text:
Earliest usage of "rope or snake" allegory in Buddhist literature?
The allegory of a rope being mistaken for a snake to explain subtle metaphysical points is widespread in Buddhist literature. In particular, Je Tsongkhapa uses this allegory many times in his works to explain subtle distinctions of his formulation of Prasangika Madhyamaka.
I am looking to track down the earliest usage of this rope or snake allegory in Buddhist literature. I have not been able to identify any sutra where this allegory is mentioned, but it occurs many times in later commentarial literature on the perfection of wisdom sutra's as well as in explanations of Nagarjuna's writing.
The earliest usage I have been able to discover is from Chandrakirti's explanation of Aryadeva's Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way (Chatuhshataka). Here is Aryadeva's stanza 178:

Apart from concepuality,
  Desire and so forth have no existence,
  Who with intelligence would hold [that there are]
  Real things [imputed by] conceptuality?
Aryadeva's Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way

To which ChandraKirti apparently gives this explanation:

Those which exist only when the conceptuality [apprehending]
  exists and do not exist when conceptuality does not are
  without question definite as not established by way of their
  own nature, like a snake imputed to a coiled rope.
Tsong-kha-pa's Final Exposition of Wisdom

Does anyone know of any earlier or contemporary usages of this allegory in Buddhist literature? Anything that can be traced back to Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Chandrakirti, Buddhapalita, or Bhaviveka would certainly apply. Of course, if it can be found in sutra that would definitely count as an answer.
Thanks!

In Upanishads there are many analogies to explain their philosophy.Why Advaitins take this rope snake analogy? Because it suits their philosophy.

For all I know, the simile may come from generic Indian religious tradition and not specifically from Buddhism. For example, here are some quotes from Upanidhads:
Nirvana Upanishad (~ 100 BCE - 100 CE) :

The phenomenal world is impermanent as it is produced [from Brahman
which alone is real]; it is similar to a world seen in a dream and an
[illusory] elephant in the sky; similarly, the cluster of things such as
the body is perceived by a network of a multitude of delusions and it is
fancied to exist as a serpent in a rope.

(Wikipedia:) The composition date or author of Nirvana Upanishad is unknown, but its sutra-style suggests that it originated in the sutra text period (final centuries of the 1st-millennium BC), before it was compiled and classified as an Upanishad. This text was likely composed in the centuries around the start of common era.

Tejobindu Upanishad (~ 100 BCE - 300 CE):

If a man is bitten by a rope mistaken for a snake, then mundane existence may be. If a blazing fire is extinguished by a golden arrow, then the world is.

(Wikipedia:) [...] Eliade's suggestion places these in the final centuries of BCE or early centuries of the CE. [...] Gavin Flood dates the Tejobindu text, along with other Yoga Upanishads, to be probably from the 100 BCE to 300 CE period.

More of these quotes can be found in Advaita Vedanta mail list archives.
And then somewhere around 310-390 CE we see it used by the Yogacara founder Asanga in his Mahayanasamgraha:

How is this entry into Concept-Only made and what is it
like? [...] One enters in the same way that one identifies a rope which seems in the darkness to be a snake. Since it does not exist, the snake seen in the rope is an illusion. Those who have recognized that it does not exist reject the notion of snake and keep the notion of rope. But the rope itself, if reduced to its subtle elements, is an illusion itself, for it has color,
smell, taste and tactile as specific characteristics.
Thus, when any reality has been denied to the six types
of mental words which appear as phoneme or as thing - just as the notion of snake is abandoned by means of the
notion of rope - the notion of Concept-Only underlying the mental words should be abandoned by means of the notion of the absolute nature, just as the notion of rope is abandoned by means of the notion of color, etc.

Since Asanga was originally a brahmin before converting to Buddhism, I wouldn't be surprised if he took this simile from one of the Upanishads and repurposed for Yogacara.
There is also this Sanskrit version of Cittavisuddhiprakarana by Aryadeva (~200-300 CE), but I was not able to find a translation:

sarpabuddhiryathā rajjau rajjudṛṣṭau nivartate|
sarpabuddhiḥ punastatra naiva syādiha janmani||68||
sattvabuddhistathātrāpi vajrajñānānnivartate|
na bhāvaḥ sambhavettatra dagdhabīja ivāṅkuraḥ||69||

Also, this simile appears in Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra which would date it around 150CE: 薩迦耶見計我我所。於勝義中無我我所。如人見繩謂是蛇。 'The satkāyadṛṣṭi thinks about the self and that which belongs to the self; but according to higher truth, there is no self. As for example, a person sees a rope and calls it a snake' (T 1545 (XXVII) 36a18-19)

You've gone above and beyond and I thank you especially looking up the sanskrit for the terms rope and snake and finding that precious Aryadeva text. If you find any more by in the lineage of Nagarjuna, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Chandrakirti I would be very interested.

Very good and comprehensive answer, thank you.

Nagarjuna definitely used the metaphor of mistaking rope for a snake as in "If their view of emptiness is wrong, those of little intelligence will be hurt. Like handling a snake in the wrong way, or casting a spell in the wrong way."Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way (Mulamadhyamakakarika)
Also it is clear from an article on The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) website on Nagarjuna that the metaphor was already well established in Hinduism. "The stock examples used in Indian (in context Indian includes Hindu) texts are seeing a rope and mistaking it as a snake, or seeing conch in the sand and mistaking it as silver."

Thanks, but the way Nagarjuna references snakes seems different from the thrust of the rope vs snake allegory to my mind.

Nagarjuna's and Chandrakirti's use of the rope/snake simile seem similar to me. Wrong views of emptiness and conceptuality are both compared to mistaking a rope for a snake. Does you idea differ from Chandrakirti's usage as well as Nagarjuna's?

Hmm, I don't think so. Nagarjuna is saying that misunderstanding emptiness can be deadly like a snake filled with poison.  Chandrakirti is saying that all things established via conceptuality are as unreal as a snake imputed to a rope.

Thank you. I see the distinction you are making in the two sources. I will leave my answer stand for now. Would you prefer it be deleted?

No problem and not at all

The allegory of the rope being mistaken for a snake is indeed widespread in Buddhist literature, and is found in Zen literature.  Most interesting is that this allegory comes from the Skeptic School of ancient Greece, dating to Carneades (214-129 BCE).

It's good not to mistake origin from other sects with that of the Sublime Buddha and his Sangha of disciples. Even more worse is it to approve something adopted for the sake of copy.
Even if story bearing like children, such talks have effects and cut one more off the right track.
Downvote, of course, may satisfy one shortly... so feel free if wishing for harm and misfortune...
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-bindung trades, nor for pseudo liberalism, but for an escape from this wheel]

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


text:
Looking for mentions of karma related to actions taken while dreaming
I am looking for early mentions of the accumulation of karma while dreaming.
Here is what I've been able to find so far:

In The Large Sutra on Perfect Wisdom a discussion of accumulating karma in dreams:

Sāriputra: Ven. Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great being, who in
  his dreams enters into the three concentrations—emptiness, the
  signless, the wishless—does he, then, grow in perfect wisdom?
Subhuti: If, Ven. Śāriputra, he grows through the development by
  day, then he also grows in a dream. And why? Because dream and waking
  are indiscriminate. If the Bodhisattva who courses by day in the
  perfection of wisdom has a development of the perfection of wisdom,
  then also the Bodhisattva, the great being, who dreams will have a
  development of the perfection of wisdom.
Śāriputra: If again, Ven. Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great
  being, does a deed in his dream, will there by of that deed a heaping
  up or accumulation? If all dharmas are said to be like a dream, there
  will be no heaping up or accumulation of it. And why? Because in a
  dream no heaping up or accumulation of a dharma can be apprehended.
  But when one wakes up and thinks it over, then there is a heaping up
  or accumu- lation of it.
Subhuti: One who had committed a murder in his dream, and, on
  waking, would think it over like this, 'he has been well killed by me,
  (A: it is right that he was killed, it is just that he was killed, it
  was I who killed him!' Such thoughts are equivalent to the conscious
  notion that he wants to kill someone).
Śāriputra: Not without an objective support does a deed arise or an
  act of will.
Subhuti: So it is, Śāriputra, not without an objective support does
  a deed arise or an act of will. Only with an objective support is a
  deed produced, or an act of will, and not without. In seen, heard, and
  known dharmas does intelligence proceed, and not in unseen, unheard,
  unknown dharmas. Therein some intellectual acts take hold of
  defilement, and some of purification. Therefore, then, Śāriputra, it
  is with an objective support that a deed or act of will arises and not
  without objective support.

In Tsongkhapa's Praise for Dependent Relativity it is mentioned that the karma of killing in a dream was a question answered by the Buddha, but no sources are provided.
Shantideva addressed this (or a closely related) question in Chapter 9 of his Guide to the Bodhisattvas Way of Life verse 11 and on:

If consciousness does not exist, there is no sin in killing an
  illusory person. On the contrary, when one is endowed with the
  illusion of consciousness, vice and merit do arise.

In the Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 lines:

Sariputra: If someone in his dreams does a deed, wholesome or
  unwholesome, will that be added on to the heap or collection of his
  karma?
Subhuti: In so far as the Lord has taught that ultimately all dharmas
  are like a dream, in so far that deed will not be added to his head or
  collection of karma. But on the other hand [from the standpoint of
  empirical reality], that deed will be added to the heap and collection
  of his karma if, after the man has woken up, he thinks the dream over,
  and consciously forms the notion that he wants to kill someone. How
  does he do that? During his dream he may have taken life, and after he
  has woken up, he thinks it over like this: “it is good that he was
  killed! It is right that he was killed! It was just that he was
  killed! It was I who killed him.” Such thoughts are equivalent to the
  conscious notion that he wants to kill someone.

Does anyone know of sutras or other ancient sources where the Buddha or Nagarjuna, Shantideva, Chandrakirti, Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Tsongkhapa or others might have addressed the question of whether karma can be accumulated in dreams and if so, how?
I'm especially interested to know if this question was ever answered or addressed by the Buddha in the pali canon

According to Lama Je Tsongkhapa, actions done in a dream are actions done but not accumulated. On the other hand, setting the intention to kill someone and not doing it is accumulated but not done.
A karma that is done and not accumulated, or accumulated but not done, is a "karma whose result you not definitely but only possibly experience" according to Tsongkhapa. In addition, purifying an action that is done and accumulated, by way of the four opponent powers, transforms it into an action that is done and not accumulated.
In the Lam Rim Chen Mo, volume 1, Je Tsongkhapa says:

[Asanga's] Compendium of Determinations presents four permutations
  between tween karma done and karma accumulated. Killing that is karma
  which you have done but not accumulated is seen in the following
  cases: that done unknowingly, that done in a dream, that not done
  intentionally, [etc]

In the same text, he cites the Levels of Yogic Deeds:

Karma that you have accumulated is that not included among the
  following ten types of actions: actions done in dreams...

This is helpful. I will look at Levels of Yogic Deeds and/or Compendium of Determinations, but I would really like to trace this back to sutra or the reasoning used to arrive at these assertions. Thanks!

But doesn't the dream show our deep emotions and real intentions.I too believe that karma in dreams is not accumulated

I think it's listed as a point of controversy in the Abhidhamma -- Kv 22.6:

Controverted Point: That all dream-consciousness is ethically neutral.
22.6.1 Theravādin: You admit, do you not, that a dreamer may (in dreams) commit murder, theft, etc.? How then can you call such consciousness ethically neutral?
22.6.2 Uttarapāthakas: If I am wrong, was it not said by the Exalted One that dream-consciousness was negligible? If so, my proposition holds good.

I think the (Theravādin) argument is that intention (e.g. intention to murder) may be present, therefore it's not ethically neutral.
I think the counter-argument is that there's no material result, so if it's not neutral it's negligible.
See also the Vinaya -- that defines offences (e.g. killing) in some detail or legalistically (i.e. in more detail than the suttas do) -- and there, there are various (several) conditions which must be met for the offence of e.g. "killing" to have occurred, one of which is that somebody has to die -- and in a dream, nobody is really killed, so that wouldn't be counted (and punished) as the offence of killing.
The Abhidhamma is considered part of the Pali canon, even if it isn't all quotes from the Buddha.
In Tsongkhapa's Praise for Dependent Relativity it is mentioned that the karma of killing in a dream was a question answered by the Buddha, but no sources are provided.
So far as I known, the commentary to the Vinaya pronounces the non-punishment of sexual actions performed while dreaming (while also saying it's better not to).
It's not exacty right to equate the working of kamma with the rules of the Vinaya, however that may be the best we have -- because the Vinaya is defined in detail whereas the suttas don't describe kamma in every detail -- even say that the precise workings of kamma is known to the Buddha but is unconjecturable -- and, the Vinaya was defined by the Buddha.

Thanks Chris! Do you know where the Buddha pronounced it negligible? What this in the vinaya and if so is there a translation?

I've read this, this, and this about the Vinaya -- this mentions "An almost complete (though archaic) English translation of the Vinaya Pitaka" (in six volumes from the PTS, not online), which I haven't -- I think there's some commentary too, e.g. this (also translated, but maybe not free nor online).

I don't know where the Buddha pronounced it negligible. I'm guessing that's a reference to the (Buddha's) Vinaya, as I explained. Perhaps there is (you might look for) some commentary on that Abhidhamma/Kathāvatthu topic (I don't know much about the Abhidhamma, nor its commentaries if any).

So for example search for the word "dream" in this explanation of the Monastic code ... the word occurs in 15 places, almost all in reference to sexual misconduct while dreaming; but see also the explanation of killing, there, which specify that the offence of killing has not occurred if nobody died.

Thank you @ChrisW for your help finding these references!

It is found here btw: https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-ss1/en/brahmali

source: Stack Exchange

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/

sort: votes


text:
Guru Yoga at Home?
I recently started attending Karma Kagyu meditations and did the guided Guru Yoga meditation. Is it suitable to be done (with youtube for example) at home or just at Sangha? I feel like I'd like to be doing that more than twice a week.
Is doing it elsewhere technically considered a breach of tradition?

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

Let me answer this question with one of Milarepas songs:

A yogi, I roam the mountains.
Like a great Mandala, my body is full of bliss.
Cleansed of desires and pride, I feel well and happy.
With longing for diversions extinguished, I feel joy in solitude.
  Since I have renounced all things, I am happy in a desolate land.
Since I have cut all ties with kin, getting and saving are not
  worries.
Happy and joyous do I live ... without plans or schemes.
I want neither fame nor glory.  Wherever I stay, whatever I wear or
  eat, I fell truly content

Also the third Karmapa used to practise in different places from mountain to mountain without a fixed places.Most of the yogis choose a solitary retreat and they rarely return to monasteries.

My native land is all lands, In no particular direction. My monastery
  is the solitary mountains, In no particular place. My family is all
  the beings of the six realms.
~ Shabkar

We seek freedom from attachment when you realize that all that appears and exists to be your mind, there is no path of enlightenment apart from that.
As long as there exists a place in Samsara to give us freedom,we aren't truly free!

Before you go on reading my answer, know I have no familiarity with Karma Kagyu or Guru Yoga meditation.

Is it suitable to be done (with youtube for example) at home or just at Sangha?

I think this entirely depends on what you are trying to get out of it. If you are looking for more time with the effects of doing the meditation, then I would say do them as often and wherever you'd like! If you are looking for a feeling of inclusion in the Sangha or the feelings that go along with being a part of a religious tradition, then I would say just do them at the Sangha.

Is doing it elsewhere technically considered a breach of tradition?

I have no idea whatsoever. That being said, if it is a breach of tradition, for what reason is practice not allowed at home? In a best case scenario, tradition can be helpful in that it may be a reliable way to accomplish something that has lasted through the test of time through its repeated success. Worst case scenario, tradition could be in place just because "it is the way it has always been done" and perhaps could inhibit your practice and slow your process of achieving your goals. Only you though can make that assessment and decide which is true for you, or if the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

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


text:
Is a dream object an existent? How about the face in the mirror?
The context for this question is contemporary Tibetan Buddhist Monastic debate and associated definitions as practiced at Sera Je Monastic University. I'm looking for answers according to the specific definitions and system of jargon used in that context.
In Tibetan Buddhist monastic debate according to The Course in Buddhist Reasoning and Debate an existent is defined as, "that which is realized by a valid cognizer."
I'm asking whether under such a definition a dream object - such as a snake - is considered an existent or a non-existent such as the son of a barren woman.
I believe that it must be considered an existent as it is known by a directly perceiving mental consciousness given the above context. The same can be said of a face in the mirror although in this case it is directly perceived by the eye consciousness. Is this true from viewpoint of above context? Is it true from the Prasangika viewpoint?
I posit that a dream snake and a snake I perceive in waking life are both conventionally existent. Further, that neither are ultimately existent. And that neither are real except from the perspective of a worldly consciousness. That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true from the Prasangika viewpoint?
If not, please give reasons according to the context mentioned above.

A dream object is an existent, since it is apprehended by a conventional valid cognizer, that is a conventional cognizer that is not subject to any of the four superficial causes of error.
A dream object is a phenomena source. It is apprehended by mental consciousnesses (except in the continuum of a buddha).
According to Geshe Tenzin Tenphel, a dream consciousness is necessarily a non-conceptual perceiver, while Geshe Lobsang Jamphel says that a dream consciousness can be either non-conceptual or conceptual. Either way, a dream consciousness apprehending a dream car as a dream car is valid with regard to the entity of the object it apprehends.
The reflection of a face in the mirror is also an existent. Unlike the dream object, it is not a phenomena source but form.  While it is empty of being an actual face, it is not empty of being a reflection. It is in the entity of a reflection. A consciousness apprehending it as a reflection is valid with regard to the entity of the thing. On the other hand, a consciousness apprehending a mirage as actual water is wrong with regard to the entity of the thing, but that does not make the mirage a non-existent.
According to Prasangika-Madhyamika, conventional truths are not real. However, they are real in relation to the world in that, in the perspective of an ordinary being, they exist the way they appear. That is also why we say: of both truths (conventional and ultimate), only ultimate truths are actually truths. Conventional truths are only truths in relation to a consciousness that is wrong with regard to the mode of existence of phenomena.

Thank you. Why do you feel it necessary to embolden that both are real from the perspective of a worldly consciousness? Moreover, I would dispute that a worldly consciousness would consider the dream snake real. Rather, I think that most people would insist that the dream snake is unreal so as to emphasize the concrete reality of the waking snake.

Welcome. Most people might insist that a dream snake is unreal, but Prasangika mean something else with 'real'. A phenomena that is real is a phenomena that appears the way it exists. That's why, respecting the jargon, I'd say 'a dream snake is empty of being an actual snake', but (1) it exists conventionally (2) it is as unreal as any other conventional truth.

Je Tsongkhapa in the Middle-length Lamrim: Since in the Madhyamikas’ own system the two appearances of reflections, and so forth, and blue, and so forth, to those who possess ignorance do not differ with respect to whether they are mistaken or not in relation to their appearing object, they do not make a division into the two — real and unreal conventionalities.

I think there was a misunderstanding in my first comment above. What I was disputing was this line: "they are real in relation to the world" where I took "they" to specify the rope and the snake. My dispute was with the contention that a dream snake is considered real in relation to the world. However, upon rereading I think you meant "they" to refer to conventional truths.
Also, can you provide a link or source for the last comment quoting Je Tsongkhapa? I do not understand the context of this quote or how it is relevant.

Indeed, "they" referred to conventional truths. But since the dream snake is a conventional truth, a dream snake is real in relation to the world. In the analogy of the rope and the snake, the rope is real in relation to the world while the snake imputed on it is utterly non-existent. In addition, since you said 'most people might insist that a dream snake is unreal' I quoted Tsongkhapa to stress the point that what we mean with 'real' is entirely different. Therefore, the paragraph in which you say "That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true from the Prasangika viewpoint?" is right.

I don't find the exact link anymore but http://www.freeyourmindtx.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Tsong-Kha-Pa-final-Exposition-of-Wisdom-Tibetan-Buddhism.pdf will provide you with similar statements. If what I'm saying is unclear, feel free to suggest how I can make it clearer.

I don't understand what is meant by, "since the dream snake is a conventional truth." A dream snake is not a truth statement. Also, do you know the tibetan translation of the word "real"? Maybe that would help me to understand...

Also, from Tsongkhapa's Final Exposition of Wisdom we have this, "dream appearances of mountains, houses, and so forth are appre-
hended as real by one who does not recognize dreams as such"
So the question of whether to an ordinary worldly consciousness a dream snake is regarded as real would depend upon whether that consciousness recognizes it is a dream snake. The conclusion being that in relation to the world a dream snake is not considered real. It is also not considered real to a non-ordinary being either. In no way is a dream snake considered real.

Your initial question was "is a dream object an existent?", the answer is yes. An existent is either a conventional or an ultimate truth, and a dream snake is a conventional truth. Additionally, a dream snake appears together with the appearance of true existence to a mental consciousness in the continuum of a sentient being. It does not appear the way it exists, therefore it is not real or true. In this context, the Tibetan word for 'real is 'yang dag', 'real conventionality' is 'yang dag kun rdzob'.

Also, "dream appearances of mountains, houses, and so forth are apprehended as real by one who does not recognize dreams as such" means "a dream house is apprehended real as a house" or "as an actual house". It's another meaning of 'real' and another context. But the issue you initially raised in your question was "They are both equally unreal" and this comes back to our previous issue (yang dag kun rdzob).

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Alright, lets give this a shot.
Lets write down a chain of how reality is perceived before we start. That way, we can understand where this question lies on the spectrum of experience.
The fundamental nature of reality of an unenlightened being is described as thus:

Nirvana exists.
All experience is born through Nirvana.
Experience is conceptualized as a false self. The illusion of consciousness is created.
A false self "observes" the same experience in item 2.
All "non-self" experience is conceptualized.
Conceptualized experience is labeled as an "existent" or "non-existent".

I believe that it must be considered an existent as it is known by a directly perceiving mental consciousness. The same can be said of a face in the mirror although in this case it is directly perceived by the eye consciousness. Is this true?

Consciousness is an illusion, and therefore, I disagree with your belief. Consciousness is a part of the illusion of a separate, permanent self. If I understand your definition of "existent" correctly, then I would say anything you directly experience is considered an existent, with the exception of Nirvana. Nirvana can not be experienced, but it can be realized. Therefore Nirvana is an existent.

I posit that a dream snake and a snake I perceive in waking life are both conventionally existent.

Yes. There is no difference in how our "waking sight" and "dream sight" operate. Both are nothing more than experience coming through our 6 sense doors. Anything that is experienced, is an existent. You can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell both a dream-snake and snake. You can not directly perceive the son of a barren woman through sight, sound, taste, touch, or scent, but you can conceptualize about the son of a barren woman. You can experience thoughts about the concept of a son of a barren woman. These thoughts are absolutely an existent.

Further, that neither are ultimately existent. And that neither are real. That is, they are both equally unreal. Is this true?

What you are observing here, if I understand you correctly, is what is called emptiness. All experience is. No experience has any qualitative aspects. No experience holds any meaning. No experience holds any wisdom. No experience holds any concepts. No experience holds any truth. It is not that snakes are not real. Our experience of any type of snake is real, waking or dreaming. They are both equally empty. There is only experience. We single out one aspect of experience and say "this is a snake!" A snake is nothing more than an interpretation of experience. A snake is the conceptualization of only a small aspect of experience. A snake is just a concept that we use to label experience. A label is empty. Just a word or idea. A concept can be realized, but that doesn't mean there is something behind the concept.

Thank you for your answer. The question I'm asking is hard to answer if you are unfamiliar with the specific jargon used and the rules/customs regarding that jargon. In a way, the question is a request for help to understand the way in which a single definition is understood to be used by these rules/customs.


text:
Can not wanting to have a child be justified under the framework of Buddhism?
People who have children have them for the sake of their own happiness, and ultimately the child suffers.
Can we justify not having children at all even for householders stating that all life is bound to suffering?

I'm pretty sure this topic is an exact duplicate, which has some answers already.

As well as Should a Buddhist have Children?, see also Pursuit of raising children ok?, and Buddhist path X Romantic Relationships and Sons


text:
Showing anatta from modern psychology or neuroscience?
I have heard Ajahn Brahm say in a talk, if I recall, that modern science or psychology has demonstrated anatta in some way.
It seems unnecessary to invoke science to validate any of Buddhism, but until one can see no self from direct experience, looking at science may be beneficial for the purpose of gaining an intellectual understanding.
Is there any useful research or writing is there that shows anatta from the perspective of modern psychology or neuroscience?
I'd think something like this would be produced by the Mind & Life Institute. All I could find is this blurb crediting Evan Thompson. It doesn't say much.

It doesn't say much The bigthing article you referenced seems to be based on a qz article whose main scientific reference (i.e. reference to a scientific paper) is to Reconstructing and deconstructing the self: cognitive mechanisms in meditation practice.

IMO this is off-topic and too broad: if the question were e.g., "Does Christianity teach anatta in some way?" that that would be pretty clearly off-topic, wouldn't it? IMO it's still off-topic if you substitute "modern science" or "psychology" or "neurology" or "philosophy". Also it's not clear what anatta means (I mean, maybe it's clear in the canon, but there have been more than 100 questions about it on his site). So asking, "is there anything in modern science comparable to the doctrine of anatta?" isn't good.

I think this is a good question because a good answer would use what is essentially  experiments [science] for demonstrable basis in explaining one's subjective understanding of anatta. I don't think experimental data is comparable to christianity.

Latter is essentially a theory which may be falsified by experimental data. If one wants to learn anything here then one should subject theories to scrutiny based on experimental data & philosophical integrity. A policy which restricts this is actually just punishing those who are capable of doing it.

I do think that it's very niche and perhaps one should make the distinction between scientific theory and scientific data very clear. Then one could allow comparative questions if restricted to the factual experimental data and established truths.

It is not difficult for modern western scientific materialist/reductionists to understand the most coarse and obvious meaning of anatta: the lack of a permanent, unitary, and independent person.
In this culture, we are trained to look at the world from the default viewpoint of scientific materialist/reductionism. That people can be viewed as a composite of sub-atomic particles governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. We learn in elementary and middle school about caloric intake, cellular division (mitosis and meiosis), evolution, genetics and epigenetics which all make it trivial to ascertain that the person is thoroughly non-permanent, non-unitary, and dependent.
So if modern culture makes it so easy to arrive at the coarse meaning of anatta, then why aren't we all Arhats??
Because there is much more to realizing emptiness than just this very coarse and trivial understanding of anatta. For the wisdom realizing emptiness to have its soteriological effect the following must be true:

It can not be trivial. If it were trivial, then it would not have any power whatsoever to cure our suffering or pull us out of this endless cyclic existence.
It can not be mere word games or simply an intellectual philosophical exercise. If it were, then again it would not have any ability to end our suffering.
It can not mean that nothing exists. If we come to the conclusion that nothing exists, then there can be no clearer guidepost saying “turn around!” as it is stated over and over in the Dharma that this is manifest evidence that the reasoning on emptiness has gone astray.
Still, it must be something that can be inferred from reasoning. It is not a completely obscure phenomena.

Even a mere correct inferential understanding of emptiness or the object of negation should rock something deep inside of you. If it doesn't absolutely shake your deeply ingrained ignorance, then how could it ever have the power to uproot suffering?
Similarly, if you become convinced that some understanding of emptiness is leading you to believe that the world does not exist, or that karma does not exist, or rebirth does not exist, then you can be absolutely sure that there is some mistake in your understanding. The Virtuous Teachers warn again and again that the true meaning of emptiness does not equate to nihilism or the repudiation of the Four Noble Truths in any shape or form. In other words, keep looking.
So, looking to modern science - including psychology or neuroscience - to help arrive at coarse level of anatta is fine.
To arrive at the subtler levels will require more powerful tools. In terms of modern science, Relational QM is perhaps one of those tools. See an article by Carlo Rovelli here.
But looking towards modern scientific materialists/reductionists to provide even a glimpse of the subtlest meaning of anatta or emptiness is unfortunately futile. Which is evident by looking around to see how many modern scientists appear to be highly realized beings teaching the Dharma...

"So if modern culture makes it so easy to arrive at the coarse meaning of anatta..." then why do we not all see no self or understand emptiness?

Because even with a course understanding of emptiness, one can still say that a self arises as an emergent thing, from what you listed:  caloric intake, cellular division, evolution, genetics and epigenetics, composite of sub-atomic particles governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. How do we deny that such a thing exists? (This is still a question to me.) To say it exists only conventionally or relatively, does not mean it does not exist. How do we see that there is no self at all, not even a conditioned, impermanent one?

We don’t deny that persons exist on the conventional level! The Buddha did not deny this nor did Nagarjuna or any of the Virtuous Teachers. You and I exist! That should not be disputed. The question is how do we exist? Under ultimate analysis no person can be found. Not even the slightest bit. We are utterly void of inherent existence.

The Buddha did not deny this Did the Buddha affirm it? Which bit[s] of the canon are you thinking of when you said that? It's famously affirmed by Nagasena (in the parable of the chariot).

@avatarKorra one can still say that a self arises Yes there is a view (are probably several views) about self. And there are views of non-self (including materialist [wrong] views of "nothing but atoms") etc. So, there are many different views, different kinds of view, in the world. Only, IMO, Buddhism says that any of the various views-of-self result in confusion and suffering: so it's better to not hold to those views.

@avatarKorra  How do we deny that such a thing exists? IMO there are several ways to deny (possible reasons to reject) a given "view" or "scientific theory"; for example: 1) the theory doesn't fit the observed facts (i.e. the observations); 2) the theory doesn't make accurate predictions about the future (future observations); 3) or, its predictions may be accurate but they're not useful, beneficial; 4) some theoreticians also say we should reject a theory that isn't "falsifiable". IMO the self-view can be "attacked" on any or all of these  grounds (i.e. using any of these reasons/methods).

@avatarKorra Also, beware, I think that "I don't exist" is also described in the canon to be a type of "self-view", i.e. "a view about self", i.e. one of the many types of self-views that leads to confusion and dukkha.

@ChrisW In the Trisaṁvaranirdeśa it says, "Ordinary people argue with me, but I do not argue with them be cause whatever is asserted to be in the world I also say exists. Whatever is asserted to be nonexistent in the world I also say is nonexistent." I think this comes from the Mahayana though.

@Tenzin Dorje perhaps you can trace this Trisaṁvaranirdeśa to Sutra in English? I found it in Ocean of Reasoning...

@ChrisW I also found this where the Buddha is not disputing - even affirming! - the conventional notion of self: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.022.than.html, ""And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden."

Thank you, sorry, my mistake -- you were talking about "person"; I thought we were talking about "self".

In terms of conventional usage I'm not sure the distinction in this case.

Dictionary definitions: atta versus puggala. And there's a footnote in the sutta you referenced, It's just that suttas speak against views of self ("nothing deserves to be called 'self'" and "self-views arise from attending inappropriately, are a thicket of views, and lead to suffering"). IMO and the footnote says that the "conventional versus ultimate" distinction/debate comes from scholastics after the Buddha's passing; not suttas.

Ok, thanks @ChrisW for the definitions! With those definitions I can say unequivocally that it is puggala that we say exists conventionally, not atta or a soul. In no way is atta or soul said to exist either conventionally or ultimately by Prasangikas.

@ChrisW And there are views of non-self (including materialist [wrong] views of "nothing but atoms") etc. Buddhism asserts that the body is constituted by way of material elements, and that a person is made up of the five aggregates. In what way does the materialist view differ from Buddhism on the discussion of self?

@avatar Korra, perhaps that would be best posed as a new question instead of comment?

@avatarKorra -- the (material) body is just one of five aggregates, and none of the aggregates are worth regarding as "self". || Yeshe -- I think the definition of atta gives three meanings ... and that the first (i.e. soul) is non-existent (i.e. it's asserted that there is no such thing) ... the second (i.e. self-view, maybe selfishness) is unwise (a view which arises from attending inappropriately and which leads to suffering) ... and the third use (as a reflexive pronoun) does appear, during dialog, unremarkably or without comment.

@YesheTenley it is now posted as a new question.

@YesheTenley: Returning to the question, So if modern culture makes it so easy to arrive at the coarse meaning of anatta, then why aren't we all Arhats?? It seems to me that modern scientific reductionists/materialists maintain the ignorance that there is still something called "I" or "mine". Would you agree/disagree? Calling anything "I" or "mine" immediately shows a misunderstanding of no self, since, would one who truly understands anatta do this? This ignorance of "mine", misunderstanding anatta, is why so many hear the words of the coarse meaning of anatta yet are not arhats, it seems.

@avatar Korra, Using the words "I" and "mine" is not necessarily indicative that the person using the words has a misunderstanding of reality or a misunderstanding of no self. These words can be used conventionally and Prasangika does not think there is anything wrong with using these words conventionally. OTOH, I entirely agree that modern scientific reductionists/materialists maintain views based upon ignorance. Tsongkhapa's Great Treatise Volume 3 page 214 talks about "I" and "mine" and what the view (as opposed to the mere words) of these entails. Hope this helps.

I should clarify. A materialist/reductionist "calls", but to be more precise, "grasps at", their body, mind, or something material, as "mine", do they not? Is the purpose of sattipathana not to see that there is no self, i.e. that there are body, feelings, mind, and dhammas, and that these are not me, nor mine, nor a self? And then is the purpose of seeing anatta not to see that nothing is worth adhering to (MN 37,3)? This is the meaning of "I" or "mine" that was meant in the last comment. But using "I" or "mine" in conventional language, without grasping, agreed, is not neccesarily ignorance.

@avatarKorra Yes, I think this is correct although to be fair to materialist/reductionists we all (sentient beings) make this mistake ;)

Yes. Please see Quartz article dated February 9, 2018 by Ephrat Livni, entitled "Scientists studying psychoactive drugs accidentally proved the self is an illusion". Research papers are linked in it.
Also, please see the TED Talk by neuroscientist Anil Seth entitled "Your brain hallucinates your conscious reality" which was published on YouTube on July 18, 2017.

Yes, check out Consciousness Explained, a 1991 book by Daniel Dennett.

Dennett puts forward a "multiple drafts" model of consciousness, suggesting that there is no single central place (a "Cartesian Theater") where conscious experience occurs; instead there are "various events of content-fixation occurring in various places at various times in the brain". The brain consists of a "bundle of semi-independent agencies"; when "content-fixation" takes place in one of these, its effects may propagate so that it leads to the utterance of one of the sentences that make up the story in which the central character is one's "self".

As i understand it.
Behaviorism which ignores the underlying philosophical framework of behavior altogether whilst focusing on reward circuitry & conditioning of pattern recognition, shows that to an extent behavior is dictated by classical conditioning.
This is how one would train a dog with reward/punishment and more or less ignoring what he thinks.
Neuroscience developed in course of the development of psychopharmacological research and was predicated on hardcore behaviorism & molecular biology.
Eventually it became evident that the subjective philosophy of a person impacts his values & behavior as well but there was little to no study of this.
At this point consciousness research and cognitive behavioral therapy were in the infancy and pople wanted to study the psychological effects of character-changing experiences such as spiritual, mystical or great learning.
The natural course is that this would be still an extention of pharmacology and therefore the academic consciousness study turned to researching psychedelic drugs.
I think it can be summed up that behavioral science holds a person's understanding of the context of his experiences shapes his motivations and circumstances shape the behavior circuitry accordingly.
Afaik as to Anatta in particular, scientific litterature makes a strong case for there being no free-will, rather there being conditioning only and that neurobroadcasting is a reliable predictor of behavior and that maybe more so than a person's own philosophy which is generally more or less speculative & with cognitive dissonance.
Another interesting point is that there is some litterature on what exact brain activity is associated with the notion of self and the way this plays out has been surprising to people as it's not what a naive person would expect.
Eg when people think about death, what lights up are regions that are associated with other beings rather than that which has to do with oneself.
Here a person would say that he/she or that "self" thinks that death is something that applies to all beings but the circuitry tells a different story and the circuitry is the actual behavioral wiring.
If there indeed was an element of self then one would expect a different circuitry.
The field of 'general semantics' is probably closest to understanding anatta.
General semantics is concerned with how electrocolloidal events are abstracted as objects of perceptions, how these are further classified by words for thought, how these words are likewise more or less of an abstraction and how we might gain a measure of control over our own behavior & mental wellness through insight.
Imo one could say that general semantics establishes the emptiness of words and explains how delusion about these truths is a mental illness.


text:
What will be a video game version of Buddhist Samsara be like?
I am designing an educational computer simulation to explain the Buddhist concept of Samsara. The gameplay will consist of players interacting with the simulated environment and other players. One of the concepts of the game will be if you are doing creative actions with other players or environment then your Karma points will increase and you will get more powers if you do destructive things like shoot someone with a gun, you will be reduced of Karma points. Based on them you will be transferred to different levels.
This is one of my ideas I will be implementing. Can you help me with more ideas related to the Buddhist understanding of what Samsara is? This should be educational about Buddhist Samsara.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m66XVfVkrHI

I think you want to be ethical, not "creative"; and dutiful (including e.g. the six directions) ... being unethical will make your situation worse and more difficult. One of the difficult things to do is nothing, or the repetitious. Remember that taking what's not given, lying, revenge, are all bad karma ... lust for existence, too; and for status. Generosity is virtuous ... possessions are a burden (and/or a duty). Maybe simulate addiction, e.g. you can do something to "power up" temporarily but end up worse than before (and with an opportunity to make the same mistake again). Include opportunity for study instead of adventuring: study can offer Buddhist doctrine and in-game tips (don't kill, don't steal). Include opportunity for meditation: guided meditation perhaps ... see what the player does if their in-game character is attacked while they're doing metta meditation. Simulate the different levels: in the animal world it's difficult to understand things, in the ghost world it's difficult to find satisfaction (e.g. lots of food but the ghost can't eat it, unless perhaps someone kindly remembers to give it to them), hell is even more powerless, heavens are temporary. Perhaps (if you can design it that way) the different levels should all be on the same playing-field (so that e.g. humans have an opportunity to interact with animals, with ghosts, etc., and vice versa). Unless it's an MPORG (multi-player), include NPCs, some of which are good role-models: the player can recognise and emulate these to become as successful as they are.

See also 601: Game Theory --

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
Wait, no, that one also loses. How about a nice game of chess?

Whenever you die, it shows a blind turtle, in a deep slumber, in the depth of the ocean. At the surface of the ocean, a small yoke moves around randomly. You have to wait for days before you can actually control the blind turtle. You have to get the turtle to surface, and to pass its head through the yoke. If you succeed, you get one chance on two to get a good rebirth.
Then, you control your mental consciousness (like the spirit/soul in World of Warcraft) but instead of finding your body back, you have to find parents that are having sex. Of course, you only see the parents of the class you can, according to your karma and the turtle test.
Every time you are reborn, you get another body, your character is of another race, another class, etc. Whatever you were previously familiar with will come a little bit easier to you.
Your body grows and decays and even if you are not killed, you'll die of old age or sickness eventually. Your mind also degenerates with time and you forget your skills and lose your items.

It's an RPG-style game where you run, shoot enemies, collect coins, but every five minutes your character dies of old age and loses all progress, respawn at a random place. The more enemies you kill, the more the level around you gradually transforms to hell, with darker colors, neon lights, and even more monsters. The more time you survive without killing, the level gets brighter and lighter, with flowers and coins. There are numerous signs around, pointing to "immortality potion" and "exit" but they are all fake. Lots of fake stuff in general, like fake coins, fake monsters, fake doors etc. The levels design look beautiful and there's always that feeling that you are about to enter something even grander (like a boss level) but you never actually get anywhere, you just keep going in circles. The entire gameplay is pointles and frustrating, with enemies reanimating and coins falling out of your pockets etc.
The only way to win is to quit playing.

what would gameplay based on vajrayana look like?

Record Karma points separately for each action. Both good and bad.
The next level should be picked based on the following precedence of actions.

The action(good or bad) with the highest Karma points above a certain lower limit.
The most recent action(good or bad) done with Karma points above a certain lower limit. But this limit should be much less than in the case of #1
The most frequently done action(good or bad) above a certain lower limit for the number of times it was done.
A randomly picked action from all the past levels that wasn't previously used for determining the next level.

There's a lot more complexity of calculations you can add based on how Karma works, but this is a start.

Samsara's Trap!
Create 10 levels,difficulty increases each level.The 10'th level should be impossible to pass.
The game,which btw is a representation of life,can't give you liberation if you follow your ego!I don't see any point in following karma,good karma doesn't free you,liberation from karma does!Nor the power ups you gain through the game,but when you gain knowledge of oneself,similar to Dante's inferno which I think is a man's journey to all facing all his sins!

“When you run after your thoughts, you are like a dog chasing a stick:
  every time a stick is thrown, you run after it. Instead, be like a
  lion who, rather than chasing after the stick, turns it's face to the
  thrower. He only throws the stick once at the lion .”-Milarepa

You have 31 levels.
You randomly go between levels based on last thing you were doing in the previous level. Chances of going in to a higher level is very slim.
You get the picture. If you do it right no body will want to play it.


text:
What is the mark of cessation?
What is the "mark of cessation"?
E.g. from Kihwa's Commentary on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment:

From the standpoint of cultivation and severing, the sequence is from
  coarse to subtle: ceasing, changing, abiding, and arising.
  If you extinguish the mark of cessation, then you have for the first time attained the level of faith.

Is it an abstract entity? If so, how would Dignaga's theory of apoha account for it?
If not, I think it would be phenomenal, but I don't know what sort of actual thing it could be. I mean, can it studied empirically, like fire, or like consciousness?
Does it matter either way to Buddhist practice or just life in general?

Here's a copy of the text in question:

Here is what's going on in that text:
Bodhisattva "Pure Wisdom" asks "Buddha" to explain the levels and stages of attainment.
Buddha responds with a usual prajna-paramita explanation of emptiness: that Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi has no svabhava, that Bodhisattvas and sentient beings are mere illusory appearances, and that therefore there is nothing like “attainment” or “an attainer”, let alone any such "stages".
He then elaborates on this point by saying that because sentient beings are “thoroughly confused” and are bent on making things up, they can't help themselves but continue to contrive notions like “cessation” or “person who attains cessation” or "a level of attainment", hence the question about levels. When they attain real cessation, like that of the Tathagata, they will clearly see that all these notions are illusory, making the question irrelevant.
The phrase that you are interested in belongs to this line of argument. The exact phrase goes like this:

”Since they have not [mieh] [mieh] illusory activity, they automatically make discriminations.”

(By “discriminations” he means concrete entities and events like “cessation”, “attainment”, “Boddhisattva”, “sentient being”, "a level" etc. By "illusory activity" he means reification, conceptual fabrication, and overgeneralization.)
The word "mieh" means “cessation” or “extinction”. It is not clear why it is repeated twice in the text. My understanding is that it is repeated for emphasis. IMO the meaning of the phrase is: “Since they have not ACTUALLY CEASED the illusory activity” – meaning, that even though some of them may be “advanced” Buddhist students and practitioners, they are still caught up in the habit of reification – and subsequent discrimination and attachment based on that reification. And so they still posit notions of "attainment", "one who attains", "levels" etc. Hence asking wrong question about levels.
That's the basic meaning of the passage. Now, Kihwa (whoever he is) chooses to read that "mieh mieh" repetition as “they have not ceased the cessation”, which he then has to interpret as “ceased the mark of cessation” or “extinguished the mark of cessation”. He then brings in an entire (unrelated) theory of Four Marks, which postulates that each dharma (phenomenon, NOT thought) goes through the four lifecycle phases (“marks”) of arising, abiding, changing (=deteriorating), and cessation. (See Mulamadhyamakakarika for Nagarjuna's take on emptiness of the four phases).
Kihwa says that all samsara is rooted in reification of these “four marks” as something substantial. He argues that in order to stop maintaining our delusion we should stop seeing Arising, Abiding, Changing, and Cessation (of any and all phenomena) as having concrete reality, we should see them as mere conventions, simplifications, arbitrary points of designation. Neither phenomena nor their phases of lifecycle have existence outside of the designating mind.
He goes on to explain that the notion of arising is the subtlest and hardest to stop reifying, while cessation is the easiest. Based on that, he says, we should start by ceasing reification of the notion of cessation (of all entities and phenomena), and then proceed to cease reification of “changing”, “abiding”, and finally “arising”. He then equates attainment of cessation of each of these four, with attainment of the levels of Faith-follower, Arahant, Sage, and The Fruition correspondingly.
He finishes by making an assertion, that when the Four Marks are completely extinguished, the practitioner returns to “original reality”, i.e. the actual ontological reality where the mind-made phenomena have never really existed. Since they never really existed, cessation of their designated point of cessation is not real either, and nevertheless it happens. All of this argument seems to be needed to support Kihwa’s position that while Buddha of the Sutra says that there is no attainment and cessation, in his, Kihwa's opinion there is still a sense in which a practitioner advances through levels and attains cessation. In other words, a practitioner advances through levels of understanding that there are no levels, and attains cessation of any notion of “cessation” (and other reifications).
To answer your question directly, “mark of cessation” is an arbitrary point designated as the moment when a phenomenon stops to exist. From the perspective of Madhyamaka such point is necessarily empty (=conventional, subjective), as is the point of arising, and the phenomenon itself.
In context of the Sutra speaking about attainment (of Enlightenment) aka cessation (of dukkha, samsara, avidya), this "cessation of [the mark of] cessation" refers to no longer reifying the notion of Enlightenment as something concrete that happens to a person at a point in time, since both the person and the cessation are empty conventional designations. In other words, Enlightenment entails no longer reifying Enlightenment, which has been the Sutra's message all along.
Now, if I can be as bold as to offer a connection with Dignaga's theory of apoha, I would say that it pertains to a relationship between "whatever actually happens in the ontological reality around the time we designate as the moment of cessation" and the (mind-made) designation of cessation. The exact question is, how are the two connected and are they. According to the top-down theory of Dignaga, the conceptually designated event of cessation serves as a conceptual relationaly-isomorphic stand-in for something actually happening in real life. While according to the causal chain theory of Dharmakirti, something in real life caused us to experience that particular locality of events as "cessation", and this causal relationship gives ontological credibility to the designation, however mistaken/simplified/reified it be. If you ask me, I prefer the second theory. The weakness of the standin theory IMO is that it still implies some sort of one-to-one correspondance between the experienced phenomena, the conceptual stand-in, and their ontological correlate. In real life this one-to-one correspondence falls apart under careful examination. The causal chain theory provides a nice and comforting explanation that although our notions and concepts may be reifications, simplifications, and overgeneralizations, their arising in our minds was caused by ontologically real stuff, making them not completely arbitrary and hopefully even partially useful within some boundaries.
In other words, even though cessation and Enlightenment are not something real, there's something real that leads to all these conversations, and the effort to achieve Enlightenment is not in vain.
P.S. I guess the overarching goal of this entire line of thought, is to show the connection between suchness and non-reification. Reification leads to invalid attachment and therefore to dukkha. Reification is samsara. Non-reification leads to suchness which is nirvana.

what do you mean by "an arbitrary point", that's what the question is

How do you define when exactly a melting cube of ice has disappeared? Or better yet, when a burning fire has died out? Now let's take something more interesting. When exactly did the Roman civilization cease to exist? Get it? The temporal boundaries of a phenomenon are co-dependent on our definition of the phenomenon and its constitutes that we identify as its essential properties necessary for it to retain its identity. The Madhyamaka position is that in every single case it's always a giant conventional simplification. Phenomena do not have identities and boundaries, we make them up.

I'm not familiar with those texts or traditions.
What I understood, just from the reading the quoted text (not from also reading other related texts), is:

Each thought or thought-moment has (or appears to have) four aspects:

Arising
Abiding
Changing
Ceasing

It's easiest to extinguish the thought at the end (i.e. when it ceases).
If you don't even extinguish it when it ceases, then it's a persistent illusion (and consequently you "automatically make discriminations" etc.).
If you do extinguish it when it ceases then you have attained the level of faith.
It's more difficult to extinguish it earlier (when it's changing, abiding, or arising), but better (and is a higher level of enlightenment).
The last paragraph, I think, implies that if you extinguish it earlier then there's nothing to extinguish later; and in particular, that if you extinguish arising then there's no cessation.

The 3rd statement above ("If you don't even extinguish it when it ceases ...") was my inference, not in the text. I'm not sure of that, not sure I understood that properly: instead the text might be saying that there's illusion if there's arising, i.e. unless/until the level at which arising is extinguished.
Also:

"Cessation" and "extinguishing" were the same word in the Chinese
See also a reference to one of Wŏnhyo's works, who describes th four marks in more detail

If we follow your line of interpretation we would have to conclude that the text suggests that Liberation is equivalent to cessation of thinking?


text:
How to die professionally?
In this book  Preparing to Die: Practical Advice and Spiritual Wisdom from the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition Lama Tharchin makes a powerful statement

Dharma is how we can come to die professionally.

What did mean by that?
How does dharma help us during the death process?
book's link

I read the answere below but I am little confused, what exactly does the word 'professionally' mean here?

expert,the answer below has been accepted only because it touches an important point which others miss,which is control over death,the rest is useless @BodhiWalker

Is Tibetan Buddhism (Nyingma tradition) quite focused on death, rebirth, post-death existence?
At a time in my life when I'd read almost nothing else about Tibetan Buddhism, I'd seen pictures of the Wheel of Life, and heard there was a bardo, and read a translation of the Bardo Thodol.
Anyway I found Lama Tharchin Rinpoche's Final Words of Advice. It's not very long. Reading it, I suppose the closest it comes to being about "dying professionally" is:

Grateful for the support he's had (during life), from lamas and lineage.
Hopes, and plans for what to do, after dying:

I guess that the word "professionally" has, loosely, three meanings in ordinary English:

Competently (e.g. "he or she is a professional" should mean, "he or she does it well")
With training (e.g. most "professions" require training, and a license to practice it)
As part of a social contract (e.g. someone is a "professional" if you hire them)

Here's the context of the quote, from the book you referenced:

I think you can see there all three meanings of the word "professionally" -- i.e. "well", and "with training", and "as part of a cooperative social contract".

Chris would you mind adding your opinion or better more on bardho

For example, this answer mentions some references about the bardo (and, other answers to that topic say that other traditions perhaps don't teach that there is a multi-day bardo state after death).

I was talking in regarding to this question

I don't understand what you're asking. The question was, "What did mean by that?" So I found his "final advice" (including about death and dying) and guessed at what he might mean by "professional".

If what you're asking now is, "How does dharma help?" -- I think a summary of the bardo doctrine (beware that it's been decades since I read about it) is that people have a succession of experiences there: and the right reaction (or non-reaction) towards those experiences results in liberation: but unskillful attraction or aversion results in rebirth. Being in the bardo is an experience which people aren't usually skilful with: so there's training, to foresee and prepare for that experience. But maybe don't take my word for it -- ask a new/separate question about this doctrine instead.

Lama Zopa Rinpoche gives a similar account and has this to say - How to be a Real Professional:
On the importance of familiarizing ourselves with the fact of death

By meditating on impermanence, death, not only that death is going to
  happen at some time, but especially that the time of death is
  uncertain, by making the mind familiar with that you always have this
  mindfulness of impermanence, death, that this lifespan is very short.
  So instead of thinking, “I’m going to live very long,” that concept of
  permanence that “I’m going to live for a very long time” that rises
  even on the same day that you’re going to die, the same day that
  you’re going to have a car accident, or airplane crash or heart attack
  or whatever, a situation in which one is going to die. Even on the day
  that one is going to die this concept that “I’m going to live for many
  years” is there in the morning when you get up. It’s there even five
  minutes before your heart attack, before you die. Just five minutes
  before the car accident in which one is going to die, this concept
  that “I’m going to live for many years” is there. So it's not true, it
  cheats, it's defeating. It blocks, it hinders you from thinking of
  Dharma. From your side you have to make preparation for a free death,
  for a happy death. [This thought of permanence] blocks you from making
  preparations for a good rebirth in your next life, so that right after
  this life you have a good rebirth, are born in the pure land of the
  Buddha where you can become enlightened, become a great bodhisattva.
  To have a happier life or a better rebirth with more opportunity to
  practice Dharma, to meet the teachings of the Buddha. Even just simply
  to have a good rebirth, a happy life - it blocks you from making
  preparation for that by practicing Dharma, and it blocks you from
  practicing Dharma to actualize the path, to cease the delusions, karma
  and from liberating yourself from the oceans of samsaric suffering,
  from achieving ultimate happiness. It blocks that. It blocks you from
  actualizing bodhicitta, from having realizations of the Mahayana path,
  it blocks you from achieving enlightenment, it blocks oneself from
  enlightening numberless other sentient beings, to liberate them from
  the oceans of samsaric suffering, and bring them to full
  enlightenment. So it’s not true. That concept is not true. It deceives
  you, it cheats you, if you believe in that. Then suddenly one day,
  death comes.

Our death is coming
Rinpoche goes on to give several examples of people recently passing away that were well known to the audience. In general, Rinpoche is giving an outline about how Buddhist practioners of the Mayahana train to think about death and the surety and finality of it. It is said that the only thing that can help us at that moment of death is Dharma. Dharma is the ultimate refuge for Buddhists at the moment of death. It is the only thing which will subdue the terror and fright that can come to ordinary beings at the moment of their own death.
He continues...

Then one day it becomes one’s own turn. Then others one day, sooner or
  later, hear your name with the word ‘dead’, ‘died’ joined after your
  name. For example, let’s say Zopa. After the name ‘Zopa’, then add the
  word ‘died.’ So up to now we hear about others, but sooner or later
  others will hear your name joined with the word ‘died.’ So sooner or
  later, that definitely happens. Sooner or later, one day, dead -
  daytime or nighttime, one day that happens. You want to go shopping
  for food for this week, and then death happens, you are unable to
  return back home. Death happens like that. Or you’re cooking food and
  before you put it on the plate to eat it, death happens. Or you start
  to write a letter, and before it is finished, death happened. Or you
  start to write a book, then before finishing the book, death happens.
  You go traveling, on pilgrimage or vacation, then death happens before
  coming back. Even while one starts to eat food, before finishing the
  food on the plate, the soup in the bowl, before finishing that death
  happens. You go to the bathroom, but before returning back to your
  room, death happens. So it’s definite that one day you’ll be doing
  something, and death will happen. It’s for sure. That day is going to
  come sooner or later. One day your body will be called ‘corpse.’
  Corpse. Even normal family members, very close friends, they will not
  come near or they won't touch it. Our body will be covered with cloth.
  One’s own body, this body will be on the fire. They will see the
  skull, see some part of the bones. Or the body will be in the coffin
  buried in the ground, the graveyard, some flowers put around, and your
  family members crying, the loved one's family members crying. There’s
  nothing that can be done - you know that you’re going to die now. Now
  death is happening, and you know that you’re going to leave, you’re
  going to separate, you have no choice, there's nothing you can do. No
  choice, you have to separate from all these loved ones, family,
  friends, you have to separate from them. And from all these
  possessions, Mercedes car or limousine. Whatever possessions you have,
  you know that everything has to be left. At that time the only thing
  that can help is Dharma, if you practiced Dharma in life.

How for a Buddhist only Dharma can help us at this time
So how can Dharma help us at this time?

That helps, the virtue. How much good heart you practiced in daily
  life, it helps at that time. How much patience you practiced in daily
  life, it helps at that time. How much kindness you practiced to
  others, it helps at that time. Dharma is the only thing which at that
  time can help you not to suffer, to have a happy mind. For the best
  practitioner of Dharma, they experience unbelievable happiness, joy at
  the time  of death. They can go to a pure land where one can become
  enlightened. By being born there, then one develops attainment, then
  one is able to offer deep benefit to other sentient beings, to
  reincarnate with free will, with total freedom to come back into the
  world only to benefit sentient beings, to come back with total freedom
  into the suffering world to liberate beings. As it’s mentioned in
  Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand, you are so happy, for example as
  if you haven’t met your parents for so many years and are now so happy
  to be meeting your parents. Or as if you are going for a holiday after
  working so hard for so long without a holiday and now you are going
  for holiday, so are incredibly happy. For the best Dharma
  practitioner, that's the happiness they experience at the time of
  death. Then the middle Dharma practitioner's death is full of
  confidence in the heart, when you die there is full confidence that
  you will have a good rebirth. Full confidence and a happy mind. For
  the last one, the lowest Dharma practitioner’s death, there is no
  fear, even though it is not clear where one is going to reincarnate,
  still there’s no fear that you will be reborn in the lower realms.

So professionalism? Well, the Dharma is inner professionalism. Here is how Rinpoche describes it:

So without this inner professionalism, the inner profession of the
  healthy mind, the pure mind which is Dharma, the real Dharma, so
  without this, no matter how much you’re externally professional, life
  problems go on more and more.

And what is inner professionalism as opposed to external professionalism?

... if they are missing the inner profession then what is missing is
  mentally how to live life, how to do everything. The real profession
  is missing. That is the positive attitude, living life with this
  peaceful, happy, healthy mind, non-ignorance, non-anger,
  non-attachment, and especially with the thought of cherishing others,
  the ultimate good heart, the thought of cherishing others, unstained
  by the self-cherishing thought, the selfish mind.

So I think Lama Tharchin is exactly right: Dharma is how we can come to die professionally.

how is this different from a normal person?

By 'normal person' do you mean a non-Buddhist or someone who is not a 'professional' in their external daily life or something else?

non Buddhist,,,,

I can't speak for all sentient beings obviously, but it is my impression (seen firsthand unfortunately) that many ordinary beings are filled with terror and fright at the moment of their death :( :( :( :( :( :(

what about those who die in the field of battle?

i have no doubt that many who die on the field of battle are full of the most awful kinds of terror and fright and pain

If you can convince yourself,good!

How to die professionally?
What did mean by that?

The untrained mind, i.e. a mind that has not been subjected to systematic, continual practice, development and purification, can be classified as an "amateur" mind. It does not know how to deal with physical or mental objects such as pain, ill-will, greed etc. It is therefore more likely to cling in the event of death, thereby leading to rebirth.
A trained mind that sees clearly with no obstructions, has insights into the true nature of reality, knows how to deal with conditioned phenomena and has consistently been trained in meditation, is a mind that is more likely not to cling in the event of death. The trained mind will be able to merely observe what happens in the death process, thereby liberating itself from Samsara.
That mind can be classified as a "professional" mind.

My favorite story of Buddhist (professional) death, is that of one Nyingma lama, whose last words were:

This is just so, and not a tad otherwise.

-- this is called to die in suchness, or to die professionally.
Suchness is a state when our mind has no conflict between "the ought" and "the given". If what you're "given" is death, and you take it as such, without projecting any "it ought to be otherwise" - then you die in peace. This is called "to die professionally" - because as a Buddhist you were supposed to practice suchness (tathata) until it became natural, so by that moment you are a professional "suchnessin" (tathagata).