text:
Is Enlightment ultimatelly up to you (Karma and Freewill)?
According to the traditional Buddhist dogma the fourth noble truth or eight-fold path is the way to attain Enlightenment then again some sects in Buddhism accept karma as a factor.
Not knowing (gnosis) what your karma was in your previous life and how it affects your current life to attain Enlightenment makes you wonder about the illusory nature of karma or Buddhism itself.
What's the view Buddhism has on your own chances to obtain Enlightenment?
Is it because Enlightenment is just like truth and there are different degrees of Enlightenment? Is it because Enlightenment is like a path or direction you take in existence like a boat that heads west but the wind (karma) sometimes prevents you from moving forwards? Is it because Enlightenment is just like a riddle the Buddha plays to tell you about that characteristic of perception that makes you realize something that was always there but you were unaware of, or perhaps Enlightenment is the ultimate version of that? Or perhaps there is no Enlightenment and it's just the pursuit of it that gives us purpose in life and therefore less suffering (as long as we take the middle way of course...)?

"There is no spoon" The Matrix

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

Enlightenment comes as a natural result of the meditation practise. When you practise meditation with proper effort you'll realize very quickly that this is path of freedom from suffering. So with experience a person realizes the benefits of meditation and that realization can lead the person to get involved with meditation more deeply.
It is "not" possible for a person to not become enlightened If s/he is able to get rid of his physical and mental addictions, learns to practise mindfulness correctly and practises mindfulness and meditation for long periods of time. But modern life's requirements, the person's attachment to wrong ideas/beliefs and the possible mental or physical problems limits a person's conditions to do what is necessary in the path of freedom from suffering. So the chances to have success in the path is not just about freewill or karma. It's about both of them.
You don't need to be a Buddhist or subscribe to any religion or tradition to have benefits from spirituality. Also Buddhism really leads people to become Non-Buddhists If one follows Buddhism correctly. Just like Thich Nhat Hanh said "Buddha is made of non-Buddha elements".
If you want to start to walk in the path, this map can be helpful to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN4a5qvxok

I agree with your view but the idea of meditation being the only way or exclusive way to attain enlightenment it's controversial even in this network you can find that debate.

You're right but I think that doing meditation naturally leads people to stop doing things that is harmful for a person's state of mind and also leads people to do things that is helpful in the spiritual path. I started practising mindfulness after reading Eckhart Tolle's books and I did naturally what the Buddhist precepts and principles recommends us to do. I didn't  know so much about the Buddhism for more than a year but I was living like a Buddhist Lol

@PbxMan this site is not a forum and you keep using it as such. Comments are not meant for discussion, only for a brief clarification of some details in the answer.

Yes christian intellectuals cannot get out of their awful dichotomy  free will-determinism, so when they get curious about the dhamma, they completely fail to understand it.
First since you care about kamma, you can read this https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html instead of wikipedia.
Second, the path is not about free will, choices, or lack of control, ''accepting reality'', suspension of ''agency'', of choices. The path is about bhavana, which is cultivation. Like the buddha says, there are two paths; the path of craving as explained here
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.36.023.wood.pts.htm and the opposite, which is a more complicated path for puthujjanas addicted to sensuality, and he calls that the noble path.
He even says that the purpose of the holy life is to end dukkha by following the noble path... Then of course, puthujjana who are not bikkhu do not like that there is no explicit purpose of their lay life (there is not precisely because they are not bikkhu). Thus, the people who are not bikkhu can do what they want, there is no goal, no rules, for the lay followers and they really do not like that.
So the method to stop being a bad puthujjana, in order to become a good puthujjana, or even better to stop being a puthujjana is to stop the bhavana of craving and to start the bhavana of non-craving. You can say that developing the citta and the mano towards nibanna is a choice over developing the citta and the mano towards samsara, a choice which  comes from only you, or some other people influence you to go towards one direction over another, but at the end of the day, there is only effort directed either towards craving or the cessation of craving.
Since puthujjanas are in love with what is toxic, namely sensuality, what they experience, what they feel, the aggregates, whatever is dukkha, the bhavana is about developing repulsion towards what is indeed, really, totally dukkha, which is thus any vedana, sanna, vinnana, sankhara, citta whatever is foudn in the ''dependent origination'', like that

These five things, bhikkhus, if developed and practiced frequently, lead exclusively to disenchantment, to dispassion, to
  cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to awakening, to Nibbāna.
  Which five? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwells observing foulness in the
  body, perceiving unattractiveness in food, perceving non-delight in
  the entire world, observing impermanence in all Fabrications, and he
  has the perception of death well established internally. These five
  things, bhikkhus, if developed and practiced frequently, lead
  exclusively to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm,
  to direct knowledge, to awakening, to Nibbāna.

So the path is not about choices, it is about how much energy is dedicated to the bhavana of rigth samdadhi of the citta and how much energy is dedicated to craving.
Generally the bhavana of the citta begins with sila, morality as they say today, which means it is about sati sampjanna, or mindfulness as they say today. When a bad puthujjana cultivate minduflness, this bad puthujjana has "sense-restrains'' and keep '''the five precepts'' and thus becomes a good puthujjana.
Minduflness is this stuff

And how, bhikkhus, is a bhikkhu possessed of strength? Here,
  bhikkhus, a bhikkhu remains with aroused energy, for abandoning
  unwholesome mental states, for acquiring wholesome mental states, he
  is steadfast, firm in his effort, without relaxingfrom his duty
  regarding wholesome mental states. This, bhikkhus, is how a bhikkhu is
  possessed of strength.
Bhikkhus, heedfulness should be practiced in four instances. Which four? Abandon bodily misconduct and develop bodily good conduct; do
  not be negligent towards it. Abandon verbal misconduct and develop
  verbal good conduct; do not be negligent towards it. Abandon mental
  misconduct and develop mental good conduct; do not be negligent
  towards it. Abandon wrong view and develop right view; do not be
  negligent towards it.
Bhikkhus, heedfulness, mindfulness and protection of the mind should be practiced by oneself in four instances. Which four?
  Heedfulness, mindfulness and protection of the mind should be
  practiced by oneself [thinking:] 'May my mind not become avid on
  account of things that induce avidity.' Heedfulness, mindfulness and
  protection of the mind should be practiced by oneself [thinking:] '
  May my mind not become averse to things that induce aversion.'
  Heedfulness, mindfulness and protection of the mind should be
  practiced by oneself [thinking:] 'May my mind not become deluded on
  account of things that induce delusion.' Heedfulness, mindfulness and
  protection of the mind should be practiced by oneself [thinking:] 'May
  my mind not become intoxicated by things that intoxicate.'

As usual, puthujjanas do not know what is good and bad in life, so first they have to memorize it, which is that:

And what, bhikkhus, is the unwholesome? Destroying life, taking what is not given, misconduct in sensual pleasures, lying, malicious
  speech, frivolous talks, covetousness, ill-will and wrong view: this
  is called, bhikkhus, the unwholesome.
And what, bhikkhus, is the wholesome? Abstaing from destroying life,
  abstaining from taking what is not given, abstaining from misconduct
  in sensual pleasures, abstaining from lying, abstaining from malicious
  speech, abstaining from frivolous talks, non-covetousness,
  non-ill-will and right view: this is called, bhikkhus, the wholesome.

So instead of going with the flow of craving, so far the path is about restrain the toxic craving by restraining the senses and destroying bad thoughts. Mindfulness is the purification of the mano, or intellect like they say today.
When this is done, when mano is purified and the  kaya, body is relaxed, the citta will be in samadhi, or concentration as intellectual puthujjanas say.
When the citta is in samadhi, the citta is under control. THis is what control means for the buddha. Of course, for bad puthujjanas, control means changing things so that they can do whatever pleases them.

Sariputta, beggars, following upon his attainment of seven, controls
  the bent of his heart, is not controlled by the bent of his heart.
What are the seven?
Here, beggars, Sariputta has skill in serenity;   skill in attaining
  serenity;   skill in maintaining serenity;   skill in rousing up
  serenity;   skill in managing serenity;   skill in the pastures of
  serenity;   skill in abandoning serenity.
These then beggars, are the seven, following upon the attainment of
  which, beggars, Sariputta, controls the bent of his heart, is not
  controlled by the bent of his heart.

A few puthujjanas always claim that controlling the mind is bad, and letting thoughts come and go, no matter how bad  they are, is the way to go, because Those people have no notion of right and wrong.
When the citta is in samadhi, there is no demerit at all, because demerit is this 5 things

Speaking of 'accumulations of demerit',{1} bhikkhus, one speaking
  rightly would speak of the five hindrances. These, bhikkhus, are truly
  accumulations of demerit, that is to say the five hindrances. Which
  five? The hindrance of sensual desire, the hindrance of ill-will, the
  hindrance of dullness and drowsiness, the hindrance of excitement and
  worry, and the hindrance of doubt. Speaking of 'accumulations of
  demerit', bhikkhus, one speaking rightly would speak of these five
  hindrances. These, bhikkhus, are truly accumulations of demerit, that
  is to say the five hindrances.
  http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/05/an05-052.html

On the contrary, the purification of mano and citta is a meritorious activity. This means that the karma associated to these action is meritorious and brings meritorious births.

And what are bright deeds with bright results? It’s when someone
  makes pleasing choices by way of body, speech, and mind. Having made
  these choices, they’re reborn in a pleasing world, where pleasing
  contacts touch them. Touched by pleasing contacts, they experience
  pleasing feelings that are exclusively happy—like the gods replete
  with glory. These are called bright deeds with bright results.

But the a pure citta and mano is not enough to stop karma and birth. The citta cannot be permanently in samadhi and therefore, another method must be found to keep a pure citta even when the citta is not in samadhi.
In order to stop being a puthujjana, extra effort is required: the puthujjana has to go beyond merit-demerit and to become blameless.
When it comes to the bhavana of samadhi, there are 4 bhavanas as listed here http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html
Sati sampajjana is the first bhavana that any puthujjana undertakes, then the bhavana of the citta is the jhanas. The other two bhavanas are about the transition from good puthujjana to non-puthujjana, which is done when the citta is in right samadhi, like this:

‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s
  what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite
  secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities,
  enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the
  phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and
  consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an
  abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling
  apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those
  things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is
  sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all
  attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
  extinguishment.’ Abiding in that they attain the ending of
  defilements. If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with the
  ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously, because
  of their passion and love for that meditation. They are extinguished
  there, and are not liable to return from that world.

https://suttacentral.net/an9.36/en/sujato
or if the puthujjana fails to get the  vipassanas, there only remains the option to go up to ''the attainment of the cessation of feeling and perception'' in order to keep the citta pure even when the citta is not in samadhi.
In terms of karma, the bhavana of samadhi and sati sampajanna and yoniso manasikhara is the ''kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result''

§ 30. "And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither
  dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view,
  right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right
  effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."

So you can say that the noble path is still akarma, and when you say that, you must never forget that meritorious karma is not ''kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result''. DO not confuse the path of merit and the path of nibanna.

Enlightenment is the ultimate achievable state, which is a Goal where many Buddhists practice towards, through the teachings of the Buddha.
The path, has already been outlined by Lord Buddha through his teachings. Some people walk in the right direction. Some people walk and rest, then walk again. Some people keep their heads down eyes closed wondering if this path exist, or even asking pseudo questions and writing pointless critiques.
Who you choose to be, as you said, Ultimately Up To You. Practice the Dhamma, or question the Dhamma.

Not knowing (gnosis) what your karma was in your previous life and how it affects your current life to attain Enlightenment makes you wonder about the illusory nature of karma or Buddhism itself.

Can you explain why "Knowing your past karma" has to be a pre-requisite to "practicing the teachings of the Buddha, i.e. Dhamma" ?

Because some people need logic and reason and ultimately truth because if you don't it's just religion just like any sect or dogma that tells you to kill and die for your god.

Our perception changes as wisdom cultivates. What seems illogical/unreasonable now may not seem so when you derive insight into many minor things in life. Of course, we should respect the fact that everyone has different starting point so don't expect everyone to perceive the Dhamma on the same level. As for the killing part, there are precepts in Buddhist teachings already. If you argue that killing is a wholesome thing to do then perhaps you are not so ready for this stuff yet.

I think the suttas say that:

There are or were beings "with little dust in their eyes" who benefit from hearing the Dhamma

Actions and, more specifically, intentions are karmic

"I am heir to my own karma" is a reason to be careful of what you do and what your intentions are; it may also be cause for equanimity (others inherit their own karma)

The results of karma might be good or bad, instead it's recommended that you work towards the end of karma (e.g. not "heaven" nor "hell" but rather "no further becoming")

There's a lot of past (the beginning of samsara isn't evident), presumably a lot of karma, nevertheless see above

Notions of "you" and so on, an emphasis on that, is part of what needs to be dropped on the path to enlightenment; according to some definition there are several stages of enlightenment and dropping self-view marks entry into the the first stage (also called "stream entry")

People are fortunate to have been born as people (rather than e.g. as animals) and born in a place and time when it's possible to hear the Dhamma. This is a lesson that you shouldn't waste the relatively rare opportunity of having been born human.
I also read Tibetan-origin doctrine that you might view this (opportunity) as evidence of having sufficiently good karma (or perhaps as just blind luck), and therefore approach the doctrine and practice cheerfully.

I think that predeterminism ("nothing I do or want makes any difference because the future is predetermined") is probably one wrong view, and free will ("anything I want is what will happen") is another wrong view, opposite extremes.

Past life kamma is not something mentioned in the Noble Eightfold Path (the original form is explained in SN 45.8). Also, please refer to MN 117, which make it absolutely clear the "Noble" Path does not include ideas of "my good & bad kamma". If all ideas of "self" cannot eradicated, the Noble Path cannot be attained. AN 6.63 makes it absolutely clear the Noble Path ends kamma. Kamma is not part of the Noble Path. Kamma-vipaka is a doctrine for puthujjana ('ordinary worldlings'), as explained in MN 117.

Hi DD! I thought Right View could be broken down into two categories: mundane RV and supramundane RV, whule both being part of that RV nonetheless. If that's the case, could one assume that kamma is part of the N8P? Kind regards!

Thanks Brian. If MN 117 is read carefully, the kamma-vipaka of mundane RV is actually excluded from the Noble Path. Mundane RV is said to side with asava and, unlike the supramundane RV, is not described as "noble". My impression is MN 117 is a later addition to the suttas and was composed by an arahant to clear up the confusions as kamma-vipaka started to dominate Buddhist doctrine in the world. Kind regards.


text:
Buddhism to change the world
According to Buddhism, should one change oneself or change the world and why.

Please clarify, are you trying to plot "fight for truth, freedom, justice" against "reduce Dukkha" ? Please clarify what you are trying to ask. Ask directly also helps... no need to play with words. And no need to evolve your question based on my answer.

@PbxMan Once again, this is not a web forum. Please keep your questions to the point. "According to Buddhism, should one change oneself or change the world and why" - that woud be enough. Thanks.

@AndreiVolkov don't worry all take it another forum. I cannot delete from here. Would you please do that for me?

Changing oneself and changing the world aren't mutually exclusive. Unless one is a hermit living completely isolated from the world, a layman who "changes himself" by observing precepts, practicing meditation, etc. would make a correlated positive impact on the world due to the positive effect on other people from his 3 gateways: mind, body, and speech.

The Buddha did not intend monks to participate in politics, as seen in DN 2:

"Whereas some brahmans and contemplatives, living off food given in
  faith, are addicted to talking about lowly topics such as these —
  talking about kings, robbers, ministers of state; armies, alarms, and
  battles; food and drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, and scents;
  relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women
  and heroes; the gossip of the street and the well; tales of the dead;
  tales of diversity [philosophical discussions of the past and future],
  the creation of the world and of the sea, and talk of whether things
  exist or not — he abstains from talking about lowly topics such as
  these. This, too, is part of his virtue.

However, the Buddha did intend for lay people to participate in constructive nation building, in accordance with the Dhamma in DN 16:

At that time the Venerable Ananda was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him, and the Blessed One addressed the Venerable
  Ananda thus: "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent
  gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?"
"I have heard, Lord, that this is so."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse
  peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees
  nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their
  ancient constitutions?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
  esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to
  listen to them?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting
  women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor,
  esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the
  city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due
  offerings as given and made to them formerly?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that
  they do not deprive them of their offerings."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline.
"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."

AN4.95 clearly lists the priorities of practicing to help oneself vs. others:
Not so good:

One who practices to benefit neither themselves nor others;

Better:

one who practices to benefit others, but not themselves;

Even better:

one who practices to benefit themselves, but not others; and

Best:

one who practices to benefit both themselves and others.

Notice that practicing to become a better person is seen as having more benefit that telling others how to practice. It sounds odd until you think about it, but when you think about it, would you follow the example of one who does not practice what they preach?
Hence it is best to practice and help others practice, but it's also ok to just worry about your own practice until you can help others.

Buddhism is not a religion that tries to change the world I think. Just like Buddhism don't give direct explanations of the nature of the universe. Buddhism's purpose is to lead people to experience the nature of reality themselves and give proper guidence to the people who have the intention to free themselves from suffering.
I remember a dhammaphada verse(thousands) that is not directly connected to this topic but I think it can give us some insight about Buddhism's approach to this subject

Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one — himself.
Better to conquer yourself than others. When you've trained yourself, living in constant self-control, neither a deva nor gandhabba, nor a Mara banded with Brahmas, could turn that triumph back into defeat.

If a person is interested to the core of Buddhism(meditation) most likely s/he  becomes less interested to changing the world, because meditation leads people to realize that trying to change or help others can be an ego demand and most of the things in the world are out of our influence. Also trying to change the world without changing oneself can cause harm to others because a person's state of mind directly influences the quality of his/her actions. But that doesn't mean that everyone who are deeply involved with meditation are less interested to changing the world. Trying to change the world can continue in the meditators as a habit even If the meditators greatly purify themselves. Meditation leads people to become more aware of the suffering of other living beings, so it is possible for a Buddhist meditator to become interested to change the world but eventually that desire would be diminished because of the realization of the uncontrollability of the forms and the degree of craziness of the humans.
Buddhism is not a political movement, don't have "Sharia Laws", don't try to conquer the world, forcibly trying to change an individual's desires or have rules that restricts people's freewill so it is up to the individual to decide to interfere the world politics or try to change the world or not. But "doing good deeds" to other people and living beings is certainly what Buddhism directly recommends to it's followers but that is not the same thing as trying to change the world I think.

that's a clear example of somebody who needs to work with their inside.

Anyone who acknowledges Dukkha (Suffering) and wants to eliminate as such, need to work with their inside.

According to Buddhism is it bad for her to try to change her external conditions or perhaps she is encouraged to do so because after all she is taking action for the everybody's well-being?

Another xxx VS xxx....
It is for her to decide. Is she experiencing Dukkha? Does improving her external conditions directly lead to less Dukkha? If yes, Go for it. How about improving the inner conditions first?
Whether her external conditions prevents her from improving her inner conditions, is a different matter of fact and cannot be determined unless you articulate the exact situation.

This answer doesn't make sense now after the question was edited.

Yes. Pbxman kept changing the question after I posted the answer. He even deleted his account now. Probably just trolling and realized its much harder than he/she thought...

If the world has many problems, it is up to the people of the world to sort out those problems rather than Buddhism.
I may be a Buddhist in this world and thus choose to not purchase sweatshop goods or choose to not support certain politicians, which may include not supporting the government of the nation I live in.
However, every other person, be they Buddhists or non-Buddhists, must also contribute to this. If others do not join in the path of goodness then I alone cannot change the world (even though my own Buddhist actions are moral & harmless).
For example, if I have a problematic neighbour, I sort out the problem. I talk to the neighbour or go to the police or go to a court of law. I do not wait for a Buddhist in a Superman outfit to save me from my bad neighbour.
Similarly, while illegal immigrants should not enter into the USA or any other sovereign nation, if this is really a major issue, it is up to the American people to sort out this issue. It does not require SuperBuddha to save the day, like in a Hollwywood movie.
The girl working in the sweatshop can try to educate herself and move out of the sweatshop. Regardless, it is American companies operating most of these sweatshops and the American people buying most of the sweatshop goods. America is a democracy. People can boycott sweatshops and lobby to have clothing made again in the USA. If people do not think importing all of their goods is a problem then that is the will of the people; just as it is the will of the American people to destroy nation after nation in imperialist wars. SuperBuddha cannot stop this.
In short, these political matters are for the people of the world to sort out. The people of the world may include Buddhists. But Buddha is not a SuperBuddha from a Hollywood movie.

yes people who want to change the world and babble about revolutions and are obsessed with rights completely fail to understand that nobody can be forced to be mindful nor being secluded from sensuality and that there is no punishment to forbid non-mindulfness and so on.
The people who love the idea of helping people do not even manage themselves to be mindful for more than a few hours, yet they have no problem fantasizing themselves has been good people able to make other people better.
 It is part of their insolence of claiming to know the dhamma, when all they do is being infatuated to the toxic pile of garbage that is the aggregates, always trying to salvage sensuality by claiming that  sensuality is skillful, always daydreaming and building stories that deep down in their heart, they are not bad people already, so that they leave room for a little improvement in order to have  a purpose in life, because daydreaming about not changing their ways is all they have in their life.
When they see that they have no skills to better themselves, they long for some external source of improvement which would make everybody better.
In fact, most of the people addicted to sensuality do not want to stop clinging to sensual pleasures. Some of those people  even claim that nibanna would be the most horrible event to happen to anybody.

If Buddhism has taught me anything, it's that you can't engineer happiness.  Real joy in this life comes only by a wholehearted engagement with emptiness.  Any attempts to engender joy, no matter how valiant, are ultimately impermanent.  Institutions wither, people die, and the enthusiasm that burns so brightly at the heart of many social programs ultimately burns out.  Worse, no intentional act, no matter how pure in intention, is wholly wholesome in its impact.
I remember when I was a kid and working at a coffee shop.  This well dressed, well spoken man used to come in all the time.  Apparently he used to be a doctor in the country he grew up in.  His medical license didn't transfer, so now he was studying up to take his exams in America.  The man was a saint.  He was kind, generous in spirit, and just a pleasure to be around.  He once was named Mr. Barbados back in his home country and was very interested in bodybuilding and weightlifting - an interest I shared with him.  Everyday he'd come in and ask me how my workouts were going.  He even came to see me lift a few times at some powerlifting meets.
I saw this guy pretty much everyday for a year.  One day he comes up to me and says that he needs me to proctor a test for him.  I agree.  He tells me, "don't worry about me cheating, I'm a Jehovah's Witness.  We don't cheat!"  I was flabbergasted by his admission.  If you know anything about this sect of Christianity, you'll know that bearing witness - essentially proselytizing - is at the heart of their practice.  I never heard him mention a peep about it.  I asked him about it.  "Good sir," he says to me, "do you think I would cheat?"  I tell him no.  "Do you think I am a good man?"  I said of course.  "Are you happy to see me when I come in?"  Absolutely, I said.  "That is my witness.  That is my light of Christ."
Atta dipa.  Be your own light.  We can only illuminate our own way and let that brightness shine on the paths of others.  What will be your witness?  How will your light shine in the world?

One cannot change the world.
One can only change oneself and that is done by practicing the Dhamma.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" impossible?
Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" to a computer impossible?
I was reading this question on philosophy.stack
I'd suspect that it's impossible to make sense of momentary rebirth / causal continuity in terms of computer data. Wouldn't every Buddhist say that pots and trees are mental constructions, so that, even if granted concrete reality, as in the Sarvastavadin school, they don't exist from moment to moment? A chariot's axle, for them, does not generate visual consciousness, only colour and shape do that. And so the same for computers.
But should the Buddhist claim it's not merely opaque but impossible, especially due to mind-body dualism? Does rebirth consciousness actually form the new body (and mind), in the 12 links of dependent origination? Because if it does, unless I've misunderstood 'consciousness', perhaps due to its coupling with 'rebirth', I don't see how anyone can claim that there is genuine continuity.
As surely my consciousness does not form the physical body of a computer: it's already been designed etc..

It is important to note that "Vinnana paccya Namarupa" and "Namarupa paccaya Vinnana".
In other words Vinnana and Namarupa dependent on each other.

I don't understand the question. I just try to help. I write this answer by my guess the question's meaning.
The past (vanished) moment does not "upload" anything to the moment which it affects. It just causes its effect to arise. However, the effects are able to arise as the same habit, e.g. same object and same feeling, because of Upanissaya Paccaya.
The vanished moment is hypochondria. It cannot pass or upload anything to the future, although it still is able to cause new moment effects.
For example, I can smile when I thinking of my dead sister however she vanished and doesn't upload anything to me, she just causes me to smile.

don't want to sound like a git, bonn, but i can't parse some of your sentences... so i can't tell if i agree with what you mean

Please help me to improve my english by asking me a question, etc. Thank you.

@user3293056 I think I could maybe parse the sentences, I edited. I think the answer is saying it wouldn't be the same consciousness uploaded. At best you'd have old (consciousness in a body), present (some computer system), and some kind of relationship (e.g. "effect" but not "identity") between them -- but the answer doesn't mention identity, it talks about the relationship between past and present moment -- that relationship is described as upanissaya paccayo which the chart in that YouTube video suggests to me is Abhidhamma ... i.e.

doctrine like this.

@user3293056 I suppose Bonn is trying to emphasize that there's only causal relationship between two consciousness. Nothing left in present consciousness from the previous consciousness. In Abhidhamma, it's clearly mentioned that two consciousness does not appear at the same time in a stream of consciousness. So there cannot be two consciousness in two different places at the same time which belongs to the same stream. This affirm that uploading of consciousness impossible. Why? You cannot capture consciousness and copy it to a computer.

The only way is to make it arise in the computer memory because only a causal relationship can be seen between two consciousness. But this is also impossible because the arising of next consciousness and its place already determined by present causes. I think Bonn's answer is far more correct than mine.

I confirmed to ChrisW and Damith helpful explanation. And thank you.

OP: Does Viññāṇa generate Nāmarūpa in the sense that would make "uploading concsciousness" impossible?

Yes, as mentioned in dependent origination Viññāṇa (consciousness) is the main cause for Nāmarūpa (name and form) to be arisen. (Note: there are many causes other than Viññāṇa which help Nāmarūpa to be arisen. Viññāṇa is also be the cause in different ways/conditions. So each of these can be considered as a different cause.)
Computer programs are dependent on computer hardware but computer hardware are not dependent on computer programs. There's no mutual causal relationship between hardware and software. But as mentioned in many suttas, there's a mutual causal relationship between Viññāṇa and Nāmarūpa. (SN 12.65 - Nagara Sutta, SN 12.67 - Nalakalapiyo Sutta)
Yes, it's impossible to upload consciousness into a computer. How could we make something to arise in an entirely different environment (without all the required conditions) which it supposed to be.

OP: Wouldn't every Buddhist say that pots and trees are mental constructions, so that, even if granted concrete reality, as in the Sarvastavadin school, they don't exist from moment to moment?

According to Teravadins, all conditioned things exist in this very moment. But not in the past (already decayed) not in the future (yet to be arisen). All the conditioned things exist as a stream subjected to momentary uppada (arise), thiti (exist), and bhanga (cease).
Sarvastivadins have a different idea on this. They believe all exists (sarvām asti) and holds the idea every dhamma exist independent of time (past, present, and future). Suppose you cut down a tree and made a table out of it. According to Sarvastivadins both tree and table exist.

OP: But should the Buddhist claim it's not merely opaque but impossible, especially due to mind-body dualism?

I have already discussed this in the answer to your first question.

OP: Does rebirth consciousness actually form the new body (and mind), in the 12 links of dependent origination?

Yes, according to Abhidhamma, the re-linking consciousness causes name and form at the reappearing in the following way.
Re-linking consciousness be the cause for vattu-rupa with 9 conditions.

Co-nascence condition (Sahajāta paccayo)
Mutuality condition (Aññamañña paccayo)
Dependence condition (Nissaya paccayo)
Kamma-result condition (Vipāka paccayo)
Nutriment condition (Āhara paccayo)
Faculty condition (Indriya paccayo)
Dissociation condition (Vippayutta paccayo)
Presence condition (Atthi paccayo)
Non-disappearance condition (Avigata paccayo)

Re-linking consciousness be the cause for remaining rupa-kalapa (bundles of form) present at the reappearing moment with 8 conditions.

Co-nascence condition (Sahajāta paccayo)
Dependence condition (Nissaya paccayo)
Kamma-result condition (Vipāka paccayo)
Nutriment condition (Āhara paccayo)
Faculty condition (Indriya paccayo)
Dissociation condition (Vippayutta paccayo)
Presence condition (Atthi paccayo)
Non-disappearance condition (Avigata paccayo)

Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

If using the word "knowing", "recognize", classical words for vi (seeing) - ñāṇa (knowing), "knowing by sense", its possible all easier. Close the eye and open it. New "body", kaya, rūpa?
Maybe Why beings take birth, even in most worse existences and circumstances? is of help to understand inclination to food of what viññāṇaṃ is one sort.

sorry, i don't understand your answer

No problem, it give less food for birth, of cause, and actually no lose for my person, so possible no need for pardon. In the case Nyom @user3293056 wanted to ask further, may he let it be known.

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


text:
Is this an ok understanding of Dharmakirti's vināśitvānumāna?

The point is that such moment by moment destruction is spontaneous
  (ākasmika) and is the uncaused real nature of things, because it
  cannot be an effect of any cause. The effect of such a cause, i.e.,
  the absence of the entity, would have to be a type of non-being
  (abhāva), and non-being is unreal.
A key underlying principle of the vināśitvānumāna is that negative
  facts, such as absences, are not part of the ultimate furniture of the
  world, but are just fictional conceptual constructions, as they are
  devoid of causal powers. Equally, a fiction lacking causal powers is
  not the effect of something else. While it is obviously impossible to
  deny that hammers smash pots, the absence (abhāva) of the pot, i.e.,
  the non-existent pot, is not an effect, just as other non-existent
  things (abhāva), like horns of rabbits, are not effects of anything
  either. Hammers and the like are thus not actually causes of the pot's
  absence but of it turning into potsherds. That idea is perhaps
  defensible, in that arguably the mere absence of something—a purely
  negative fact—might be less real and less efficacious than the
  presence of other things.[16] Nonetheless, the rest of the argument
  looks to consist in a number of non-sequiturs going from that
  difference in efficacy and reality between absences and presences to
  the idea that perishing is somehow the real nature of things, that it
  must be intrinsic to them, and that therefore things must perish
  spontaneously moment after moment. Let's grant the Buddhist view that
  the perishing of x is the real property of changing into a new thing,
  and not just x becoming absent. If it is accepted that hammer blows do
  change pots into potsherds, then why couldn't someone skeptical about
  the Buddhist's arguments just take that as the model of how things
  perish when they do? It does not follow from that model of perishing
  that a pot could not endure for quite a while.

Is it a non sequitur?
If there are no absences then is nothing excluded from the causal context of an effect? If so, then couldn't we just conclude that causation is beyond conceptualization, so that any cause (the hammer) of e.g. destruction (the broken pot) is also not the cause, and the effect of destruction must be "the real nature of things", so invariant?
Is that a good reconstruction of the argument, or have I misunderstood?

I'm not familiar with Dharmakirti, but from a cursory skim of the argument, it seems he is using typical Nagarjunian reductio-ad-absurdum to yet again show that all (spatially and temporally) discrete things are mental imputations.
It seems he is saying, if things were real, then they would have to perish for real, but if things perished for real, then the effect of the cause that would lead to such perishing would have to be something completely absent. Now, since absence is not real in any sense other than as a mental abstraction, the perishing cannot be anything other than an abstraction. Since perishing is an abstraction, then temporally discrete things must be imputations, hence the ontological momentariness which is just another facet of Emptiness.


text:
Are there any attempts to prove the eternal blissful etc. self?
The mahaparinirvana sutra seems to claim that there is an eternal blissful and pure self
'Self' appears in the positive very many times in that sutra, e.g. here (Chapter 33) ,,,

Knowledge ["jnana"] sees the Void and the non-Void,  the  Eternal  and
  the  non-Eternal,  Suffering  and  Bliss,  the  Self  and  the
  non-Self.  The  Void refers to all births and deaths. The Non-Void
  refers to Great Nirvana. And the non-Self is nothing but birth and
  death. The Self refers to Great Nirvana.

or here (Chapter 37) ...

""The Eternal of Great Nirvana is the Self.
  "The Self is the Pure.
  "The Pure is Bliss.
  "The Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure are the Tathagata.
"O good man! For example, space is not the east,
  nor is it the south, nor the west, nor the north, nor the four directions, nor up or down. It is the same with the Tathagata

etc. e.g. here (Chapter 23) ...

The Three Jewels of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha truly exist, and the
  Tathagata always expounds the essentials of all laws [Dharma]

Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?

Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self, or that a self exists?
I might start by saying that I don't know how a philosopher can prove anything.

A mathematician proves theories by defining axioms and showing that the theories derive from axioms
A physicist proves laws by defining laws and showing that the laws predict observed physical behaviour

This topic about 'proofs' in philosophy says,

[Except in "formal logic"] the best you get is an analytically-reasoned argument.
If I can show that a given position is self-contradictory then I have proven the position false. In terms of positive proof for a position, then it does not seem that there is anything available quite equivalent to mathematical proof in either rigour or epistemic certainty.

So I don't understand the question as-asked. But (instead of answering the question) perhaps analysing the text and looking at definitions of the words will be a partial answer instead.

I just read Chapter 37 (only).
It's translated from Chinese, which is difficult -- I must read an English translation.
I do't entirely trust that because I think that word-for-word translation are inevitably inaccurate -- e.g. the Pali word dukkha has various translations, like "suffering", "unsatisfactoriness" etc. -- or Pali has three words for different aspects of "mind" -- but anyway I'll try what I can with the English translation.

To start I note it starts with orthodox/standard doctrine ...

Because of this, know that Sramana Gautama has no father and no mother. If he has, how can he say:

"All things are non-eternal, suffering, void; and all have no self, no doing, no feeling?"

... i.e. it says that the Buddha's doctrine is as quoted above (e.g. "all things have no self").
I'm not sure what "have no self" would be a translation of, if the original were in Pali -- I think it could be anatta or sunyata -- but the previous clause said "void" which I take it was a translation of "empty" or sunyata so I guess that "have no self" is a reference to anatta.
Incidentally the Pali phrase or doctrine is something like sabbe sankhara anatta (i.e. "all things are non-self") -- but "things" there isn't a great translation of sankhara, a better translation might be "compound things" (or "things put together from other things" or "things which depend on other things"), and perhaps specifically in contrast to nibbana which is called a dhamma and not a sankhara.
Anyway I think the word "self" (in common English and in English translations of buddhist texts) might be ambiguous and depending on context it could refer to different things:

Something eternal (a soul, a god, perhaps something "space" or "light" or "time")
Something unconditioned, which exists independently of other things
Something in the I/me/mine kind of realm, e.g. "my soul" or "my consciousness" etc. -- or conversely that the Self is the possessor not the possessed, etc.

The first mention of "Self" seems to be here:

That is to say that all things are non-eternal, suffering, non-Self, and non-Pure, and that only the Tathagata is the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure.

I have to guess at what "non-self" and "non-pure" mean; but the Wikipedia article you quoted says some things about that.
The "six masters" then say something like, "Well if you have Self then so have we. For example maybe Seeing is Self (and we see)", and the Buddha replies that seeing isn't Self. Here is the Buddha's argument:

The Buddha said to the six masters: "If seeing is the Self, you are wrong. Why? You take up the analogy of an object and say that we see by it. Now, man uses together the six sense-organs to one object. If there surely is the Self and we see unfailingly by (means of) the eye, why is it that we do not cognise all objects with that one sense-organ? If one does not meet with the six sense-fields, know that there is no Self to talk of. If things are thus with the sense-organ of sight, there will be no change even if years pass and the sense-organs become ripened. As "man" and "object" are different, one sees one's own self and the other. If it is thus with the sense-organ of sight, there must be the seeing of one's own self and the other at (one and the same) time. If not seen, how can we say that there is the Self?

I think that's saying:

Seeing isn't Self because we cognise sense-objects with several senses (not just seeing)
Seeing is dependent on contact (with the sense-fields), if there's no contact then is there no "Self"?
Sense organs (e.g. the eye) change with time
Another argument I don't understand

I wanted to analyse the argument in order to understand (or reverse-engineer) the definition of "Self" that's being used.
I think the first bit of the argument is that if something (e.g. seeing) is Self then there can't be something else (e.g. hearing) that's also self.
And so on. If you analyze subsequent paragraphs in a similar way you derive different characteristics or definition of Self, for eample:

If one cannot do as one wills, know that this indicates that assuredly no Self is there.
The body of the Tathagata is not based on causal relations. Because there are no causal relations, we say that there is the Self.
If the Self does (i.e. performs actions), how can we say (it is) Eternal? If it is Eternal, how can a person do good at one time and evil at another?

I think this is more-or-less the conclusion:

The Buddha said: "If the Self does (i.e. performs actions), how can we say (it is) Eternal? If it is Eternal, how can a person do good at one time and evil at another? If a person does good or evil at (different) times, how can we say that the Self is boundless? If the Self does, why would one practise evil things? If the Self is the doer and if it is the wise, how can one doubt about the selflessness of the being? So, we can say that there can definitely be no Self in the doctrine of the tirthikas. The Self is none other than the Tathagata. Why? Because his body is boundless and there exists no doubt. On account of non-doing and non-receiving (of karmic consequences), we say Eternal. On account of birthlessness and deathlessness, we say Bliss. As there exists no defilement of illusion, we say Pure. As he does not have the ten aspects of existence, we say Void (i.e. void of all that causes suffering). Hence, the Tathagata is none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure, and the Void, and there is no other aspect to speak of.

I think that's not a clear (or it's a difficult) explanation of why "the Self is the Tathagata" -- I think the reasoning is that it's consistent with the definitions or properties of "Self" -- e.g. (I paraphrase) "seeing can't be self because it's limited, light can't be Self because it's caused by (dependently originated from) a lamp, but the Tathagata is unbounded".
You might like to see also Why is the Buddha described as trackless? -- because I think that's an example of the Tathagata's being called unbounded in the Pali suttas.

I'm not sure what the point is, what the benefit is, for having this kind of doctrine abut Self. It's unusual, the Wikipedia article Ātman (Buddhism) which you quoted says,

Most scholars consider the Tathagatagarbha doctrine in Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra asserting an 'essential nature' in every living being is equivalent to 'Self', and it contradicts the Anatta doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts, leading scholars to posit that the Tathagatagarbha Sutras were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists.

So if the Brahmins are teaching about the Self, then the Buddha has two ways to contradict them:

"There is no Self"
"The Self is the Tathagata"

Another theory is that it might be intended to contradict the Three marks of existence -- i.e. if things are "negative" (unsatisfactory and non-self) maybe there's something else that's "positive" ... even attractive.

Finally I note there's something else in that same Wikipedia article:

According to Paul Wiliams, the Mahaparinirvana Sutra uses the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. He quotes from the sutra:

The Buddha-nature is in fact not the self. For the sake of [guiding] sentient beings, I describe it as the self.

In the later Lankāvatāra Sūtra it is said that the tathāgatagarbha might be mistaken for a self, which it is not.

I haven't tried to find the location in the sutra where it says that, you might find it interesting to do that.

If I may try and risk answering based on my personal intuition (unlike most of my answers which are elaborations of standard/official doctrines)...
Some Mahayana authors evidently enjoyed being controversial. It seemed like prajna-paramita was popular and very well understood at the time, and so authors almost competed, who would break the stereotypes in a more creatively shocking way. This sutra seems to belong to that category.
You see, once you really get prajna-paramita, you clearly realize that all descriptions have no inherent meaning, that their meanings are acquired through relating them positionally against one another. Therefore, such concepts as "Self", "Permanent", "Void", "Pure", "Bliss" etc. are not some hard truths that have (or can ever have) precise definitions. Instead, the true ontological reality may be described in a seemingly controversial ways, if the same words are used in a different sense, if things are described at a different angle so to speak.
So this sutra seems to attempt to lead the reader to this understanding by playing with stereotypical definitions of words as used in Buddhism and redefining them to speak in a different sense.
It is not like the author seems to be seriously stuck on that framework, it seems pretty obvious that he or she is just messing with us in order to illustrate the limit of descriptions.

i agree they don't mean that there is the self that the buddha ruled out, but the sutra says as much, so i don't think it's willful difficulty either

Mahayana authors are more poetic and they employ a lot of reification, perhaps trying to creatively convey the same meaning of the words that have been inherited (almost) verbatim in the Pali Suttas.
The downside however, is that they may get carried away by reification and some Mahayana Buddhists may have forgotten the original meaning.
For example, from the Vakkali Sutta, there is the statement from the Buddha, "Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees Dharma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dharma. Truly seeing Dharma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dharma." Dharma here means the teachings of the Buddha.
@PeterJ pointed out that Dharma is also translated as Truth in Mahayana Buddhism. So, this I speculate is one level of reification, since the teachings are true, so, Dharma = teachings = Truth.
From here, I speculate that there was the first stage reification in Mahayana to convert this concept ("truly seeing Dharma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dharma") into the Dharmakaya or the Dharma-body of the Buddha vs. his physical body. From the Buddha's teachings-body, this becomes the Buddha's Truth-body. There is nothing wrong with this if one remembers the original meaning.
Then I speculate that there came the second stage reification in Mahayana to convert this Dharmakaya concept into the Eternal Buddha. There is nothing wrong with this if one remembers the original meaning.
As a second example, I will use the example of the Buddha Nature.
In this answer, we can see that the Buddha said anyone can achieve Nirvana, regardless of their caste or origin (Gihi Sutta). And in this question and this question, we see the teaching on the luminous mind (Pabhassara Sutta).
Form here, I speculate that there came the first stage of reification in Mahayana that this was converted into the Buddha Nature (tathagatagarbha) that everyone has.
Then I speculate that there came the second stage of reification in Mahayana that this Buddha Nature became "The Eternal of Great Nirvana is the Self. The Self is the Pure. The Pure is Bliss. The Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure are the Tathagata."
The problem comes when some Mahayana Buddhists forget the original meaning and say that the Eternal Buddha is the Buddha as the person existing after death, or that the Buddha Nature is the Eternal Self (a real self) of everyone. Spices and condiments are used to enhance the flavour of food, but if spices are overused, then the original flavour of the food is masked and forgotten.
And then the Hindu scholars will take advantage of this and say, that the Eternal Buddha and the Eternal Brahman are the same, or that the Buddha Nature and Supreme Self (Paramatma) of Hinduism are the same (as what Prof. Chandradhar Sharma has done in this answer). Centuries ago, Hindu scholars may have used this argument to convert Indian Buddhists to Hinduism.
There is another possibility (speculated by me) that Indian Mahayana authors were trying to attract the attention of Indian Hindus centuries ago to Buddhism by reifying Buddhist concepts to sound like Hindu concepts. If this were the case, then it has certainly backfired.
In my opinion, Mahayana Buddhism is not a different religion from Theravada Buddhism. If you trace the reification backward towards their original meaning, I think they are quite the same. In fact, Mahayana Buddhism probably even stretches one's imagination to look at the same thing with different viewpoints. For e.g. if you say Nirvana is unconditioned and unborn and undying, do you mean the actual Nirvana, or the concept of Nirvana conceived by your mind? The reified concept of Nirvana conceived by your mind as a papanca, is certainly "empty" (thank you, Nagarjuna).

it's not a different religion, but it has different tenets. not sure why i would mean nirvana conceived of by my mind... when i say "that's a big fish" surely i am talking about the actual fish?

One person might say big fish and imagine a shark while another person might say big fish and imagine a whale.

sure, but that doesn't mean there's no fish?

Yes. I don't think Nagarjuna's emptiness is literally "empty of essence". I think it means empty of mentally reified essence

reified is a good word, wouldn't want anyone to reify the idea of nirvana... that's what i meant in the conclusion of my answer: how can i envision nirvana without phenomena?

What is "nirvana without phenomena"?

exactly! no idea

@user3293056 I think a term like "bliss" is more obviously subjective (than "fish", though "fish" is too because it exists in dependence on subjective sense-impressions and/or past experiences and memories of fish) -- e.g. should the word "bliss" be applied to the euphoria associated with taking cocaine or heroin ... or, conversely, to being drug-free, a non-addict?

@user3293056 - Your thoughts are never the thing itself. and the ultimate nature of Reality is unthinkable. You cannot envision 'Nirvana without phenomena'. On the question - perhaps you could say that Buddhism is the practice of proving the truth about the self. But there can be no 'proof by demonstration'. .   .     .

tend to agree @PeterJ but it seems like a cop out

@ruben2020 - Nice answer. although I would not share your critical view of Mahayana. Just wanted to suggest that it may be more helpful in the context you discuss to translate 'Dharma' as Truth.

@PeterJ Thanks. Then there was a 3-stage reification. From Dharma=teachings to Dharma=Truth to Dharma-body (Truth Body) to Eternal Buddha.

@user3293056 - I would suggest that if you see this as a cop-out then you aren't quite grasping what is being said. But don't worry, this stuff takes a long time to grasp and some paradigm-shifting is usually involved. The basic point is that theoretical knowledge is theoretical and truth requires the transcendence of theory. So a 'proof' of truth has to be direct knowledge or 'knowledge by identity', never a logical argument or description. Just as in the sciences a theory is never 'true'.

@PeterJ why are you interested in philosophy then? you seem not to understand its role at all!

@PeterJ by point is just that i can't make sense of what "direct knowledge" of a permanent self could be. buddhists say absolutely everything we experience is impermanent, right? it may seem heterodox, but i quite like the idea that we directly see the buddha nature then infer it is a permanent self, make sense of it that way

@user3293056 I think Buddhists say that (specifically) sense-perceptions (e.g. consciousness of sights and thoughts etc.) are impermanent, and so are (more generally) anything put-together or constructed (including sense-perceptions). But "nibbana" is said to be not impermanent. Also the Dhamma is said to be akalika (meaning "timeless", possibly "immediate" or "ever-present") and the sutra kind of equates the Buddha with the Dhamma -- the Buddha is Tathagata and unbound, but that the Dhamma is our (remaining) contact with the Buddha and is a.k.a. one of the "bodies" of the Buddha's.

yes agreed! @ChrisW ...

@user3293056 - Not sure I understand your comment about philosophy. You're right about experience and impermanence. The practice takes us beyond experience and there'd be no inferences required.   .

Did any Buddhist philosophers try to prove that nirvana is a self

I'm also going to answer based on intuition more than anything. What would it mean to say that nirvana is a self? I think, that parinirvana neither has Being nor non-Being: the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism.
I've seen the Buddhanature defined as "awareness" by e.g. the son Buddhist Chinul. Does "awareness" (we probably have some idea of what that means even without studying Buddhism) exist? It is not part of the body or mind, and not the body considered as a whole either, and these are all there are to call a person. But I seem to have awareness nonetheless. So my own answer is that you can't infer that the Buddhanature exists, only directly see that it does. It only exists non-inferentially.
I've seen a few attempts to prove that nirvana is an indestructible self. e.g. the surangama sutra (I'll find a quote later). What I don't understand is how nirvana can occur without phenomena, and phenomena are all impermanent and die. But then I have neither died nor attained nirvana.

just my two cents


text:
Hard to breathe during meditation
I started with a new goal: meditate for a month daily and it reminds me of my experiences during group meditations in the past. After relaxing the body, it gets very hard to breathe, my chest feels very heavy or like something is on top with a lot of pressure. I feel like I should breath deeply all the time, yet still feel like I don't have enough air. A bit scary too. Has anybody experienced the same?

Are you merely wanting to ask if anyone else here had the same problem? Or do you want help in this?

it's not enough air. A bit scary too.
It's quite difficult to give detailed advice over the internet. What you describe is actually somewhat concerning. The best advice would be to seek out someone who could watch your meditation and advise.
For example, a common reaction to fear can be to hold one's breath so that a predator cannot detect our breathing. Meditation should feel relaxed and secure and peaceful, especially if you are alone without support. Simple things like poor posture can magnify suppressed anxiety. For example, if my chin is sticking out a bit, then fear tends to arise. However, if I am sitting straight and relaxed, chin in and back of neck smooth and unkinked, then I feel secure and fear evaporates.
Please do seek at least a friend who can compare your sitting posture with a picture of a meditating teacher. Such a friend would be a good spiritual companion.

In my experience leading meditation groups with folks who have anxiety, panic...focusing on the breath during meditation can trigger the physical feelings of panic if the meditator is overly sensitive to physical sensations in the body.  This can happen in groups when the leader is pacing the breath too fast for you or you are breathing too deep, causing too much oxygen/too much CO2 which creates symptoms like lightheadness, pressure, panic etc.  When you are new to meditation and are susceptible to this, it is important to start with 'noticing' your breath vs. trying to alter it.  You could accompany 'noticing' the breath with 'greeting' any of these symptoms as they appear, "hello chest pressure, thanks for giving me information today," and then let the thought subside.  You could also try some other forms of meditation (walking meditation, guided meditation, body scan etc) to kick off your practice and then over time add in more advanced breathing techniques.

I feel the same way. I am meditating for quite a while. But especially lately I feel almost like suffocating when trying to "be breathed". It seems like my mind says no! You keep on doing it! :D I also have this deep intuition that it is something about letting go control and to really sink in pure conciseness which the mind refuses to let me do.
What I tried so far is, just to be stubbern and not taking over the breath again. But it seems my subconscious is not willing to take over, so it is kind of a panik situation and ultimitly I take over again. However in the moments of letting go taking care for breathing, I am fully focused on source without any distraction. It seems exactly right. I always feel in case it would be taken over at that point from my subconscious, I could stay in this mode forever. But until now it didn't do it.

Welcome, Sven. Like to inform you a few things: 1. To answer Rasa, just go ahead with the answer. No need to have “@Rasa - ”. As for commenting on someone's answer—such as user14928's—have it as a comment below the answer instead. Click on "add a comment" to reveal the text box. I suggest you copy what you have in your answer and paste it as a comment, then edit your post to delete that part. May you have a fruitful time here.

Dear Kumãra, thanks for your warm welcome and suggestions. I actally wanted to add the "user14928 part" as a comment, but I haven't earnt the required 50 reputation points. So I chose the way I did. :) Will change it after javing my 50 points :D

"user14928" is a deleted user and probably won't see a comment. But you could post your question as a new question.

As followup to @ChrisW's comment, I suggest that you remove your message to user14928.

Done :) Sorry for the mess up.

There are things one can try;
Try the satipatthana noting method, focusing on the states of mind and the arising, persistence & cessation of thoughts, feelings & perceptions, in particular as they occur when the "panic" starts.
Optionally try the preliminary counting method outlined in Visuddhimagga.
I think neither counting nor noting will prevent it from occuring but if this is something that occurs constantly then it's kind of more interesting to sort it out & breakthrough and for that satipatthana is king imo.
My guess is that to prevent it from happening without dealing with it or dealing with "head on" one needs to do controlled breathing exercises and that correctly. This might (as in i wouldn't be surprised if) eventually lead to it not occuring either way as one becomes advanced but i think it is a waste of time and personally would just try satipatthana and see if id pass out or pass on.

Rationally I know that when I'm bicycling (or otherwise exercising, walking, climbing stairs) then the breathing then (when there's a need for an increase flow of air) is sufficient to keep the body alive. So there's no need to be scared of that (insufficient flow of air) when you're just sitting still -- the body can take care of itself, breathing is autonomic (see also apnea).
Rationally too I know the body will die of something -- possibly (or even always) insufficient breathing -- so might as well get used to that (e.g. note the perception or feeling with equanimity) and not scared (maybe become conscious of and let go of whatever "attachments" -- some fear of "dying" for example -- might make you crave the situation to be otherwise and cause suffering).
Perhaps the feeling (of insufficient breathing, if this is what you're feeling) is a result of too much CO2 (i.e. carbon dioxide), rather than too little oxygen. I think people can get confused when that happens and try to breathe in more, to inhale more deeply -- whereas actually what the body needs is to breathe out more, to exhale. See also e.g. a "barrel chest" being a symptom of emphysema -- when the patient can breathe in but can't breathe out properly.
I find that breathing out (exhaling) properly/deeply/completely, using the ribcage and the diaphragm to empty the lungs, is a prelude to (i.e. a start to) a slow deep breathing cycle, and a component of it.

Excellent!  That's a very, very good sign.  It's indicative that you are starting to loosen your conscious hold on the breath and, instead, are allowing yourself to be "breathed".  Like anything else, there's always some fear associated when we relinquish control.  How much more so when that happens with the very thing keeping us alive!
Buddhism, more than anything, is about trust.  This is your first opportunity to really experience that.  Trust that your body knows what it's doing.  Forget about inhaling and exhaling.  Don't concern yourself with deep breaths or shallow breaths.  Just let breathing be what it wants to be.  If you give yourself over to the process, I guarantee that you will finally begin to know what breathing is all about!


text:
A good Abhidhamma monastery to ordain?
I am looking for a monastic community that fits these criteria;

Abhidhamma compliant
Vinaya compliant; one meal a day, no afternoon snacks, not using
money etc
Analytical attitude towards the commentaries;
Westerners can receive ordination and stay for the nissaya

No geographic preference.
If you know of a suitable community please do let me know.
Thanks

Sir, Na Uyana Monastery Information.pdf may be helpful.

All the criteria matches, I think, in International Institute of Theravada ( https://www.theravado.com)

This institute fits the criteria you have listed. (one-meal is optional)
Most of the teacher monks at IIT are top scholars in different subjects. They are of Forest-Vinaya sect in Sri Lanka.

International Institute of Theravada (IIT)
Vision
To groom and capacitate the Buddhist monk who is capable in: • Attaining the ultimate liberation, the Nirvāṇa • Guiding others
(both clergy and laity) in attaining the ultimate liberation, the
Nirvāṇa • prolongating the sāsana by performing formal acts in the
code of discipline (Vinaya Kammas) according to the exact teaching of The Buddha
Mission
The International Institute of Theravada (IIT), a fully-fledged training institute based on Theravada teachings is
dedicated to the spiritual and academic development of Buddhist monks
irrespective of sects (Nikaya) and other differences. A group of
competent monk-disciples (who have completed Theravada Buddhist
education in Myanmar and exposed different traditions in Thailand and
elsewhere) of the Late Most Venerable Nā-Uyane Ariyadhamma Mahāthera,
the vice president of the Śrī Rāmañña Mahānikāya and the Supreme Head
of the Śrī Kaḷyāṇī Yogāśrama Saṃsthā, and also affiliated to the
well-known Nā-Uyana Forest Monastery, Malsiripura, has already
commenced initial work in establishing IIT at Karuwalagaswewa, Sri
Lanka with the blessings and guidance of senior Mahātheras of both
Rāmañña Mahānikāya and Amarapura Mahānikāya.

Venerable Maggavihari's famous Lesson series: Fundamentals of
Theravada
IIT Youtube Channel Global
IIT Facebook
Theravado.com (Website)

There is another Vinaya Monastery which is famous for its Classical Vinaya studies (No website yet).

Diddeniya Ranagirilena Forest Monastry in Sri
lanka (A forum post where some info can be seen)

And currently the biggest forest monastery in Sri Lanka (affiliated to Burmese Pa-auk) is Na Uyana where there are more than 150 monks.

Nauyana.org

All the 3 monasteries follow Vinaya, train monks, give Nissaya and have learned teachers speaking good English.

IIT is more open-minded and analytical
Diddeniya is more strict-vinaya and Classical
Na uyana is more meditative but Pa-auk follower.

While it's hard to find such a monastery that meets all the requirements that you have laid out, it's likely that the Thai Forest Tradition monasteries founded by Ven. Ajahn Chah and his students (see Forest Sangha for worldwide monasteries) could be credible. The main monastery for this lineage is Wat Pah Nanachat in Thailand. Ven. Ajahn Sujato and Ven. Ajahn Brahmali who are scholars of the Pali Canon and located in Australia, are affiliated to this tradition. The famous Youtube speaker Ven. Ajahn Brahm, who studied under Ven. Ajahn Chah, is the abbot of the Bodhinyana Monastery in Perth, Australia.
In California, you can consider the Metta Forest Monastery. The abbot of this monastery was or is Ven. Ajaan Thanissaro, another well-known translator and scholar of the Pali Canon. Ven. Ajaan Thanissaro is also of the Thai Forest Tradition. The main monastery for this lineage, founded by Ven. Ajaan Thanissaro's teacher Ven. Ajaan Fuang Jotiko, is Wat Dhammasathit in Thailand.
According to the Wikipedia page on Metta Forest Monastery (which quotes a book):

Ajaan Ṭhānissaro stresses the importance of strict adherence to the
Vinaya or Buddhist monastic code which teaches relying only on
donations from the lay community as well as living in the wilderness,
a key feature of the Thai Forest Tradition of which he is a part.

It is also likely that some monasteries and some teachers lean towards Vipassana more than Samatha (jhana) or vice versa. For example, Ven.  Ajaan Tong Sirimangalo and his student Ven. Ajaan Yuttadhammo may lean more towards vipassana, while Ven. Ajahn Chah and his student Ven.
Ajahn Brahm may lean more towards samatha.
If you haven't read it already, the book "Broken Buddha" by Ven. S. Dhammika would help you to avoid romanticizing life in Theravada monasteries, especially in Asia. However, at the same time, you should not let it discourage you, as there are bound to be a mix of good and bad experiences when it comes to monasteries and life in monasteries.

I hope there are some Burmese communities but i don't know of any. Burmese tend to accept the abhidhamma so maybe some of them also eat once a day and will tolerate disagreement on commentaries. I've read the book and i want to see if i can find a suitable community to get well along with people if i was to live with them:)

Yes. According to this blog post, Burma or Myanmar studies Abhidhamma more than others. However, most traditional Theravadins accept the Abhidhamma, but not all give it higher importance compared to the Sutta and Vinaya.

Non of these places supports Abhidhamma. They are openly unorthodox. And everyone knows that as well.


text:
Time and Frequency of Meditation
I have read psychological studies and commentaries by meditators that frequency is more important than duration for meditation. Thus, 10 minutes seven days a week is more beneficial than 70 minutes in one sitting according to this view.

I am wondering what this site thinks of this idea. Is regularity more important than duration?
I am wondering whether changing the hour of regular meditation (e.g. one time at 5PM and another at 8AM) impedes on the efficiency of meditation practice. Should meditation occur towards the same time each day ideally?
If the previous ideas are true, then: Would meditating a short amount each day, whatever the time, ensure regularity?

I'm open to hearing any ideas on the subject. Thank you.

Just as with the practice of a musical instrument regularity is better than lengthy but occasional sessions. Sticking to the same time each day helps one achieve regularity.

I am not sure whether you can use a musical instrument, working out (as another example) or learning as a good example because in meditation the mind is focussed on one object (as best as possible). There is learning involved in both, but I'd say that  one could do 5h of meditation if a certain level of concentration is there. Studying or working on the other hand, have limits because at a certain level the body is fatigued and in studying there is too much information processing.

If you meditate really many hours a day(example: 8 hours) then duration matters. These long meditations are really beneficial and they forces the meditators to meditate correctly otherwise negative mind states like boredom can take over. But in other cases it is better to do shorter meditations few times or many times a day so it will lead you to be more mindful during the day.
Changing the time of the formal meditation can be problematic If you don't decide to increase the time of your meditation sessions. So doing the formal meditation in the times that you get used to is better.
Doing short meditations puts you in a better position than the vast majority of the humans who don't even have awareness for 1 second a day. But in the long run it is not enough. But If doing short amount of formal meditations lead you to be mindful during the day then it's beneficial.
The important thing is the continuity of the mindfulness during the day. Practising mindfulness all day long is the gateway to liberation. If the person haven't attained one of the four stages of enlightenment, it's necessary for him/her to practise mindfulness all day long to get results in spirituality.
This video is about short meditation sessions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XyQBI1ZPJ0

Some puthujjanas manage to think that they will progress by spending 20 minutes per day watching the thoughts and suppressing thoughts of harm and lust, then  spending the rest of the day allowing bad thoughts permeated with sensuality, ill-will and harmfulness.
Of course, the only progress possible is first to be mindful of thoughts and perceptions all the time, in order to keep only the good ones.
Sila is made complete with sati sampajana. When sati sampajana declines, sila declines. Without  mindfulness, a puthujjana will only a have sila for a few minutes up to a few hours

I don't understand why everyone tries to make this so complicated.  You need frequency and duration.  There's not other way about it.  If you expect to progress, you have to practice often and for significant periods of time.  There are no shortcuts.  Monks from the time of the Buddha to the present day would sit for hours, everyday.  It's curious to me that laymen today think they'll be able to get away with less.  If anything, they'll have to sit more often to combat the stresses of a householder's life!
Don't worry about when you sit.  While mornings are generally best, all that matters is that you are practicing.  If you're looking for a number to shoot for, aim for two hour long sits everyday.  While more is always better, if you can manage this much, your practice will drastically improve.
A little snark from J.D. Salinger to help you on your way -

"I don't want you to go away with the impression that there're any-you
  know-any inconveniences involved in the religious life. I mean a lot
  of people don't take it up just because they think it's going to
  involve a certain amount of nasty application and perseverance -you
  know what I mean."
It was clear that the speaker, with patent relish, was now reaching
  the high point of his address. He wagged his orange stick solemnly at
  his mother.
"As soon as we get out of the chapel here, I hope you'll accept from
  me a little volume I've always admired. I believe it touches on some
  of the fine points we've discussed this morning. 'God Is My Hobby.' By
  Dr. Homer Vincent Claude Pierson, Jr. In this little book, I think
  you'll find, Dr. Pierson tells us very clearly how when he was
  twenty-one years of age he started putting aside a little time each
  day-two minutes in the morning and two minutes at night, if I remember
  correctly-and at the end of the first year, just by these little
  informal visits with God, he increased his annual income seventy-four
  per cent. I believe I have an extra copy, and if you'll be good
  enough-"

I'm open to hearing any ideas on the subject. Thank you.
Consider making everything your practice. With this perspective, where and when and how you meditate simply flows along with your life sitting, standing, walking or lying down.
Because in the times that you don't practice with all your waking body, speech and mind, you are likely just chasing cravings.


text:
Sensory Pleasure as a Hindrance on the Path
I recall reading, though I do not remember where, that jains and buddhists refrain from masturbation because it could cancel/hinder their spiritual progress. I somewhat wonder:
Does engaging in coarse pleasures as gluttonous eating or sexuality actively undo spiritual progress and virtue, or does it merely consist as a distraction and waste of time?
Thank you

The following quote comes from "Chapter Six: Daily Life" of Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu's book entitled "How To Meditate".
Basically, the five precepts are an absolute must at all times for seriously practising lay persons and monks. Without them, your spiritual progress and virtue would be strongly hindered and possibly also undone. In this case, complete abstention is required.
On the other hand, overeating, oversleeping, too much entertainment and too much sex (without misconduct) are not as critical as the five precepts, though they would be a hindrance nevertheless. In this case, only moderation is required for a lay person, not complete abstention.
In addition, observance of the eight precepts from time to time is also recommended. This is the usual observance for meditation retreats.

First, it is necessary to discuss activities that are harmful to one’s
  mental clarity; activities one must avoid in order for the meditation
  to bring about sustained positive results.
As I explained in the first chapter, “meditation” is the mental
  equivalent to “medicine”. When taking medicine, there are certain
  substances one must avoid; substances that will either nullify the
  positive effects of the medicine or, worse, combine with the medicine
  to create poison. Likewise, with meditation there are certain
  activities that, due to their tendency to cloud the mind, have the
  potential to nullify the effects of the meditation or, worse, pervert
  one’s understanding of the meditation, causing one to cultivate
  unwholesome mind states instead of wholesome ones.
Meditation is meant to cultivate clarity and understanding, free from
  addiction, aversion, and delusion, and therefore free from suffering.
  Since certain bodily and verbal acts are intrinsically tied to
  negative qualities of mind, they are considered ‘contraindicative’ to
  the meditation practice; they have an effect opposite to what is
  desired, cultivating defilement instead of purity. Meditators who
  insist on engaging in such behaviour will face great difficulty in
  their practice, developing habits that are detrimental to both
  meditation practice and personal well-being. To ensure the mind is
  perfectly clear and capable of understanding reality, certain
  behaviours must be taken out of one’s “diet”, so to speak.
First, there are five kinds of action from which one must refrain
  completely, as they are inherently unwholesome:

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

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

The mind is an organ of habits and reactions. Those habits and reactions appear after sense contact, and it is based on the before learnt patterns of the mind. In turn, those patterns become ingrained due to repeated intentional behavior.
What I just mentioned is a -shallow- summary of kamma (intentional deeds) and the effect on the mind, in short and long term.
It's hard to know when will the mind establish a pattern, and when that pattern will become an habitual tendency, which is the source of habitual reactions and responses.
The mind is like a glass of water, but we don't know how filled it is. That's why we should be wise, prudent and cautious, because we don't know how much water does it take to overflow that glass; maybe it takes a lot of it, or maybe a few drops.
We don't know when our past actions will gave fruition to their consequences. We don't know exactly how the past kamma has influenced our minds and our habits/responses. We don't know for sure how will a new act affect our past kammic story.
In the Dvedhavitakka Sutta, it is said:

"Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that
  becomes the inclination of his awareness. If a monk keeps pursuing
  thinking imbued with sensuality, abandoning thinking imbued with
  renunciation, his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with
  sensuality. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking imbued with ill will,
  abandoning thinking imbued with non-ill will, his mind is bent by that
  thinking imbued with ill will. If a monk keeps pursuing thinking
  imbued with harmfulness, abandoning thinking imbued with harmlessness,
  his mind is bent by that thinking imbued with harmfulness."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
Have a wonderful day!

This answer doesn't address the above question

@Val   Hmm. I feel it's a good answer  it seems to suggest that the pursuit of sensuality hinders progress and may undo previous progress.

IMO it's saying that canonically our intentions after sense-contact create mental habits and reactions, which results in e.g. "thinking imbued with sensuality" (instead of e.g. "thinking imbued with renunciation " which "fosters discernment, promotes lack of vexation, & leads to Unbinding"). I guess it says it doesn't "undo" spiritual progress, but that it is not the condition that allows the purification of the mind and spiritual progress from there. This answer says we also don't know how much sensuality might too much i.e. perhaps enough to be habit-forming, or to cloud not purify the mind.

Being at least temporarily celibate is required for intensive practise which can lead a person to enlightenment in a short period of time. Temporary celibacy and intensive mindfulness practise all day long with effort can lead a person to enlightenment in a short period of time. So refraining from sexuality and sensuality in general can make the spiritual progress easier. Ven. Yuttadhammo's teachings can be helpful for the people who has an intention to start an intensive practise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Lg9P-VekA
But most of the human actions can't stop progressing in the path or even attaining enlightenment(except things like hurting others etc. can lead a person to hell or hell-like future lifes instead of Nibbana), so it is better to not to see life through some of the belief systems wrong and harmful ideologies. Buddhism is not about suppression but is about understanding things as they are and becoming free from any kind of attachments.