text:
Inferiority because of failure in meditation
I've tried hard to practice meditation - Anapansatti & Vipassana but I just can't concentrate on my breath. Now, I'm feeling inferior as if I can never concentrate my breath or get rid of my inner problems/ sufferings. I feel as if peace or enlightenment or eradication of suffering is not for me.
After proper analysis, I've found that I just simply can't concentrate. So my questions are

What are necessary & sufficient condition to get enlightened? If I don't have those qualities how can I develop those qualities? What I would have to do?
How to concentrate provided I have tried my best to concentrate my breathing but mind wanders away in no time. It is making me sick thinking I don't posses qualities to eradicate my own sufferings. It makes me feel as if I will never be at peace.

Note: I have been into 10 days Vipassana course also.
Anyone help me.

You should start with Shila. Make sure you don't break Shila... Your question make me to think how one can develop patience?

The base improvement, yes. Then, having the base: sila-, caga-, devatanusati

Your mind has never been in a concentrated state? You have never focused on a task? Your mind has never focused on a TV program or music?

as i see it in OP based solely on content of his post.

The faculty of conviction - seems to appear
  The faculty of persistence - seems to appear
  The faculty of mindfulness - seems to appear
  The faculty of concentration - self reported weak
  The faculty of discernment - seems to appear

Indriya-vibhanga Sutta: Analysis of the Mental Faculties
On concentration:

"And what is the faculty of concentration?  There is the case where a
  monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go,
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.

So it has attainment of singleness of mind as property of mind.
So how to develope it:
https://suttacentral.net/en/ma42

At that time, the Venerable Ānanda rose from his seat of repose in the
  afternoon and went to Buddha. He bowed his head at his feet and then
  withdrew to sit at one side. He said: “World Honored One, what is the
  meaning of this: ‘to keep precepts’?”
The World Honored One replied: “Ānanda, the meaning of keeping the
  precepts is to bring about non-regret. Ānanda, if someone were to keep
  the precepts, he would readily attain non-regret.”

https://suttacentral.net/en/an10.2

(1)–(2) “Bhikkhus, for a virtuous person, one whose behavior is
  virtuous, no volition need be exerted: ‘Let non-regret arise in me.’
  It is natural that non-regret arises in a virtuous person, one whose
  behavior is virtuous.
(3) “For one without regret no volition need be exerted: ‘Let joy
  arise in me.’ It is natural that joy arises in one without regret.
(4) “For one who is joyful no volition need be exerted: ‘Let rapture
  arise in me.’ It is natural that rapture arises in one who is joyful.
(5) “For one with a rapturous mind no volition need be exerted: ‘Let
  my body be tranquil.’ It is natural that the body of one with a
  rapturous mind is tranquil.
(6) “For one tranquil in body no volition need be exerted: ‘Let me
  feel pleasure.’ It is natural that one tranquil in body feels
  pleasure.
(7) “For one feeling pleasure no volition need be exerted: ‘Let my
  mind be concentrated.’ It is natural that the mind of one feeling
  pleasure is concentrated.

Later again from Meanings Sutta but it fit here more in this post:

Again, he asked: “World Honored One, what is the meaning of this:
  ‘concentration’?”
The World Honored One replied: “Ānanda, the meaning of concentration
  is to bring about seeing according to reality and knowing according to
  reality. Ānanda, if someone were to be concentrated, he would readily
  attain the seeing that is according to reality and the knowing that is
  according to reality.”

Else?
For developing  of non-distractiveness association with people collected in mind, avoiding restless people and mindfulness of arising and ceasing of phenomena in general according to Buddhagosa s commentary
I think this is it for your concentration problem OP, dont think i have to state the seemingly obvious in regards to your leaks:)
In regards to feeling inferior,

there is no competition in search for peace

i heard that
Also this
Sarakaani Sutta:

"Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering
  devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and
  swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But perhaps he has these
  things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of
  concentration, of wisdom. And the things proclaimed by the Tathaagata
  are moderately approved by him with insight. That man does not go to
  the realm of hungry ghosts, to the downfall, to the evil way, to
  states of woe.
"Take the case of another man. He is not even endowed with unwavering
  devotion to the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha. He is not joyous and
  swift in wisdom and has not gained release. But he has just these
  things: the faculty of faith, of energy, of mindfulness, of
  concentration, of wisdom. Yet if he has merely faith, merely affection
  for the Tathaagata, that man, too, does not go to... states of woe.

On Vi:
When training Satipatthana it is not the objective to get well-concentrated, the concentration comes in succession and has its role and appropriate function. IE it also is involved as a causal condition for people attaching to certain states and that hinders progress.
Sati as a factor of Enlightenment, translated as mindfuless has function of remembering or keeping in mind, re-cognizing. Mindfulness of physical and mental states arising of and within a body is a single theme for the mind, which will develope concentration faculty no problem.
It seems to me that you could try paying more attention to arising and passing of states of "disliking", "wanting/liking", "sadness/despair", "judging/evaluating", "doubting" and "thinking/wondering" as well as "knowing", knowing ie when your concentration is low you can know it as "my concentration is weak", then maybe "disliking?;)" or "wanting" for it to be better or "evaluating" that it makes you a bad meditator, should note that your are thinking at this point and see where it goes from there. You see it will keep you within the theme of mindfulness of the body, conditioning victory.

you also say that you have been to a course, assuming you kept precepts and still failed to attained what you expected in terms of concentration. I would not take that as a proof of moral restrain not leading to concentration.
Id point out the numerous enviromental factors that weigh in as well as case specific issues that need resolvement, like worries, doubts etc.
Also suspecting psycho active drug use maybe, generally speaking not you in particular.

Ānanda, if someone were to be concentrated, he would readily attain the seeing that is according to reality and the knowing that is according to reality.” ----> what is reality here? Pls tell

give me some time ill post the rest;
"Bhikkhus, I declare [that there is] the extinction of āsavas in one who knows and sees,[3] and not in one who does not know and see. Bhikkhus! What is known and what is seen by one in whom I declare [that there is] the extinction of āsavas? The right perception of phenomena[4] and the wrong perception of phenomena.

basicly seeing wrongly is not looking at the unattractive side

" Not discriminating the factors which should be considered attentively from the factors which should not be considered attentively, he considers attentively the factors which should not be considered and does not consider attentively the factors which should be considered."
Sabbasava Sutta: Discourse on All Āsavas  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.bpit.html

but there is another way to understand it, which is same but more specificly the ultimate result of the practice knowing and seeing the Four Noble Truth, attainment of arising of the Eye of Wisdom, superhuman knowledge of freedom from suffering.

Thanks a lot. It helps. :) So I should focus on mindfulness rather than concentration?

to summarize my answer is that "reality" in that sentence can be said to mean the mundane reality of concepts and experiences and/or supramundane reality which is the unconditioned state.

yes focus on mindfulness, sticking to the framework of physical and mental phenomena arising for or within a body, postures, activities, feelings etc. Thank you for your question and practicing.

Whenever anyone has a problem like this, I'm always reminded of Dutiya Anuruddha Sutta (AN 3.128/130/131 in different versions):

Then venerable Anuruddha came to venerable Shariputra and said:
-- As much as I, friend Shariputra, look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, see things with thousandfold-superhuman vision, train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in tranquillity imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered, still I can't "having stopped maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of mind".
-- All these thoughts, friend Anuruddha, of the kind "I look at things with purified Heavenly Eye, I see things with thousandfold-superhuman vision" -- this is your conceit.
And the thoughts of the kind "I train in confidence unmovable, in awareness undimmable, in tranquility imperturbable, and in focused mind unscattered" -- this is your pathological restlessness.
And the thoughts of the kind "still I can't "having stopped maintaining intoxication, achieve liberation of mind" -- this is your remorse.
You'd better, friend Anuruddha, these three thoughts abandon; To these three thoughts not attending, to The Unconditional point your mind.

The point being, these instances of worry and inferiority are the exact problems we are supposed to solve in Buddhism. The Buddhist path is not to heap on more goals and expectations and worries - but to in fact let go of them, to have less of them - in order to attain peace of mind. The element of Sila or morals in Buddhism exists to help one be free of regrets, not to have more reasons for regret! The element of "concentration" (I'd rather say "attention control") is practiced to make one free from worry, not to worry even more about one's inability to control attention. So just remember that everything in Buddhism is done with peace as its goal, dispassion as its goal, liberation as its goal - not to torture oneself. This way all your practice and meditation becomes an act of healing and rest, not an act of fighting.

I was talking to my friend a few years back.  She is a yoga instructor and we got on the subject of meditation.  She asked how many hours a day I meditated and was taken a little aback by my answer.  "How can you sit so long!  I much rather be working in the garden or hiking.  That's my meditation and I can do that all day!"
In a rare instance of wisdom, I refrained from explaining to her that what she was doing wasn't really meditation.  It's a good thing I did, because looking back, I now realize that I would have been completely and utterly wrong.  Meditation doesn't have to be sitting meditation.  Not at first anyway.  Buddhist samatha and vipassana practice are simultaneously a mental and a somatic exercise.  For some people, this is not an issue.  Mind and body soften and settle together.  But some people need a little something extra.  You seem to be in that camp.  Instead of rushing right into sitting, why not try a bodily practice first?  Do something like hiking or walking, tai chi, or yoga.  You could even do an immersive activity like gardening or woodworking.  Practices like this go a long way to calm the mind.  They do it almost completely by accident in a way that is on the same spectrum as seated meditation.  The practice itself doesn't matter.  How good you are at it doesn't matter.  All that matters is that you let allow the physical discipline to tame your mind.  It will all on its own.
Most importantly, however - and if you take away nothing else, let it be this -my friend can garden all day because she loves it.  I can meditate as much as I do because I feel the same.  It doesn't sound like you love your meditation practice.  And why should you?  It's clearly causing you frustration.  But it doesn't have to.  Think back to when you were a kid and were playing with your toys.  Did you really care if you were good at playing?  Were you sad if one play session didn't go as well as another?  Was playing some sort of transactional system that you thought would have yields proportional to the time you invested in it?  Of course not.  You played because you loved it.  I'd even go so far as to say that you played just to play.  Meditation is no different.  Approach it with the same spirit.

I believe it is important to not judge your practice. Simply continue, and use these feelings you are experiencing as something to observe. What you are dealing with is much more common than you may realize, and has nothing to do with whether you are "good" or "bad" at meditation. Don't fight these thoughts of inferiority, but practice seeing if you can let them come and go without overwhelming you.
When it storms outside, feel free to watch, but do not open the window.

I'm not a Buddhist as such however I would like to weigh in here, if you don't mind that is.
Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with your mind wandering especially when one is starting out in meditation.  It takes time and practice, I've been slowly improving my meditations over the last three years, my mind still wanders a lot especially during my longer sessions.
My approach has been to accept that my mind will wander and to treat myself with kindness, in the same way you would with a child who gets distracted.  When I find that my mind is wandering I gently let go of the thought and call myself back to the task at hand.
While meditiating, when your mind wanders the moment you realise as much don't get upset with yourself, just relax, smile at your wayward mind and call yourself back to your meditation.  If you get upset with yourself you will completely break down your attempt to meditiate.
If it helps you can take the mindfulness approach and treat the thoughts that come into your mind as leaves on a breeze or floating on water, imagine th thought as a leaf and let drift away from you until they're out of site.
With practice you'll be able to focus and concentrate for longer and longer.  I've a VERY active mind, even at rest, so even after these years I'm only able to hold focus or concentrate for 10-15 minutes  :)

This advice from Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu may be helpful to you:

Since certain bodily and verbal acts are intrinsically tied to
  negative qualities of mind, they are considered ‘contraindicative’ to
  the meditation practice; they have an effect opposite to what is
  desired, cultivating defilement instead of purity. Meditators who
  insist on engaging in such behaviour will face great difficulty in
  their practice, developing habits that are detrimental to both
  meditation practice and personal well-being. To ensure the mind is
  perfectly clear and capable of understanding reality, certain
  behaviours must be taken out of one’s “diet”, so to speak.
First, there are five kinds of action from which one must refrain
  completely, as they are inherently unwholesome:

One must refrain from killing living beings. In order to cultivate one’s own well-being, one must be dedicated to well-being as a
  principle, refraining from killing any living being, even ants,
  mosquitoes and other living beings.
One must refrain from theft. In order to find peace of mind, we must grant it to others as well; stealing is a denial of this basic
  right to security. Further, if we wish to be free from addiction, we
  must be able to control our desires to the extent of respecting the
  possessions of others.
One must abstain from committing adultery or sexual misconduct. Romantic relationships that are emotionally or spiritually damaging to
  others, due to existing commitments of the parties involved, are a
  cause for stress and suffering and based on perversion of the mind.
One must refrain from telling lies. If one wishes to find truth, one must avoid falsehood; intentionally leading others away from the
  truth is harmful both to oneself and others and incompatible with the
  goals of meditation.
One must refrain from taking drugs or alcohol. Any substance that intoxicates the mind is obviously contraindicative to meditation
  practice, as it is the antithesis of a natural, clear state of being.

Complete abstention from these activities is necessary if one wishes
  for meditation practice to be successful, due to their inherently
  unwholesome nature and the invariably negative effect they have on the
  mind.
Further, there are certain activities that must be moderated or they
  will interfere with meditation practice. These are activities that are
  not necessarily unwholesome in and of themselves but will nonetheless
  inhibit clarity of mind and lessen the benefit of the meditation
  practice when undertaken in excess.
One such activity is eating; if one wishes to truly progress in the
  meditation practice, one must be careful not to eat too much or too
  little. If one is constantly obsessed with food, it can be a great
  hindrance to progress in meditation since not only does it cloud the
  mind, over-eating leads to drowsiness, both in the body and mind. One
  should eat to stay alive rather than stay alive simply to eat. During
  intensive meditation courses, meditators eat one main meal per day and
  suffer no negative physical consequences as a result; whereas the
  positive effects of such moderation are clarity of mind and freedom
  from obsession over food.
Another activity that interferes with meditation practice is
  entertainment – watching movies, listening to music, and so on. These
  occupations are not inherently unwholesome but can easily create
  states of addiction when undertaken in excess.
Addiction is a form of insobriety in a sense, since it involves
  chemical processes in the brain that inhibit clear thought and clarity
  of mind. Since the pleasure that comes from entertainment is momentary
  and unsatisfying while the addiction and obsession carry over into
  one’s life, a serious meditator should determine to make the best use
  of their short time in this life by cultivating peace and contentment,
  rather than wasting it on meaningless activities that don’t lead to
  long term happiness and peace. If one wishes to find true happiness,
  one must therefore moderate one’s engagement in entertainment.
  Socializing on the Internet and similar activities should be
  undertaken in moderation as well.
The third activity one must moderate is that of sleeping. Sleeping is
  an addiction that is often overlooked; most people don’t realize how
  attached they are to sleep as a means of escape from reality. Still
  others become insomniac, obsessed with the thought that they are not
  getting “enough” sleep, leading to increased stress levels and further
  difficulty in falling asleep.
Through the meditation practice, one will find that one needs less
  sleep than before since one’s mind will become calmer. Insomnia is not
  a problem for meditators since they are able to meditate even in the
  lying position and keep their minds free from stress. People who have
  difficulty falling asleep should train themselves to watch the stomach
  rise and fall, noting “rising”, “falling”, all night if necessary.
  Even if they are not able to fall asleep (which is unlikely, given the
  calm state of mind while meditating) they will find themselves as
  rested as if they had slept soundly through the night.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that to truly gain results in the
  meditation practice, a meditator should set aside at least a period of
  time to remain entirely celibate, not just avoiding immoral sexual
  activity, since all sexual activity is invariably intoxicating and
  will be a hindrance towards attainment of mental clarity and peace.

I don't watch movies and all. Not consume liquor. Don't have sexual misconducts But sometimes watch Porn & Masturbate and also eat non vegetarian food. Am I breaking the precepts?

Non-vegetarian food is OK in the Theravada school as long as you didn't directly cause an animal to have its life deprived. If you bought frozen or cooked meat, that's fine. Porn can be considered an addiction. Masturbation doesn't break the precept on sexual misconduct to my understanding.

You would not call a two-year-old child a failure because the child throws tantrums.  You would say the child is being true to its nature.  The mind lives up to its nature always, and never misses a chance to try to make you (soul) then feel guilty about it.  Contemplation can be an approach more suited to the active mind.

I also went on a Vipassana 10 day retreat. The first was wonderful. On the second, though, I had so much trouble (physical and family) at the time, in my life, that I just couldn't quiet inside, the whole 10 days.
At the end, the person leading the retreat - who had obviously seen this - asked me how I was and what I thought.
I told him (as near as I can remember), that these were body sensations and mental sensations going on. I noticed them, and let them happen, and kept gently pulling my mind back to quiet, whether or not I was successful, and without anger or upset, just gently repeating as long as it took.. which was in the event longer than the 10 days I was there, it would seem.
Sometimes it's easy to perceive it in a mistaken way. The inner still and quietness of meditation flows from not being attached. It isn't a cause of not being attached, or even really a requirement to achieve it. It may not help to seek a kind of "proof" of some kind that you are "correct" or that you should be attached to "good" and "bad" marks from some teacher-figure or inner critic in your mind.
You don't actually need stillness to be meditating (although certainly it's hard to realise this without experience!). You are what you are, you cannot not be that, much like there cannot not be weather in the atmosphere or sensation in a living mind.  "This too is just a thought... this too is just a sensation... this is a breath happening..."
Pause. Know these things, and understand these are also truths. If your body fidgets, your mind scurries, your anxieties trigger and your stress happens, thoughts pass, you can say "aha", and focus on the real truths that they show (as all things show) - that these things are sensations... these things are not "you"... these things arise... and - if you watch them, they also fall away. This is what sitting teaches - but you can see it without sitting, as well.
When you see that this is the nature of sensation, and the nature of mind, and you watch without attachment, it is the difference between anger and upset, and equanimity and acceptance. Perhaps you have a mind that is hard to rein in, a mind that circles around to judgments of inferiority and incapability, a mind that finds stillness hard. Then - let it! Do not become trapped in the trick that, in trying to reach detachment, your first action is to get attached to that which is in your way! Notice your mind is doing these things.. as it has before.... as it surely will again... and see it gently as it is. Your mind is in circles, but - you are not. You can pause, and rest outside that mind.. outside that circle of frenzy suffering and attachment.. outside attachment... and watch that this is what your mind does. How curious! I wonder what it will do next? Oh look, it's trying to rope me in! Remind yourself, 'This is watching of a mind at play', and bring yourself back to equanimity, not belief..... focus on what mental sensations are happening down there and not on going there or believing in them,. See how soon one unpleasant sensation follows and leads to another, like a reel unwinding.
When you feel drawn in, remember about watching, and settle yourself, and watch with equanimity, that this is what your mind seems to be doing. But you need not follow it or succumb to its temptations to indulge and go there yourself. Watch, be still, notice, and see mental and physical sensations of your mind, like so much cotton candy/candy floss, pass you by......
If you succumb, one time, a dozen times, a thousand times, that's also just a sensation. When you notice you did so, don't attach, just resume watching how sensations play out - inferiority, thoughts about what you "must do" or "should have done", anger, distress.... notice how they flicker across. Meditate on their passing, their rising, and their vanishing, rather than engaging with it. In this way, you take what you heard in Vipassana, and you bring it into your own life.

Answers

I've tried hard

That's a heavy part of your problem. Don't try hard.
To quote Yoda: "Do or do not, there is no try."

I just can't concentrate on my breath

You are not supposed to "concentrate", but to "note" your breath. This is different. You are just noting that you are breathing.

Sit down, relax, notice your breath.
Sit for 5 seconds.
Now, your mind starts racing. It starts to think about StackExchange. It starts to think about whatever you hear outside, etc.
Now, you notice that you do not "concentrate" on the breathing anymore.
Now, you get angry, etc., and force yourself to concentrate on your breath for a few seconds.

And so on and so on.
All of this is completely normal. This is what is supposed to happen. The point is not that you control yourself - you are supposed to let go of the control. Noticing that you are slipping is good. It means you are able to note things about your own mind! This is great.
What you are supposed to do now is this:

Look at what your mind is doing. Look, and enjoy, how your thoughts are racing, how your blood pressure starts to rise, how ... you get what I mean.
Just look at it. What you are seeing is real, it is happening, and the point of your meditation is to train yourself to see what is.
Enjoy, and take good note of how crazy your mind is. Google "shimpanzes" or "apes" in regard to Buddhism, there are some nice stories about how the thoughts flitter around like a crazy bunch of animals.

When you get bored, just look at your breath occasionally, and be happy.
The actual problem is when you are not noting anything anymore. That is, when your mind is racing, and you are fully involved in the racing. When you note that you are not "noting" anymore, then you take the breath as a hook and consciously, but gently, move your attention to the breath.

get rid of my inner problems/ sufferings

You never want to get rid of anything during meditation.

I feel as if peace or enlightenment or eradication of suffering is not for me.

Meditation does not necessarily need to be peaceful. I mean this literally; even if you feel absolutely awful afterwards, it is still good.
Don't look for enlightenment or eradiation of suffering. You won't find it. It may or may not happen at some point, but looking for it is a sure-fire way to make 100% sure that you never find it.

What are necessary & sufficient condition to get enlightened?

Patience, young padawan.

If I don't have those qualities how can I develop those qualities? What I would have to do?

Sit down for 15-30 minutes every day, shut your eyes and mouth, and watch what happens.

How to concentrate provided I have tried my best to concentrate

Stop trying to concentrate. Stop trying to control anything.

but mind wanders away in no time

This is good. Let it wander, it's what minds do. A major part of the exercise is to learn this.

It is making me sick thinking I don't posses qualities to eradicate my own sufferings.

Who or what gave you the thought that you will eradicate your sufferings? You will never do that. The point is to accept them.

Anyone help me.

There's an australian western buddhist called Ajahn Brahm who does great Youtube videos. Google and watch them (you know that you found him when he doesn't talk like some weird mysterious guy, but like a really enjoyable, normal fellow with a lot of laughing).
Addendum
Two minor points might crop up, which in fact you need to do something about:

Being able to physically sit for 15-30 minutes. This is very hard for some people, because muscles are shortened and/or weakened. You can do whatever you need to do to be able to sit comfortably (cussions, sitting on a chair instead of on the floor, moving around if something really hurts, etc.). Take special care of your knees, you do not want to damage them out of stubborness.
Avoiding to falling asleep. If your mind stops racing, you still need to stay alert. That is one reason why most people sit, and do not lie down, to meditate.

But you see, those are rather mundane issues, you surely can tackle them if and when they occur.

Thanks for the reply, I've added an Addendum, @user12919.

Many Westerners market meditation as a cure-all & easy path so they can make money. In Asia, meditation is generally not taught to lay people. Meditation is not an easy path; relatively few Buddhists attain profound results; therefore, you should not judge yourself against meditation results. For example, according to the monks Vinaya, jhana concentration is a "supernormal" state of mind. Therefore, comparing yourself to 'jhana' is like comparing yourself to Michael Jordan. It will only lead to suffering over what is rare; like girls who have psychological disorders because they believe they should look like a certain movie star or supermodel.
As for hindrances to concentration, there are five, namely: (i) sensual desire; (ii) ill-will; (iii) restlessness & remorse; (iv) sloth & torpor; and (v) doubt/fear.
The two major obstacles to concentration are sensual desire & fear. For example, many men become monks but cannot develop samadhi or abide in emptiness because fear arises in the mind if ego or self is abandoned. Such monks spend their life scolding & bullying laypeople & praying for a better reincarnation (they believe will exist).
As for sensual desire, to dissolve this requires wisdom about sex. If a person cannot discern the incredible harm that is caused by heedless & uncommitted sex, including what occurs in the 'entertainment industry', it is unlikely they can develop samadhi.
As for ill-will, remorse, etc, such hindrances generally require spiritual friendship & discussion about past issues, so some genuine understanding can arise about past relationship issues.

Then what should I do?

Hi. As I posted, you can ask questions here about your specific problem or problems. Its an anonymous site. Nobody knows you. Kind regards.

So you mean I can't expect any progress from myself?

Why do your answers, most of the time, seem to discourage people?

The questioner wrote in a comment they watch pornography. The law of kamma & Dhamma does not reward people who watch pornography. It is not possible that any person who watches porn can attain jhana (non-sensual happiness). Please refer to MN 115, which explains what is possible & what is impossible.


text:
Third precept and parents approval
If one is having sexual relationship with minor (protected by parents) and parents disapprove the relationship, that is breaching of the third precept. What if an adult child having a (sexual) relationship with someone without the consent of their parents, of course everyone has their rights, but the question is is this breaking the third precept?

It depends on what the society consider as an adult. Back then in India, women always had a guardian regardless of their age.  But things are quite different nowadays. In most countries when one reaches 18+ the society consider that person as an adult that no longer requires guardianship. Any care given after that is optional and any care accepted after that does not make one a minor, unless there is such an understanding between the 2 parties.  In other words, when you become an adult by law, if your parents continue to give you food and lodging with the mutual understanding that you will not be sexually active with someone without their permission, it breaks the 3rd precept.

But consensual sex between two adults who are no longer receiving support from parents as mentioned above and not in the list of the "prohibited person" does not break the 3rd precept, right?

That's correct.

"... if your parents continue to give you food and lodging with the mutual understanding that you will not be sexually active with someone without their permission..." So permission does not necessarily have to be marriage, can you please confirm this?

Yes, it doesn't have to be marriage

Do you think the parents will give permission to their independent children to have intercourse with prostitute, for example? Both independent and dependent children may not let the parents know, though, but that doesn't mean the parents give their permission. So what is the difference whether the children already independent or not?

I think we are going around in circles. Once you are independant it does not matter whether someone gives permission or not. Prostitution is wrong for many other reasons. Not the 3rd precept.

I think the question is invalid and the precept is redundant/obsolete.
The precept was spoken in the context of the other moral directives, such as parents arranging the marriage of their children (DN 31).
In current contemporary Western or Cultural Marxist societies, the precept is redundant and, if possible, would best be redefined.
For example, Thich Nhat Hanh has redefined the The Third Precept as follows:

Sexual expression should not take place without love and commitment.
Be fully aware of the sufferings you may cause others as a result of
your misconduct. To preserve the happiness of yourself and others,
respect the rights and commitments of others.
Five Wonderful Precepts by Thich Nhat Hanh

Does the child still use the parent's house/money?
If the answer is "yes", the sexual relationship breaking the third precept.
Another, does the child still being the child in law?
The child protected by law also breaking the third precept.

a man and woman each have a separate child. That man and woman get together and their children who are not blood related get together. Is this allowed by the third precept.
Children of age and no longer in the house of parents

I think the 2nd paragraph is saying that relationships between people "of age" and not in their parents' house is not against the precept -- but I don't understand the first paragraph. If "user17373" wants to comment or edit then you may have to create and "register" a user account on this site, login.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
How to develop patience?
I want to know how can I develop patience?
What Buddha said on this?
And also what is the reason of being impatient?

You can develop patience by putting your whole attention on impatience(sensations in body, restlesness in mind) and choosing not to act on it.

In my understanding, it comes back to a central Buddhist concept of "attachment".
We feel frustrated or angry, we get emotional about things, when we have a strong attachment or prejudice about how things are supposed to be.
These prejudices or preconceptions come from some strong experiences we have in childhood, or from some books we trust, people we highly respect etc. They also come from pain, when we did something and got in trouble. In most of these cases we have some basic formula in our head "this is bad" or "this is good" (why - because blah blah blah). And we are so convinced that this is correct, that we feel like we will never change our opinion in the entire life.
So when we see something or someone doing something that goes against this preconception or attachment, then we feel like they go against Truth (or the way we see it anyway). This makes us frustrated or angry or upset etc.
There are multiple ways to develop patience in Buddhism. On the basic level, we just try to calm down. We tell ourselves how bad it would be if we lose control and start yelling etc. But in my experience this does not work as soon as situation gets serious. We just forget everything and jump right back into emotion.
The next method is to be mindful of one's emotions on the body level. This way we can notice ourselves getting nervous far before it gets out of control. So if we develop feeling of presence of body, and always feel all tensions etc., we get this convenient weather indicator that can show a storm coming 5 days in advance (really maybe 5 minutes, but still good). It is much easier to fix e.g. a conversation that goes towards a scandal 5 minutes before it gets out of control, when things are still calm, but you feel it coming.
And then the most powerful method is to see the attachments or preconceptions that give rise to emotion - and learn to let them go. This is the most difficult, because it means you have to learn to see situation from another perspective, and to not assume that you are 100% right. This can be very difficult in the beginning. But at the end this ability makes you practically immune to all disturbances, 100% patient at all times. It is a very helpful feature to have in life.
My teacher said, enlightened person is like a lawyer. He or she sees every situation from all sides at the same time. This helps him to never lose patience and to make better decisions than anyone. The point is, Buddhist patience is not self-restraint and self-torture, it is freedom from single point of view, freedom from attachments.
P.S.
Same exact logic applies to impatience towards desirable objects. Attachment, preconception etc. - except in this case it's a preconception that the object is "good", usually based on some overgeneralization or idealisation. So the method Buddha prescribed for that is to analyze the object and see that it has negative sides and not only positive. This helps to let go of attachment and come back to patience and balance. All the same advice about being mindful of your body to sense the attachment getting out of control, applies here as well. In Buddhism desire and aversion are considered things of the same nature, one is positive and the other is negative but the principle is the same.

Patience is a very important character trait that one need to develop if you wish to walk this path. To develop this quality of ‘Kanthi’(Patience), it needs to be developed together with the other qualities of adhittana (unwavering determination), ariya metta (loving kindness to all irrespective of all odds), nekkhamma (renunciation), and upekkha (equanimity).
Our inherent nature as humans is one of haste. Haste is a common characteristic inherent in most people when dealing with day to day affairs. People tend to accomplish most affairs with undue haste whether these particular affairs need or do not need urgent attention for completion.  It is evident most of the time that people are not in a composed, relaxed mental frame to accomplish most of these tasks with patience. Even their day to day physical activities such as talking, eating, walking is also done with undue haste. This undue haste is an inborn characteristic of human beings.
A story from the Buddha’s time on haste would shed light on our present day busy, hectic lifestyles. According to this story, Bikkhuni Uttara, aged 120 years, was on her alms rounds one day when she noticed the Buddha, who was also on the alms rounds with the other monks, coming towards her direction. Bikkhuni Uttara, out of respect for the Buddha, stepped aside hurriedly to make way for the Buddha. While stepping aside hurriedly, she stepped on her robe by accident and fell on the ground. The Buddha who saw this incident came to her and treated her with the assistance of others and expounded a discourse, emphasising the importance of acting without undue haste in life. At the end of this discourse, Bhikkuni Uttara attained the fruit of stream entry (sotapanna).

Good householder, coming after the original questioner (hopefully not inpatient that leaded to abounding account),

Patient endurance:
the foremost austerity.
— Dhp 184

patient (kanti) is sayed to be the sibling of metta. So best treated like metta in action.
Ingratitude and wrong view are the main reasons of inpatient:

"And how is one made impure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is covetous. He covets the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears ill will, corrupt in the resolves of his heart: 'May these beings be killed or cut apart or crushed or destroyed, or may they not exist at all!' He has wrong view, is warped in the way he sees things: 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made impure in three ways by mental action. Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta.

So straighten right view is most importand to overcome signs of aversion and ill-will, and it has to start by oneself, within: with ones reaction, feeling, bad states of mind.
Best way is always to ask oneself on a call by ones thought-committee: "Sure? Let's wait first and see if real and lasting."
An extended collection on training how to overcome ill-will can be found here: 2. Ill-will
And this are the things from outward which should be learned to endure:

"[4] And what are the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, endures. He tolerates cold, heat, hunger, & thirst; the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles; ill-spoken, unwelcome words & bodily feelings that, when they arise, are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, displeasing, & menacing to life. The fermentations, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were not to tolerate these things do not arise for him when he tolerates them. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by tolerating. MN 2

Since patient is also a importand criteria for being prepared to receive teaching right, my person will end here for now.
A collection of Suttas on the parami (perfection) of Kanti here: Endurance, in the study guide on the Ten Perfections.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for escape from this round bound]

Since you are not a monk, I am giving you a solution from householders point of view.Commit to yourself that whatever you will do you will do it slowly. You will not rush to be successful. You will not rush to eat. You will not rush to prove your point.
That is one way..
Another way is to sit and meditate. Meditate as long as possible. Meditate on short breath.Meditate on long breath. Just sit and do nothing. Patience automatically develops when you realize there is nothing worth being impatient for...
Buddha says this is suffering. Whatever you crave for is the origin of suffering. If you are serious follow the 8 fold path for the cessation of suffering. 8 fold path will automatically develop patience in you.
Finally , why does impatience arise ? The answer is simple. It is due to greed or aversion to something. Get rid of greed and aversion ... impatience will fade away.

What Buddha said on this?
From the Diamond Sutra:

I also remember Subhuti that during my five hundred previous lives I
had used life after life to practice patience and to look upon my life
humbly, as though I were a saint called upon to suffer humility.

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

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


text:
What is the reason why Buddhist monks don't work to support themselves? Do the monastic rules prohibit them from working?
It may be hard to find a comparative monastic tradition in the west although there are some monastic in Christianity currently most are really assimilated and intertwine with the Church which bears its existence in charity; so it's not practical to compare these with Buddhist monastic tradition. However, if we go back in history there were monastics in Christianity completely detached from the church, for example, the desert fathers ( Christian ascetics in Egypt and Syria ) were completely detached from the church, but  following the Apostel's command that 'a person unwilling to work should not eat' they lived by the labour of their hand.
So, the question, in short, is why do Buddhist monks rely on alms for sustenance?
I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but for many observers, it's perplexing to see a young and strong monk asking for sustenance from old and ragged and gray women.

At least some of them do. For example in China, Tibet, and Japan, Mahayana monasteries often work as farming communities, with crops and/or animals. But they may still accept and rely on donations for part of their needs.

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks @Andrei

It may stretch your intended definition of work, but some renunciates do engage in hard physical labor as part of their practice. I remember listening to a lecture by Ajahn Jayasaro in which he reminisced about being sent to help build a wall. Though I can't remember if he was already an ordained monk at that point, or only a visiting student.

There are different questions buried in the "why?": why does the vinaya (the rules for monks) say that? why hasn't the vinaya been changed since it was written? why do young men choose to become monks? why does the laity support them?

The single most important reason why Buddhist monks do not traditionally support themselves is to put them forever dependent on the laity.  The Buddha did not want monks isolated from householders.  By requiring them to make daily alms rounds, it put them in constant contact allowing them to preach and be exemplary models of the holy life.  If monks were to live in isolation and make their living as farmers, it would be all too easy for there to be an unbridgeable schism between monastic and lay practitioners.

There may be something profoundly deep meaning about alms rounds. I say this because in the Sutta @Sankha below recommend me to read the Buddha clearly say that it is not a good conduct to receive alms by reciting verses...that I take it will include preaching. So, their dependence is not to preach...  Could it be just for the merit-seeking man, as the sutta states?

If they didn't preach, how would the laity ever hear the dharma?  I think it best to read that alms food shouldn't be "exchanged" for recitation.  That connotes that the teaching is something that can be bought and sold e.g. a livelihood.  Both are offerings.  A mutual dana of alms and the dharma.

I recommend you to read the Kasi Bharadvaja Sutta. Kasi Bharadvaja was a farmer who asked this exact question from the Buddha. Monks dedicate their lives to spiritual development. They do not have time to make money or do agriculture. They do not eat for sport or beautification. They only eat enough to maintain life so that they can work towards Nibbana. Yes, farming does break a precept.
"Should any bhikkhu dig soil or have it dug, it is [an offence of Confession.]"

@Sankha...Thanks for taking time to answer and for the link.  I just read the Sutta and your response, but I'm not sure why their cultivation towards enlightenment should free them from supporting themselves; every being work to live in this realm... those of little desire work little.

Working requires handling money or owning farm land and it takes considerable amount of time of the day. This is not ideal for a spiritual life. Besides, if the monks are not dependant on the lay people, it creates a disconnect between the 2 communities. By going on alms round lay people get a chance to offer food and do a lot of good Karma on a daily basis. It is very conducive to their spiritual development as well.  And the monks get more free time to meditate. It's an ideal system.

Besides, If the monks start farming or using money, they can buy/eat what they like. This is a comfort of the lay life that they have given up. By going on alms round, they have to be satisfied with whatever they get. If they don't get any food before noon, they will be contented with just water for the day. This helps them become less attached to food and life.

one thing is that when the old woman who has little, feeds that young and strong recluse is i will say it is of a great benefit for the woman, much more so than him working for her. She is very lucky to have that opportunity. As she does not live a chased life herself, she does support those who do and it will support her.

it is very difficult to live the holy life, for a monk in the Buddha s dispensation it is considered impurity for them to see any female, because on seeing forms with eye unwholesome thoughts can arise in a monk.

this will be counter productive to the theme of mind in which the monk is attempting to dwell to straighten his mind.

how much more so is working, farming, having worries about the equipment, weather etc

ideally they should abide in very controlled enviroment which restrains, supports, councils and encourages them every step of the way

so they ideally go for alms whilst guarding the senses big time for this is their exposure to danger.

and they go because they have decided that they need to sustain their practice or they are already finished the training and are just completely cool and balanced beings who are superhumans in terms of knowledge, wisdom and conduct, going on about their day.

this how i think it was supposed to be intended

Interesting thoughts

just my own thoughts of course i dont mean to say what the Buddha was thinking, i would not know of course and i left answers here because it very good sutta.

From this guide for laypersons interacting with monks:

The Buddha suggested that the basic source of food for bhikkhus
  was that received on the morning alms round (pi.n.dapaata). This daily
  dependence on alms food reminds both the bhikkhus and the lay devotees
  of their interdependence and prevents the bhikkhu from becoming too
  isolated from the lay community. He 'meets' them every day and eats
  the food that they share with him. Several important rules are
  concerned with this as well as a major section of the Sekhiya Training
  rules.
An alms round is not considered begging, for the bhikkhu does not
  solicit anything but is ready mindfully to receive any alms that lay
  people may wish to give. Although alms food may sometimes be meager,
  the bhikkhu is always expected to be grateful for whatever he is
  given. It is surprising how particular we can be about what food
  we like to eat; and what complications that can cause. This is
  reflected in the way rules concerning 'edibles' are arranged, which
  may seem very complex especially when the bhikkhu's life is supposed
  to be so simple. It should be borne in mind that the rules often deal
  with extraordinary circumstances and try to prevent them from becoming
  the norm.

However, there are the exceptions called the Great Standards which may allow monks in non-Buddhist countries to bend the minor rules by cooking or farming:

Already during His lifetime, the Buddha made special allowances for
  different regions (or desa) outside the 'Middle Country' of North
  India — where He lived and taught. These dealt with both the workings
  of the Community — for example, a smaller quorum for ordination is
  allowed in distant parts where there are fewer monks — and practical
  measures, such as special dispensation for footwear and bathing. (See
  EV,II,p.173) So there is a precedent for adapting to conditions, but
  this does not mean the abolishing of any rules [see End Note 6].
The Lord Buddha also left us a set of principles that can still be
  used as a standard to judge new circumstances. These are known as
  'The Great Standards.' Properly used they should protect against a
  wholesale dilution of the Rule.
This is how the Great Standards are formulated:
"Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not
  allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes
  against what is allowable, that is not allowable for you.
"Whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if
  it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not
  allowable, that is allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it
  fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is
  allowable, that is not allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it
  fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not
  allowable, that is allowable for you." (BMC p.27; see also EV, II,
  p170)
Treated with care, these Great Standards should enable bhikkhus to
  live according to the Vinaya Rule in, for example, isolated
  communities in non-Buddhist countries with non-tropical climates. They
  form a touchstone for modern conditions and substances.

The Accayika Sutta talks about the most urgent duties of a monk:

"There are these three urgent duties of a farming householder. Which
  three?
"There is the case where a farming householder quickly gets his field
  well-plowed & well-harrowed. Having quickly gotten his field
  well-plowed & well-harrowed, he quickly plants the seed. Having
  quickly planted the seed, he quickly lets in the water & then lets it
  out.
"These are the three urgent duties of a farming householder. Now, that
  farming householder does not have the power or might [to say:] 'May my
  crops spring up today, may the grains appear tomorrow, and may they
  ripen the next day.' But when the time has come, the farming
  householder's crops spring up, the grains appear, and they ripen.
"In the same way, there are these three urgent duties of a monk. Which
  three? The undertaking of heightened virtue, the undertaking of
  heightened mind, the undertaking of heightened discernment. These are
  the three urgent duties of a monk. Now, that monk does not have the
  power or might [to say:] 'May my mind be released from fermentations
  through lack of clinging/sustenance today or tomorrow or the next
  day.' But when the time has come, his mind is released from
  fermentations through lack of clinging/sustenance.
"Thus, monks, you should train yourselves: 'Strong will be our desire
  for the undertaking of heightened virtue. Strong will be our desire
  for the undertaking of heightened mind. Strong will be our desire for
  the undertaking of heightened discernment.' That's how you should
  train yourselves."

Gharāvāsa (layman) = ghara (house) + vasa (living) = the person who live in the house with 5 kāmaguṇa, the cause of disturbance, such as color, sound, smell, taste, and touch. And if you even read M.N. Mūlapaṇṇāsaka mahādukkhakkhandhasutta, 5 kāmaguṇa also included the lay-style-job  for sustenance, too.
Samaṇa (monk) = sama (peace) + ṇa (person) = the person who live in peace, freedom from 5 kāmaguṇa.

Reasons for laying down the course of training for monks; Purposes of monastic legislation (every vinaya rules included these 10 purposes):
“Because of this, monks, I will lay down a training rule for the monks
  for the following ten reasons:
A. For the advantage of saṅgha:

for the comfort of the excellence of the unanimous Order.
for the comfort of the Order.

B. For each monk's personal advantage:

for the control of shameless persons.
for the living in comfort of well-behaved monks.

C. To be the protector:

for the restraint of the cankers in the present; for the prevention of temporal decay and troubles.
for warding off the cankers in the hereafter; for protection against spiritual decay and troubles.

D. For the faith of the community:

for the confidence of those who have not yet gained confidence.
for the increase of the confidence of the confident.

E. For the advantage of buddha's teaching:

for the lastingness of the true doctrine.
for the support of the discipline.

So, buddha made the rule such as money-getting-disallowing rule for the monks.

As i see it,
as an ascetic one has no interest in anything else than realizing the Dhamma. If say one in training decides to practice extreme asceticism to starvation for reasons other than thinking that it is great thing to do but maybe circumstances make one choose between a livelihood that severely impairs the practice or starvation one could make a case for it being at least seemingly a better option relatively speaking, i dont think it is optimal but it is always an alternative. One has some 1-2 months or even more if one brings stored food to get as much work done as possible.
I mean that it is in a way a burden to not sever the connection to laylife completely. More to illustrate if say one person became got some attainments in time when and where it is prosecuted and given the option to go his own way or to be hindered by circumstances. He might choose to just go do his thing and not teach anybody anything.

it is symbiotic relationship and function of the monkhood is what i mean, it is a convention and it is not appropriate to expect people to work, some have way other interests.

these may sometimes be arguably the smartest among humans, so should not assume that people should work.

I have read your response ten times, but 'm struggling to understand what you mean...I think it's too cryptic for my dull mind.

for example in movie matrix there is like fake world, if person learns that it is fake and real world is much better, he would not want to stay in the fake reality, so people who wanted to leave the simulation world would just go do the thing, it would not make sense to expect them to work if to them it is not ultimately real and such existence is perceived as suffering, unacceptable, they can just go do the leaving or die trying.

Thanks for the simile, I think, I know what you mean, but I'm not sure how it can be an answer to my question. You are effectively saying the monks who realize the fake world would rather die than work for their sustenance. Of course, I have to be stated that both death and eating to live are happening in a fake world. Is n't life in the fake world a requirement to practice the noble eightfold?

question is how much life is required ie:
O monks, let alone half a month. Should any person practice these four foundations of mindfulness in this manner for a week, then one of these two fruits may be expected by him: highest knowledge here and now, or if some remainder of clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning.

afaik the Tathagata himself was inclined to going without food and not teaching after his attainment.

i think my answer would be that some monks need support and some want to give back in forms of teaching, alms is a good compromise. other expected things are inappropriate to ask of one who has made such resolves. it is also good that monks live long lives and pass on for that is for benefit of many not only the monk.

think about it if a dictator king had practically unlimited resources and sending someone to fully test out meditation, he could be strict and tell them to do it 24/7 and only allow breaks for food. which would be full time dedication to something, seems better than having them plow fields half the time.

The monks are suppose to develop concentration as much as possible and concentration demands a life with no preoccupations, if they had to work, it could undermine their proficiency in concentration. Also, they have to keep practicing satipatthana uninterrupted, if they had to work, it could provoke lapses of mindfulness, which would undermine their gain of insight. Not to mention, lay people supporting the sangha is a opportunity to practice generosity and make merit.

Have heard before that a moment not spent in meditation is a moment wasted. This came from a Venerable. Is this close to what you mean by "satipatthana uninterrupted?" This does explain why a Bhikkhu (monk) would find it necessary to live a life of contemplation without outside distraction such as work.

@CSmith, yes, it is :-)

Is it not possible to meditate while working?...There is a story from the desert fathers which relates to your response... When two young monks said to Abba Lucius that ‘they do not touch manual work but as the Apostle says, they pray without ceasing.’ which is somewhat similar to what you saying ...  The old man asked them if they did not eat and they replied they did. So he said to them, ‘When you are eating, who prays for you then? So, in the same tone, one can ask who meditate for the monk when he eats?

@user12931, For insight, maybe is possible if it is a manual labor (intellectual labor, no way!), but still is a prejudice for concentrantion (and consequently to insight as well) since they would have to worry about something besides their practice of meditation. Besides, manual labor is likely to tire the body (another hindrance for concentration). So, they would have to worry about work enough to sustain themselves and at same time be careful to not tire the body (quite similar to a life as a householder), This would surely prejudice the the practice.

A person can choose between being a layman or a monk, but not both. Layman has to work to earn a living. Monks have to focus on the practice and uphold Buddhism. Both have complementary roles to play. Layman work to support the monks community. Monks pray for peace, harmony and success of the working community.


text:
Should I address myself as I/my or you/your to remind myself of non-self?
A friend asked this mind-bending question on social media:

when you’re talking to yourself in your head (or out loud) do you refer to yourself as we, I, you, or they/she/he/other pronoun?

This got me thinking that the difference between addressing myself as "I" and "you" seems trivial but really has some implications when it comes to ego, self, non-self and letting go.
So I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on whether the Dhamma implies we should "talk to ourselves" in certain ways?
E.g. Should I tell myself

I forgive that person, I will follow the eight-fold path, I will meditate for 20 minutes

or

You forgive that person, you will follow the eight-fold path, you will meditate for 20 minutes

Alternately, do you think we should really try to use the third-person for addressing ourselves? I know that some Buddhists like to say things like "the body" rather than "your body" or "my body", but it seems like saying "Jer will meditate for 20 minutes" is too weird, but if that's the answer you think is right I'm interested in your thinking too :)

Here's an example answer that shows what I am asking with this question, but I don't know if it's very wise or not, so obviously still looking for perspectives of others.
When I address myself in the first person, I implicitly emphasize my identity, and stay wrapped up in subjectivity.
When I address myself in the second person, I confess that my consciousness is separate from my identity, I gain a more objective position in relation to my thoughts, feelings and experiences.

Isn't this an English language question?

My question is about whether this distinction in English has meaning in the context of Buddhism. In English both versions are gramatically correct, so it's only relevant from a psychology/spirituality perspective. I'm asking: Should I say you/I more often to better emphasize anatta in my life.

Try rather to catch urself in the process of thinking about yourself, that is thinking.
If one grouped all thoughts and ideas into one cathegory and called it all "thinking" one could see that the idea of self etc it is merely an idea, a concept that exists in the thinking faculty, just like forms and colors exist when there is seeing, so does ideas of self when there is thinking.
The Buddha was perfect in conduct, that implies verbal conduct too. He talk very well and used personal pronounce perfectly too, he would not have talked in english but for translations they put enlighs I, Me and etc. So avoiding words is probably not something useful to adapt and was never recommended by the Buddha afaik. if anything i heard a good disciple is skilled in words and their use, so probably studying linguistics and general semantics is a better practice.

Agreed.  I think the only value in doing switching words like that would be the awareness required to catch yourself doing it.  If it became habitual, it would lose all value.  Other ways of being aware are more useful, and less likely to increase neurosis.  I play a game where if I notice myself thinking, “I don’t like that” or “I like this”, I will then say, “Oh you do, do you?”

I don't know about "they".  How can you get a plurality when one of the parties is completely empty?  ;-)  But yes, after a certain point the small you does start to seem like another person...almost like a pet you are caring for whose master is the bigger mind.

Case 45 Hõen's "Who Is He?"                  四十五　他是阿誰
東山演師祖曰、釋迦彌勒猶是他奴。
Hõen of Tõzan said, "Even Shakya and Maitreya are servants of another.
且道、他是阿誰。
I want to ask you, who is he?"
Mumon's Comment
無門曰、若也見得他分曉、譬如十字街頭撞見親爺相似、更不須問別人道是與不是。
If you can really see this "another" with perfect clarity, it is like
  encountering your own father at a crossroads. Why should you ask
  whether you recognize him or not?
Mumon's Verse 頌曰
他弓莫挽      Don't draw another's bow,
他馬莫騎      Don't ride another's horse,
他非莫辨      Don't discuss another's faults,
他事莫知      Don't explore another's affairs.

But don't use plural or third person pronouns.  It'll make people want to smack you!

Well I do ask people to use gender neutral third-person pronouns for me, because I am non-binary, and in English the third-person neutral singular and plurals are the same: they. So maybe you want to smack me ♀ Anyway luckily that wasn't part of the question.
I'm not clear on what your actual answer is. That "I" is just as honoring of non-self as "you"?

LMAO! I was more referring to those who talk like Bo Jackson or, worse yet, Elmo! ;-) One of the things the koan is getting at is that the small self - the heap of impermanent aggregates who we conventionally call I - is subsidiary to something greater. When you discover who this is, then your experience of that conventional "I" changes and overtly takes on a character more akin to what you're describing. Barring anything short of realizing that in your very bones, referring to that "I" as "you", is just dabbling in semantics and giving people an excellent reason roll their  eyes.

Of course, it's not a terrible idea to keep in the back of your mind.  Also, please do not take that "who" to be a personality.  "Who" is just a word of convenience.

I don't think I'm so verbal/grammatical/linguistic when I talk to myself -- sentences (with a subject and a verb, e.g. a pronoun) are I think only when I'm talking or writing, or reading and reciting -- i.e. producing language for inter-personal communication, or replaying language.
For example:

"I forgive that person"
I imagine that would be a non-verbal series of feelings etc. -- a feeling of anger, recognising the unpleasantness of the feeling, remembering the possibility of letting go of the feeling, considering that the cause of the feeling was some unskillful attachment in me.

"I will follow the eight-fold path"
Perhaps that doesn't seem to me like a likely thing to try to say at all, hard to imagine saying it: because I try to avoid making promises about the future ... in order to try to avoid telling lies.

"I will meditate for 20 minutes"
If I did express that verbally it might be as -- "It is time (or 'There is time') to practice now."

IOW I wouldn't usually say something like #2 at all; perhaps if I did I'd talk about the path (e.g. "The path sounds good...").
And #1 is more about feelings than words; and #3 is about "it is time", i.e. it's talking about the world not the self; and maybe picturing/anticipating (but not referring to verbally) the body/person/object moving into place (as you anticipate where the car will go when you're driving).
I agree that "I" and "you" might be bizarre when talking to yourself (perhaps I tend to think of it as "it" i.e. the world). Conversely talking in the 3rd person is unusual (in the anglosphere anyway) and eccentric, strikingly so, perhaps depending on the person or the culture (e.g. if I said to you, "Chris wants" or "He wants" or "This person wants"). Maybe if I talked more French I could say "Il faut" oslt; or talk to myself using verbs with an imperative mood and no pronoun, or who knows what.
As hinted at in Inb4dead's answer I think that some people are taught to consciously verbalise, using just the present participle: so instead of "I am sitting" or "you are sitting", just "sitting, sitting".
I read btw that some people are primarily visual (imagine things), some are more verbal (describe things), and some are more feeling. So it may be just normal if we're a bit different in how much we verbalise.

'Self' or 'identity' is not anything real in Buddhism. For an enlightened mind, words such as "I" or "mine" are merely "conventions" thus they can be used because the enlightened mind does not regard those words as real, as follows:

[Deva:]
He who's an Arahant, his work achieved, Free from taints, in final body clad, That monk still might use such words as "I." Still
  perchance might say: "They call this mine." ... Would such a monk be
  prone to vain conceits?
[The Blessed One:]
Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such
  thoughts.  That monk still might use such words as "I," Still
  perchance might say: "They call this mine." Well aware of common
  worldly speech (conventions), He would speak conforming to such use
SN 1.25

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a
  being.'
SN 5.10

In the Mahayana perspective, such terms are indeed conventions. But the pronoun itself is not the culprit, the meaning and implications of it is.
Try a simple experience: repeat 'I' multiple times in your mind. Eventually, the word seems to have lost meaning, or seems strange. This suggests the word, 'I', and its meaning are separate.
I recall the Dalai Lama stating in one of his books how madhyamikas, adherents to the Middle Way School of emptiness, think with an 'I', but have self-awareness of its empty nature. Thus, the conventional aspect -- the term -- matters little. Whether I think using 'I' or my own name, it's the same despite different terms.
What one does in terms of understanding emptiness and no-self is more linked to the object. Nagarjuna selects objects, and understands how they are empty, not intrinsically real.
For example, you see an apple. You may think in this way: "The apple is made of atoms, the apple I am seeing doesn't exist aside from these atoms. More so, it exists only as a perception, its redness changes according to light and how I see it. One day, this apple will have degraded fully, it's current form is just a mere moment. Thus, considering this, how does the entity I consider 'Apple' actually exist? It has no intrinsic essence, aside from its diverse parts."
One may use analytical contemplation to arrive at a feeling or sense of a phenomenon's nonexistence, and then one might attempt to single-pointedly meditate on it.
However, I must also say that this is only one facet of Nagarjuna's approach, as truly the apple mentioned both doesn't exist and exists.


text:
A path without long meditations?
I meditate for the purpose described by the Dalai Lama (in his book The Heart of Meditation: Discovering Innermost Awareness):

To achieve a friendly attitude, a warm heart, respect for the rights
  of others, and concern for their welfare, we must train the mind. The
  essential objective of mental training is to cultivate an attitude of
  compassion and calm

After 30-60 minutes I am calm and aware, but seeing no further benefit in sitting longer. I don't buy the idea that the Buddha's teachings were only available to the select few who can achieve special meditative states.
Are there any teachers or traditions that teach a path that does not rely on long meditations that last for hours?
(The closest I know of is the Insight Meditation Society, and while they don't appear to emphasize jhanas, they do hold meditation retreats.)

If you consider the wisdom of teachers outside of Buddhism, I have a teacher who suggests a path where one is constantly meditating through the day, even while doing things.  I find it to be a useful direction to search because it challenges me to explore what it means to meditate in situations outside of the trivial cases.

Yes I read something about this in What the Buddha Taught following a discussion on meditation: "You haven’t got to spend one second of your precious time on this particular ‘ meditation ’ : you have only to cultivate mindfulness and awareness always , day and night , with regard to all activities in your usual daily life ."

Also from the book, "However [samadhi] is not essential for the realization of Nirvāṇa. The Buddha himself, before his Enlightenment, studied these yogic practices under different teachers and attained to the highest mystic states; but he was not satisfied with them, because they did not give complete liberation, they did not give insight into the Ultimate Reality. He considered these mystic states only as ‘happy living in this existence’ (diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra), or ‘peaceful living’ (santavihāra), and nothing more."

In addition to above. If one does not spend much time doing the meditation it is considered a painful path because one neglects Jhana. It will also go slower probably because to keep the theme of mindfulness of the body constantly it helps a lot to do formal Satipatthana walking and sittings, as that is when one gets focused most then it is about maintaining focus, adapting, not losing the concentration and keep developing enlightenment factors in other postures, being aware of what is going on.

i dont think it is fair to say that this path is without long meditations, i think it is a path with a less or a lot less. There is a Sutta called Asubha, talks about four modes of practice.

@CortAmmon In A Fearless Heart, Thupten Jinpa says that meditation you described is known as "post sitting practice", and so is walking meditation.

@Inb4dead upon what do you base your comment that " it is considered a painful path because one neglects Jhana"?

Sutta Called Asubha describing the painful mode of practice, also there are Sutta like Akankha Sutta that encourage one not to neglect Jhana.

If one looks thru the Suttas dwelling in pain is referred to and explained in several instances, ie Nandiya Sutta.

I'll go with what the answer says, and from What the Buddha Taught "The Buddha adapted his teachings according to his audience. One can dispense with the conflicting interpretations from different schools of Buddhist thought, if they are not productive towards progress on the Path." To me what is painful would be to spend hours meditating with expectations like jhana and, as the answer put it, "Others can sit wholeheartedly for decades without experiencing daikensho".

The Buddha's teachings were often tailored to the audience he was addressing.  Teachings like karma, merit making, and securing a good rebirth are available to anyone regardless of how much time they wish to dedicate to meditation.  If you are after true liberation, however, there are no shortcuts.
There is a koan that goes something like this:

Nangaku (Ch. Nanyue) asks, “What are you doing these days?”
  Baso (Ch. Mazu) says, “These days Dōitsu just sits.”
  Nangaku says, “What is the aim of sitting in zazen?”
  Baso says, “The aim of sitting in zazen is to become buddha.”
  Nangaku promptly fetches a tile and polishes it on a rock near Baso’s hut.
  Baso, on seeing this, asks, “What is the master doing?”
  Nangaku says, “Polishing a tile.”
  Baso says, “What is the use of polishing a tile?”
  Nangaku says, “I am polishing it into a mirror.”
  Baso says, “How can polishing a tile make it into a mirror?”
  Nangaku says, “How can sitting in zazen make you into a buddha?”

You can actually achieve enlightenment without ever sitting.  Since this is going to be my last post on this site, I'll candidly tell you that my first truly deep kensho experience happened before I ever met my Zen teacher.  In fact, it happened on my way to Wendy's to buy a hamburger!  Things like this do happen from time to time.  Unfortunately, this has led a lot of people in the modern age to read this koan as saying that consistent, long periods of meditation are not required for liberation.  That's rubbish.  More poignantly, one of the things this koan is saying is that there is no transactional relationship between enlightenment and zazen.  1,000 hours of meditation does not equal 1,000 credits of enlightenment.  Instead, meditation creates the conditions for enlightenment to occur.  Think of it like planting a garden.  Seeds grow all on their own in the right conditions, but as anyone who has planted a garden will tell you, getting that garden started is a lot of work.  You have to establish decent soil, you have to make sure that your plot has a good solar aspect, you have to ensure that there is adequate water, and you have to sow your seed.  Some gardens need more remediation to get going, others less.  And even then, once your plants are started, your work still isn't done.  In some ways, it's just started!  Now, you have to maintain the plot.  You have to weed it, ensure that it has the right amendments, and you have to keep the critters out.
Buddhist practice is no different.  The seed of enlightenment will grow in a plot tilled with moral discipline and meditation.  For some people, this may happen quickly.  Their karmic soil is fertile and will allow wisdom to grow with little effort.  Others can sit wholeheartedly for decades without experiencing daikensho.  But in either case, the better conditions they create, the better chances they have of seeing success.  Moreover, once they have had an enlightenment experience, the easier it will be for them to maintain it.  As is often the case with spontaneous kensho, as deep as my first experience was, it only lasted for a couple of months.  Eventually, it began to fade - overwhelmed by karmic weeds that could reestablish themselves since I wasn't maintaining my mind with an equally deep meditation practice.
You never reach the end of the path.  There are always deeper strata of karma to tend to - even after enlightenment.  You need sharp tools and strong back to reach the really subterranean stuff.  You develop both with sincere, dedicated, daily practice.  I'm not going to lie, sometimes that work can have the character of drudgery.  Your legs will hurt, you will get frustrated, and you will even be bored.  Let me assure you, however, that as your practice grows, this very same practice will become absolutely transcendent.  In time, meditation will become your favorite thing in the world.  It truly is a wish bestowing gem.  And it is one that is available to everyone.

Too bad this is your last post!

I'm not looking for shortcuts, rather, I want to make the best use of my time given my aptitudes. As you said, "The Buddha's teachings were often tailored to the audience he was addressing", and the practice that works for me may be what is called post sitting practice, i.e. continuous mindfulness in all activities. Thank you. Sad to see you go.

"You never reach the end of the path." Clearly: "After [Buddha's] enlightenment, he said, a person must return to the marketplace and there practice compassion to all, doing anything he or she could to alleviate the misery of other people. After achieving Nirvana, he had been tempted to luxuriate in the transcendent peace he had found, but instead he spent the remaining forty years of his life on the road teaching his method to others." Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life - Karen Armstrong

I watched '10% Happier with Dan Harris' and Lama Tsomo, and she tells an incredible story where upon enlightenment, practicioners 'tranform their bodies out of the material realm' and 'leave behind nothing but hair and nails'. It's unlikely the path ends like that as the Buddha did no such thing. Instead, he continued to teach others for the rest of his life. Yes, "You never reach the end of the path"

It's not really about how long one sits at all.
A person might regularly sit for hours with no attainments whereas the same person under different training might do some work, do a little walking and sit just to become absorbed as to mind inclination at the first opening within minutes.
However the latter won't be able to do it without a lot of good behavior conducive to the goal like reading scripture, rousing effort and otherwise living the teaching to his best ability.
It is more so about how long do you maintain good mental, verbal & physical behavior conducive to the goal without getting distracted too much whilst calming down & gladdening. Not so much about having a particularly long sitting.
Sometimes it is important to sit through some unpleasantness as some taints are abandoned trough forbearance but that is not to say that one should fall to self-mortification.


text:
What is the meditation and what is its purpose?
Is meditation thinking about thoughts?
Is it rational thinking about our perceptions?
What is meditation? What is the purpose of it?
Can I gain supernatural powers via meditation?

Meditation is when the mind comes back home. When the mind comes back home it can sit by the fire and enjoy its own warmth. It can stop being busy with all kinds of "doing". Meditation is the ultimate "not-doing". Just sit in presence and let the nature of things take care of itself.
Meditation is not thinking. It's more like watching the cows graze. The cows represent thoughts, if they start misbehaving you show them their place -- other than that, you just let them graze. When the mind watches itself, there is some processing going on, some laundering, some mending and healing, some connecting, some letting go.
The practical purpose of meditation, beside processing, mending and healing, is to reunite with the original state of "this is enough", "this is peaceful". The supramundane purpose of meditation is to lose form and go deep into formless, the real nature of things.
When you completely lose attachment to any form, you get supernatural powers - yes.

If I am to give a short answer to your question/questions…. You will find the answer to all of your questions if you begin to deviate from the conventional way of thinking and proceed towards a new thinking pattern which is free from causing suffering. I can give you only one example of this otherness.
I believe that you have a fair understanding of the operation of the primary elements in a mind. Let me take this example. Let’s take an individual who practices meditation. Supposing, someone visits him at the time of meditating, he would get irritated and consider this incident to be an hindrance to his meditation practice. He would resist, thinking,  “ outsiders always get in my way. It is very difficult to practice meditation with the undue presence of outsiders…”. Why does he get infuriated at this obstruction? His mind has overly embraced his meditation practice; he has excessively attached to the practice; he has locked himself in the practice.
If you can perceive this incident in another light…  the operation of pathavi element in his mind is so intense here. The mind has provided free access (operation of apo) for thoughts to be locked with the obstruction to meditation practice. Due to this freedom present in the mind (operation of apo), thoughts could easily get locked, compressed (operation of pathavi) with the obstruction. As a result of the operation of pathavi element followed by the free access accommodated by the apo element, heat (tejo) begins to rise to a higher degree in the mind. The resultant intense degree of heat generates a similar degree of magnetic energy (kama) in the mind. The higher the degree of heat, the higher the degree of magnetic energy in the mind. The magnetic energy generated in this manner has the potential of making vibrations, movements (in other atoms). As magnetic energy, with the potential of making vibrations, is incorporated and carried in these elements, they are identified as “elements of vayo” (vayo dhatu). This is how  the functioning of the four primary elements takes place at a time like this, beginning with pathavi dhatu, in the mind.
A meditator ought to have developed a stable mental state where he could perceive his respiration and what takes place within very clearly. In other words, the meditator needs a strong Samadhi (concentration) to accomplish the practice in this way. The meditator who contemplates the mental phenomena with a strong mindfulness based on the Samadhi, would perceive the changes in the mind on the basis of dhatu manasikara. Such a mind can find answers to the kind of questions that you have raised in an experiential way, and not just intellectually.

Meditation is when you stop thinking.
The purpose of meditation is to gain insight on the nature of reality (Who am I? Why I exist? Why everything exist? How it exists? What is suffering? Why is there suffering? What is happiness? etc.).
While in meditation, by attentively observing that which arises, insight can be gained.
You will most likely not gain supernatural powers by meditation. You will probably have experiences where it feels like you gained supernatural powers.

I stop thinking during deep sleep. so is it meditation? 2. to gain insight do i have to think (e.g.who I am and how everything exists etc...)

No. 2. Yes and no. You have to stop thinking. Then you have to start thinking. Then again stop and again start. During this process you must observe how and why from no thinking arises thinking. If you'll observe attentively enough, you will gain insight.

meditation is a way to develop our mind , so as to keep it without wandering here and there and you have to keep it in wholesome thought then only you can develop wisdom


text:
What is the meaning of Gatha #140 of the Parayanavagga?
Gatha #140 of the Parayanavagga goes as follows:

“Akincannasambhavam natva, nandi samyojanam iti,
  evam-etam abhinnaya, tato tattha vipassati:
  etaṁ nanam tatham tassa, brahmanassa vusimato”
Where can I find some interpretation about this verse ?

I am going to give this a shot.  From my kindergarten level self taught Pali.
key words:

Akincanna: perception of Jhana in No-thingness
nandi: joy, dwelling
samyojanam: bind, fetter
vusimato: insight

when one gains a knowledge that joy or dwelling in content of the infinite consciousness (empty of any permanent nature)-  is a causal of a binding fetter, He practices insight wisdom in that knowledge.
My opinion, i.e.  Buddha's meditation teachers when he was seeking enlightenment, those two meditation teachers did not see the binding force (fetters) caused by joy in (from) those meditative states so they did not gain any insight.
further simplify:
when you know that joy in meditation is a binding, you practice insight from that knowledge.


text:
Emptiness and Om
Somewhere reading the book i found something sensible like 'You think you're right , i think i'm right but at last we're neither right neither wrong.' So what is that which is neither right neither wrong. This might seem little bit confusing. But my interest lies in the question i.e 'What is the emptiness. Whole universe is made from nothing and from everything. Why is our access to the higher intellect restricted? I do know it is the physical limitation and the lack of our proper knowledge of manifestation but why this sort of answer to my own question doesn't even satisfies me.' Why is Om called without end, without beginning, without. This is the thought that striked me after reading one of the Upanishad from Hindu Vedic book i.e Chadogya Upanishada. Please enlighten. Thank you Stack Overflow community.

In the end the only truth you will realise is that you just don't know it and you can't.
When they say truth can not be expressed in words because they don't know it. But what happens is that you just accept this and let go off all searching spiritually or wordly.
With realization you just calm down and all your egoic identity loosens.
You got freedom from yourself.
If you want The End of your suffering, you will reach there.
But if it is just  curiosity, then you shouldn't think about these things too much. You may misguide yourself in wrong way.

What is that which is neither empty, neither full, neither right, neither wrong, neither nothing, neither everything, without end, without beginning, without?
Nobody will be ever able to answer such question truthfully nor comprehend it intellectually.
You may think that the answer is too complicated to be comprehended intellectually. Truth is, it is quite the opposite: it's so simple that it can only be comprehended without intellect.
I would say to stop thinking. You're thinking too much. Start meditating. You can find the answer you're searching with meditation.
To point you in the right direction: what is that which is neither right neither wrong? What is that which is nothing and everything? What is that which is without end, without beginning, without? I would say it's Nibanna.
Follow the teachings of the Buddha to attain Nibanna.

This "answers a question with a question" (in the 1st paragraph); and it advises the OP to "meditate to find your own answer" (in the last paragraph). This might be considered good advice elsewhere (e.g. in person, face-to-face, person-to-person) but isn't considered a suitable form of answer on this SE site.

Ok. I updated the answer. Maybe it's better.

I do meditate. Following the principles from the Upanishads. My point is not on the religious aspect that i follow but questions somehow relates to the Spiritual aspect that often triggers me.