On the one hand, we're told in Buddhism to "stop thinking", "do not think about thinking", and such things, by monks and laymen. As an example, I remember a monk describing how when he first started, his teacher would shout at monks (a simple HEY! or HO!) he suspected are deep in thought, to wake them up. On the other, there's such a thing as "contemplation of death". One is to sit and think about death. What's the difference between *thoughts* and *contemplation* in the eyes of someone who would espouse anti-thought advice?

When choosing between the contemplative traditions—Vipassana, Tibetan and Zen, is the following saying accurate? > Zen is for poets, Tibetan is for artists, and Vipassana is for > psychologists (Robert Wright ). This would enable me to recommend them separately to future students of Budhism.

I want to know how to prolong the knowing factor in my life .I face hindrances when thinking about solving a problem for example which is different than contemplating the receptions in mindfulness.How can it remain and become **unfabricated**.

I want to quote my experience as - "True Understanding brings effortless transformation". In my experience I have found that whenever I understand something deeply (ohhh! Moment) it transforms that part of my behavior and thinking completely. If I don't understand something I am in a constant state of confusion and suffering. So my question is how I can penetrate deep into any topic to understand it profoundly? Does Buddha share any such techniques to sharpen my thinking abilities?

My question is basically as to what constitutes skillful and unskillful activity. I noticed I return to unskillful craving-related activities when I am idle. However, I cannot ascertain what is skillful in terms of activities. I would think the application of effort is important in terms of an activity, because I am often contemplating/analyzing ideas, but in a slightly lazy way. Concretely, is idleness bad? For example, I often take public transport, wherein I contemplate certain subjects. But, I often tell myself I should read in public transport instead. I think to me, some contemplative activity occurs when idle, but it is not focused, nor effortful. Can mere contemplation without much effort or focus be called meditation? Or is it simply wasting time? Thank you. EDIT: Also, I would think activity and industriousness generates energy in some sense. What states accompany idleness? (e.g. lethargy, fragmentation, etc.)

I tend to contemplate beneficial topics throughout the day, shirking meditation at times. I conjecture such a daily contemplation is not highly concentrated. **Is there any information in Buddhism on mundane mental contemplation (if any)?** For example, how does reflecting on compassion throughout the day compare with compassion meditation? How does analysis or compassion fare when done with merely day-to-day concentration? **Is there a benefit for un-concentrated contemplation on a virtuous topic? How would a Buddhist fare without formal meditative skills?**

If we take meditation objects like caganusati, silanusati, buddhanusati, maranasati etc. we can clearly see that all of them require active and sustained thought, however so does metta bhavana or asubha bhavana. Why then is there a distinction in name?

I recall reading somewhere that beauty is a lure within Buddhism, and causes attachment towards the external world. However, I've come to think beauty may be positive in certain circumstances. This site which deals with mindfulness and other such topics suggests witnessing nature mindfully allows greater connection. My reasoning is that if compassion is put forwards in Buddhism, especially with the Mahayana, then attachment isn't necessarily all bad. I recall reading the Dalai Lama explaining how compassion propels karma, but towards positive rebirth. Attachment towards others through compassion can benefit the individual in the present or future. QUESTION 1: What is the benefit of aesthetic contemplation, if any? And, in line with this, I wonder if within compassion meditation one needs to experience feeling during the meditation itself. I remember the Dalai Lama saying one should generate compassion with reasons, then focus upon the feeling. It's difficult for me to do so, so I wonder if compassion-meditation can work without immediate feeling. QUESTION 2: Is feeling (either vedana or 'emotion') necessary for compassion meditation? Thank you.

In an answer to Non-attachment as object of meditation , there was an interesting idea that the essence of many advanced practices is > to be at peace with whatever happens in your phenomenal field - without either suppressing it or getting carried away by it. > > ... You don't get attached to either the thoughtless state, or to any individual thought (or emotion) If so, then what should you do when a delusion, e.g. an attachment, comes to your phenomenal field and starts to develop? Should you be at peace with it and let the attachment develop? It seems to be a question worth some exploration, because we could use various approaches, each might have some merit: 1. Just watch, in a non-attached way, how the delusion develops. Eventually it could help to realize, through direct experience, how the mental processes work. Perhaps that realization could lead to liberation from such delusions. 2. Or we might wish to dissolve somehow that development of the delusion which came to our phenomenal field. Perhaps that might help to reform our mental habits directly. 3. Maybe it could be reasonable to combine those two methods, in accordance with particular circumstances? Then when should we use this or that approach?

because just thinking about it for a short time didnt have any effect on me - how should i do a long death contemplation meditation ? like half hour or an hour ? should i repeat a mantra over and over again ? And what to do when there are disturbances - should i focus on the words more strongly ? where my attention should be ? (doing death contemplation to gain a sense of urgency - chanda)

I am a 21 year old college student studying physics. When I walk around campus, I am in a meditative state; enjoying the surrounding nature and the mathematical fruit it bears. My thoughts become interrupted when an attractive woman will walk by me. With something as simple as an exchange of smiles, or simply their youthful beauty, I can be completely removed from my meditation. Commonly, I am left feeling like what I am pursuing is not as interesting as the passerby. I do not want to be distracted from my meditation; more importantly, left feeling like my path is wrong and lesser. After I collect myself I can regain the motivation to pursue my maths and physics meditation, but this back and forth process feels burdening. How do I incorporate the beautiful youth around me into my meditation of math, physics and nature, instead of being a process like a type 1-a super nova, where the youth is the white dwarf consuming the star of meditation? ### edit - describing my meditation Periodically, I will focus on my breath doing a samatha meditation. When I look at nature I try to understand impermanence, but I do not believe all things are temporal. I believe symbols/ideas like the hexagon transcend time. My meditation also consists of trying to understand the objects that exists whether I am here or not (maths) and the transducer (physics) between these symbols/ideas and the temporal physical world.

I dont get much effect from death contemplation on myself - i wondered lately maybe contemplating the death of those close to me might work to install a sense of urgency do you think its effective ? and should i do it the same way as death contemplation of self or different ? I want to do it to get a sense of urgency all thoughts on subject are welcome

I am searching for a precise understanding of what Buddhist authors mean by the "pair" of "knowing" and "object". For example > ...we see that what we call "self" is simply the pairwise progression of knowing and object. > A second example > In all perception, at each event of noting, there is always this twin > pair, the object and the mind, which observes the object. These two > elements of the object and the knowing mind always arise in pairs, > and apart from these 2, there does not exist any other thing in the > form of a 'person', an 'observer', an 'experiencer', nor any 'Ego', > 'Subject', or any 'Self'! No identity is present! Similarly is there > no 'observed object', or any 'substance' "out there" independent of > the mind! Can this "pair" of "knowing" and "object" be explained precisely? Or is it subject to many interpretations? What insight is gained from discussion of this pair of knowing and objects?

Is doing contemplation of death auto-suggestion to meditate ? is it working on my subconsciousness ? maybe i should just do auto suggestion telling my self many times to meditate - maybe its more effective ? can i do my own version of death contemplation or should i say exactly the words in the sutta ? if i can what are the guidelines that i should follow when make my own version ? If i dont fear death and dont care to die - is it still useful ? can i do death contemplation about people i care about ? you can only answer some questions i asked or add something i didnt ask about which is related and can be helpful

How do I do "contemplation of death" meditation? And is it dangerous? Because I read it might cause someone to commit suicide, so how do I make sure I won't reach that situation? And how exactly should I do this meditation - and for how long each time - and how many times each day?