These points have to be believable to you!
Here it's important to distinguish between real & perceived costs & benefits, which is why I suggest to seek help from a professional or someone you trust to question perceived benefits of your addiction because people with addictions have strong biases.
If necessary,  question also the perceived disadvantages for changing.
Focus on the disadvantage of the addiction and not just merely parrot them, but also be honest with yourself and realize that you got something from your addiction, otherwise you wouldn't have engaged in it.
Acknowledge that you won't get certain benefits anymore, but you can look forward to other - more short term based - benefits.
This cost-benefit-analysis is also not a do once exercise. Throughout the changing process you might gain more insights & add more advantages & disadvantages to each side.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is the act of moving, eating, doing, and living craving itself?
I've been practicing Vipassana and reading "The Art of Living" by S.N Goenka.
My questions is, I have obligations. When I wake up in the morning I have a thought to go to the bathroom and brush my teeth. Then I follow with that thought and perform the actions. How is this different from me craving that action? If I simply observe the thought of brushing my teeth, and mentally note "thoughts", it will help the thought fade but now I do not accomplish anything in my life. How do I know what thoughts must be left to "fade" and what thoughts I must act on? If I'm acting on a thought, isn't that due to aversion/craving?
Where do you draw the line?

Seems like essentially the same question as this one?

That's right. It's a good question but it was asked and answered before

Closing as dupe - if you read the answers and still have a (new, different) question, you can edit this one and I will reopen.

This might be different if it were asking for, specifically Goenka's doctrine (about meditation). Or if answers should focus on "craving versus wholesome desire" instead of "attachment versus legitimate need".

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


text:
How to approach motivation for work during Vipassana?
My career involves lot of self-learning, and self-motivation. I like my work, which is a reason why my work doesn't feel like work. However, I am finding it hard to incorporate Vipassana into my work. For example, if I'm working and I'm in the zone there's a general pleasurable feeling associated with motivation/focus. It's what keeps me going. I feel like it's a mental state that's actually valuable specially in today's society full of procrastination.
However, if I mentally note that sense of motivation/focus, it does fade away, but it makes it harder for me to concentrate and enjoy work. In fact, I even get slightly depressed and begin to hate the work. Then I would mentally note those negative feelings, but they will come back and I begin to feel miserable, and like a robot. Will this go away?
Should I constantly "mental note" my feeling of motivation/focus, similar to how one "mental notes" a feeling of anger? How am I suppose to apply Vipassana in this situation?

Feeling miserable can be connected to a greater problem and maybe just meditation can't solve that problem. Find a psychotherapist

You are already dead might be a useful talk (or read the written transcript here).

I knew of someone who was participating in a series of seminars on death and dying. And for one of the seminars the teacher took him aside beforehand and said: Okay, I want you to tell everybody when we go into the room that we are already dead, and act as if you are already dead. Now, of course not lying there like a corpse on the floor, but having the attitude of someone who has already died, and is able to come back for a brief visit. And he found it liberating. He could talk to people with a lot less concern about what they might think about him, or what he could get out of them, or their approval. And then the following week when he came back for the next course he was his old self again, alive. And one of the women in the course took him aside afterwards and said: You know, I like you better when you're dead.
So it's not morbid. It's actually liberating, it's freeing. To be able to look at all your worries and all the concerns of daily life from this perspective. You've got a true sense of what is important and what's not.

Well, the Buddha “Bhavana” is described as follows. Anyone can benefit from instructions below.
The mind finds gratification in 3 ways.

Judging : It's comparing, measuring things, situations and people. i.e. Mana
Pleasure : One possible outcome of the above is that one finds a person or situation soothing, happy and delightful.
Displeasure : The other outcome is one finds the person or situation depressing, sad and
unpleasant.

The 3 things occurs at the same time although one event takes a lead. For example:

You smell a warm cup of coffee - The delightful gratification takes a lead. Although the reason you are happy is because in the background you have measured and found something else unsatisfactory.
You see someone dead on TV - The unpleasant thought takes a lead. Although the reason you find it depressing is because you have measured living a delightful thing.
You see someone driving a nice car - The judging takes a lead. You find your own car does not measure up than the pleasing new other car.

You are given 4 weapons to combat these emotions.
The 4 Weapons

You cannot stop sadness soon even if you wanted. You cannot maintain happiness because it never lasts. The kind of gratification cannot be maintained the way you wish. Things always ends and vanishes and brings suffering in the end. The cup of coffee always cools down and become stale. The dead man on the road is soon forgotten. The nice car gets old and ends up in a junk yard one day. There would not be a need for the Buddhist path had mind constructs (Sankatha) weren't fickle. This principle scales well to all things you establish in your mind whether it is yourself, your parents, children and your possessions.
Infinite compassion. Begin from having compassion for your self first. Then imagine all living beings regardless who they are, live a content life without suffering and find Buddha's path of renunciation. You want others to get the same benefit as you have.
All things are composed of things thus decay. The pretty girl or boy you find lovely gets old and die. Nice things also gets old. All things deteriorates and vanishes because they are compositions. They break down into its component parts and re-joins nature.
Ensure the cycling in the mind stops straight away. Conjure -> (Things always ends and decays. As a result brings suffering in the end.). Do not keep re-visiting but ensure the thought is uprooted for good.

So re-visiting 3 kinds of gratifications above.

When your mind does 1 (Judging) -> use weapons 1 followed by 4.
When your mind does 2 (Pleasure) -> use weapons 3 followed by 1 and 4.
When your mind does 3 (Displeasure) -> use weapons 2 followed by 1 and 4.

Samatha
Imagine your mind is a wild horse. Putting a harness and controlling newly emerged judgemental, pleasurable and displeasurable thought is Samatha. Steps 2 and 3 are Samatha steps.
Vipassana
Uprooting the newly emerged judgemental, pleasurable and displeasurable thought requires step 1. The subsequent step 4 ensures it never recurs. This is Vipassana.
This you can do while lying down, walking, taking a shower, eating and even while in the toilet.

You said you can work with full motivation, focus and concentration. It's what keeps you going. You get a general sense of pleasure associated with it. You feel it's valuable relative to procrastination.
I guess this pleasure is a kind of peace associated with concentration. It's not greed or lustful passion.
I suggest that you continue your excellent method of concentration and focus on work, with a small addition - watch out whenever greed, lustful passion, aversion, anger, jealousy or hatred appear in your mind, and remove it. A peaceful type of pleasure associated with doing work with concentration is OK.
This is in fact, incorporating mindfulness (sati) and clear comprehension (sampajañña) into your work, which is not forgetting to identify and remove negative thoughts, while not forgetting to remain focused and concentrated on the task at hand.

Most of the jobs in the ordinary human world is either complete opposite of mindfulness or it is hard to apply mindfulness in some of the jobs. This is a challenge for spiritual people. But it is possible that the root of your dissatisfaction with noting/mindfulness is just an ordinary human's dissatisfaction with facing the reality as it is-which makes the ego and sensuality based humans(which is the vast majority of the humans by the way) very uncomfortable. It is not possible to gain insight, purify the mind and attain enlightenment without facing the suffering, make the ego uncomfortable.
Noting is a very effective technique of mindfulness that can give you positive results in a very short period of time. Any person who haven't attained stream-entry must "do" something to be mindful. And doing is most of the time uncomfortable, it is true. But there is no other way for spiritual people until the attainment of stream-entry. After you attain stream-entry you have spontaneous mindfulness so you don't need to use any methods to be mindful, gain insight and purify the mind.
Here is a very detailed explanation of noting and the benefits of noting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOPHAcz_NI4
Also, most of the people are not aware that they are suffering all the time because they don't have awareness. These answers are related to this subject:
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31532/700
https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31449/700

As i think about this;
There is nobody in control as you are merely watching thoughts & perceptions as they arise, persist and cease. The feelings of discontentment are also impermanent as is your enchantment and disenchantment with work, it all depends on your knowledge and understanding of the world and how you perceive it in general rather than something you can turn on and off by stopping doing "vipassana".
I also think that if you have seen the unpleasantness and drawbacks it is not something that can be unseen easily and even if one was to abandon the training one would regret it because that path will turn out to be painful and one will come to envy those who are training, those reaping the fruits of the holy life achieved by full measure of effort.
In general changes in understanding are followed by gradual changes in behavior. If you incline your thoughts to the pleasant the perception of pleasantness will be established but unpleasantness is the truth of all formations so the perception of unpleasantness is more powerful and hard to ignore.


text:
Difference between sati and sampajanna
What is the difference between sati (mindfulness) and sampajañña (awareness, clear comprehension)?
Please provide examples.

sampajāna is not "awareness". the english term "awareness" are far too general & vague to be used for any Pali term.

Thanks for your question. After so many years, I think i now know what sampajana is according to the suttas rather than only according to experience.

Sati means to 'remember' (SN 48.10) or 'bring to & keep in mind' (MN 117).
Sampajana is situational wisdom; the right or thorough understanding of or for a situation.
Sampajana is from the words saṃ & pajāna (cp. pajānāti). It appears suttas such as MN 118, AN 3.121 & SN 12.28 indicate mere pajānāti might be a level of knowing or recognition that is not as complete as sampajana.
For example, in MN 118, pajānāti is only used with the most basic practise, namely, knowing long & short breathing. In AN 3.121, pajānāti is used for the recognition of the arising of defilements (which means the mind does not have thorough understanding; if defilements are arising). In SN 12.28, pajānāti of Dependent Origination is called 'one endowed with a trainee’s knowledge’; ‘one who has entered the stream of the teaching’. Thus, mere pajānāti appears different to saṃ + pajāna, namely, "thorough" or "complete" understanding.
While the suttas do not explain much about sampajana, when SN 47.35 briefly defines 'sampajana', it uses the word "vidita" (pp. of vindati), which means "to understand" or "understood", as Bhikkhu Bodhi appeared to properly translate as "understood" (and Sujato & Thanissaro improperly translated as "known").

And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here, bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are understood as they arise,
  understood as they remain present, understood as they pass away.
  Thoughts are understood as they arise, understood as they remain
  present, understood as they pass away. Perceptions are understood as
  they arise, understood as they remain present, understood as they pass
  away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.
Bhikkhu Bodhi

Thus, it appears obvious "sampajjana" means to thoroughly or completely understand something or a situation with right understanding rather than to have mere "bare awareness". "Bare awareness" without understanding (similar to a small child ignorantly looking non-judgmentally at the ocean, not understanding its danger) is not "sampajana".
For example, in MN 66 and SN 12.17, the word "vidita" means "to understand" rather than merely "experience with bare awareness", as follows:

Because I understand the diversity of faculties as it applies to this person.
Indriyavemattatā hi me, udāyi, imasmiṃ puggale viditā.
MN 66

However, I have recognized individual differences.
Api ca mayā puggalavemattatā viditā”ti.
SN 12.17

MN 66 & SN 12.17 seem to show Bhikkhu Sujato and particularly Bhikkhus Thanissaro (with his "bare awareness") provide inaccurate translations & explanations of SN 47.35.
In summary, sati delivers & maintains sampajjana. They work together.
Please refer to Ajahn Jayasaro You Tube or Ajahn Buddhadasa Part II. The Use of Dhamma.

Thanks for the answer and also for the Ajahn Jayasaro video. SN 48.10 is very good for sati. Unfortunately, the eponymous Sati Sutta (SN 47.35) which talks about sati and sampajanna is not clear at all.

This essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is also helpful. He wrote: "Directions such as “bring bare attention to the breath,” or “accept the breath,” or whatever else modern teachers tell us that mindfulness is supposed to do, are actually functions for other qualities in the mind. They're not automatically a part of sati, but you should bring them along wherever they're appropriate."

Thanks. Interestingly, in SN 47.35, sampajāno is defined without sati, but sati is defined with sampajāno included in it. "Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu sato hoti? Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ;"

Interesting? The answer is Bodhi. Of course sati is defined with sampajāno. Samma sati is about the right things (and not wrong things) to remember or bear in mind.

Sati is often translated as "mindful of." So Ānāpānasati means: "mindfulness of in-and out-breathing" or "conscious of in-and-out breath" However, part of the act of doing this is partially somatic, your body experiencing itself, your emotions, thoughts, etc. experienced as they are in and of themselves. It's not a purely mental exercise. It's not reflecting on or thinking about, or placing in a conceptual context. Sati, in and of itself, can lead to a profound stillness of mind and body. Sampajañña, on the other hand, uses the mental and emotive faculties to deeply investigate, discriminate, comprehend, and reach conclusions. Principally, to deeply understand the impermanence of all things. Combined with sati, one comprehends Sunyata, emptiness, impermanence, non-existence of a permanent self, and that identifying with self or sense of permanence only leads to suffering in this life.

I believe in Pali Canon they are used synonymically.
In my understanding,
Sampajanna simply means: being self-aware, not getting carried away (esp. by emotions), paying attention to what you're doing.
Sati has a similar meaning, except the emphasis is on remembering the instructions, remembering the teaching, remembering your vows, remembering what you promised you will and won't do and why.

I marked this answer down for the following reasons: (i) it appears the two terms are not synonymic. As Ajahn Jayasaro has said, sati is concentration faculty and sampajana is wisdom faculty. The two terms may be generally used together in the same contexts but they are not used synonymically; (ii) sampajanna is essentially engaging wisdom, which is not really highlighted in the answer above; (iii) sati is well-explained but it excludes the fact that sati also means remembering to engage sampajanna.

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


text:
How do you talk to someone whose loved one is dying?
What can you say to someone whose loved one (e.g. spouse or parent) is dying?
Assume if you can that in the West, e.g. Europe and America, although people (strangers) might have heard the first thing about Buddhism, but they haven't formally practised it nor intentionally studied its doctrines in any detail (what if they've just seen some "fake Buddha quotes" for example).
So, although a simple catchphrase (perhaps just a few words of Dhamma) might help a Buddhist as a "reminder", someone else (a non-Buddhist) might not recognise/understand that.
Or I would ask, what you could you even say to a layperson who does know some Buddhism -- except that most of the people who I'm likely to contact don't, and I doubt it's a moment to begin to lecture them (uninvited). For example a simple statement like, "Don't be attached", might sound like, "Don't be ill" -- or, "abandon that person" -- which might seem impractical, too academic, or even cruel if you don't understand the context (and might need more explanation than is possible in the context). Or for example, saying, "Buddhist doctrine says that..." sounds like they're being lectured, and at a moment when they're concerned about something other than Buddhism (so maybe that too is not the right way to frame or to open a conversion).
I don't want to talk too much about what I think the difficulties are, so I'll try to stop; if you have questions (about this question), you can a comment to ask.
But as well as being reluctant to lecture someone unasked, I'm generally not sure what to say if someone tells me that they're suffering somehow. For example if someone is mentally ill and tells you something about (or something based on) their delusions or hallucinations, I think I've read that maybe people shouldn't encourage (nor perpetuate nor even argue against) those fantasies (e.g. "yes" and "tell me more about that" or "that's untrue"), and instead you're supposed to talk about consensual (maybe conventional) realities. So I worry that "tell me about your suffering" (or even "yes that's sad" or "I'm so sorry") might only reinforce the suffering, especially if I've nothing to add, nor even understand how to steer their thinking (steer the topic) by asking questions -- possibly (at the risk of being prejudiced) it might be good for them to experience "brahmaviharas", or "recollection of virtue", or even just some "calm" etc., but I'm not sure how someone might get there by my asking them questions -- so maybe that (asking questions) is not the right approach either, or is it?
I quote this answer as an ideal -- slightly out of context, because that was posted as an antithesis of "fear" or aversion -- but perhaps this is an example of an ideal:

... basically leave all Dharma-Theory home and dive into the world, while learning to be authentic and helpful. The end result of this is an image of someone very warm, strong, and open, who has enough inner power and confidence that he or she can be very down-to-earth, very real, without formalities and artificial boundaries that come from fear. This is very different from the aloof ascetic image cultivated on the previous stage. It is someone very warm and very real.

The absence of overt Dharma-Theory (in relating to others) might be appropriate (though perhaps you're informed by theory, or practice, even if you're not teaching it formally/explicitly).
I guess I'm looking for answers from personal experience (your own or someone else's) -- what kind of thing can you say that actually works in the circumstance, is helpful?
When I've tried to do this in the past, it was by trying to share (recollect, recount) what might have been helpful in retrospect from my own experience (of a relationship with a dying loved one). My doing that might depend on making assumptions about the people I'm talking to, so, and I've only limited experience -- perhaps you can tell me more experience or even generalise from experience ... or not?
It happens and will happen a lot (that I meet people in this situation), it would be good to be better prepared for that if possible.

At the risk of being off-topic (maybe delete it if it is), here's a story -- as an example of what seems to be a beneficial effect of a kind word (i.e. it "kept me unexpectedly calm").
Someone posted a question on Twitter -- What is the kindest thing a stranger has done or said to you? -- which has thousands of replies.
And one of the answers to that question, which I thought was remarkable, was this one (quoted here):

One of my twins was born with multiple heart and esophageal defects. Had open-heart surgery at 47 hours old, weighing only 4.5 lbs. When the surgeon described the procedure, it sounded impossible. But the surgery went well. He has more to go, but we let our guard down.
24 hours later, get a call that he's failing (he was at one hospital, my wife and his twin at the other, and I'm running back and forth). It looks grim; Plan A is an untested long-shot, and there's no Plan B. I race out of Hospital 1 to grab a cab to Hospital 2.
Get in cab, driver asks me how I want to get there. Exhausted and angry, I snarl "my son is dying at Hospital 2, so whatever way you think is faster."
We drive in silence for a very long time.
As we get near, he starts to ask me what is wrong, and I tell him. He replies, as we pull into the hospital, "I am Muslim, and tomorrow is Friday. I will pray for him all five times tomorrow." And as I hop out of the cab, I hear him start to pray, "bismallah ar-rahman...."
As I raced thru the hospital, that one small act of kindness, after I had been so surly to him at the start, stuck with me, and for some reason kept me unexpectedly calm during a night of staring at the Plan A machine, hoping it would defy expectations and work.
(It worked.)
It wasn't some huge thing. But that small act of compassion made such a huge difference as I spent the night alone w this insanely strong but insanely sick little boy--and who is now quite healthy.
It's one of the few things that still chokes me up when I think abt those days.

I suppose the bits of Islamic doctrine which a non-Muslim might know are "Inshallah" (something to do with awareness that things happen according to God's will i.e. not always our will) -- and "bismallah ar-rahman" (which the OP quoted and remembered) i.e., "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful" -- maybe any outcome is "a mercy".
Please don't answer that that's not Buddhist doctrine, that isn't what I'm asking -- I quote this as an example, because I'm impressed with the effect[s] it had on the person to whom it was said.
My question might be, what could a Buddhist (instead of a Muslim) possibly say in that situation? It might be difficult if the person you're talking to knows even less about Buddhism than about Islam -- so they might not "recognise" what you say. But Dhamma is "evident", isn't it, so maybe there's always some common ground already, whether they've ever studied Buddhism or not.
What might you say that could help a stranger? Or help a friend who you're not going to see again, maybe someone who lives far away? What if it's just a short conversation, in person -- or, what if you're writing a personal letter to distant family or an old friend in another country (or maybe a phonecall would be better)?
One other thing I see in the story above is that a person who is suffering will make things worse -- "Exhausted and angry, I snarl" and "after I had been so surly to him". So it might be important to help, it affects everyone, even including those they're trying to care for; but it can also be difficult, a time when they might be more troubled, less tolerant and less outgoing or communicative themselves -- i.e. more "surly" (or if not surly, more guarded).

Since I am old, this happens with some frequency. A single wordless look with metta, eye-to-eye, is all that is needed. If a hug would be welcomed (and only if it would be welcomed), then it can be offered. Talk only when spoken to and respond briefly, simply and kindly. An offer to help is always appreciated, however.
If the person is distant, the challenge is greater. One can always offer to listen. Indeed, sometimes people just need to express their feelings and listening can be a gift.

That is good to know, thank you, in person. Sometimes I'm worried when there's no eye-contact; when I hear that the people are a bit alone; and/or an ocean away.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Distance does indeed make it difficult. Edited answer.

It would be arrogant to even imagine that I can give one piece of advice that would be applicable to all situations. But I guess I can present one idea I got out of my own mistakes in trying to help, and from the kindness of others who helped me when I was in trouble.
Give them confidence.
Give them a sense of certainty using as few words as practically possible. You don't have to provide any evidence or any arguments for your confidence. In fact, the less you get into details and pretend that you really understand their particular situation, the better.
If the loved one may recover, give them confidence that "she will recover". No need to explain why. She just will.
If the loved one may not recover and the caregiver believes in afterlife, give them confidence that "she will be alright". Again, there is no need for any explanations.
If you have zero information about them, give them confidence that "everything will be alright".
The words don't matter as much as the strong sense of confidence that you're sharing with them. For this to work, you must be strong and stable, with no doubts about what you're saying, and project that sense directly, firmly, and gently at them. Perhaps, with a hint of humbleness and acceptance of whatever life throws at us.
In Tibetan Buddhism they say, the best dana (gift) is protection from fear and the best protection from fear is an unshakable sense of confidence.

Thank you -- I hadn't thought of "confidence" as an avenue, target, or state; and it is good to identify a target, isn't it? I couldn't reconcile "no doubts about what you're saying" with saying "she will recover", when the assessment is at best only that "the loved one may recover" -- instead of confidence in the outcome I try to convey confidence in the process ("what you're doing makes a huge difference").

One of the 'Zen stories' says, "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe", and, so, I've been wondering, if I tried to advise about intent (or cause), "Try to X" (or rephrased, "I'm sure you can X") then what would "X" be: if not "hope": then, "comfort"? Or "no remorse" as the ambition? Or the Dhammapada's verse 6 says, about knowledge of death, "settle your quarrels", but who needs to hear that?

Your saying that "X" should be "protect from fear" and "promote confidence" might help me to answer that (i.e. about intent). And that would fit with this, which says, when choosing a partner, "Find wise people who cause no fear or worry". Your answer is less wordy though, i.e., "as few words as possible" and "the words don't matter", and "strong sense of confidence" with "no need to explain why".

It depends on the beliefs and ideas of the person that you have the intention to help. If the person belongs to a community that absolutely have fundamentalist beliefs that is not  aligned with the nature of reality then just be with the person with your presence, give him/her a cup of tea etc.
If the person you want to help has more moderate ideas and beliefs you can talk him/her like this: Q&A - Thich Nhat Hanh - What do you think about death?

The Buddha said that contemplation of death is very rewarding. Because if you know what death is then you become alive.

Or like this:

At a personal level, as a Buddhist practitioner, I deliberately visualise and think about death in my daily practice. Death is not separated from our lives. Due to my research and thoughts on death, I have some guarantee and some conviction that it will be a positive experience.

Also, especially in modern times people are getting more and more mind identified, thought identified, emotion identified beings. So it is becoming harder to help other people with talking or being with our presence etc. And there are some mentall ilness in some people that makes it nearly impossible for other people to reduce their sadness in such situations. So it is better to try to help people suffer less, but don't have expectations that we can really make a big difference in their state of mind. In the past it was easier, but people are becoming more and more thought and emotion identified beings and also people's minds are getting more and more dense. The best thing that could help a person to suffer less can be the person's spiritual practise that s/he did in the past, which can be fuel for the person to face the suffering in such difficult periods. Other than that whatever any other person does to the suffering person to make him/her suffer less, it would always be very limited help or would not be able to help the person at all. So we must accept the uncontrollability of life and forms, and our limitations to help others(especially non-Buddhist/non-spiritual people) as well.

It's good to quote a bit from a reference, so I quoted something, from the very start of Thich Nhat Hanh's talk -- if you prefer a different part of that to quote, please do.

The best thing that could help a person to suffer less can be the person's spiritual practise that s/he did in the past Yes, this says, "... a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his thoughts on the best object possible." I wonder how to use that for a layperson or a non-Buddhist -- what might they have "attained", and

what is the "best object possible" -- I assume that virtues and altruism (metta and mudita too) are (or were in the past) included in the relationship, perhaps this is a question of how to focus on that, even when "stressed" or "suffering".

When my Dad died last year, the only context a faith-orientation had to be viewed in was that my Dad was opposed to organized religion in any form, and asked everyone representing any kind of religion to leave the room. In other words, he did not find others trying to reconcile him to God to be helpful. He never said he was atheist, or agnostic, but it was "I don't need your help" on that.
For the most part we had to support him in that.
But your question is about how do you support someone who has a loved one who is dying, and the answers to that can be as varied as all of the many possible reactions people can have to the complexities existing in their relationships to one another. Being supportive and compassionate here, initially means listening. After you have moved past the polite exchange, and the conversation is moving deeper, we must perform the rare act of empathetic listening. Very often the family of dying persons begins to exhibit something like PTSD symptoms, it's part of the grieving process. It's very stressful, and sometimes people involved turn against each other. Stress leads to fight-or-flight (or freeze) reactions. Again, if you are someone people can talk to, there's a lot on their mind. Then there's reactions to the medical care system. They are already hurting, so every addition hurt just adds to that. Make sure they can contact you, if need be. Offer more support than what they think they might need. It's a fast changing scenario.

What Is Normal Grieving, and What Are the Stages of Grief?
Your feelings may happen in phases as you come to terms with your loss. You can’t control the process, but it’s helpful to know the reasons behind your feelings. Doctors have identified five common stages of grief:

Denial: When you first learn of a loss, it’s normal to think, “This isn’t happening.” You may feel shocked or numb. This is a temporary way to deal with the rush of overwhelming emotion. It’s a defense mechanism.
Anger: As reality sets in, you’re faced with the pain of your loss. You may feel frustrated and helpless. These feelings later turn into anger. You might direct it toward other people, a higher power, or life in general. To be angry with a loved one who died and left you alone is natural, too.
Bargaining: During this stage, you dwell on what you could’ve done to prevent the loss. Common thoughts are “If only…” and “What if…” You may also try to strike a deal with a higher power.
Depression: Sadness sets in as you begin to understand the loss and its effect on your life. Signs of depression include crying, sleep issues, and a decreased appetite. You may feel overwhelmed, regretful, and lonely.
Acceptance: In this final stage of grief, you accept the reality of your loss. It can’t be changed. Although you still feel sad, you’re able to start moving forward with your life.

Every person goes through these phases in his or her own way. You may go back and forth between them, or skip one or more stages altogether. Reminders of your loss, like the anniversary of a death or a familiar song, can trigger the return of grief.

"Then there's reactions to the medical care system." - sad but so true

How do you talk to someone whose loved one is dying? Especially someone who is a non-Buddhist or not deeply into Buddhist teachings.
Ajahn Brahm as a young monk was once admitted to a hospital in Thailand, due to malaria. His teacher Ajahn Chah visited him and he thought Ajahn Chah was going to comfort him. Instead, Ajahn Chah said something to the effect of "either you will get better, or you will die, that's all" and then immediately left.
While that's a teaching on accepting anicca, it's probably not suitable to tell that to non-Buddhists, or even Buddhists, in most cases.
Instead, I suggest that you can draw upon metta, by saying, "I will keep your loved one in my prayer, that she may always be happy, healthy, safe and at ease" or "I'll pray that she will get better, so that she will become and remain happy and healthy again."
Or if their loved one has passed away, you can say, "I'll pray that wherever she is now, she would always be happy, healthy, safe and at ease."

Ah yes: "prayer" exists in Buddhism too -- i.e. metta bhavana.


text:
Qualitative Benefit of Longer Sits
I have recently tried meditating for 15 min at a time, at least once per day. I'm wondering, however, if long sits have a qualitative benefit. In other words, I'm wondering whether longer sits have a benefit other than  more of those of shorter sits, perhaps uniquely different benefit/s? (Here, longer sits would mean about 1h-1h30).

See also maximum-productive-time-for-a-meditation-sit  and what-is-the-minimum-amount-of-time-needed-for-a-productive-meditation-sit

Let's phrase this a different way.  If you just worked out for 15 minutes, would it be as effective as if you worked out for an hour?  The answer should be obvious.  The more time you dedicate to anything, the better you'll be at it and the more benefit you'll receive.  The mind is a muscle; same as your biceps.  If you only train it halfheartedly, you'll only get halfhearted results.
But it goes deeper than this.  Sitting is like baking a cake.  You can throw in all of the ingredients - the breath, the cushion, the concentration - but if you take the cake out of the oven before it's done baking, you don't pull out a cake, you pull out a hot mess.  The mind requires time to settle.  It has to remain secluded for an extended period of time before those ingredients can undergo the alchemy of practice and begin to phase change into true samadhi.
And it goes still deeper.  There are states that are only available when one sits for extended periods of time.  No matter how long you have been practicing, you probably will never reach access concentration until you've sat for at least an hour.  The day to day mind is just too scattered to reach it much sooner.  You will only begin to touch the outskirts of jhana after you've sat for an hour and a half.  Full jhana is only available to those who sit for hours a day and even then usually only on retreats of multiple days.
There are no shortcuts.  You get out what you put in.

Ideally, Buddhist Meditation practices quiets the effects of living in Samsara, and transforms the mind with the power of sunyata, Emptiness. This gives us a lightness of being, and diminishes those experiences where life becomes unmanagable. The length of time spent on the cushion is based on this, for beginners around 20-45 minutes. This is once or twice a day.


text:
Validity of Meditation Experience
I have tried meditating on public transport. There, I find I meditate as sharply as when sitting formally. Yet, I find this suspect.
Is it possible to believe one is concentrated and meditating efficiently, but actually not? In other words, should I trust my experience that meditating on public transport is equally efficient as formal sitting?
Thank you.

Both practices are valid. To be precise: you subjectively feel that meditation on the public transport to be sharp, more concentrated, and efficient, but you suspect that this subjective reaction is questionable.
Let's draw a comparison another way. Suppose you compare 2 sits on the public transport to one another. Or, two sits at an Advanced Meditators retreat to one another. We'll say we compare 2 sits which are in identical settings, of equal duration; sit(1) you diligently follow the instructions but the experience is uncomfortable, bland, and you don't see any benefits that day. Sit(2) has pleasure which is spiritual in nature, or clears out the mind, or has only positive effects all day long. Yet both were identical practices?
It is possible that the bland meditation without noticeable benefit may be just as, or more valuable, to your practice, then the pleasurable one. That's because it's a process within a system, and you can't see all the benefits. Of course we WANT the later experience, but it does not mean it is actually more productive.
It could be that your sitting at home in quiet and seclusion is dealing more deeply in some areas you might prefer not to go in? Or could it be the public transport is easier because you are more distracted?
In my own experience, I really treasure the less pleasurable sits because they are turbulent due to the things bothering me, and I feel that stuff needs to be front and center. It might be that your sits at home are of more actual benefit, but it doesn't look that way now.

Absolutely.  We are excellent at deluding ourselves.  As your practice deepens and when you've spent time on retreat, it will become blazingly apparent that your sits on public transit are only dim imitations of the radiance of deep, formal sitting.


text:
Relationship between sampajanna definitions in SN 47.2 and SN 47.35
What is the relationship between the definitions of sampajañña (clear comprehension) in SN 47.2 and SN 47.35?
From SN 47.35 (translated by Bodhi):

“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here,
  bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are understood as they arise,
  understood as they remain present, understood as they pass away.
  Thoughts are understood as they arise, understood as they remain
  present, understood as they pass away. Perceptions are understood as
  they arise, understood as they remain present, understood as they pass
  away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.

From SN 47.2 (translated by Bodhi):

“And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here,
  bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is one who acts with clear comprehension when
  going forward and returning; when looking ahead and looking aside;
  when drawing in and extending the limbs; when wearing his robes and
  carrying his outer robe and bowl; when eating, drinking, chewing his
  food, and tasting; when defecating and urinating; when walking,
  standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, speaking, and keeping
  silent. It is in such a way that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.

And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here, bhikkhus, for a bhikkhu feelings are understood as they arise,
  understood as they remain present, understood as they pass away.
  Thoughts are understood as they arise, understood as they remain
  present, understood as they pass away. Perceptions are understood as
  they arise, understood as they remain present, understood as they pass
  away. It is in this way, bhikkhus, that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.
SN 47.35

The above means feelings, perceptions & thoughts are clearly understood in terms of the Dhamma, namely, they are impermanent, not-self, not to be clung to.
Note: This is not vipassana, namely, observing arising & passing of feelings, perceptions & thoughts. It is understanding feelings, perceptions & thoughts, including when they are purposefully used. Thus, when speaking to another, for example, the mind understands: "These thoughts are conventions, subjective, not to be clung to, etc".

And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu exercise clear comprehension? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is one who acts with clear comprehension when
  going forward and returning; when looking ahead and looking aside;
  when drawing in and extending the limbs; when wearing his robes and
  carrying his outer robe and bowl; when eating, drinking, chewing his
  food, and tasting; when defecating and urinating; when walking,
  standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, speaking, and keeping
  silent. It is in such a way that a bhikkhu exercises clear
  comprehension.
SN 47.2

The above is exactly the same. When walking, the monk has clear-comprehension, such as: "I am monk; I must walk so I make a good public impression" or "I am a monk; I must eat non-hurriedly; so I make a good public impression"; or the monk reflects: "This walking is not self" (such as when Rahula was walking behind the Buddha in MN 62 and the Buddha rebuked Rahula for regarding the Buddha as a "self" or with "beauty").

In line with what I said in my other answer, both are descriptions of self-awareness, of not getting carried away by the circumstances.
This does not refer to "zombie bare awareness" executed mechanically, but to normal, pragmatic, careful self-awareness of an intelligent person.

Yes, unfortunately, a lot of modern mindfulness teachers seem to be teaching it wrongly. They teach "Be aware in the present moment and simply observe X without judging" when it should be "Don't forget to keep observing X and thoroughly understanding the arising, changing and ceasing of X without judging", where X refers to body, feelings, thoughts and phenomena, and "without judging" means actively removing greed and aversion.

Yup. Not just arising/ceasing and removing greed/aversion, but also seeing any biases, attachments, egoistic motives, defensiveness, self-promotion etc.

I'll group "biases, attachments, egoistic motives, defensiveness, self-promotion" under views. So, removing greed, aversion and views.

The difference is, in the 4 jhanas,  SN 47.35  is the more suitable range of activity, since one is typically doing quiet sitting with eyes closed. SN 47.35 is the same as a portion AN 4.41, which clearly puts it in the 4 jhanas and samadhi development context. Standard 3rd jhana formula, explicitly states one has sati and sampajano.
Outside of 4 jhanas, S&S sati and sampajano do not shut off, they continue working, but with a dyanmic range of activity as SN 47.2 gives examples for.
sampajano  in both SN 47.35 and SN 47.2 mean the same thing, sampajano is one who is lucidly-discerning, or clearly-comprehending exactly what they're doing every moment.


text:
How do you balance your desire for liberation with your wordly desires?
I'm in a strange situation right now (weird for me, at least).
These past few days have been intense days of reflection on the Dhamma, which generated two effects at the same time in my overall life:
1) I feel like I'm seeing things clearer than ever before. Anicca, Anatta and Dukkha are no more just simple intellectual statements, but they are the filter of most of my experiences.
This is not a declaration of attainments nor anything alike, but rather an oportunity to share how true is the Dhamma and how much freedom can it bring to our lives.
I feel more at peace than ever before, and people around seem to be benefiting from these changes (or so it seems from the outside).
But...
2) I feel more isolated than ever before, which is not a bad thing in itself. It is rather a kind of peaceful loneliness, but loneliness nonetheless.
I feel like quite a few people could understand these feelings, and that I have few people around me to get advice from.
And so it seems be noticed by some close friends and acquantances. Some of them seem to think that I'm becoming something like a robot. I don't think that's the case. Maybe "equanimous" is the word I'd use to describe such state.
One of my friends asked me if I talk to her just out of compassion instead of out of real feelings of friendship.
That question really freaked me out, especially because it seems to be pointing to some truth, but I cannot put my finger on it; I don't know if there's a real difference between those two motivations.
One part of me wants to keep going along this Path, because all of the peace it has brought to me.
The other part is not so sure if it's ready to lose its bonds, relationships and wordly goals and ties, feelings which can be ascribed to still being in love with Samsara, and still having ignorant tendencies.
I feel in a kind of crossroad right now.
Have you experienced something like this?
Is it possible to balance these two goals?
I'd really appreaciate any piece of advice, whether from personal experience or from suttas.
Thanks in advance for your patience and understanding!

Thanks to all of your wonderful answer. I picked Ruben's as the one that resonates the more with my present mind and situation. But that does not mean that the others were bad answers. Honestly, I could choose more than one, I would. Thanks for your time and compassion, I really appreaciate the kwowledge you had given to me. :)

Perhaps the essay "The Balanced Way" by Bhikkhu Bodhi could help you balance your renunciation with the ordinary world around you (but I guess your lady friend could see that you are probably already using this method):

Like a bird in flight borne by its two wings, the practice of Dhamma
  is sustained by two contrasting qualities whose balanced development
  is essential to straight and steady progress. These two qualities are
  renunciation and compassion. As a doctrine of renunciation the Dhamma
  points out that the path to liberation is a personal course of
  training that centers on the gradual control and mastery of desire,
  the root cause of suffering. As a teaching of compassion the Dhamma
  bids us to avoid harming others, to act for their welfare, and to help
  realize the Buddha's own great resolve to offer the world the way to
  the Deathless.
Considered in isolation, renunciation and compassion have inverse
  logics that at times seem to point us in opposite directions. The one
  steers us to greater solitude aimed at personal purification, the
  other to increased involvement with others issuing in beneficent
  action. Yet, despite their differences, renunciation and compassion
  nurture each other in dynamic interplay throughout the practice of the
  path, from its elementary steps of moral discipline to its culmination
  in liberating wisdom. The synthesis of the two, their balanced fusion,
  is expressed most perfectly in the figure of the Fully Enlightened
  One, who is at once the embodiment of complete renunciation and of
  all-embracing compassion.
Both renunciation and compassion share a common root in the encounter
  with suffering. The one represents our response to suffering
  confronted in our own individual experience, the other our response to
  suffering witnessed in the lives of others. Our spontaneous reactions,
  however, are only the seeds of these higher qualities, not their
  substance. To acquire the capacity to sustain our practice of Dhamma,
  renunciation and compassion must be methodically cultivated, and this
  requires an ongoing process of reflection which transmutes our initial
  stirrings into full-fledged spiritual virtues.
The framework within which this reflection is to be exercised is the
  teaching of the Four Noble Truths, which thus provides the common
  doctrinal matrix for both renunciation and compassion. Renunciation
  develops out of our innate urge to avoid suffering and pain. But
  whereas this urge, prior to reflection, leads to an anxious withdrawal
  from particular situations perceived as personally threatening,
  reflection reveals the basic danger to lie in our existential
  situation itself — in being bound by ignorance and craving to a world
  which is inherently fearsome, deceptive and unreliable. Thence the
  governing motive behind the act of renunciation is the longing for
  spiritual freedom, coupled with the recognition that self-purification
  is an inward task most easily accomplished when we distance ourselves
  from the outer circumstances that nourish our unwholesome tendencies.
Compassion develops out of our spontaneous feelings of sympathy with
  others. However, as a spiritual virtue compassion cannot be equated
  with a sentimental effusion of emotion, nor does it necessarily imply
  a dictum to lose oneself in altruistic activity. Though compassion
  surely includes emotional empathy and often does express itself in
  action, it comes to full maturity only when guided by wisdom and
  tempered by detachment. Wisdom enables us to see beyond the
  adventitious misfortunes with which living beings may be temporarily
  afflicted to the deep and hidden dimensions of suffering inseparable
  from conditioned existence. As a profound and comprehensive
  understanding of the Four Noble Truths, wisdom discloses to us the
  wide range, diverse gradations, and subtle roots of the suffering to
  which our fellow beings are enmeshed, as well as the means to lead
  them to irreversible release from suffering. Thence the directives of
  spontaneous sympathy and mature compassion are often contradictory,
  and only the latter are fully trustworthy as guides to beneficent
  action effective in the highest degree. Though often the judicious
  exercise of compassion will require us to act or speak up, sometimes
  it may well enjoin us to retreat into silence and solitude as the
  course most conducive to the long-range good of others as well as of
  ourselves.
In our attempt to follow the Dhamma, one or the other of these twin
  cardinal virtues will have to be given prominence, depending on our
  temperament and circumstances. However, for monk and householder
  alike, success in developing the path requires that both receive due
  attention and that deficiencies in either gradually be remedied. Over
  time we will find that the two, though tending in different
  directions, eventually are mutually reinforcing. Compassion impels us
  toward greater renunciation, as we see how our own greed and
  attachment make us a danger to others. And renunciation impels us
  toward greater compassion, since the relinquishing of craving enables
  us to exchange the narrow perspectives of the ego for the wider
  perspectives of a mind of boundless sympathy. Held together in this
  mutually strengthening tension, renunciation and compassion contribute
  to the wholesome balance of the Buddhist path and to the completeness
  of its final fruit.

One of my friends asked me if I talk to her just out of compassion instead of out of real feelings of friendship. That question really freaked me out, especially because it seems to be pointing to some truth

Indeed. Insightful or intuitive question by the lady

One part of me wants to keep going along this Path, because all of the peace it has brought to me. The other part is not so sure if is
  ready to lose its bonds, relationships and wordly goals and ties,
  feelings which can be ascribed to still being in love with Samsara,
  and still having ignorant tendencies.

Worldly friends generally will not abandon you when you live a more isolated life. They like to reassure themselves you are not crazy when you occasionally turn up to one of their social events & act reasonably normally. This said, yes, a genuine Dhamma life in ordinary society is very isolated. It can be more isolated than living in a monastery (because in the monastery there may be some like-minded persons).

Kalyāṇamittādivaggo: Good companionship and others
Zen teachers would say: Don't live a half-hearten life, and the wise praise 3 things: rendering help for ones parents, generosity, renouncing. Once the things done in right order, it would be a lot of self-cheating and the defilement kitchen, not to seek simply the way out. Actually there are less real obligations and the most compassionate gift for this world, for one self and all others, is to become being at least on the straight way to an Arahat. The world is already full of "Bodhisatvas" and soon there will be no more place for all of them...
So it's all about the question if one likes to get ride of ones "body-debts" or cheat one further on one of the many desired Ahara-hat-path laid out by Mara.
The younger the better, since an old tree is even harder to bend and handicaps for a full holly life can arise tomorrow.
(like always not given for trade, exchange, stacks for the world but for release and so most possible not for everyone)

I guess "desire" (whether "worldly" or "for liberation") has two components: it's an ambition or a goal for the future ("I do X because I aspire towards Y"), a motive; and it's a preference ("I prefer Y", possibly "I'm attached to Y").
In summary, I guess you try to balance "Wholesome desires" for or about the future; combined with "liberation" in the present.
I have been motivated to behave "appropriately", where "appropriate behaviour" can be understood as "behaviour taught to children" -- for example, having a temper tantrum in a parking lot is "inappropriate behaviour"; whereas washing the food containers after eating a meal is "appropriate behaviour".
There are further definitions of "appropriate behaviour" for adults -- keeping laws -- but a lot of freedom too (e.g. to be or not to be a recluse, to practice this or to practice that).
But maybe "avoiding inappropriate behaviour" is a way to satisfy both desires: a way towards liberation, and, towards worldly situations. For all that the N8P is prescriptive (e.g. "right view, right effort"), the suttas are proscriptive too (e.g. "don't break the precepts, uproot the poisons, avoid the hindrances, abandon the fetters") -- I guess a lot of my desires have been proscriptive.
My recent questions on this site (e.g. here and here) have been wondering what to put in place of that negativity.

I'm not sure how anatta informs your view, is "the filter for most of your experiences".
If someone asked me now whether it was "just out of compassion instead of out of real feelings of friendship", I guess I'd answer something based on Dhamma (since the Dhamma has so much to say about compassion) -- maybe something like, "Relationships! They can be complicated, can't they. Perhaps you're right that compassion isn't real friendship, but I think it's a real part of friendship -- I think "compassion" is wanting someone to be happy, and wanting to avoid ever hurting someone -- and ideally that might go both ways in a relationship, both people feel that. There are other aspects to friendship too -- admiring someone for their virtues, generosity, self-sufficiency, their skills in interacting with people, bravery, kindness."
In terms of relationships, it's not all about "me" or "my loneliness" -- a more, kind of, objective question might be something like, "am I hurting this person? is this relationship beneficial or is it harmful?"
To get back to talking about compassion then, you might say, "There's more to a relationship than compassion, but harmlessness is a minimum. I don't want to say, 'I'm doing more good than harm': I need a relationship where I'm not hurting you at all."

You mentioned loneliness and isolation. I don't understand those words, possibly (if I project onto them from my own experience), they disappear when you stop thinking, "there is an 'I' who is isolated" (i.e. a self-view), and "I wish had a relationship" (i.e. a craving). I suppose I have a Theory of mind and therefore don't believe that I'm alone (instead, the Dalai Lama said once, "I'm not special, I'm like everyone else; seeing yourself as 'special' is a prison.").

As for, "Some of them seem to think that I'm becoming something like a robot. I don't think that's the case.", maybe there's less conflict if you don't contradict people.
So "Yes I space out a bit sometimes" might be an appropriate reply, might it?
My teachers' report card called me dans la lune when I first started grade school, so that's easy for me to accept, that people might see that.
And if they (friends) really want to talk about mental health and so on, then maybe that's no bad thing, an important topic, worth listening, conversing.
I guess my view of having an enlightened friend is that, "That's good -- mudita and metta. And yet, enlightened isn't meant to be (shouldn't be, ideally isn't) a handicap or an incapacity." Still there's a reason, I guess, why some people leave home, calling it a "dusty path" and so on, and (I don't know) perhaps that reason is to escape the social obligations which other people try to impose.

In the right direction, but still have a long way to go. When your worldly desires fade out, you become closer to liberation. If you are at a cross road, that means something is bothering you, is it the loss of worldly friends ? Or Loneliness ?
In short, they can be perfectly balanced.
"If a fool persists in his folly, he can become wise."

Peaceful states are great in the path, but they are temporary. So you can enjoy them when they arise but don't cling to these states because peaceful states of mind can't be permanent in one's life unless the person completely disidentifies from the core of the subconscious mind, and the disidentification process from the core of the subconscious mind starts in the last phase of the stream-enterer stage. Only after reaching the once-returner stage the person would have continous peace that would not end in time or with the worldly conditions. That's necessary for a meditator to remember time to time because when the peaceful states gone, it can make the meditators very dissapointed and can stop the meditator to keep going If they haven't prepared themselves for it.
Feeling of isolation and loneliness is normal in the path. As you go further in the path you'll be internally more vulnerable and as vulnerability grows, you'll open your heart and mind more to the nature of reality and the feeling of isolation and loneliness will decrease and eventually dissapear completely. Then you can live in a cave or you can be in Bill Gates position it doesn't matter. You'll not feel lonely or isolated anymore.
A Buddhist meditator must either live in solitude or find right people to spend time with and build a Sangha for him/her that would help him/her in the path and give the energy to continue in the path. In some of the countries this is very difficult or impossible, but in the Buddhist countries and many of the western countries this is certainly a doable thing. So when you build a sangha, spend your time with right people, it would be far easier for you to let go of the worldly desires and ordinary wordly people who have completely wrong perceptions, ideas and beliefs and can only pull you down to their own level of frequency and eventually make you stop your spiritual practise completely. That's why being disloyal to the popular culture and society is necessary. Ordinary people's path is the complete opposite of the dhamma. Their path is the suffering path.

Remember what the Buddha said. There is no condition of life that more powerfully influences your development than cultivating wholesome friends and companions. Start with yourself, as you are today, and build on your strengths to become a better friend and companion to others. And choose who you spend time with carefully

https://buddhasadvice.wordpress.com/friendships/

The Buddhist path takes courage, a courage that worldly people don't have and aren't interested in. Whether they realize it or not, worldly people will try to sabotage the genuine practice of a spiritual seeker. They do so out of self defense. They don't want to peer into a spiritual seeker's eyes and see glimmers of the truth. That is frightening and potentially derailing to their own lifestyle. A spiritual seeker progresses easier and faster as he or she moves out of the sphere of influence of such people. Breaking those bonds engages a reflex reaction of fear which is often felt as a crushing loneliness. Persevering through that sadness, it weakens and falls away with time eventually supplanted by a positive conviction of the truth and goodness of the dharma. Find other spiritual seekers to interact with and maintain a careful equanimity (ambivalence) with the rest. Even the mother hen knows her egg won't hatch if it isn't given the right warmth and protection. As the Buddha taught, the greatest blessing is holy company.


text:
Sati-Sampajañña and a quiet mind
Is it the case that a quiet mind can best execute Sati-Sampajañña because there are no interfering thoughts disturbing it?
If the answer is yes, should the main concern in day-to-day life be to tranquilize the mind, to think and keep wisdom in mind, or even both?
Regards

The quiet mind is ideal but not a forced quiet mind. It is only the quiet of jhana that is ideal. If jhana is too difficult,  and unlikely for us, then best not to waste time and practice momentary samadhi instead by becoming aware of the busy, unclear mind when it arises. If there is an urge to fight it or if there is disliking it, be aware there is disliking. Mindfulness impartial to the defilement, the defilement is automatically abandoned, disappears for that moment. Train this way for those who aren't clearing the mind correctly or easily.

Absence of thoughts is different than the awareness being roused.
For example, a bad day in Samsara can make one more aware of dukkha, and can rouse the awareness that one has dukkha and not clear release and knowing. This is a better place to start from: rousing the awareness, and setting mindfulness front and center. Ultimately Samsara is Nirvana.
Knowing this will quiet thoughts. One needs to be discontent, dissatisfied with samasara on the dukkha side. If one can find the quiet that rises up to overcome dukkha, that's a day-to-day practice.

"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.
Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving [taṇhā, "thirst"] which leads to re-becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming, craving for disbecoming.
Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it.
Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is this noble eightfold path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."

In respect to meditation, the quiet mind is the end result of the execution of Sati-Sampajañña. The role of Sati-Sampajañña in meditation is to ensure there are no interfering thoughts.
As for daily life, the role of Sati-Sampajañña is to ensure or remember Right Speech, Right Action & Right Livelihood are performed in respect to daily activities.
Sati-Sampajañña does not only have one outcome. I suggest to read MN 117, which describes how Sati-Sampajañña is used in relation to each factor of the Path.
In summary:

In meditation, Sati-Sampajañña ensures the mind has Right View & Right Thought that leads to Right Concentration.
In daily life, Sati-Sampajañña ensures Right Speech, Right Action & Right Livelihood are maintained when interacting with others.

For example, from MN 117:

One is mindful to abandon wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities —
  right view, right effort & right mindfulness — run & circle around
  right view.
One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness....
One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right speech: This is one's right mindfulness....
One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right action: This is one's right mindfulness.....
One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three
  qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run &
  circle around right livelihood.

I think in your summary you forgot for daily life & meditation Right Effort, no?

Saṭipatṭhāna has many levels, such as Sīla, Khaṇika Samādhi, Taruṇa Vipassanā, Balava Vipassanā, Ariya Magga.
Sīla, Khaṇika Samādhi and Taruṇa Vipassanā do not require a quiet mind, so the practitioner can do it in day-to-day life.
Upacāra Samādhi, Appanā Samādhi (Lokiya Jhāna), Balava Vipassanā, Ariya Magga (Lokuttara Jhāna) require  a quiet mind because...

Upacāra Samādhi mind and Appanā Samādhi mind (Lokiya Jhāna) know only one object, unleashing five string objects, but Sīla and Khaṇika Samādhi minds know those both five string objects and unleashing five string objects, so they can't upgrade to be Upacāra Samādhi mind, Appanā Samādhi mind.
Balava Vipassanā mind knows only the last vanished Vipassanā-Mind and it's three characteristics as object, but Taruṇa Vipassanā knows five string objects too, so it can't upgrade to be Balava Vipassanā.
Ariya Magga mind (Lokuttara Jhāna) knows only Nibbāna, but Sīla, Khaṇika Samādhi, Taruṇa Vipassanā, and Balava Vipassanā minds know the other objects too, so they can upgrade to be Ariya Magga.

So, the definition of the meditation is:

All the wisdom of one who has attained (appanā), is, wisdom by means of development.

The meditation is the cessation of all suffering, not only the present suffering. If the meditation is not strong enough, it can ceases only the present suffering and keeps the future suffering going on.
Daily life Vipassanā is good and the practitioner should do it, but Nibbāna is the best, so only doing good is not enough to enlighten Nibbāna.
See KN Paṭisambhidāmagga, Visuddhimagga, DN Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta.

Sati - mindfulness or awareness
Sampajañña - constant thorough understanding of impermanence

A quiet mind can help:

establish awareness as a scattered mind cannot develop a deep awareness
see clearly the nature of things hence know impermanence at the experiential level