text:
Should we feel good about life?
It was intense suffering which bought me to the path of Dhamma. But now as I practise I see that I have started defining my life through the lens of suffering. Even if I practise non-attachment and remind myself of ancicca which destroys craving and clinging I feel bad about my life.

Should we feel good about our lives?
What are the reasons to feel good about it?
Can we be both happy about our life and pursue Nibbana?
If we only look at life as suffering and unsatisfactory does this not make us masochist?

why?
I don't see a single reason to.

Some reasons to be happy comes from Dhammapada 197-200:

How very happily we live,
  free from hostility
  among those who are hostile.
  Among hostile people,
  free from hostility we dwell.
How very happily we live,
  free from misery
  among those who are miserable.
  Among miserable people,
  free from misery we dwell.
How very happily we live,
  free from busyness (materialism, avarice)
  among those who are busy.
  Among busy (materialistic, avaricious) people,
  free from busyness (materialism, avarice) we dwell.
How very happily we live,
  we who have nothing.
  We will feed on rapture
  like the Radiant gods.

Rapture (piti) comes from jhana (level achieved in concentration meditation)
The above words come from the perspective of monks who have renounced the worldly life.
But even for lay people, it just goes to show that we can be very happy and grateful for all the good things or situation that we have, the good environment that we're in, and the good deeds that we have done.

Feelings come under the 2nd aggregate. Feelings are impermanent, suffering and non-self regardless of if they are good or bad. All you have to do is to be mindful of feelings, both good and bad until you attain enlightenment.

masochist: a person who derives sexual gratification from their own
  pain or humiliation

Not sure how you even came up with the idea that being mindful of reality to attain enlightenment is synonymous with deriving sexual pleasure from humiliation. :)

You took the other specific definition. The general use is : a person who enjoys an activity that appears to be painful or tedious.

With that definition students studying hard to pass an exam, doctors/nurses working hard to save patients, people exercising hard to lose weight, cave rescuers working day and night to rescue a football team should all be masochists. :)
Mindfulness is not about enjoying. It's about learning what is the truth.

yes it appears like that when you read it out of context. If you put it in the context of my question I meant, i am working through the lens that life is suffering and from that stand point if I derive happiness it looks masochist. Its from the contextual bigger picture.

Nibbana is not about deriving happy feelings.

Suffering is to be understood, it is not something you yearn to experience

Neither it is about deriving anything, nor thwarting anything. It is the highest bliss that liberation gives.

1. Should we feel good about our lives?
Depends upon the context of our lives, yes? If we spend our time helping others, working to pacify ourselves, engaging in virtuous deeds and generally working towards achieving happiness for ourselves and others, then why not feel good about that? Indeed, if this is the case one should rejoice! Finding the Dharma and taking refuge in the Triple Jewels is rare. It is truly an achievement to be rejoiced.
2. What are the reasons to feel good about?
See above :)
3. Can we be both Happy about our life and pursue Nibbana?
Isn't happiness and freedom from suffering the aim of all sentient beings? Isn't this the aim of pursuing the path to the spiritual life in the first place? What is Nirvana if not arriving at the achievement of these aims? Isn't Nirvana the end of the spiritual life where one's aims have been achieved?
4. If we only look at life as suffering and unsatisfactory does this not make us masochist?
Dhukka and Samsara are facts. Reality exists (Dhukka/Samsara) whether we perceive the truth or actively try and hide from it. Seeing things for what they are is not masochism. Indeed, it is necessary to achieve our aims... freedom and release from Dhukka and Samsara. If we sit quietly drinking coffee while the house is on fire saying, "This is fine" it doesn't put out the fire, does it? No, in order to rescue ourselves from the fire we have to know the fire exists, right?
If we know the fire exists and how to put it out and engage in the practice of putting out the fire for ourselves and others, then why not rejoice in doing so?

Given that delight is the root of suffering, one could be tempted to fall into nihilistic despair. And that would be a sad outcome.
However consider that a person who is grateful and thankful might have found that:

the appearance of five treasures is rare in the world

May you abide in peace and joy.

Just a thought... that sutta you reference is replete with ignorance as condition for arising of delight. Also, have a look here: https://suttacentral.net/iti14/en/ireland
Thus, Mahayana views ignorance as the root of all suffering.

Our delights are born and buried in ignorance and revealed through meditation. Although blind to my own ignorance, I can see delight, Mara's fire.

A major event in the Buddha's path to enlightenment was his asking 'why am I afraid of the happiness that doesn't lead to unwholesome states.' I am paraphrasing (I hope correctly) because I can't find that sutra right now. The point is: delight that is not derived from sensual input seems to me an important thing to develop on the path. Can't we connect the joy/happiness/rapture of the early jnanas to "delight?" Isn't that delight, based on seclusion, approved of by the Buddha? Can't we say that in the higher jnanas there is a super-delight that is conditioned only on true knowledge?

@KilayaCiriello The sutta you'r thinking of is MN 36, in the paragraph which starts, "I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working"

Should we feel good about our lives?
Don't try to feel good. Joy will automatically arise once you have a mind free of regret. For a virtuous person no volition is needed to be free from regret. Therefore become a virtuous person and the joy will automatically arise.
Following is what Buddha had to say on the matter(AN 10.2):

“Bhikkhus, for a virtuous person, one whose behavior is virtuous, no
  volition need be exerted: ‘Let non-regret arise in me.’ It is natural
  that non-regret arises in a virtuous person, one whose behavior is
  virtuous.
“For one without regret no volition need be exerted: ‘Let joy
  arise in me.’ It is natural that joy arises in one without regret.

What are the reasons to feel good about?
Although being virtuous will automatically make you joyful, there are some reasons for which you can feel good about. The main reason is Buddha. You believe in Buddha. You have no doubt on Buddha. That itself is a reason for celebration because it means you are inclining towards Nibbana. Next you can be happy about Dhamma. The one who understands Dhamma understands the fundamental truth about the existence. This truth is independent of anyone. Third reason to be happy is Sangha. But if you dont belong to Sangha then you should be happy that there are kind hearted , honest men in world. Not everyone is bad.
Can we be both Happy about our life and pursue Nibbana?
One day we will die. There is no choice. The happiness without intention of renunciation and good will won't last long. If you can be happy in so called adverse situations then yes you can be happy and pursue Nibbana. Life is impermanent. It is the cause of suffering. Therefore you can't be happy about life but you can be happy 'about' Buddha , Dhamma and Sangha and yourself who is on the right path to renunciation.
If we only look at life as suffering and unsatisfactory does this not make us masochist?
Joy and rapture are integral part of Buddhist Philosophy. But it must be seen in the context of the questions: what are we happy about and how we achieve happiness?

Trying to feel good or avoid suffering is the very motivation of embarking on the Buddhist path. How can that be bad?

@YesheTenley Motivation is alright but without treading the Path one can not achieve cessation of suffering. You have limited choice. You can become a virtuous person and the rest will automatically follow. See AN 10.2. The Path is conditioned by volitional formations but ultimately one has to give up the idea of Self and Conceit. I can not demand happiness. I can not demand cessation of suffering. Once we are set on the right path (with right view) things automatically take care of themselves.

Sure. I don't disagree, but I'd note that maybe some could perceive tension between your words "Don't try to feel good" since in order to "tread the path" one has to try to :)

@YesheTenley Yes initially volition is required. But as we walk the path we realize volitional formations are not self. I think it is pretty clear that if we want happiness and joy then we should focus on becoming virtuous(AN 10.2).For example if we want to eat a fruit then we must sow the seed. We can not directly reach to the fruit. Joy is that fruit. Nirvana is that fruit. Our total effort should be focused on sowing the seed and taking care of it, rest will automatically happen if right conditions are met.

I agree here, I think @DheerajVerma meant that we should not "try" as in strive to feel good as it's a trap of Self, but rather just naturally feel good whenever it arises - we cannot just snap fingers and make ourselves happy, thinking in such way creates plenty aversive feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment.

Should we feel good about our lives?

Yes, we should feel great and happy about our lives, Buddhism is about feeling happiness. By that I mean that while dwelling in moments we should know whenever we are happy - awareness of that is the very thing that makes us notice and store positive seeds for the future. Without that,  of what possible help can we be to others if we are miserable, useless and confused? Conversely, when we are afflicted by negative emotions we should know that too, so we apply skilful means and let go of them, or not to produce negative karma as the result of them.
Acknowledgement of pleasant moment and happy life needs to be made without any obstructions - by just noting it. Remember that great deal of suffering is inflicted upon you when you torment yourself by asking and questioning such questions as you've asked; Should I be feeling happiness and joy at the given moment? Should I be happy about life at all? That is because of the fact that we take things to the extreme, drifting off from the path of Right effort. Hence, we have to re-adjust from time to time, until strings play well. You should not feel bad about feeling pleasure and enjoy it while it lasts, just note and contemplate that it is going to end, because nothing is permanent, not even life. Such antidotes to pleasure and excitement will save you some disappointment of thoughts like "I'd rather this gig last for much longer, it was such a good set...", "I have lost my puppy, and I loved him so much...".

Can we be both Happy about our life and pursue Nibbana?

I would attempt to split this into a two-step process. Firstly, we sail off, and that means we have Eightfold path to establish solid base of happiness and bliss through good karma and release from cyclic rebirth, in order to reap positive things in future. It is like training wheels that one cultivates while pursuing more sustainable, unconditional ways of higher bliss. Those unconditional are Dharmadhatu, Rigpa or Jhana - they all speak of the relatively same great experience. So, then it comes the next step we arrive at some realisation that is the resultant of right mindfulness, concentration and effort - all the things resulting from insight into no-Self, impermanence and Emptiness. It might be like above, the first contact with Jhana or just getting in touch with Selflessness. Because mental discipline is a very long process that might take lifetimes, thus the reason for the initial path of ethics has to bring us solid happy foundation quickly, long before realisation, and long long before we reach the other shore to become unafflicted completely.
Since laypeople don't have as much time as monks, even some realisation of three marks of existence is enough to provide sustainable source of happiness. Most importantly, pursuing Nibbana should never be forced or pushed. Insight and realisation should arise naturally in time.
Therefore, knowing that true happiness is unconditional we should not attach too much to the plans of making ourselves happy by conditional means. If such things happen OK, but keep in mind they're not reliable. Constantly looking at the other the shore should give us enough to be wise about it, and try our best not to attach ourselves.

If we only look at life as suffering and unsatisfactory does this not
  make us masochist?

Yes, if we only look at life like this, we are in fact masochists. Life is not all suffering, remember. I reject Four Dharma Seals in favour of Three, they are more truthful. Read: Maha-mangala Sutta: Blessings, this is how joyfully we should approach Buddha's teachings for they give great happiness in our hands. If Buddhism makes you feel like this, it is not Buddhism making it miserable, it is you! Remember it is not things but reaction to things that make us suffer.

I'll try to answer this much simple,First you said that

It was intense suffering which bought me to the path of Dhamma

and it was right way.Cause you saw and felt yourself that i'm suffering and i want to get rid of it some how, then you might have try to find a way, and finally you end up with buddhism. Which is the only way to end suffering.
Therefore for

yes you can.
you have Dhamma and you somehow practising it as you can.
we dont need to pursue Nibbana cause it is not something to puruse, if we practising dhamma as Lord Buddha said, eventual result is Nibbana. we can happy about our lives as long as we are practising dhamma.
No, it's the truth about our lives. If we dont see the truth we will not be able to end suffering. It'll help to remind always life is painfull.

With respect, but if you already had a 'bad time' and Buddhism does not seem tk work out the way you expected, then I suggest to seek out a therapist.
The Buddha wasn't a pessimist who claimed that life is suffering. The 1st NT states the reality of dukkha, which has a wide range of meaning. From distress, unease, unsatisfactoriness to suffering. It makes little to no sense to view life as suffering, since it is not true and it doesn't help you in the long run to live happily your life.
By all means, practise the Noble Eightfold path with dilligence and enthusiasm, but if certain underlying beliefs still sabotage your life I suggest you to seek help because it can be quite difficult to spot them and the motivation and patience you have to bring in order to change your outlook of the world.

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


text:
Books on Buddhism for Beginners
I'm just starting the study of Buddhism and I'm really interested in the whole philosophy of Buddhism. Can someone please suggest some books for beginners ? Thank you.

I also found these helpful -- English (or other European) translations of Pali Canon and Chronological or other sequence for beginners -- to also be able to read more details, rather than only being given an overview. There are several branches (philosophies?) of Buddhism, I think most see the "suttas" (or their Chinese versions) as fundamental or basic. Later (Mahayana) doctrine may be easier to understand after you've been acquainted with the basic doctrine (or Mahayana may be stand-alone too).

Some of the "introduction to Mahayana" questions that I've asked include Pāramitāyāna and Tantrayāna, and Spontaneity in Zen, and this (about non-duality), and Describe the Mahayana path.

See also Introductory books to Buddhism for other book recommendation (maybe this duplicates and should be merged with the Recommendation - Book for beginner topic); and List of book recommendations.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is the self an illusion or is it *like* an illusion?
Recently, in explaining the relative unimportance of the question whether phenomena lack true existence it was claimed that, "the self is definitely an illusion" and lacked true existence. This seemed to be held up as an important fact that has significance in the pragmatic soteriological aims of Theravada in contrast to the above mentioned question.
A few questions that arise:

First, is the self an illusion or not? Here it was said by the same person above that the self was not an illusion?
If either the self is like an illusion or is literally an illusion, is this synonymous with saying that it lacks true or real existence from the Theravada viewpoint?
Why does Theravada regard this question about the ontological status of the self of persons to be an important question? Why can't we just say that the self of persons is real and true like other phenomena, but transient or lacking sara as Chris said was the correct interpretation of SN 22.95
Why does Theravada regard the question of whether the aggregates have intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality an important question? If the self does not truly exist like an illusion, then what does it matter if the aggregates have intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality since the self cannot be found in them?

Some Theravada adherents say that, "the original Pali sutta's" do away with unnecessary speculation or "ontological hamster wheels." :) However, paradoxically it seems some Theravada regard the question of the ontological status of the self to be very important. It's also clear that Sariputra thought it very important to correct Yamaka about this. And the Buddha himself thought it important to instruct how the aggregates and other phenomena were to be regarded as lacking intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality irregardless questions of the self.

I've updated the old answer. Now it does not say that the self is not an illusion. Sorry for the inconsistency.

No apologies necessary :) So your current view is that the self is an illusion and not truly existent and this is relevant? Whereas consciousness is like an illusion and whether it is truly existent or not is irrelevant?

You can find my response in my answer.

@ruben2020 thanks, but I still don't see an answer, but maybe I'll just have to settle for that :)

You continue to assert wrong answers are "right" and then ask more questions based on those wrong answers.

@Dhammadhatu obviously we disagree, so just ignore my questions

I will answer your questions until your understanding conforms with Right View. The Buddha said: "And how do students engage with the teacher in friendliness and not in opposition? There is the case where a teacher teaches the Dhamma to his students sympathetically, seeking their well-being, out of sympathy: 'This is for your well-being; this is for your happiness.' His disciples listen, lend ear, & apply their minds to gnosis. Not turning aside, they don't stray from the Teacher's message. This is how students engage with the teacher as friends and not as opponents.".

@Dhammadatu, I do not regard you as my teacher. I do not find your answers helpful. Your advice is unsolicited.

@YesheTenley What is an illusion?

@TenzinDorje, Paraphrasing Je Tsongkhapa, an illusion can be known using two kinds of awareness. For example, first one relies upon a visual consciousness that sees an illusory horse or elephant and second a mental consciousness that knows that the horse or elephant doesn't exist as it appears. The same is required to establish the illusory nature of a person. First, you need an undeniable appearance of a conventional person. Second, you need reasoned knowledge that the person does not exist as it appears.

@YesheTenley You defined an illusory-like appearance, not an illusion :)

@TenzinDorje, Perhaps, but that paraphrase comes from the Great Treatise in a section that begins with, "“Illusion” is said to have two meanings." :)

Let's take it the way you say, then. Thus, an object is not an illusion in general, but is an illusion only in the perspective of one who knows it to be an illusion.

Is the self an illusion or is it like an illusion? Well, let's just say that it's not truly existent. The lute analogy in the Vina Sutta explains that very well. Using a musical instrument you can play nice music. But if you break it down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music. Music cannot be isolated from the musical instrument. Similarly, the self arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates. You cannot isolate the self from the five aggregates. This is in stark contrast with the Hindu view found in Bhagavad Gita 2.20.
Next, why is it so important in the Pali Suttas that the self of persons is not truly existent, but it is not important in the Pali Suttas that the self of phenomena is truly existent or not truly existent?
This is an easy question to answer in my opinion.
The self of persons is strongly related to the cause of a person's suffering. That's why it is so important in the Pali Suttas. The Cula-Saccaka Sutta (MN 35) explains why the self of persons is strongly related to the cause of a person's suffering.
On the other hand, the self of chairs is unrelated to the cause of a person's suffering. The self of chairs is also unrelated to the cause of a chair's suffering (or rather, I cannot imagine how a chair would experience suffering). This is why whether a chair has a self of chairs or not, is not important in the Pali Suttas.
In fact, the self of phenomena may even fall into the category of unconjecturables in the Acintita Sutta as follows:

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an
  unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring
  madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

The point here is that the world may or may not be truly existent. The world may or may not have a self of phenomena. The world may or may not be an illusion.  The world may or may not be like an illusion. But in all these cases, it is not related to the cause of a person's suffering, and hence it is not important to the path to the end of suffering. At least, this, in my opinion, is how Theravada views it according to the Pali Suttas.
And this also shows how the Pali Suttas are extremely pragmatic.

Hi Ruben, maybe I'm not going to get an answer, but I'm going to try once again. You say the self of phenomena is not an important question that suffering can be eliminated by understanding that self is not truly existent and is either an illusion or like an illusion. However, SN 22.95 does not talk about the self it is strictly a sutta about how we should regard the aggregates. Here Buddha is clearly saying it is important how we regard the aggregates and that if we regard them wrong we can cause suffering. And he explicitly likens consciousness to an illusion.

And in this Sutta: https://suttacentral.net/snp4.15/en/mills you can see Buddha declares that the world (not persons or the self) is essenceless. So he clearly believes this important otherwise he would not have said it. How do you reconcile SN 22.95 and Snp 4.15 with the idea that these questions of the status of the aggregates or the world are not of practical consequence?

Ponder SN 22.93. The aggregates not having a self of phenomena is not useful to me, because this fact is not related to me. The aggregates are related to me, only because I am clinging onto or grasping the aggregates. But if I understand that the aggregates are impermanent and inconstant, and if I understand that the aggregates are empty of a self, then I could develop dispassion towards the aggregates and not cling to them. In this way, the lump of foam sutta is talking about the aggregates being empty of a self of persons.

This will suffice @ruben2020, thank you for your patience and explanations.

I will give a logical answer.
First we need to understand what illusion is ? Illusion is a false belief about something which gets generated due to six senses. For example we see water from a distant distance but when we reach near the source of water we find that there is no water then we say 'sight' of water was an illusion in other words mirage. Every illusion ends when observed carefully using the six senses. Once illusion ends we recognize the truth as it is.
Next we need to understand what is self ? Self also arises due to false belief. When self is examined carefully we are set on the path to Nirvana. But the Self did not arise due to six senses. It arose due to clinging or craving to the six senses. And it doesn't end end when examined through mind(one of the six senses). It ends when clinging or craving ends.
Therefore Self is like an illusion but not exactly an illusion.

The notion that any self is permanent is a delusion simply linked by the invariant word, "I". To say the self is real pulls us immediately into the morass of entanglement that links all these ever-changing phenomena to that one little word "self". The only reality of self is that it is a four-letter word.

Why does Theravada regard this question about the ontological status of the self of persons to be an important question?

Actually it's not a valid question to begin with as far as all schools of Buddhism, not only Theravada is concerned. The Buddha made it clear that there's no self to be found in the Five Aggregates:

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
“Feeling is nonself…. … Perception is nonself…. Volitional formations are nonself…. Consciousness is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus." ~~ SN 22.59 ~~

The Buddha also defined the scope of which question can be pursued and which are considered irrelevant, maybe even harmful to the cultivation of the Path:

There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
“The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
“The jhana-range of a person in jhana…
“The [precise working out of the] results of kamma…
“Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it. ~~ AN 4.77 ~~

And:

Nevertheless they came to be of views like this: that the world is eternal, also that the world is not eternal; and that the world is an ending thing, also that the world is not an ending thing; and that the life principle and the body are the same, also that the life principle and the body are different; and that the Tathāgata becomes after dying, also that the Tathāgata does not become after dying, also that the Tathāgata both becomes and does not become after dying, also that the Tathāgata neither becomes nor does not become after dying.
Thus, monks, neither did this third kind of recluse and brahman escape from Māra's mastery. ~~ MN 25  ~~

That fact that no self can be found anywhere is important though and you would not classify that as an ontological question? ie., the existence of the self? Also, do you accept that the Buddha divided his teachings up according to the skilllevel of the listeners? If so, might it be possible that his "thicket of views" or "unconjecturables" was to ward off those who were not ready to understand or who had preexisting misconceptions that precluded them from understanding?

But how can you define an ontological question if there's nothing there to be defined to start with? Nowhere in the suttas can you find any ontological definition of "the self", and this applies to all practitioners, novices and experts alike.

Clearly we all suffer because we assume the self does exist and clearly the Buddha taught us that we should question this and settle that the self does not truly exist. That is the ontological question.

Then obviously it's not an ontological question for us to keep pondering any more for the Buddha had clearly spelled it out loud for all of us that there's no self to be found in the five aggregates. The only real question is what and how to practice to penetrate this truth, not the illusory nature of the self, or whatever it is.

I get the impression -- see MN 22 -- that statements about self are described as a "view" (diṭṭhi), more particularly a wrong view (diṭṭhigata) ... or a "doctrine" (attavādupādāna -- Ven. Sujato translates that as doctrine but this definition says it means more literally "clinging to the belief in self") ... or "seeing" (samanupassati).
I think there are several kinds of view (self-views, or views about the self) described:

One in MN 22:

They regard form like this: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self.’ They also regard feeling … perception … choices … etc.

These are views about the aggregates, taking the aggregates as self, which I think is called sakkāya-diṭṭhi and/or what sakkāya-diṭṭhi is, where sakkāya-diṭṭhi is one of the fetters, and kaya means something like "body".
Others in MN 22, e.g.:

The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever

Others (perhaps more generally) of the style described as examples of wrong view in MN 2:

"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends instead to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately:

'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?'

Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present:

'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices.
  (e.g. "I exist", or, "I don't exist")

I think they're described as wrong, not because they're true or untrue, not because the self is or isn't an illusion, but because it's a result of attending inappropriately, and not attending appropriately.
And (importantly) it's "wrong" in the sense that it leads to suffering (which I think is like saying that it's unskillful or unwise) -- MN 22 again:

Mendicants, it would make sense to be possessive about something that’s permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever. But do you see any such possession?” “No, sir.” “Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such possession.
It would make sense to grasp at a doctrine of self that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. But do you see any such doctrine of self?” “No, sir.” “Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such doctrine of self.
It would make sense to rely on a view that didn’t give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress. But do you see any such view to rely on?” “No, sir.” “Good, mendicants! I also can’t see any such view to rely on.
Mendicants, were a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘Belonging to my self’?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Were what belongs to a self to exist, would there be the thought, ‘My self’?” “Yes, sir.”
“But self and what belongs to a self are not acknowledged as a genuine fact. This being so, is not the following a totally foolish teaching: ‘The self and the cosmos are one and the same. After death I will be permanent, everlasting, eternal, imperishable, and will last forever and ever’?”
“What else could it be, sir? It’s a totally foolish teaching.”
“What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?”

In summary I think the dhamma advises people to not "acknowledge 'self' as a genuine fact".
See also How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? which explains that "I am" may arise as a (transient) conceit instead of being a (established) view.

I think that modern "philosophy of science" describes a "theory" as being something which:

Fits with and explains observed facts (i.e. previous observations)
Makes useful (usable, beneficial, testable) predictions about future observations

According to that system I'd gather that the Dhamma says that "self" is a type of failed theory, which more or less fails both of these criteria (doesn't fit observed facts, and isn't beneficial).
Is the self an illusion or is it like an illusion?
I think it's like an inappropriate (unskilful or even harmful) theory, for example like "the world is flat" or "wouldn't it be fun to put my hand in the fire".
Incidentally when I was young and before I had access to any reliable literature on Buddhism (but instead only paraphrases by modern authors) I heard it said that "the world is an illusion" and similar statements -- but I didn't find that useful, constructive, prescriptive.
The whole question of whether 'self' is an illusion is still a type of self-view IMO -- "do I exist? do I not exist? is self an illusion? is it like an illusion? etc." -- e.g. as listed in MN 2 above, i.e. part of the "thicket of views."

In tipitaka, only 121 minds, 52 mind-factors, 28 matters, and 1 nibbāna are not illusion. The other else are illusion. This is very important, because it is a start point to understand 3 characterizes.
12 paṭiccasamuppāda, both arising and cessation, are only the relativity of minds, mind-factors, matters, and nibbāna. They cause each other arise by themselves. If the practitioner still believe in an illusion, such as person, as the cause of 12 paṭiccasamuppāda, then he will not see the relativity of 12 paṭiccasamuppāda. Therefore, he can not meditate insight meditation in 3 characterizes in every second of life.
For the example, god is an illusion

When you still believe in god, do you understand 12 paṭiccasamuppāda
of god?(no)
Then can you think God is impermanent, suffering, non-self? (no).
But if you understand how god can analysis as 12 paṭiccasamuppāda, then no god anymore right? (yes)
When no god anymore, 12 paṭiccasamuppāda, which you have been called it as
god, can appear as impermanent, suffering, and non-self, right?
(yes)

So whole pali canon focus on illusion analysis for purge illusion first

The first of all sutta, Sutta Pitaka Vol 1 : 1. Sutta. Tī. Sī
Brahmajālasuttaṃ, is the biggest sutta which teaching about 62
self-illusion analysis. After buddha showed all 62 self-illusion,
then buddha conclude them, 62 self-illusion analysis, as 12
paṭiccasamuppāda at the end.
The first fetter is sakkāya-diṭṭi, which have to destroyed by the
practitioner first of all 10 fetters.
After jhāna meditation, whole tipitaka structure  focus on diṭṭhi-analysis first for the insight meditation beginner, before comprehensions on "impermanent, suffering, and non-self".
Attavādupādāna-cessation, diṭṭhi-analysis/self purging, is taught only inside Buddhism according to MN Cūḷasīhanādasutta.
Sāriputta, the right-hand man of Buddha, described insight meditation by that same structure, in Sutta KN Paṭisambhidāmagga (whole structure).
0 BE ancient commentary described insight meditation by that same structure.
3th BE 3rd buddhist council members, arahanta, judge titthiya-monks by illusion analysis ability testing as well. See Abhidhamma Pitaka Vol 4 : Abhi. Kathāvatthu  (whole structure).
10th BE commentary, such as visuddhimagga (path of purification), described insight meditation by that same structure  (whole structure).
16th BE commentary, such as abhidhammatthasaṅgaha, described insight meditation by that same structure  (whole structure).
Vimuttimagga described insight meditation by that same structure  (whole structure).
Burmese monks, such as pa-auk monastery, described insight meditation by that same structure  (whole structure).
Thai monks, such as Bh. Mun Bhuridatta who is the leader teacher of all thai forest monk, described insight meditation follow to abhidhammatthasangaha as well.

"the self is definitely an illusion" and lacked true existence. This seemed to be held up as an important fact that has significance in the
  pragmatic soteriological aims of Theravada

Indeed. Ideas about rocks & clouds existing or not-existing or neither existing or non-existing is unrelated to  the soteriological aim of the Buddha. The illusion of self is the root of suffering and it is the illusion of self that must be understood for the soteriological purpose.

First, is the self an illusion or not? Here it was said by the same person above that the self was not an illusion?

Self is an illusion or superstition (fabricated assumption), as said in SN 22.81.

If either the self is like an illusion or is literally an illusion, is this synonymous with saying that it lacks true or real existence
  from the Theravada viewpoint?

It lacks lacks true or real existence. The Buddha said "self" is a "disease" & the "arising of suffering".

Why does Theravada regard this question about the ontological status of the self of persons to be an important question?

Theravada does not ever mention the word "ontological". Why do you keep using this Western word? Regardless, the question is important for the soteriological aim of the Buddha. The illusion of self is the root of suffering and it is the illusion of self that must be understood for the soteriological purpose.

Why can't we just say that the self of persons is real and true like
  other phenomena, but transient or lacking sara as Chris said was the
  correct interpretation of SN 22.95

Chris's comment was wrong. Why are you here asking questions from ignorance but then, despite your ignorance, making judgments of what is right & wrong?
Regardless, the "self" is a fabrication that can be observed to not exist for prolonged periods; for a Buddha for their whole life. However, the five aggregates will always exist.
To repeat: When the mental fabrication of "self" ceases to exist in the mind; the mind will continue to exist.

Why does Theravada regard the question of whether the aggregates have intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality an important
  question?

So craving does not arises towards worthless phenomena.

If the self does not truly exist like an illusion, then what does it
  matter if the aggregates have intrinsic value, worth, meaning and
  lasting quality since the self cannot be found in them?

This question is wrong. The self does not truly exist like an illusion for enlightened minds rather than for idiots (puthujjana). Therefore, many aspects of insight are useful for overcoming craving, which is a cause for the illusion of suffering generating suffering.
This is why in his 2nd sermon, the Buddha gave a gradual teaching about: (i) impermanence; (ii) unsatisfactoriness; and (iii) not-self. The Buddha did not start with "not-self".

Some Theravada adherents say that, "the original Pali sutta's" do away with unnecessary speculation or "ontological hamster wheels."

Please try to no ask questions about "ontological". This word is foreign or alien to Buddhism.

However, paradoxically it seems some Theravada regard the question
  of the ontological status of the self to be very important.

The illusion of self is the root of suffering and it is the illusion of self that must be understood for the soteriological (liberation) purpose.

It's also clear that Sariputta thought it very important to correct
  Yamaka about this. And the Buddha himself thought it important to
  instruct how the aggregates and other phenomena were to be regarded as
  lacking intrinsic value, worth, meaning and lasting quality
  irregardless questions of the self.

In his 2nd sermon the Buddha explained the Three Characteristics (which per AN 3.136 are inherent or "ontological"). The teaching in the Phena Sutta is related to the 2nd characteristic of "dukkha", namely, the inherent characteristic that conditioned things cannot bring lasting happiness because they are meeaningless & worthless. The Phena Sutta (SN 22.95) does not mention the words "anatta" or "sunnata" because the Phena Sutta is not about the "selflessness of the aggregates".

Ontological the word has been used many times in translation of Buddhist texts your own aversion to the word notwithstanding.

Please follow the precept of Truthful Speech. Please quote where Ontological the word has been used many times in translation of Buddhist texts?

In light of your just posted question https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/28751/dhamma%e1%b9%ad%e1%b9%adhitat%c4%81-and-dhammaniy%c4%81mat%c4%81-versus-ontology-phenomenology I assume you found via an easy google search will you retract your implication that I was untruthful?

The quotes I made are not found in any translations of Pali. They are comments made by Western scholars that are independent from the Pali teachings.

You said the word was foreign or alien to Buddhism and yet just as I said it is found in numerous Buddhist texts proving your contention wrong. The Pali texts are just one part of Buddhist texts. The writers you quote are Theravada practitioners and yet you imply I am untruthful. If you are interested in truth you will acknowledge and retract your erroneous implication. If you are just interested in not admitting error lest it damage your ego or self-conception... well, that is on you.

Bhikkhu Bodhi is not the suttas. Bhikkhu Bodhi made a commentary unrelated to the suttas.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

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


text:
Is an 'Existential Crisis' a necessary condition to start on the path of Dhamma?
The path of Dhamma is a journey towards the end of all suffering through the attainment of Nibbana. The Buddha set out to find the cure for human suffering, but there are so many people around us today, suffering in so many ways. Most of the people end up still finding a cure in the material world. There are very few people who are suffering might end up starting to think about life itself as suffering for e.g. philosophers like Schopenhauer. But even these intellectuals don't seem to have come to the conclusion of the need to transcend the mind. As against there are those might not be in a lot of suffering but in an, existential crisis seem to arrive at the path of Dhamma.
I am asking, is existential-crisis a pre-requisite and more fundamental human need than wanting to end suffering to start the journey towards Nibbana?

Is this a dupe of Why have I awoken Now?

No the answer below looks like a answer to that question. The question is inherently different. Here I am asking about the role crisis for meaning plays in arriving and not about tge probablity of arriving.

Understood. Still, please check my answer to that question, specifically the part about "enough suffering in your life and enough confusion to push you to seek some sort of resolution", and "combination of positive and negative factors".

Schopenhauer refers to the consciousness beyond subject and object as his 'better consciousness', so maybe he had some idea of transcending mind.

AN 3.38 describes Gotama having an existential crisis.

Even though I was endowed with such fortune, such total refinement, the thought occurred to me: 'When an untaught, run-of-the-mill person,
  himself subject to death, not beyond death, sees another who is dead,
  he is horrified, humiliated, & disgusted, oblivious to himself that he
  too is subject to death, not beyond death. And if I — who am subject
  to death, not beyond death — were to be horrified, humiliated, &
  disgusted on seeing another person who is dead, that would not be
  fitting for me.' As I noticed this, the living person's intoxication
  with life entirely dropped away.

Also, the traditional biography of Sariputta & Mogallana shows them having an existential crisis:

Now at Rajagaha there was an annual event called the Hilltop Festival. Seats were arranged for both youths and they sat together to
  witness the celebrations. When there was occasion for laughter, they
  laughed; when the spectacles were exciting, they became excited; and
  they paid their fees for the extra shows. In this manner they enjoyed
  the festival for a second day; but on the third day their
  understanding was awakened and they could no longer laugh or get
  excited, nor did they feel inclined to pay for extra shows as they had
  done on the first days. Each of them had the same thought: "What is
  there to look at here? Before these people have reached a hundred
  years they will all have come to death. What we ought to do is to seek
  for a teaching of deliverance."
It was with such thoughts in mind that they took their seats at the festival. Then Kolita said to Upatissa: "How is this, my dear
  Upatissa? You are not as happy and joyous as you were on the other
  days. You seem now to be in a discontented mood, What is on your
  mind?"
"My dear Kolita, to look at these things here is of no benefit at all. it is utterly worthless! I ought to seek a teaching of
  deliverance for myself. That, my Kolita, is what I was thinking,
  seated here. But you, Kolita, seem to be discontented, too."
And Kolita replied: "Just as you have said, I also feel." When he knew that his friend had the same inclinations, Upatissa said: "That
  was a good thought of ours. But for those who seek a teaching of
  deliverance there is only one thing to do: to leave home and become
  ascetics. But under whom shall we live the ascetic life?

Can you elaborate on how you concluded that the Buddha had an existential crisis? He had all the material comforts that a person could desire. Does the fact that he got horrified necessarily mean that he was in existential crisis?

Siddhartha led a privileged life and was an intelligent and curious person. The story of he and his attendent seeing the three marks of living- illness, old age and death created an existential crisis for him. The crisis raised the haunting question of what is the meaning of life? Is it only to become ill, old and die? This created anxiety, a malaise, dysphoria or Suffering that he could not shake or eventually ignore. This is the Suffering the Buddha later talks about as having transcended and ended. This was the strong reason why he left his family to find the answer to the existential question of the meaning to life. Also, he wanted to find the answer so his loved ones would not suffer from the doubt and insecurity of a meaningless life of only living for sense pleasure gratification. He sought out leading gurus but eventually they did not have the answer. It was only until his Awakening to the non-duality of existence that he understood that this suffering or insecurity about the meaning of life was a cognitive event and once he transcended this he no longer was worried since the question is born out of the ignorance of dualism. He became the Buddha.

There are two types of existential crisis. One makes a person extremely corrupted, harmful to themselves and others. The second type of existential crisis leads a person to a spiritual opening. The second type of existential crisis is a very rare event in the human world, that's why there are very few people in the world who are interested to walk in the path of the dhamma.
In the modern world I think that the most people experiences existantial crisis, that's why when you look to the news you'll see many horrible things are happening daily all around the world. The wrong beliefs, ideas and modern age's advanced technology's effect on the human mind leads people to be "living deads". But the existantial crisis of the most of the humans don't lead them to the dhamma because most people are clinging to collective culture, wrong ideas and beliefs. So they continue the normal way of living with clinging to collective culture, wrong beliefs and ideas even more. People try to suppress their sufferings with using different kinds of tools, but this suppressing only makes them worse.
The important thing is to be disloyal to the collective culture, wrong beliefs and ideas in order to the start on the path of dhamma. You experience existantial crisis or not doesn't matter, but understanding the suffering aspect of the collective culture, society, beliefs, ideas and becoming at least a little bit detached from them is absolutely necessary in order to start the path.
For the ordinary people existantial crisis makes their heart more stiff, makes them more worldling. In the spiritual path the person also have these "existantial crisis" time to time but these experiences makes the person's heart open more to the nature of reality. As a result, the person gradually disidentifes from the collective humanity's insanity and eventually enters to the stream of enlightenment and after the purification and disidentification reaches to a point these existantial crisis periods ends and what remains is only very deep peace, happiness, contentment. So existantial crisis actually helps the spiritual people to walk in the direction of non-self and freedom from suffering. Because mindfulness of suffering eventually leads to complete freedom from suffering. As Thich Nhat Hanh said "Suffering and happiness is one". But for the beginners being "disloyal" to the collective culture, society, beliefs and ideas is the main necessity for starting to the path of the dhamma.

Yes, dukkha is the pre-requisite for Saddha, samvega, for pasada. No fear, no dhukka perceived, the path for escape the truths in the world is neither desired nor seen.

In Therigatha 6.1 (quoted below), the nun Bhikkhuni Patacara had an existential crisis over her son's untimely death. Recalling the Buddha's words, she had a deep realization, perhaps even enlightenment, that led her to take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha.

[Patacara recalls the Buddha's words:]
  "You don't know the path
  of his coming or going,
  that being who has come from where?
  — the one you lament as 'my son.'
  But when you know the path
  of his coming or going,
  you don't grieve after him,
  for that is the nature of beings.
Unasked,
  he came from there.
  Without permission,
  he went from here
  — coming from where?
  having stayed a few days.
  And coming one way from here,
  he goes yet another from there.
  Dying in the human form,
  he will go wandering on.
  As he came, so he has gone
  — so what is there to lament?"
Pulling out
  — completely out
  — the arrow so hard to see,
  embedded in my heart,
  he expelled from me
  — overcome with grief
  — the grief over my son.
Today — with arrow removed,
  without hunger, entirely Unbound
  — to the Buddha, Dhamma, & Sangha I go,
  for refuge to the Sage.

Yes I was thinking of that ("the one you lament as 'my son.'") too. Or actually I was thinking of Gautami, rather than Patacara. But conversely "the weaver's daughter" (who attained stream entry just before she died), it's not clear she was having some existential crisis (unless her having been thinking about the impermanence of life for a while counts as that), nor why she alone (among the people of Alavi) took up that meditation at the Buddha's suggestion in the first place.

Those beings fortunate enough to be born a person is as rare as a blind sea-turtle coming to the surface every hundred years in a world covered in oceans managing to put its neck through the hole of a yoke tossed about by the wind.
Those persons fortunate to encounter the dharma, recognize it as a refuge as such, in a time when the dharma hasn't completely disappeared, and have the leisure and opportunity to practice are at least as rare as that.
We should all be rejoicing that we've been able to find such a precious jewel given such meager chances!
See the Chiggala Sutta.
I can't speak for others, but I think I've been a seeker my whole life starting at a very early age. I read Siddhartha in high school which was my first introduction to Buddhism, but did not pursue it or inquire too much more. However, I do recall thinking that Buddhism seemed familiar or something about it warranted more investigation, but that didn't occur until into middle age. I can't speak for past lives, but I don't think there was existential crisis although again I've always been a seeker in this life.

Yes, but do we arrive here due to a crisis to find a meaning of life or sheer discretion on our part about the cure for suffering? How much do this search for meaning play its part? That seems more fundamental to me.

A teacher of mine once said that there are two kinds of people who follow the dharma

People who have seen through things already and had a level of insight
People who just weren't very good at living in the modern world and were looking for something different

I guess you could view both groups as having some kind of crisis.
Supporting this, I read a forum post by Daniel Ingram who said that anyone interested enough in the dharma to be reading that kind of post probably already had had significant levels of insight. Or to read it another way - a crisis.
I have to say both figures (my old teacher and Daniel Ingram) are quite controversial.


text:
How to navigate the impracticality of Sigalovada sutra?
Consider the advice of Buddha about friends and Wife in the Siglovada Sutta.

friends and colleagues so respected reciprocate with compassion in five ways: by protecting you when you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when you are afraid, not abandoning you in misfortunes, and honoring all your descendants.
Some are drinking buddies,
  Some say, 'Dear friend! Dear friend!'.
  But whoever in hardship stands close by,
  That one truly is a friend.

Sleeping late, adultery,
Hostility, meaninglessness,
Harmful friends, utter stinginess:
These six things destroy a person....
In today's world where Smoking and drinking has become such a common thing and where socializing has become equivalent to having a few drinks at least a glass of wine, it's hard to find a guy to make a friend who would fit into Buddha's description of a friend here. I mean I have given up the vices but if I will try to find a mate like me its impossible, I will be left alone.
A similar thing goes with the wife,

And, the wife so respected reciprocates with compassion in five ways: by being well-organized, being kindly disposed to the in-laws and household workers, being faithful, looking after the household goods, and being skillful and diligent in all duties.

In today's time of the hit and run relationships and all that we know of modern day relationships, this seems impractical.
Following this Sutta will leave you lonely. How do you navigate this problem?

This question might, I don't know, be on-topic on Interpersonal Skills SE -- check What topics can I ask about here? before you post there though, and their Meta.

No, the question has meaning only in the context of buddhism and the answer is also, as I wanted in context of Buddhist practice which I got...otherwise I do know what to do to solve the problem.

The answer comes in the Rhinoceros Sutta (mentioned by @santa100):

If you gain a mature companion,
  a fellow traveler, right-living & wise,
  overcoming all dangers
  go with him, gratified, mindful.
If you don't gain a mature companion,
  a fellow traveler, right-living & wise,
  wander alone
  like a king renouncing his kingdom,
  like the elephant in the Matanga wilds, his herd.
We praise companionship — yes!
  Those on a par, or better,
  should be chosen as friends.
  If they're not to be found,
  living faultlessly,
  wander alone
  like a rhinoceros
Avoid the evil companion
  disregarding the goal,
  intent on the out-of-tune way.
  Don't take as a friend
  someone heedless & hankering.
  wander alone
  like a rhinoceros.
Consort with one who is learned,
  who maintains the Dhamma,
  a great & quick-witted friend.
  Knowing the meanings,
  subdue your perplexity,
  [then] wander alone
  like a rhinoceros.

The truth of the Buddha's teaching is timeless and doesn't get affected by modern norms or customs. Imagine if it's influenced by social norms, then there'll be a possible scenario in a distant future where human virtures and values becoming severely degenerated. It'll be common practice and acceptable social norm for humans to do all kinds of evil and little to none of virtuous conducts. If going by the standard of that future time, the Buddha's teaching will be perceived as completely irrelevant, or at least only deemed valuable to a very very small number of people. The Dhamma drum will have so many pegs that it won't be able to make audible sound. So for the OP question, you'd have a better chance of finding a friend or a soulmate with similar mentality or conducts if s/he also cultivates similar virtues. Finding fellow Buddhist practitioners would be best, but any other sincere followers of other world religions would also be fine since they pretty much share similar codes of conduct. If all else fail, then it's perfectly ok to walk the path alone like a proud Rhinoceros

Following this Sutta will leave you lonely. How do you navigate this problem?

It's actually quite a relief to be free of those who are scoundrels, drunkards, addicts, frauds, swindlers, and thugs. And I am always surprised and grateful at how many others are left in the world to meet and greet in passing or again as friends.
Ultimately, when one becomes a good friend, loneliness ends.

The Buddha said he teaches about suffering & freedom from suffering. Drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, women with broken capacity for fidelity, etc, are suffering and to be avoided; for financial reasons and for reasons of mental & physical health.


text:
Sutta reference or teachings about Sleep timings?
In a Vipassana retreat you are made to wake up at 4 am, also similar is the case in the Zen retreat.
I have read numerous articles on advantage on waking up early.
Are there any Sutta references or teachings of Monks or Lama or Zen master which give advise on waking up early and going to bed early?

Sutta Pitaka Vol 4 : Sutta. Ma. Mū. Mahāassapurasuttaṃ:

What more is there to do?
You should train yourselves like this: ‘We will be committed to
  wakefulness.

When practicing walking and sitting meditation by day, we will
  purifying our mind from obstacles.
In the evening, we will continue to practice walking and sitting
  meditation.
In the middle of the night, we will lie down in the lion’s
  posture—on the right side, placing one foot on top of the
  other—mindful and aware, and focused on the time of getting up.
In the last part of the night, we will get up and continue to
  practice walking and sitting meditation, purifying our mind from
  obstacles.’

Now, mendicants, you might think: ‘We have conscience and prudence,
  our bodily, verbal, and mental behavior is pure, our livelihood is
  pure, our sense doors are restrained, we don’t eat too much, and we
  are committed to wakefulness. Just this much is enough …’


text:
How does Theravada practice to obtain the direct knowledge of anatta?
In this comment it is stated that the Pali Suttas contain the correct method for manifesting direct knowledge of anatta. I agree, but I wonder what Theravada adherents would regard as the precise suttas that definitively explain? In particular, is SN 5.10 included:

“Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?  Māra,
  is this your theory?  This is just a pile of conditions,  you won’t
  find a sentient being here.
When the parts are assembled  we use the word ‘chariot’.  So too, when
  the aggregates are present  ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
But it’s only suffering that comes to be,  lasts a while, then
  disappears.  Naught but suffering comes to be,  naught but suffering
  ceases.”

I ask because the Analysis of the Chariot expounded by Chandrakirti is highly praised as one of the best methods for quickly using analysis to confirm that things lack inherent nature. It is said that conducting this analysis in meditation when combined with serenity meditation is the method to achieve the direct knowledge of anatta. Just as the chariot lacks an inherent nature of "chariot" and is merely a convention, just so the person lacks inherent nature and is merely a convention.
So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta?
How about the conversation between the Arahant Nagasena and the King?
Are there other Suttas which take precedence? What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?

Short answer: Theravada practices the four satipatthana to get insight into anicca, dukkha and anatta. See. the Satipatthana sutta.

There's no cutting corners nor shortcuts in Theravada. SN 5.10 speaks the truth. But to actually attain direct knowledge to this truth as opposed to mere conceptual understanding, one has to perfect the Gradual trainings of Sila-Samadhi-Panna, which Ven. Bodhi did a great job of explaining in his "Noble Eightfold Path". And to each aspect of the gradual trainings, there are many different suttas one'd need to read, study, contemplate, and put into practice (ie: for Sila: AN 8.39-43, 3.70, Sn 2.4, SN 3.5; for Samadhi: Anapanasati Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta; for Panna: MN 43, AN 8.2, AN 3.73, AN 7.6, and many more as detailed in Ven. Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words"). There're no shortage of teachers in the world who can eloquently speak at great length about all the ins and outs of anatta/shunyata and stuff. But when facing some young voluptuous beautiful women, some title, some power, some cash, etc. then the number start dropping like flies! Why? Because they're the experts of Anatta who fail the basics of Sila-Samadhi-Panna.

The outsider ordinary people of Buddhism don't have anattā-understanding in any mind-moment. They never know, so they never do anything follow to it.
The buddhist ordinary people, the practitioners, have a conceptual anattā-understanding in some mind-moments, but it still being a concept. So, they do something follow to it sometime, but sometime they forget, not be mindful on, it and do some improper things, too.
The sotāpanna have the perfect anattā-understanding in every mind-moments, so they  do everything follow to it.
If you understand like that, every sutta are the answer for your question.
And the reference sutta is the end of Sutta. Ma. Mū. Alagaddūpamasuttaṃ:

"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who have abandoned the three fetters, are all stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags.
...
"In the Dhamma thus well-proclaimed by me — clear, open, evident, stripped of rags — those monks who have a [sufficient] measure of conviction in me, a [sufficient] measure of love for me, are all headed for heaven. This is how the Dhamma well-proclaimed by me is clear, open, evident, stripped of rags."

What you did, is what you take. If you still understand anatta as a concept, then your fetters still going on. So, the effect is not the same as sotāpanna, who does every moments of his life by anattā-understanding.

We disagree about the definition of sotāpanna, but that is minor. More substantially, you seem to equate having knowledge of anattā in every mind moment with direct knowledge of anatta. Is this what you are after? Like, when I walk into a room and know without a shadow of doubt that an Elephant is not in that room with me and in each subsequent mind moment in that room I don't for even an instance think that an Elephant is in that room with me? Is this how it is with anatta?

@YesheTenley  No, it isn't. I described  "direct vs inferential anattā-understanding". I didn't described about anattā. But If I have to describe about anattā, I will describe as "Every aggregates are being in paṭiccasamuppāda, and nothing can control paṭiccasamuppāda (causes&effects). So, every aggregates are anattā".

Thanks @Bonn, I can't say I completely understand your answer, but I am grateful for the attempt

Well the goal of the practice is not the direct knowledge of anatta. That already does not bode well. The goal of the practice for the puthujjana is the nibbidā, which is the disenchantment, the viraga, the dispassion, and the nibbana which is the cessation of dukkha.
The disciple must always have sati, which is having in mano and ideally in the citta the teaching and if there is only one paragraph to remember is the famous sequence that what is annica is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta, what is anatta is worthy of disappointment and once there is disappointment or dispassion there is the cessation of dukkha and its knowledge. The few puthujjanas who are obsessed with atta and anatta and atman do not talk about the end of the sequence. Their usual sequence is what is anicca is dukkha, what is dukkha is anatta and they stop here. Just like The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta
where the conclusion is

"O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'"

And the usual way to go beyond understanding annica, which is called  Aniccānupassī, is precisely the method of the anapanasati sutta.
The beginning is the usual rise of samadhi for the citta and calming all the Shankaras that are still here. Just like for the jahnas. This is as far as a puthujana go without the teaching.
Of course, for the good puthujjanas, they want to go beyond the usual samadhi and want to stop being puthujjanas. Once the citta has samadhi or is in samadhi, then it is time to  Aniccānupassī, which again means "deeply see impermanence" so it is the vipassana that so many puthujjanas crave and manage to claim they got and do.
Now the sutta does not talk about dukkha and anatta of the sequence, since that's not really the goal, and jump form the annica to the goal, which is the  Virāgānupassī, meaning the dispassion, and  paṭinissaga, which is the "rejection of the things" and that's nibanna.
So again, the disciple begins with sati, but of course sati is not really an action. What is done for and with the rise of sati and the development of sati is the anapanasati or the Satipatṭhāna.
THe easiest way to have sati is the be around good people and to avoid bad people. The good people are the kalyāṇamitta who are the good friends meaning they show sagacity for the dhamma and  do not cause drama over material things and rules, conventions and norms.

You are right that the direct knowledge of anatta is not the goal. I agree with that. However, the direct knowledge of anatta is necessary as a prerequisite for achieving the goal. We seem to disagree, but thank you for your input.

A sentient being is not the same as the self. Please see this answer which explains why plants are not sentient beings, unlike animals. "Sentient beings" is the convention used to denote the presence of the five aggregates.
So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta? Are there other Suttas which take precedence?
Conversations between Nagasena and the king (Milindapanha) is not part of the Pali Canon. So, it is considered a secondary text.
My favourite sutta on the self is the Vina Sutta (SN 35.205):

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the
  sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say,
  'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That,
  sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing,
  so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go
  & fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire,
  is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so
  intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of
  your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute,
  sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's
  through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is,
  in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings,
  the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this
  lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds
  through the activity of numerous components.'
"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces.
  Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would
  shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it
  in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes.
  Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or
  let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A
  sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have
  been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'
"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go.
  He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is
  investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me'
  or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

Using a musical instrument you can play nice music. But if you break it down to its constituent parts, you cannot find music. Music cannot be isolated from the musical instrument. Similarly, the self arises from the inter-working of the five aggregates. You cannot isolate the self from the five aggregates.
Perhaps, you can look at it in this way: The musical instrument is the sentient being. The music coming out of the musical instrument is the self. The musical instrument is composed of various parts which are analogous to the five aggregates. When these parts work together, they make music. The way they work together is dependent origination.
I think the dependent origination of the Pali Suttas are more complex than a mere assembly of parts. It describes a far more complex interaction. The Buddha stated that if you understand dependent origination, you understand the Dhamma in MN 28.
The Upanisa Sutta (SN 12.23) describes dependent origination and also the path to understanding it using the water flow allegory - this is more like a chain of processes where each link in the chain depends on each other - it's not an assembly of parts:

"Just as when the gods pour rain in heavy drops & crash thunder on the
  upper mountains: The water, flowing down along the slopes, fills the
  mountain clefts & rifts & gullies. When the mountain clefts & rifts &
  gullies are full, they fill the little ponds. When the little ponds
  are full, they fill the big lakes. When the big lakes are full, they
  fill the little rivers. When the little rivers are full, they fill the
  big rivers. When the big rivers are full, they fill the great ocean.
  In the same way:
"Fabrications have ignorance as their prerequisite, consciousness has
  fabrications as its prerequisite, name-&-form has consciousness as
  their prerequisite, the six sense media have name-&-form as their
  prerequisite, contact has the six sense media as its prerequisite,
  feeling has contact as its prerequisite, craving has feeling as its
  prerequisite, clinging has craving as its prerequisite, becoming has
  clinging as its prerequisite, birth has becoming as its prerequisite,
  stress & suffering have birth as their prerequisite
Conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite.
  Joy has conviction as its
  prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite, serenity has
  rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as its
  prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite,
  knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has
  concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge &
  vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite,
  dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has
  dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its
  prerequisite."

Another description of the dependent origination based on the allegory of reeds leaning on each other from the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta (SN 12.67) - this is also not an assembly of parts:

"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for
  there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that
  intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said.
  It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one
  another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition
  comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes
  name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six
  sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes
  contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From
  feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a
  requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From
  clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of suffering & stress.
"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other
  would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would
  fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the
  cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes
  the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes
  the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six
  sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of
  contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling
  comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes
  the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of
  clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the
  cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation
  of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, &
  despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of
  suffering & stress."

What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?
From the Kimsuka Sutta (SN 35.204):

"Suppose, monk, that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong
  walls & ramparts and six gates. In it would be a wise, experienced,
  intelligent gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in
  those he did. A swift pair of messengers, coming from the east, would
  say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this
  fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central
  square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate
  report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the
  route by which they had come. Then a swift pair of messengers, coming
  from the west... the north... the south, would say to the gatekeeper,
  'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say,
  'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of
  messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the
  fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come.
"I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message
  is this: The fortress stands for this body — composed of four
  elements, born of mother & father, nourished with rice & barley gruel,
  subject to constant rubbing & abrasion, to breaking & falling apart.
  The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper
  stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for
  tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the
  fortress stands for consciousness. The central square stands for the
  four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the
  fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for
  Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the
  noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right
  action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right
  concentration."

I think the above quote should be self-explanatory. Also, please see the Upanisa Sutta quote above, which I quote again below:

Conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite. Joy has
  conviction as its prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite,
  serenity has rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as its
  prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite,
  knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has
  concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge &
  vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite,
  dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has
  dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as its
  prerequisite."

Thanks, Theravada doesn't hold Nagasena to have been an Arahant? Also, I don't get your distinction about "sentient being?" You don't think Vajira is displaying knowledge of the doctrine of anatta when she replies to Mara?

@ruben2020 actually, Milindapanha is included in Khuddaka Nikaya and considered part of the Pali Canon in Burma (but not in Thailand or Sri Lanka - even though the only extant copy is written in the Sri Lankan Pali using the Sinhalese script).

Vajira has correct understanding of anatta, but the terms "sentient being" (satta?) and "self" (atta) are not exactly the same. You can say "all phenomena is not self" but you can't say "all phenomena is not sentient being". It's not exactly the same.

@ruben2020 gotcha, but Vajira is demonstrating the analysis leading to understanding anatta in that sutta, yes? I think the same analysis is used in (SN 35.205): not the parts, not the whole, not the assemblage of parts, etc., ?

No. She is demonstrating the analysis leading to understanding sentient being. For understanding anatta, I would recommend the quoted Vina Sutta. Perhaps, you can look at it in this way: The musical instrument is the sentient being. The music coming out of the musical instrument is the self. The musical instrument is composed of various parts which are analogous to the five aggregates. When these parts work together, they make music.

The way they work together is dependent origination. I think the dependent origination of the Pali Suttas are more complex than a mere assembly of parts. It describes a far more complex interaction.

In this answer you wrote that, according to Mahayana,

What is an Arya being? Someone who has directly perceived emptiness in a completely unmistaken and non-conceptual way while in meditative equipoise.

My opinion is that, per the Pali suttas, people tend to "enter the stream" at a time when they must have been aware of all three characteristics (i.e. dukkha and anicca as well as anatta).
For example, there's the story of Skinny Gotami -- who is (if I can paraphrase) looking for the atta of her dead son -- from doing which she gains insight into her own (its saying "confirmed in the fruit of stream-entry" implies she has abandoned sakkaya ditthi).

Or from the comment which you quoted, which said:

Actually, a conceptual understanding of anatta is insufficient in Theravada. One has to "see it through wisdom" using vipassana. This is explained in the Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89).

I didn't understand that comment's saying One has to "see it through wisdom" using vipassana but the SN 22.89 (which it references) starts with,

And at that time Ven. Khemaka was staying at the Jujube Tree Park, diseased, in pain, severely ill.

I am not getting better, my friend. I am not comfortable. My extreme pains are increasing, not lessening. There are signs of their increasing, and not of their lessening.

IOW I think that means he's dying.

Perhaps this (i.e. saying that you see all three characteristics) is consistent with doctrine too -- since "doubt about the dhamma" is also associated with stream entry, and the dhamma includes "the three characteristics".

Also since self-view is a cause of (or associated with, or conditions, gives rise to) dukkha, you may perceive self-view if and when you perceive dukkha -- and conversely perceive anatta when you perceive non-dukkha.

So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta?
I don't think "direct knowledge" comes only from reading any sutta. The suttas (and/or the Dhamma) may be needed to explain experience, to describe experience, to guide practice.
Remember that for what it's worth a "human" birth is said to be more propitious/conducive to enlightenment than birth in a higher (i.e. less suffering) realm.

What is the precise method for generating direct knowledge as opposed to mere conceptual or inferential understanding?
I'm not sure there's a single "precise method":

I learned 82,000 from the Buddha,
  And 2,000 from the monks;
  These 84,000
  Are the teachings I have memorized.
— the Venerable Ananda, in Theragatha 17.3

The four noble truths, perhaps; or compassion.

you say "I don't think "direct knowledge" comes only from reading any sutta." ... sorry for being unclear. In Great Treatise Volume 3, Je Tsongkhapa devotes a chapter to explaining exactly how one should practice to achieve direct knowledge of shunyata after correctly realizing it inferentially. The method relies upon various analysis including the Analysis of the Chariot. Ruben said that Theravada also understands the necessity of "direct knowledge of anatta" for achieving the goal. So I was looking for what Theravada relies upon that is analogous to Je Tsongkhapa's precise method.

I don't understand the question then. :-) FWIW Wikipedia says "In Pali literature, abhiññā refers to both the direct apprehension of dhamma (translated below as "states" and "qualities") as well as to specialized super-normal capabilities."

It is ok. Could be that I just have wrong idea. I think @AndreiVolkov might even think so too and I find we are usually on the same page even if not on the same paragraph, sentence, word, letter, ink spot, set of molecules, molecule, atom, sub-atomic particle, quantum wave function eigenstate, singularity, etc, etc

The suttas are slightly vague about practice -- or if not "vague" let's say "concise" (as if the word "concise" could be applied to the Tipiṭaka). So these days you get different schools of meditation, maybe arguments about "the right way" to practice vipassana. In Theravada there's also the Visuddhimagga which was maybe meant to fill that gap (detailed instructions) "considered the most important Theravada text outside of the Tipitaka canon of scriptures". E.g. Dhammadhatu likes the suttas but not later texts, and says the object is "to let go".

In this comment it is stated that the Pali Suttas contain the correct method for manifesting direct knowledge of anatta.

The method to attain direct knowledge of anatta is to make the mind quiet (samadhi) so "self" thoughts diminish & also disappear. When this occurs, at the same time, the aggregates such as breathing/body, feelings of rapture, mental defilements and consciousness will be seen directly to be merely those elements/dhatu (breathing, body, feelings, defilements, consciousness, etc).
Its like observing a computer. It can be easily seen there is no 'self' in a computer; that a computer is just metal, plastic, paint, wires, glass, etc.

I agree, but I wonder what Theravada adherents would regard as the precise suttas that definitively explain?

The Eightfold Path explains, namely, abandoning wrong thoughts (2nd factor); abandoning covetousness & distress (7th factor); abandoning unwholesome and developing wholesome/supramundane (6th factor); developing samadhi (8th factor), which makes subtle thoughts naturally disappear. When samadhi develops by "letting go" (SN 48.10), direct knowledge of anatta occurs without an act of will (AN 11.2).

In particular, is SN 5.10 included: “Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’? Māra, is this your theory? This is just
  a pile of conditions, you won’t find a sentient being here.

The above is just intellectual. It might help abandon self-thoughts but it takes a prolonged cleansing of self-thoughts for direct knowledge of anatta to arise towards everything.

When the parts are assembled we use the word ‘chariot’. So too, when the aggregates are present ‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.

This is just intellectual, again. It is the words of an arahant disciple to the evil Mara who believes "a being" is an thing rather than merely a "view".
Dependent Origination explains in its 11th condition about the "birth" ("jati") of these views or ideas or superstitions of "a being".
"A being" is also explained in SN 23.2; as merely an idea born from craving & attachment. In other words, there are no such thing as "sentient beings" apart from views, concepts & ideas.
This is what Venerable Sariputta teaches Yamaka in SN 22.85; that a Tathagata is not a "sentient being" that "dies" or that is "annihilated".

But it’s only suffering that comes to be, lasts a while, then disappears. Naught but suffering comes to be, naught but suffering
  ceases.”

The arising of the idea of "a being" (SN 5.10) or "self" (SN 12.15) is merely the arising of suffering; born from craving & ignorant contact (SN 22.81).

I ask because the Analysis of the Chariot expounded by Chandrakirti is highly praised as one of the best methods for quickly using
  analysis to confirm that things lack inherent nature.

No. This is wrong. If the Analysis of the Chariot expounded in SN 5.10 was the best method for quickly realising anatta then Mara in SN 5.10 would have realised anatta.

It is said that conducting this analysis in meditation when combined with serenity meditation is the method to achieve the direct knowledge
  of anatta.

No. AN 11.2 says the method to achieve the direct knowledge occurs without an act of will. The very craving to analyze the aggregates itself produces "self".
The "self" cannot realise "anatta" by engaging in intellectual Mahayana analysis. The "self" must be subsumed with samadhi. Analytical analysis alone won't work.
In the Pali suttas, the intellectual analytical analysis is called YONISO MANASIKARA, which is used preliminary to the Path.

Just as the chariot lacks an inherent nature of "chariot" and is merely a convention, just so the person lacks inherent nature and is
  merely a convention.

The above is merely intellectual. The realisation of anatta in confirmed when all craving and all defilements are destroyed in the mind. The realisation of anatta results in the IMPOSSIBILITY of suffering ever occurring again.

So is this a Sutta upon which Theravada agrees as source for the analysis necessary to manifesting direct knowledge of anatta?

No. Theravada does not agree with Mahayana.

How about the conversation between the Arahant Nagasena and the King?

There is no evidence Nagasena was an arahant because he says many wrong things that even a child can refute.

Edited to remove controversial and provoking opinions.


text:
Going to extremes?
In this answer, I wrote a little addendum that picks on a little tick that I find common amongst all kinds of Buddhists. That moderation is a virtue in and of itself without regard to what the object of moderation is. That "going to extremes" is to be totally avoided for all extremes. That the Middle Way of the Buddha counsels moderation should be held for every practice.
That unlike Colby, we shouldn't go too far :)
I think this is wrong.
TADYATHA [OM] GATE GATE PARAGATE PARASAMGATE BODHI SVAHA
"It is thus: Proceed, proceed, proceed beyond, thoroughly proceed beyond, be founded in enlightenment."
This is the mantra of the Heart Sutra and I interpret it as an exhortation by the Buddha that we should all go to an extreme. Now, regardless whether you think the Heart Sutra authoritative (please be respectful) I think the same exhortation can be found in the Pali Canon.
Consider MN 59:

"And what, Ananda, is another pleasure more extreme & refined than
  that? There is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending
  of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters &
  remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. This is another
  pleasure more extreme & refined than that."

Emphasis mine. That entire Sutta is understood to my mind as describing the Path and the actual attainment as ever more refined and extreme states of pleasure with the ultimate extreme equated with Nibbana.
If you look, in the Suttas the Buddha is very careful to describe the specific extremes that are to be avoided. I've looked, but can't find any Sutta where the Buddha proclaims that all extremes are to be avoided.
So my questions:

Have I got this wrong or misunderstood?
Are all extremes to be avoided?
Is there any Sutta proclaiming that all extremes are to be avoided?
Is moderation in everything a complete virtue?
Is there anything we should not be moderate about?
If not all extremes, then what is the total list of specific extremes the Buddha specifically warned us against?

BTW, I tagged this personal practice, because I'm of the view that this aversion to extremes is actually a hindrance to progress on the path. If we think that moderation is a virtue in all things we can use this to justify being lazy since we shouldn't be "trying too hard" anyway.
Thanks!

Some questions that touch on "extremes" for ref: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/search?q=extreme

I suppose "perfection" is related to this topic -- monks are told to be "perfect in virtue" for example.

@ChrisW, yes, I very much think so. perfection is an extreme after all.

One meaning of the word "perfection" is "a task to have been completed" ... and, of an "extreme", the destination of a path (as well as, the limits at either end of a spectrum).

In general, I've seen only specific extremes and selective middle path in the suttas. I haven't seen anything about all extremes.
The middle path is not necessarily that which is in between two extremes, rather it is could be a different path that does not take extreme viewpoints.
One definition of the middle path comes in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of practice. Here, one takes neither the path of enjoying sensual pleasures in a nihilistic and hedonistic way, nor self-mortification through extreme asceticism. Instead, comes the Noble Eightfold Path, which really isn't about allowing or prohibiting sensual pleasures but covers much more.
Another definition of the middle path comes in the Acela Sutta where the Buddha defines the middle path in terms of philosophy. Here, one neither takes viewpoints of eternalism (there is an eternal self) nor annihilationism (there is no self at all and no existence), but rather takes a very different viewpoint, which is of dependent origination.
There are all kinds of advice of moderation that I've seen in the suttas, but they are littered everywhere. I don't think there's a master list somewhere.
For example, for overcoming lust (as a hindrance of sensual desire), you can use the contemplation on unattractiveness (see this question). But too much of it may lead to negative thoughts of suicide, in which case, use the mindfulness of breathing (see this answer) to counter it. So, that's moderation on the practice of the contemplation on unattractiveness.
I've also written this answer on the use of mutually exclusive approaches in practice which balances out the practice of different techniques for different situations. There's a skillful technique for everything. For e.g. here is a technique to inculcate thinking that reduces bad conduct.
Then there's moderation advice for lay people for their material lives. You can read this answer for advice on maintaining livelihood in tune and how to allocate monthly expenses for enjoyment, investment and savings. There's more advice for lay people on finance here and in the Sigalovada Sutta (on relationships, finance, moderation, virtue etc.).
And what about extremes?
This question discusses some extreme technique to get rid of evil thoughts.
Here is an answer by Andrei Volkov that uncovers the advice on extreme perfection of virtue.