user10950: Trying to get useful and helpful information on this site is very difficult. Why do Buddhists have so many conflicting opinions? It's kind of ridiculous and just one more reason why I can never take religion seriously even though I appreciate some of the teachings that resonate with me.
Some examples I've noticed-
The western insight tradition emphasises acknowledging, turning toward, facing whatever is present so for example if anger arises one is to recognise it, investigate how it feels in the body etc but to not identify with it. The same goes for everything else, thought, sensations, emotions etc.
But Ive noticed one school of thought with people on this site who say you must try to rid your mind of certain unskillful feelings and thoughts and try to replace them with skillful ones. 
These two ideas seem to conflict with each other. You can't face and turn towards and get rid of at the same time.  I have to say it makes much more sense to me to acknowledge what is already present and notice how it goes away of its own accord because of anicca rather than forcing it.
Another conflict I've noticed is the labeling, noting. Again the western insight tradition, Mahasi Sayadaw, yuttadhamma Bikhu emphasise the labeling. One teacher that took a retreat I went on has been practicing for over 40 years and still labels when walking etc. But then other people on here say you shouldn't. 
Yuttadhamma Bikhu says that by labelling you are replacing the thoughts etc with clear thought. So instead of being lost in proliferation you say to yourself in your mind  "thinking thinking" and then you have replaced the thoughts.  I have to say that this works. As soon as a thought is recognised and named its gone. So again not sure why some say it's not correct. It works for me so I will keep on doing it. 
In the end I believe spirituality is a personal journey and no one can really tell another what is right without it just becoming dogmatic. 

user43: There is only One Truth, but many ways to be confused. There are people of different levels of understanding, both students and teachers, some closer to truth and some farther. This is why there are different explanations and different teachings - all partially valid in different ways.
When you know Truth, you can see: this teaching is partially valid from this side but wrong here; and this other teaching does a better job explaining this piece but has a problem with this other thing. When you know Truth you can see how it all connects. But when you don't know Truth these different perspectives seem contradicting. But they are not contradicting, what's missing is your understanding of Truth. 
It's like with 3D objects, there may be multiple flat projections drawn on paper, each is a partially valid representation of the object - but each is ultimately wrong. When you know the 3D object, you can see how these projections relate to it - but if you don't know the object, the projections seem completely unrelated, nothing in common. Dharma is like this, even more complex than a single 3D object.
Specifically about stopping unskillful states, Buddha said that there is suffering (=bad experience) and that suffering can be stopped (=no more bad experience). He then said that the cause of suffering are unskillful mindstates, esp. craving, but also anger, fear, torpor, doubt, ignorance etc. He also said that suffering can be stopped through getting rid of these unskillful mind states and generating skilful mindstates. The culmination of this process is Nibbana. Are we good so far?
So, if it were impossible to get rid of unskillful mind states, it would be impossible to stop suffering. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any Buddhism, it would be pointless to try. But Buddhism exists.
Now, there are two schools of thought as to how the unskillful mindstates can be removed. These two schools of thought are two different flat projections of the same 3D object. They are two simplifications.
One school of thought says, we should make effort to actively get rid of unskillful mindstates. So if we have anger, we should stop it, when we have lust we should stop it and so on. The idea here is, if we don't make effort to fix the problem it won't go away by itself.
The other school of thought says, that just looking at the mind directly is enough to remove the unskillful states. The idea here is, unskillful mindstates appear when we think about some external objects and form some sort of attitudes toward them like craving or rejection. But if we look at our mind directly without judgement, in that very moment there is no attitude of craving or rejection, so right at that moment there is peace.
In reality, the two methods are the same method. In both cases we do something to stop the unskillful mindstate. In both cases we stop feeding it, by no longer thinking about the external object or problem, we take our attention from it. It's just that in one case we talk about the old thing we're stopping but not what we do instead, and in the other case we talk about the new thing we are doing (looking at mind directly) without mentioning the fact that by doing that we're stopping to feed the bad thought. So we are just talking about two sides of the same elephant. The actual practice is the same.
Now, about labeling. Labeling is just a way to switch your mind from thinking about the problem to looking at the mind. That's all. There is no magic value in labeling other then helping you switch your attention. If you can switch your attention to mind without labeling, then you don't need to label. It's like training wheels on the bike.
However, the problem with labeling is, some people tend to obsess with the label itself too much, instead of looking at the mind which is the whole point. This is why I always say, don't overdo it, it's not about labels it's about the mind. 
It's like, when you look at the sunset standing on a cliff over the ocean, and someone calls you on the phone and asks what you see, and you just say "sunset". Isn't that a horrible vulgarization of the actual experience? Squeezing the entire endless ocean, colors, wind, and the atmosphere to a single label? Similarly, when you are labeling what happens in your mind. You are simplifying something subtle, deep, and nuanced - something alive - to a single label, a dead concept of logical mind. The danger there is, if you keep labeling it, at some point you will stop paying attention to the colors and wind and the background sounds - because you will know: it is "sunset". That's it. Once you know it you no longer see it. That's the danger with labeling in meditation, as well as post-meditation practice. Makes sense?
So you can either actively stop the bad mindstates by shifting attention away from them, or you can simply look at your mind, and in both cases you may use labels or not - as long as you know what you are doing and why, the practice is essentially the same.
As you can see, when you understand what's going on, there is no conflict between different schools or methods. They just approach it from different sides. The Truth is one and the same.

user471: There are many techniques that were taught by the Buddha and also later, other techniques were developed by Buddhist teachers over history, that are based on the Buddha's teachings. You are right that some of these techniques may appear to be in conflict with each other.
However, we must understand that each technique is used for a particular purpose, for a particular situation, to cater for a particular need.
It is just like how a master chef uses various techniques to craft the best results based on the needs. Sometimes you need to boil, sometimes you need to bake, sometimes you need to fry and sometimes you need to sautee. These techniques are mutually exclusive but used at different times to achieve different results.
You can find guidance on the basics of insight meditation in the booklet entitled "How To Meditate" by Ven. Yuttadhammo. This technique is used to gain insight into the workings of dependent origination. Also read "The Way of Mindfulness" by Ven. Soma Thera, which is an essay that discusses the Satipatthana Sutta. This the technique that involves noting.
But you can't progress in insight meditation, if you are strongly assailed by the five hindrances. To solve this, one technique is in the Vitakka-Santhana Sutta which teaches the forceful removal of unskillful thoughts. Forceful removal of thoughts is not part of insight meditation, but if you are too disturbed by unskillful thoughts, then you need to forcefully remove it.
To eradicate the hindrance of ill-will, you can use Loving Kindness (metta) as the technique for eradication. Intentionally generating thoughts of loving kindness is also not part of insight meditation.
For overcoming lust (as a hindrance of sensual desire), you can use the contemplation on unattractiveness (see this question). But too much of it may lead to negative thoughts of suicide, in which case, use the mindfulness of breathing (see this answer) to counter it. Intentionally contemplating on unattractiveness, is also not part of insight meditation.
Also, samatha meditation (see the article entitled "Entering the Jhanas" by Leigh Brasington) is yet another technique used to calm the mind, and create focus and concentration. This is yet another technique that could help insight meditation. But it can be developed on its own too.
If you are continuously disturbed in every way in meditation and cannot progress further, then the technique to solve this, is the development of virtue (sila) outside of meditation - see this answer for details.
So, although different approaches appear to be conflicting with each other, they are actually complementary. The Buddha taught the practitioner to be multi-skilled. That's why there's the Noble Eightfold Path, rather than a Noble One Single Technique to End Suffering. No one technique is sufficient to achieve the results.

user14810: I agree with many of the answers here. Here are a few hopefully useful comments of my own. 
The reason you are going to get conflicting information from this site is that different people have different opinions and some of us are right and some of us are wrong, for better or worse. Otherwise debates and discussions would never need to occur (As an example, the Pali canon itself contains the 'Kathavatthu' the points of controversy between various Buddhist schools). If you want the most qualified answers then you're probably better off looking  at texts by current authorities. In my experience I've found the books by the Dalai Lama to be clear and direct.
The fact that people disagree does not mean there's no objective truth about something, or no reason to take it seriously, whether in religion or otherwise. For example, someone might assert that 'No human being is intrinsically inferior than the other', and some may assert that 'Some human beings are intrinsically inferior to others because of trait x'. There is a disagreement here. Does that mean that there is no objective fact on the matter? Or that this is not something take seriously? People often disagree often things about which there is obviously an objective answer, take any scientific controversy, for example.  
Regarding the first example, I think that the two conflicting answers you've mentioned are really talking about two different processes that might not be clearly separated in discussions, as Brian Díaz Flores has basically explained in his reply. If there are some who disagree then they must be wrong since as you've pointed out that view leads to a contradiction. That doesn't tell us anything about other Buddhists or Buddhism as a whole or religion. Similarly for the second example you raise about labelling.
It's also worth pointing out that the disagreements you've raised might not actually be that important. Regardless of what you think about labelling and so on, I would have thought that all Buddhists basically agree to assert against Hindus and others that there is no substantial self to be found in experience and enlightenment does not come from a god, among other things. 
Finally your last remark contradicts the point above it. Haven't you just told yourself what is right by arguing against those who think that labelling is the wrong practice? If someone gives you the same argument then s/he has told you what is right with the same reasoning that you use and so endorse. This contradicts your point that: 'no one can really tell another what is right without it just becoming dogmatic'.  
As an aside: sometimes a lot of what is discussed seems difficult to reconcile because of the translations that we use. For example 'unwholesome' is sometimes used and for me tends to conjure up Judo-Christian images of sinful acts. But it's important to realize that this might not be the kind of associations that the word translated had in its original context. Similarly I understand that 'skill full' is often a translation of the Sanskrit word 'upaya', but does not necessarily have many of the exact connotations that the original word has.  

10950: <p>Trying to get useful and helpful information on this site is very difficult. Why do Buddhists have so many conflicting opinions? It's kind of ridiculous and just one more reason why I can never take religion seriously even though I appreciate some of the teachings that resonate with me.</p>

<p>Some examples I've noticed-
The western insight tradition emphasises acknowledging, turning toward, facing whatever is present so for example if anger arises one is to recognise it, investigate how it feels in the body etc but to not identify with it. The same goes for everything else, thought, sensations, emotions etc.
But Ive noticed one school of thought with people on this site who say you must try to rid your mind of certain unskillful feelings and thoughts and try to replace them with skillful ones. </p>

<p>These two ideas seem to conflict with each other. You can't face and turn towards and get rid of at the same time.  I have to say it makes much more sense to me to acknowledge what is already present and notice how it goes away of its own accord because of anicca rather than forcing it.</p>

<p>Another conflict I've noticed is the labeling, noting. Again the western insight tradition, Mahasi Sayadaw, yuttadhamma Bikhu emphasise the labeling. One teacher that took a retreat I went on has been practicing for over 40 years and still labels when walking etc. But then other people on here say you shouldn't. 
Yuttadhamma Bikhu says that by labelling you are replacing the thoughts etc with clear thought. So instead of being lost in proliferation you say to yourself in your mind  "thinking thinking" and then you have replaced the thoughts.  I have to say that this works. As soon as a thought is recognised and named its gone. So again not sure why some say it's not correct. It works for me so I will keep on doing it. </p>

<p>In the end I believe spirituality is a personal journey and no one can really tell another what is right without it just becoming dogmatic. </p>
 43: <p>There is only One Truth, but many ways to be confused. There are people of different levels of understanding, both students and teachers, some closer to truth and some farther. This is why there are different explanations and different teachings - all partially valid in different ways.</p>

<p>When you know Truth, you can see: this teaching is partially valid from this side but wrong here; and this other teaching does a better job explaining this piece but has a problem with this other thing. When you know Truth you can see how it all connects. But when you don't know Truth these different perspectives seem contradicting. But they are not contradicting, what's missing is your understanding of Truth. </p>

<p>It's like with 3D objects, there may be multiple flat projections drawn on paper, each is a partially valid representation of the object - but each is ultimately wrong. When you know the 3D object, you can see how these projections relate to it - but if you don't know the object, the projections seem completely unrelated, nothing in common. Dharma is like this, even more complex than a single 3D object.</p>

<p>Specifically about stopping unskillful states, Buddha said that there is suffering (=bad experience) and that suffering can be stopped (=no more bad experience). He then said that the cause of suffering are unskillful mindstates, esp. craving, but also anger, fear, torpor, doubt, ignorance etc. He also said that suffering can be stopped through getting rid of these unskillful mind states and generating skilful mindstates. The culmination of this process is Nibbana. Are we good so far?</p>

<p>So, if it were impossible to get rid of unskillful mind states, it would be impossible to stop suffering. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any Buddhism, it would be pointless to try. But Buddhism exists.</p>

<p>Now, there are two schools of thought as to how the unskillful mindstates can be removed. These two schools of thought are two different flat projections of the same 3D object. They are two simplifications.</p>

<p>One school of thought says, we should make effort to actively get rid of unskillful mindstates. So if we have anger, we should stop it, when we have lust we should stop it and so on. The idea here is, if we don't make effort to fix the problem it won't go away by itself.</p>

<p>The other school of thought says, that just looking at the mind directly is enough to remove the unskillful states. The idea here is, unskillful mindstates appear when we think about some external objects and form some sort of attitudes toward them like craving or rejection. But if we look at our mind directly without judgement, in that very moment there is no attitude of craving or rejection, so right at that moment there is peace.</p>

<p>In reality, the two methods are the same method. In both cases we do something to stop the unskillful mindstate. In both cases we stop feeding it, by no longer thinking about the external object or problem, we take our attention from it. It's just that in one case we <em>talk</em> about the old thing we're stopping but not what we do instead, and in the other case we <em>talk</em> about the new thing we are doing (looking at mind directly) without mentioning the fact that by doing that we're stopping to feed the bad thought. So we are just talking about two sides of the same elephant. The actual practice is the same.</p>

<p>Now, about labeling. Labeling is just a way to switch your mind from thinking about the problem to looking at the mind. That's all. There is no magic value in labeling other then helping you switch your attention. If you can switch your attention to mind without labeling, then you don't need to label. It's like training wheels on the bike.</p>

<p>However, the problem with labeling is, some people tend to obsess with the label itself too much, instead of looking at the mind which is the whole point. This is why I always say, don't overdo it, it's not about labels it's about the mind. </p>

<p>It's like, when you look at the sunset standing on a cliff over the ocean, and someone calls you on the phone and asks what you see, and you just say "sunset". Isn't that a horrible vulgarization of the actual experience? Squeezing the entire endless ocean, colors, wind, and the atmosphere to a single label? Similarly, when you are labeling what happens in your mind. You are simplifying something subtle, deep, and nuanced - something alive - to a single label, a dead concept of logical mind. The danger there is, if you keep labeling it, at some point you will stop paying attention to the colors and wind and the background sounds - because you will know: it is "sunset". That's it. Once you know it you no longer see it. That's the danger with labeling in meditation, as well as post-meditation practice. Makes sense?</p>

<p>So you can either actively stop the bad mindstates by shifting attention away from them, or you can simply look at your mind, and in both cases you may use labels or not - as long as you know what you are doing and why, the practice is essentially the same.</p>

<p>As you can see, when you understand what's going on, there is no conflict between different schools or methods. They just approach it from different sides. The Truth is one and the same.</p>
 471: <p>There are many techniques that were taught by the Buddha and also later, other techniques were developed by Buddhist teachers over history, that are based on the Buddha's teachings. You are right that some of these techniques may appear to be in conflict with each other.</p>

<p>However, we must understand that each technique is used for a particular purpose, for a particular situation, to cater for a particular need.</p>

<p>It is just like how a master chef uses various techniques to craft the best results based on the needs. Sometimes you need to boil, sometimes you need to bake, sometimes you need to fry and sometimes you need to sautee. These techniques are mutually exclusive but used at different times to achieve different results.</p>

<p>You can find guidance on the basics of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81" rel="nofollow noreferrer">insight meditation</a> in the booklet entitled "<a href="https://www.sirimangalo.org/text/how-to-meditate/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">How To Meditate</a>" by <a href="http://buddhistinsights.com/yuttadhammo-bhikkhu/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ven. Yuttadhammo</a>. This technique is used to gain insight into the workings of <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/48/471">dependent origination</a>. Also read "<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Way of Mindfulness</a>" by Ven. Soma Thera, which is an essay that discusses the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.soma.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Satipatthana Sutta</a>. This the technique that involves noting.</p>

<p>But you can't progress in insight meditation, if you are strongly assailed by <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the five hindrances</a>. To solve this, one technique is in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel021.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vitakka-Santhana Sutta</a> which teaches the forceful removal of unskillful thoughts. Forceful removal of thoughts is not part of insight meditation, but if you are too disturbed by unskillful thoughts, then you need to forcefully remove it.</p>

<p>To eradicate the hindrance of ill-will, you can use Loving Kindness (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/buddharakkhita/wheel365.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">metta</a>) as the technique for eradication. Intentionally generating thoughts of loving kindness is also not part of insight meditation.</p>

<p>For overcoming lust (as a hindrance of sensual desire), you can use the contemplation on unattractiveness (see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/1917/471">this question</a>). But too much of it may lead to negative thoughts of suicide, in which case, use the mindfulness of breathing (see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/3858/471">this answer</a>) to counter it. Intentionally contemplating on unattractiveness, is also not part of insight meditation.</p>

<p>Also, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samatha" rel="nofollow noreferrer">samatha</a> meditation (see the article entitled "<a href="https://www.lionsroar.com/entering-the-jhanas/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Entering the Jhanas</a>" by Leigh Brasington) is yet another technique used to calm the mind, and create focus and concentration. This is yet another technique that could help insight meditation. But it can be developed on its own too.</p>

<p>If you are continuously disturbed in every way in meditation and cannot progress further, then the technique to solve this, is the development of <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">virtue (sila)</a> outside of meditation - see <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22624/471">this answer</a> for details.</p>

<p>So, although different approaches appear to be conflicting with each other, they are actually complementary. The Buddha taught the practitioner to be multi-skilled. That's why there's the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Noble Eightfold Path</a>, rather than a Noble One Single Technique to End Suffering. No one technique is sufficient to achieve the results.</p>
 14810: <p>I agree with many of the answers here. Here are a few hopefully useful comments of my own. </p>

<p>The reason you are going to get conflicting information from this site is that different people have different opinions and some of us are right and some of us are wrong, for better or worse. Otherwise debates and discussions would never need to occur (As an example, the Pali canon itself contains the 'Kathavatthu' the points of controversy between various Buddhist schools). If you want the most qualified answers then you're probably better off looking  at texts by current authorities. In my experience I've found the books by the Dalai Lama to be clear and direct.</p>

<p>The fact that people disagree does not mean there's no objective truth about something, or no reason to take it seriously, whether in religion or otherwise. For example, someone might assert that 'No human being is intrinsically inferior than the other', and some may assert that 'Some human beings are intrinsically inferior to others because of trait x'. There is a disagreement here. Does that mean that there is no objective fact on the matter? Or that this is not something take seriously? People often disagree often things about which there is obviously an objective answer, take any scientific controversy, for example.  </p>

<p>Regarding the first example, I think that the two conflicting answers you've mentioned are really talking about two different processes that might not be clearly separated in discussions, as Brian Díaz Flores has basically explained in his reply. If there are some who disagree then they must be wrong since as you've pointed out that view leads to a contradiction. That doesn't tell us anything about other Buddhists or Buddhism as a whole or religion. Similarly for the second example you raise about labelling.</p>

<p>It's also worth pointing out that the disagreements you've raised might not actually be that important. Regardless of what you think about labelling and so on, I would have thought that all Buddhists basically agree to assert against Hindus and others that there is no substantial self to be found in experience and enlightenment does not come from a god, among other things. </p>

<p>Finally your last remark contradicts the point above it. Haven't you just told yourself what is right by arguing against those who think that labelling is the wrong practice? If someone gives you the same argument then s/he has told you what is right with the same reasoning that you use and so endorse. This contradicts your point that: 'no one can really tell another what is right without it just becoming dogmatic'.  </p>

<p>As an aside: sometimes a lot of what is discussed seems difficult to reconcile because of the translations that we use. For example 'unwholesome' is sometimes used and for me tends to conjure up Judo-Christian images of sinful acts. But it's important to realize that this might not be the kind of associations that the word translated had in its original context. Similarly I understand that 'skill full' is often a translation of the Sanskrit word 'upaya', but does not necessarily have many of the exact connotations that the original word has.  </p>
