text:
Nagarjuna and the Schools
I am confused by the variety of views within Buddhism. It appears to me that Nagarjuna provides a complete philosophical justification and explanation for the Buddha's teachings and that this is accepted by many Buddhists. But not all. I'd like to ask:

Which sects or schools reject Nagarjuna's metaphysics?
On what grounds do they do so?
How do they deal with the difficulty that Nagarjuna proves all theories of Reality except his own are logically indefensible?

There are three issues here: there is N's proof of the absurdity of all positive metaphysical positions (in Fundamental Wisdom); his 'theory of Emptiness'; the doctrine of 'Two Truths'.
I wonder whether some Buddhists cherry-pick from these -- or do those who reject or accept one of them tend to reject or accept all three?

@ChrisW is this question safe from getting too argumentative?

@AndreiVolkov I think It's a sincere question, that Peter has been surprised that not everyone shares or understands his view[s] (which he derives from N). If I were to try to answer this I think I might just say that different schools have different "canons", which may or may include N (and that e.g. the Pali canon is already large and arguably sufficient) ... see also e.g. Nichiren I guess -- is their canon only the Lotus?

It is a sincere question and I did not mean to start any arguments. Clearly there is a major argument within Buddhism as to the meaning of the teachings and I'm exploring how deep it runs.

We usually want to avoid topics of the form, "why does school A think that school B's doctrine-of-X is wrong?"

@ChrisW - I wonder why. It seems an excellent kind of question.

See "Broad comparisons" here and "Minimising controversy" here.

So is philosophical discussion discouraged here, in case people disagree?  .

I think "discussions" of all sorts are discouraged -- i.e. this site is principally for Q+A ... i.e. for questions which can be answered. Also "hostility" is discouraged ("Your school sucks!" "No, your school sucks!" "No, you suck, and so does your teacher!"). Entertaining for some, maybe, off-putting for others. Stuff that generates more heat than light, and extended discussions which only their mother could love, can make the place unwelcoming or uninviting to others (see e.g. here). Apparently there are other places on the 'net ...

@ChrisW - Okay. I get that. This would be definitely inappropriate language.

... where you can go or be, for discussion, if you want. This place is trying to be a bit different, i.e. "This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat." That's the idea. And (as referenced in that "Mimizing controversy" FAQ summary), the community had lots of previous experience with people's bickering elsewhere, hoped and asked that this site might be different. So we minimise inter-school debates, so that different members may co-exist on one site peacefully, which allows you to ask about any school.

Anyway, therefore, it's kind of policy that if you want to know more about "school B's doctrine-X" then you should typically ask school B about that -- school B are the better informed about that -- and, any answers about doctrine X should be from, based on, a school B perspective. And if you want to address your question to members of school A, you should ask them about school A's doctrines.

Okay. But I'm happy with the answer I'm receiving here.

I can tell you why the Theravada school does not pay attention to Nagarjuna's works:

Parable of the Poisoned Arrow
Parable of the Simsapa Leaves
The Discourse on the Unconjecturables
The statement by the Buddha that he did not hide anything in a closed fist.
Discourse on The All

Basically, this means that from the perspective of the Theravada school, everything that the Buddha had taught in the Pali Canon is sufficient. Nothing more is needed. Anything else is simply icing on the cake.
Personally, I have tried to understand Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka emptiness and tried to link it back to Theravada emptiness in this question. I appreciate the concept of Madhyamaka emptiness.
I don't think Nagarjuna is in conflict with the Buddha's original teachings (in the Pali suttas and Mahayana Agamas). But at the same, I don't think he introduced something new to improve the Buddha's original teachings.
One important contribution of Nagarjuna is the use of methodical philosophical analysis to defend Buddhism against attacks by Hindu and other non-Buddhist Indian philosophers. See this answer.

Thanks. I'm beginning to appreciate the depth of the divisions within the sangha. Often it is said that Nagarjuna places the Buddha;s teachings on a sound philosophical foundation but clearly this is a matter of debate. Perhaps there is an alternative sound foundation. Very much agree about the value of his philosophical explanation as a defense against sceptics but it can only work for the Middle way view. This is, indeed, why I'm confused about why he is widely rejected.

PS. I checked your first couple of link and found nothing there to explain why anyone would reject Nagarjuna.

I didn't say Theravada rejects Nagarjuna. I meant that Theravada doesn't need Nagarjuna and so ignores him.

Ah. Fair enough. I presume metaphysics is not a concern for Theravadans and in this case he may be safely ignored.

Yes. Metaphysics is one of the unconjecturables.

For Thervadans maybe. Metaphysics is a doddle if we grasp what Nagarjuna is saying and it would require analysis, not conjecture, but now I'm starting to argue and I didn't mean to do this. I'd agree that metaphysics is not necessary.if we are a serious practitioner.   .

can you summarize what Theravada is about?

I don't have the scholarship to give you a survey of several schools -- perhaps someone else will.
The way I see it is that schools will have a "canon". I think that's a bit a analogous to the "curriculum" of a school -- and different schools have different curricula ... almost by definition -- and therefore (i.e. to that extent) your question and/or my answer to it might be just trivial, or unsatisfying.
Or it may "beg the question" i.e. whether there even are different schools of sects of Buddhism, e.g.,

@Lanka Theravada Buddhists don't really recognize other schools. Mostly historians do that. So it's just Buddhism for us. – Sankha Kulathantille Aug 13 '15 at 13:33
And we do recognize other schools, it's all Buddhism for us :) – Andrei Volkov♦ Aug 13 '15 at 15:56

Now just consider the Pali canon, for example -- I thinks that's "the canon" for many Buddhists.
Trivially if something is in the canon then it's canonical, and if it's not it's not.
If you ask, "what makes something canonical?", then you might get an answer like, Buddhist councils.
If you ask, "is that (is a, is any) canon necessary and sufficient?" --

I won't try to answer whether and how much of it is "necessary" -- even with[in] the Tripitaka my understanding is that the suttas are accessible, and that there's (also) an "abhidharmic tradition" -- and maybe e.g. Zen schools are not a fan at all
But, maybe, whether "it's sufficient":

It's big enough ("approximately eleven times the size of the Christian bible") -- so, honestly, what more could you want?
It's good enough
It's Buddhavacana (which is another word which begs the question, i.e. different schools and even different individuals may have different definitions of what they consider buddhavacana)
It's partly an article of "faith" (e.g. in the triple gem, i.e. the doctrine and the teachers)
The Buddha himself said, famously, in several suttas, that he'd taught everything necessary -- that there's a lot of other doctrine (in theory), which he didn't teach because it isn't necessary (see e.g. "handful of leaves")

Which sects or schools reject Nagarjuna's metaphysics? On what grounds do they do so?
I don't know that they even know or care?
I don't know if this is a good analogy, but ... "How can there be people who haven't thoroughly studied Einstein's theories of relativity? How do they even explain the gravitational lensing of light, without it?" -- someone asking these questions might think that Einstein's theories are utterly fundamental to understanding the nature of the universe we live in -- for other people ("normal people", if you'll excuse my putting it that way) that's completely missing the point, quite irrelevant, nothing to even think about.
How do they deal with the difficulty that Nagarjuna proves all theories of Reality except his own are logically indefensible?
Quite. Well I suppose that Buddhism isn't necessarily "metaphysics". I think I inferred from this comment of yours that you see Taoism too as metaphysics (or what you call a "(perennial) philosophy") -- I don't know, maybe it's something else: practical, a science ... a history, a narrative (see also e.g. "is medicine a 'science', or an 'art'?") ... whereas "metaphysics" are even less relevant, more of a niche interest, than "physics" (if you'll forgive my saying so, that's me having studied physics but not formal philosophy).

Practically, I think that the suttas' summary is something like, "all sankharas (n.b. nibbana is a dhamma not a sankhara) are dukkha" -- and "both (i.e. all dhammas, including nibbana and sankharas) are anatta").
In contrast, I think that (correct me if I'm wrong) N's summary is that "everything (including nibanna) is sunyata".

Maybe the suttas aren't trying to be "logically defensible" -- they're trying to be "helpful descriptions" ... for people who have "ears to hear", and "little dust in their eyes".
I wonder whether some Buddhists cherry-pick from these -- or do those who reject or accept one of them tend to reject or accept all three?
I get from the suttas that the Buddha (and, following his example, some Buddhists) might treat that or any other kind of question as false dichotomy -- e.g., "Q: Is it this or that, or both, or neither? A: none of the above, or no answer."
Questions like, I don't know, "Are things empty or not? Are two truths, or only one, or none?" are just -- might be (at the risk of sounding rude) be called -- examples of papanca.
I mean, after you have studied -- and if you study -- Nagarjuna, then you may understand what he's saying ... and why he's saying it i.e. why it's helpful or beneficial, useful, practical, worthwhile.
Maybe you should know, though, that lots of people simply haven't (studied N that well) and don't (understand what good about it and exactly what he's saying).
If you try to make comments (brief remarks or answers), which presume that people have read N and that they understand it in the same way that you do, then your comments may be misunderstood, or baffling -- see e.g. here,

Buddhist discussions online have a tendency to attract "there is no spoon"* answers

I guess another example might be the Zen story, titled Nothing exists ... an example of the doctrine being -- variously, I guess, depending on I interpret that story -- hard to fathom, shallowly repeated, easy to misunderstand, or missing the point entirely.

Thanks Chris. - You go some way to answering my question by noting that many people do not study Nagarjuna. The 'Nothing Exists' link represents N;s position in that he does not say nothing exists. It seems that one answer to my question may be that not all Buddhist pay any attention to Nagarjuna or to metaphysics. I don't intend to argue with answers but I do wonder how Buddhists can feel comfortable while disagreeing so strongly on such important issues, particularly on the importance of metaphysics. But I'm just assessing the situation, not pushing a view.  .

And even scholars with an at-least-a-superficial understanding of other schools might not properly "get it" (or get them), see e.g. this topic.

Fascinating. It seems that non-duality and its many misunderstandings may be the source of much of the disagreement. I have been taking it for granted that Buddhism teaches non-duality but it seems some schools do and some don't. My suspicion is that the disagreements arise from a failure to distinguish between the Buddha;s 'Three Turnings of the Wheel' but that's a discussion for another time. For now I'm just nosing around.

Nagarjuna's ideas differ from the Pali suttas. Nagarjuna taught the following differences:

Using the term Dependent Origination to describe all "cause & effect" rather than merely restricting the term to the 12 conditions leading to suffering.
Equating Dependent Origination with Sunnata, which is wrong, because Nibbana is also Sunnata but Nibbana is not Dependently Originated. Also, for example, in SN 12.3, the Buddha taught Dependent Origination is "the wrong path".
Saying things that are contrary to meditative experience and contrary to the Buddha, such as there are really no causes and no effects because a cause is only cause dependent upon an effect to be a cause therefore an effect is the cause of a cause (or something like that). In reality, meditators see certain things giving rise to other things. That is why the Buddha taught there are causes. When in meditation things are seen directly, the THINKING does not occur that a cause is really an effect and an effect is really a cause and the other philosophical Taoist-like intellectual gymnastics of non-duality Nagarjuna engaged in.
My impression of his "Two Truths" is his so-called higher truth is "non-thinking" or "non-conceptualisation", which is unrelated to what the Buddha taught. The Buddha did not teach "non-thinking" or "non-conceptualisation" is Nibbana (the supreme state).
From what I have read by Mahayana Buddhists, Nagarjuna claimed the Four Noble Truths were a "conventional" or "lower" truth; which a Pali Buddhist cannot accept as true (because MN 117 says the Four Noble Truths are supramundane Right View).
Did Nagarjuna teach Nibbana & Samsara are the same? If so, a Pali Buddhist would generally find such an idea to be utterly ridiculous. The Pali suttas clearly say Samsara & Nibbana are totally opposite things.
Contrary to Satipatthana, Nagarjuna taught there is emptiness of self and emptiness of things and the "emptiness of the aggregates as things" must occur before liberation can occur. This is contrary to Satipatthana, where seeing the body as merely 'body'', etc, is sufficient for liberation.

Addition to post: I just read the comment below in answer, which is the opposite of Pali Buddhism:

I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha, the best of teachers, who taught that whatever is dependently arisen is unceasing, unborn,
  unannihilated, not permanent, not coming, not going, without
  distinction, without identity, and free from conceptual construction.
Nagarjuna

Was he a mahayanist or Theravadin?

@ChrisW should we allow answers like this, in light of our "defend yours, don't disparage other's" rule? I would imagine we want to allow the proponents of Nagarjuna to provide common reasons he is doubted/dismissed but not to his opponents?

@AndreiVolkov I don't know whether D's view is that of any particular school or is only his own (which makes it difficult to soften, objectify, 3rd-personify the text, e.g. "such-and-such a school teaches that etc."). The introductory sentences, at least, are peculiar or something ... pretty questionable, I guess.(if you wanted his opinion). If you find it kind of offensive, you are allowed to edit it, if you can salvage it.

@AndreiVolkov It may be that because the question is asking about schools, therefore D's is "not an answer" at the moment (since it represents his own opinion). OTOH I think it's nice to be mild, if or when you post an answer which claims to represent the view of an entire school.

@AndreiVolkov I would imagine we want to allow the proponents of Nagarjuna to provide common reasons he is doubted/dismissed but not to his opponents? Or let the proponent of a school explain why their school is sufficient (even without N.); and (per the question) their theory of reality/logic (instead of N.'s, if they can contrast theirs with N.'s).

My answer is based on doctrine.

@Dhammadhatu The question was about "which sects or schools?", though (that's the first question and in the title). Are you telling the OP about the doctrine of a school? Which one? Does your view reflect that of a school? Or did you interpret it as being a personal question, i.e. "what does DD say about N"? And Andrei's concern was that answers must usually never be of the form, "what does DD think N's doctrine is and why does DD think that's wrong" e.g. because (unless you're a proponent of N -- of N's school) it may be better to assume you don't properly understand what N's doctrine is.

So generally e.g if a question is about Mahayana then we (i.e. the defined policy of this site) is to only solicit answers from a Mahayana viewpoint (and, so, a Mahayana practitioner or student) -- a) because they're better able to explain what Mahayana doctrine is, and b) to spare us from answers of the form "your school's doctrine is wrong".

I find this answer just fine and not at all argumentative. I feel it is very wrong but that's another matter. It does the job and explains to me some of the objections that are made to Nagarjuna. I have no intention of arguing here, just listening. .

Mind you, I would like some evidence that Nagarjuna says anything contrary to meditative experience or to the Buddha. This is a very bold claim. .

Nagarjuna did not promote "non-thinking", this is a translational misconception of Śūnyavāda. What Nagarjuna meant is "neither thinking or non-thinking", the base concept of Madhyamaka. As for cause & effect, Nagarjuna explains this clearly in MMK IV:6: "The assertion that the effect and cause are similar is not acceptable. The assertion that they are not similar is also not acceptable."  Otherwise said, it cannot be described because of the duality of language. Nagarjuna's core teaching is essentially experiential, not doctrinal.

@ChrisW - On reflection I share your view of this answer.and also now see your point about the danger in my question. I'll be more careful in future. ;

@Codosaur - I'm with you on this and do not feel this answer is well informed. I remain convinced that Nagarjuna is rejected only by those who don't understand him since after many years of study i have not discovered a single telling objection or found any evidence that he departs from the Buddha's teachings. I feel he is just poorly studied. .

I think it is quite evident from MMK IV:6 that his is not what the Buddha taught. There is nothing "experiential" about the idea of "duality of language". The Buddha taught language was conventions and never ever taught about "non-duality" as his Teaching.

The comments section is really for the purpose of the crying & complaining. People can simply write their own answer.


text:
How do I practise Vipassana and Samatha through Anapanasati?
After reading the answers to this question I understand that keeping the object of meditation  same, Samatha leads to calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana leads to insight into nature of reality.
If I focus on the breath or if my object of meditation is bearth while meditation, what is the exact technique for both Samatha and Vipassana.
Sorry, the answers to question does not mention the technique or what exactly to do. Also google search results are showing up magazine articles.
References to suttas appreciated.
Thanks.

keeping the object of meditation same, Samatha leads to calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana leads to insight into nature of
  reality.

The above is incorrect. Samatha & vipassana are not "techniques". I encourage you to free your mind from the wrong terminology you have previously learned. I will rephrase what you wrote, below:

keeping the object of meditation same, Samatha is calm and tranquility of mind and Vipassana is insight into nature of reality.

Thus, by merely observing the breathing with equanimity, the breathing will calm (because the mind has equanimity and is no longer thinking). This feeling of calmness is called samatha.
Also,  by merely observing the breathing with equanimity, it will be automatically seen, if the mind is sensitive & clear enough, the breathing is impermanent and not-self. This clearly seeing of impermanence & not-self is vipassana.
Also, by merely observing the breathing with equanimity, if the mind is sensitive & clear enough, it will be clearly discerned wholesome states of mind cause the breathing to calm and unwholesome states of mind cause the breathing to become agitated & stressed. This clearly seeing of cause & effect regarding the relationship between the mind, breath & body is vipassana.

If I focus on the breath or if my object of meditation is bearth while meditation, what is the exact technique for both Samatha and
  Vipassana.

There is no technique, apart from keeping the mind clear and knowing the breathing. Samatha & vipassana are "fruits" of practise; wbich arise automatically. They are not a practise in themselves. To quote:

Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path... for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight
MN 149

Again, AN 4.41 describes four fruits from developing concentration. To quote:

Monks, these are the four developments of concentration. Which four? There is the development of concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to a pleasant abiding in the here & now (samatha). There is the
  development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to
  the attainment of knowing & seeing (psychic power). There is the development of
  concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness &
  clear comprehension (perfect clarity). There is the development of concentration that, when
  developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents (vipassana).
AN 4.41

The translator Bhikkhu Thanissaro comments about AN 4.41:

The Buddha explains how concentration, when fully developed, can bring about any one of four different desirable results.

Imagine growing fruit on a tree. The "technique" is digging soil, plant the tree, watering it, removing insects, adding fertilizer, etc. But the fruit grows by itself. You can do nothing to create the fruit. It is the tree that automatically brings forth fruit, when the tree is ready.

Sorry, the answers to question does not mention the technique or what exactly to do. Also google search results are showing up magazine articles.

Meditation is letting go & being quiet and still. It is not some type of manipulative exercise. I recommend to give up this idea of "technique".

References to suttas appreciated.

Already done.

Thank you very much for the answer. This clears a lot. So can I say that the technique is to 'be aware of the breath'? Also what is more helpful, to be aware of the in-and-out flow of breath or being aware of the sensation of breath on the upper lip. Also in regards to your previous answer about Jnana, am I right in saying, if my meditation leads to Vipassana i.e. insight I won't get into Jnana? Or I don't have to bother about developing Vipassana to get into Jnana? I think Samatha i.e. tranquillity will be necessary for Jnana.

No. Vipassana will lead to jhana and jhana will lead to vipassana and in jhana itself vipassana will occur. You should not concern yourself with these labels or concepts. Just let it happen. As for the breathing, you should be aware of it wherever it is naturally felt. Regards

If you are focusing on the breath sensation then it is vipassana and if you are focusing on in and out breath as a concept then it is samatha. There are many methods like mahasi, sunlun, goenka so I suggest you try it. I don't think you can reach jhana if you are just focusing on the in and out breath because it's not easy to stop thoughts from arising. That's why samatha and vipassana should be developed together. You should be aware of what you are doing all the time. Always be aware of sensation of touch.

Thank you for the answer. I just returned from Goenka retreat but I am now highly confused about Jnana, Vipassana, Samatha, Anapanasati and doubtful about body scanning and what exactly is leading to Nirvana. Goenka does notvmenation what and how will lead to Nirvana. He mentioned leading to insight into impermenance. Also my mind kicks in if I move my focus in body scan.

I don't know much about the goenka method because I can't seem to find it on the internet but I think goenka and sunlun method could be similar. In sunlun method, you have to be aware of the painful sensation till it cease. It may take more than an hour for it to cease so we just have to be mindful of it. Then your mindfulness will sink into the painful sensation and you will reach certain insight knowledge. It might be the same with goenka method.

Goenka method is to be aware of sensations unpleasant or pleasant with equanimity and watch the rise and fall. According to him, this will finally lead to being aware of sensations throughout the body which will lead to the insight of impermanence. But he did not mention at all about Jnana or getting Nirvana. As I read the Buddha advised Jnana as necessary for Nirvana.

Jhana is a pleasant abiding here and now. According to AN 4.163, there is a pleasant and painful practice. The pleasant practice is where a monk practice jhana and the painful practice could be the insight stages. So Jhana isn’t necessary but could make it faster to attain nirvana

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is the arising of Buddhas a cosmological evolutionary occurrence?
...if not, then who or what is governing these occurrences?
In the Diamond Sutta (see excerpt below) Buddha mentions the previous Buddha as being called Dīpankara Buddha possibly existing around ten thousand years ago. Then came Gautama Buddha and the next Buddha to occur could be Maitreya Buddha. Buddha also mentions here that there have been 84,000 multi-million Buddhas. I have no resistance about the existence of these Buddhas especially since losing the perception of chronological time, but when I observe sentient forms, there is - for the most part - some kind of growth or expansion of some sort happening with no real, tangible or perceivable force behind it.
With such a huge time span between the appearance of Buddhas it's perplexing to see this as either an evolutionary cosmological expansion of consciousness or... somebody somewhere sending in the forces in the same way that a declining school receives a new headmaster to try and rectify the mess.
Is anything regarding this mentioned in any of the major Buddhist schools of thought?

"Furthermore, Subhuti, if a son or daughter of good family, while reciting and practicing this sutra, is disdained or slandered, his or her misdeeds committed in past lives, including those that could bring about an evil destiny, will be eradicated, and he or she will attain the fruit of the most fulfilled, awakened mind. Subhuti, in ancient times before I met Buddha Dipankara, I had made offerings to and had been attendant of all 84,000 multi-millions of Buddhas. If someone is able to receive, recite, study, and practice this sutra in the last epoch, the happiness brought about by this virtuous act is hundreds of thousands times greater than that which I brought about in ancient times. In fact, such happiness cannot be conceived or compared with anything, even mathematically. Such happiness is immeasurable.

Apparently, there are 'ages' that have been defined...

Degeneration
Traditionally, this age [degeneration] is supposed to begin 2000 years
after Gautama Buddha's passing and last for "10,000 years". The first
two ages are the Age of Right Dharma
followed by the Age of Semblance Dharma. During this degenerate
third age, it is believed that people will be unable to attain
enlightenment through the word of Sakyamuni Buddha, and society will
become morally corrupt. In Buddhist thought, during the Age of Dharma
Decline the teachings of the Buddha will still be correct, but people
will no longer be capable of following them.

I'm interested in a range of schools of thought about this.

I can’t answer your question but I’d like to give a personal view... I don’t think there is a somebody/force that generates Buddha’s over vast time spans but rather Buddha’s come about through eventual ultimate understanding. You and I are capable of becoming a Buddha but for me it may take eons compared to you. So I don’t think time spans of Buddha occurrences are quite relevant.

It seems like you have answered by using the words "eventual ultimate understanding" which equates to the 'consciousness' part of the question. Would you be able to expand on this please in an answer?

From the mark downs, it seems like some nerve endings have been rattled. I would be just as interested in the views of those who have marked down as I am in the ones who have attempted to answer the question.

It is said that the Buddha's enlightenment is a cosmic event, and given what it is then so it must be. .

...cosmological evolutionary occurrence?
By 'evolutionary' if you mean a random event as like a 'random mutation in biological evolution', then NO. It's definitely a cosmological event as in, the attainment of Nirvana by a would be Buddha is a Cosmological Phenomena it's not a trivial case of altered consciousness of a Human.
...if not, then who or what is governing these occurrences?
There is No-Self and definitely no higher being controlling anything according to Buddhist Cosmology and Philosophy in general.
The Occurrence of a Buddha
It has vastly to do with two things;

The Karma of the would be Buddha, we are all potential would be Buddhas, our individual Karma will determine who would end up being one. With each act of Kindness and each Unwholesome deed, we birth our future.

The conditions for the arrival of the Buddha should be adequate, for e.g. The Buddha would not have born in say for an e.g. ancient Egypt because people were not into meditation nor would He have found bhikkus to memorise his suttas and pass on, He would not have born in British India or the Islamic India, He will not be born in Antartic or Arctic, etc you get my point. For a Buddha to carry out His operation of teaching the Dhamma to the fellow Humans, the conditions of His arrivals have to meet a certain environment, a milieu.

Finally, ponder upon this simile,

The Buddha used a sea turtle to illustrate the precious rarity of opportunity afforded by our human birth.  The turtle example appears in the scripture called in Pali, the Chiggala Sutta that is classified as LVI.48 of the Samyutta Nikaya.
"Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water,
and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there.
A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would
push it east.  A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from
the south would push it north.
And suppose a blind turtle were there.  It would come to the surface
once every one hundred years.
Now what do you think - Would that blind turtle, coming to the surface
once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a
single hole?"
"It would be a sheer coincidence, Lord, that the blind turtle, coming
to the   surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck
into the yoke with a single hole."
"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state.
It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy and rightly
self-awakened, arises in the world.
It's likewise a sheer coincidence that doctrine and discipline
expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.
Now, this human state has been obtained. A Tathagata, worthy and
rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A doctrine and
discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation: `This is stress . . .  .
This is the origination of stress . . .  . This is the cessation of
stress . . .  . This is the path of practice leading to the cessation
of stress."

'karma' and 'conditions' - this perspective is very appealing. Thanks.

"With each act of Kindness and each Unwholesome deed, we birth our future." this reminds me of Cloud Atlas.

@user29568 caught...LOL... Karma is always watching.

Deepangkara Buddha was born before Kondangna Buddha but the aeons between the two births are uncountable.

Today I found this which seems to answer this question.

Chiggala Sutta: The Hole
"Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind
from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it
east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south
would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It
would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do
you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once
every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single
hole?"
"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle,
coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his
neck into the yoke with a single hole."
"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state.
It's likewise a sheer coincidence that a Tathagata, worthy & rightly
self-awakened, arises in the world. It's likewise a sheer
coincidence that a doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata
appears in the world. Now, this human state has been obtained. A
Tathagata, worthy & rightly self-awakened, has arisen in the world. A
doctrine & discipline expounded by a Tathagata appears in the world.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is
the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your
duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to
the cessation of stress.'"

This translates that as "it's unlikely", and not "it would be a sheer coincidence". In other words, I read that as -- not, "The reason why the Buddha arises is sheer coincidence" -- instead, "It's unlikely that the turtle be reborn a human being at a time when the Buddha had Dhamma-Vinaya have arisen, therefore you should take this rare/fortunate opportunity to practice".

@Chris - they both read in the same way to me but 'sheer coincidence' is a more fitting translation. I haven't based this on a Pali translation but instead the astonishing occurrence that the turtle would make it through the hole.

I just think it's saying, "A turtle rarely has an opportunity to be born human and to hear the Dhamma: you should take advantage of this opportunity now that you can" -- not, "It was just by luck, random chance, that the Buddha became the Buddha." If you're talking about the (long) time between Buddhas, that's one thing, OK. If you're talking about what causes a Buddha to arrive, I don't think that's intending to say that it's a sheer coincidence or mere randomness (instead I think that the cause of the Buddha's arising was the Buddha's Noble Search for enlightenment and so on).

@ChrisW - I see now. So it only perhaps partially answers the question.

Thank you, yes, that's what I meant. It's not that the suttas don't mention past/future Buddhas at all, but, but, I think rare ... even added later, possibly. I imagine that discourse didn't tend towards, you know, past and future Buddhas, while /this/ sammasambuddha was alive and teaching (& re. the conditions for being or becoming a Buddha see also this and the text-analysis which I found when answering this, especially the end about whether people even can become a Buddha).

Thank you. The links were interesting! I should look at rephrasing the question or asking another based on this new information.

From an academic perspective, these Buddhas are mythical, arguably the universe did not exist yet multitudes of billions of lifetimes ago, and the most realistic approximations we have of all humans that ever lived is around 100 billion.
To some extent, the division in ages you describe mirrors the Hindu concept of Yuga, which also divides the history of the universe into different degrading states: perfect (Satya), diminished virtue (Treta), lethargic (Dvapara) & darkness & ignorance (Kali). This similarity is not surprising: Buddhism first evolved in a region where Hinduism was predominant, and many other (modified though recognizable) Hindu concepts can be found in Buddhist cosmology (like Samsara, Karma and Reincarnation).
The concepts of Samsara & Karma are essential to understanding the reasoning behind these mythical Buddhas. Samsara consists of six realms: Devas (gods), Humans, Animals, Demons (Asura), Hellish Beings (Naraka), and Hungry/Frustrated Beings (Preta).  In Buddhism, it is said that only from the human realm one can achieve Buddhahood, because the Devas are too happy, the Asuras too angry, the Pretas too frustrated, etc. Karmically speaking, if you're a Deva, you've gone too far "up the ladder" and must first be reborn as a human before you can attain Buddhahood, etc.
These mythical Buddhas can therefore be considered an expression of the attainability of Buddhahood by humans. Referring to these mythical Buddhas in the texts you quoted emphasizes this attainability, by making the historical Buddha state they came before him and others will follow him, so he is not the first nor the last.
So, in conclusion, the "prime mover" that governs the occurrence of Buddhas can first and foremost be equated to the human condition, subject to Karmic cause and effect.

I see. I try not to go too far into intellectualism and speculative fantasy but it seems my conceit may have gotten the better of me in this case. Thank you for your answer.

You're most welcome. It's a perfectly valid question to ask IMHO. I don't understand the downvote.

Your 1st paragraph is a hypothesis, ok well, an academic hypothesis. How can you use one hypothesis to refute another hypothesis - if the existence of previous Buddhas is a hypothesis to you though not all sharing your assumption. Is your assertion based on the above legitimate? Another, a knowledge acknowleged by an ancient civilization called India, and inherited by Buddhism, does it suffuse to discredit such knowledge? If so, by the same logic, shouldn't the science academia reject Pythagoras, Plato etc., since they were also belonged to an ancient civilization... how narrow is it

@Mishu - I don't understand why you see this as "rejection" or "discrediting". All I'm stating is that there are demonstrable similarities between Hindu and Buddhist cosmology. As for your analogy on Greek philosophies, why would the fact that Western philosophies and world view are based on Greek civilization warrant rejection? The fact that something is based on something older is ubiquitous in the human experience (including science, philosophy and religion) and does not diminish the inherited or the inheritor.

Speaking of "science academia", modern science does contradict or discard ancient science -- not because it's ancient -- but (only) when or if, only to the extent that, the modern understanding is more useful and more descriptive, better agrees with observation (see this "science"-related topic for example).

@ChrisW, but it is based on older knowledge and it only rejects those things that conflict with factual observations. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is based on Newton's Law of Gravity, but it does not discard it.

All I suggested is the world asking for real open-mindedness, Codosaur. The fact is we really possessed none the truth. What we called "truths" are just assumptions that seemingly can make things work - academia called theorems. But theorems can take many forms, like you said, Newton's replaced by Einstein's, but both work in different circumstances. Likewise, atomic theory can utterly be refuted by simple logic, an indivisible "object" cannot have "face" to join to form a compounded object. But academia assumed it does exist, all theories + discoveries are built upon such assumption @ChrisW

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


text:
Can I attain Vipassana without doing the body scan?
I returned from Goenka's Vipassana retreat. The technique of being aware of sensations with equanimity was very helpful and led me into deeper states of meditation.
But his technique includes scanning the body as you move deeper. What I found was if I am focused on sensations on my face then willfully changing the focus to shoulder disturbs meditation.
Also, I have to keep my mind active to control and move my focus with will, from say face to shoulder etc.
Else where as I read Ajahn Brahm, his whole technique comprise of 'letting-go' of 'doer' or 'will'. Main emphasis is about the attitude of not getting the 'doer' or 'craving' or 'will' involved.
Further to the answers to my last question as I now understand we reach to Vipassana i.e. insight. So my question is can I skip the body scan part. Can I attain Vipassana and Jnana without involving the body scan. Just being aware of sensations on face bring a great deal of Samatha. Keep the doer, controlling mind aside.
I am sorry I am mixing Ajahn Brahm and Goenka. What is happening is I am finding it difficult to attain ggod meditative mind through AB's method of focusing on breath but I am doing good progress in sense of calming my mind and reducing the thoughts by Goenkas method to watch sensations through equanimity.
So my plan is attain Samatha through Goenka's method of watching sensations and then as I attain meditative mind with no thoughts switch to AB's method to attain Jnana.
I checked other question-answers regarding body scan but they do not answer my question as their problem is not 'bringing in the doer' or 'will' their problems are different.
So my question is can I skip the body scan?

can I skip the body scan part. Can I attain Vipassana and Jnana without involving the body scan.

Yes.

Just being aware of sensations on face bring a great deal of Samatha. Keep the doer, controlling mind aside.

Yes. If it feels comfortable just  being aware of sensations on face then do it. In his instructions, the Buddha literally said: "Bring mindfulness in front of the face (parimukhaṃ)".

I am finding it difficult to attain ggod meditative mind through AB's method of focusing on breath but I am doing good progress in
  sense of calming my mind and reducing the thoughts by Goenkas method
  to watch sensations through equanimity.

What is important is equanimity and a sense of calming. If the body-scan is too busy & disturbing, skip it. If the breathing is too narrow & restrictive, also drop it. Try to be as natural as possible, with equanimity. If sensations around the face helps the mind stay grounded, then maintain it.

So my plan is attain Samatha through Goenka's method of watching sensations and then as I attain meditative mind with no thoughts switch to AB's method to attain Jnana.

Sounds complementary and OK.

So my question is can I skip the body scan?

Yes. If the deliberate body-scan is too busy & disturbing, skip it. It is important awareness remains fluid, flexible or "malleable" (mudubhūta); a quality of concentration the Buddha emphasized.

This is an old post, and I don’t even have an account here but I found this by googling to try to find out if there are other Vipassana centers or teachers practicing Vipassana the same way as the teacher in my town! (Jefferson City, MO, US, Vipassana Buddhist Church, Rev. Montee Dhammaruchi). I’ll talk about that a little and hopefully the info is helpful to someone!
It’s been years since I attended there, I traveled away for a long time and found other Buddhists doing different things in Portland Oregon. I practice shikantaza now, as a beginner, after finding that Dogen’s framework seems to click with my logic and also challenge me in a way that feels growthful.
But anyway, years ago, I practiced this form of Vipassana for about 3 years with Rev. Montee, and then continued in it independently until I switched to Zen. The instructions are to sit in a way that isn’t too straining. He encourages full lotus if possible, half lotus if you can’t do full, Burmese posture if you can’t do either. The point is ideally you are splitting your weight between two knees and your butt. Some people sat in chairs though, and he didn’t mind making those available. And then you try to isolate awareness in your breath, with all senses, focusing on your nostrils if possible. And then when sounds or sensations or thoughts happen, try not to be disturbed by them but be aware of their impermanence. That was basically my experience and understanding of it, and I haven’t learned or practiced any other form of Vipassana than what he instructed. Other Vipassana techniques sound pretty different when I read about them. The way Montee taught it, it never involved a body scan. Mindfulness of the whole body was encouraged but there wasn’t a systematic method like that. It may be that he was trying to streamline the essence of Vipassana. When I first began practicing Zazen I had a hard time differentiating between it and Montee’s Vipassana. I know that he had trained in Zen originally so maybe that’s why he taught this way.

Meditation is defined in Buddhism as "beneficial concentration", where "concentration" is synonymous to "relaxation".
Meditation is a way to let go of forceful, constraining habits.
So doing anything in meditation forcefully might be likely counter-productive. Unless, of course, that forceful action would help you to let something go, and after that you would meditate naturally, in unconstrained way.
So if going through some steps, like body scan, seems too forced, then don't force it.
I like to follow body sensations: if they attract attention to the face, then go there. But usually after following sensations to some body part they gradually fade or start to move to another part.
If you are attached to focusing on the face, it can mean attachment.
Why would moving to other parts — doing body scan — be a problem?
It shouldn't be a problem if you are truly relaxed and letting go.
Attachment to the sensations in the head is known as a symptom of "Zen sickness", which means meditating incorrectly. They say that the energy goes to the head, instead of being distributed through the body more evenly and naturally.
To counter that tendency, try methods like "microcosmic orbit". Hakuins' butter egg might be helpful too, as well as qigong and other ways to make the body more conscious and holistic.
The accumulation of energy in the head (or any other body part) can be accompanied with pleasant sensations, but in some other parts of the body which you leave outside of your focus the situation can be disharmonious. Also, consumed with pleasant sensations, you might not notice tensions in the head, leading to all kinds of health problems (poor sight, crumbling teeth, bad breath, hypertension etc).
More properly would be, at first, focusing at the place that attracts your attention, but then trying to spread the energy that you feel. As if that place gets relaxed, warmth is dispersing around, and then your attention gets liberated to move anywhere else.
Ultimately, it's advisable to widen the perception to all the body, as relaxed (that's what the body scan is for), and further to expand the perception to all the world, inside and outside, as relaxed, with no oppositions. With no place preferred or held to.
Otherwise it's probably moving in a wrong direction.

Body scanning isn't vipassana. It's still unification of sensations and witnessing. It could may be a useful preliminary practice for some people, but it simply is not unbinding. It doesn't lead to nibbana.
S.N. Goenka formed a cult and co-opted important terms like vipassana. If you even practice any other kind of buddhist meditation you are banned from his retreats for a long time, from what I've heard. You cannot question his wisdom. Totally opposite of Buddha's teaching.


text:
Have Matreiya ever meet the present buddha?
I know that the Buddha went to tusita heaven or tavatimsa heaven to teach the dharma or Abidhamma to his mother. Matreiya is in tusita heaven so did he ever come down to tavatimsa heaven to hear the dharma from the Buddha?

Gauthama Buddha first met Mithrie Bodisatta on His return to Sankassapura(Sankissa Basantapura in India) after preaching Abhidhamma at Tavatimsa heaven. At that time, Maithrie Bodhisattva was born as the son of Siriwaddana Situ of Sankassapura.  After listening to a Dhamma discussion attended by Ven. Sariputta, he had expressed the willingness to join the monastic order. Maithrie Bodhisattva obtained the higher ordination from the Buddha himself and was named “Bhikkhu Arya Miethirya.” There after he practised the teachings well and became famous as an excellent Dhamma expounder.
Once Ven. Maha Prajapathi Gotami Theri offered two robes to Ven. Arya Maithriya. Ven. Arya Maithriya offered them back to the Buddha. At that time the Buddha looked into the future and predicted that there will be a kingdom known as "Kethumathi" and a universal monarch called Sankha whose advisor Subrahamme and his wife Brahamawathi will be parents of future Buddha Maitriya and that he will attain enlightenment under the Naa(Mesua Ferrea) Tree. This was the last affirmation received by the Maithriya Bodhisatta. The prediction of emergence of the future Buddha was announced on an Il Full Poya Poya Day.
There is also a story on Maithriya Bodhisatta meeting Gautama Bodhisatta in the distance past which I'm not including in the answer.

Do you have references?

@ruben2020 it's in the Buddhavamsa

Didn’t the Buddha say that matreiya was in tusita heaven?

No the buddha didn't, but when he died he was born in Tusita. It is the custom of every Bodhisatta to be born in Tusita before the life they attain Buddhahood. His Paramis are completed now. He is just waiting till the time is right.


text:
What should I choose, Life or Nirvana?
A little personal story ahead also sorry for the long post...
Story:
Three years back my life was a disaster, I was as far away from Dhamma as possible,   I was into the dark side of modern life. Drowned into money, greed, sex, addictions which inevitably rolled me into stress and depression, but I still had my job. At the time, I was reading one of the books by Thich Nhat Hanh and one evening as I left my office, I sat on a fountain-side watching all the people coming out of the high-rise buildings rushing to catch the tide back home. I had kind of epiphanies moment where I asked what am I doing with this? where is my life going? I felt that I definitely did not want to spend my life climbing the corporate ladder...it was like a terribly dreadful feeling I can't put into words...
So very next day I quit my high paying job, in a few days moved out of the big city and into my parent's house. From there I started seriously reading Buddhism. In a years time, I was way over my addictions at least the alcohol was out. From there I did a couple of 10 day- vipassana retreats and also did a month-long retreat at a Zen monastery. At the end of last year, I was over my anti-depressants tablets and stopped going to a psychiatrist.
This whole year I spent meditating in Zazen and Vipassana, I have finally to my satisfaction finished reading books. Now I have come to the point that I have known that the Theravada tradition is best suited to me and I am reading Ajahn Brahm's book on Jnanas the third time.
Question:
My life has been changed for better, I don't have a job for three years but I don't have any financial worries or family concerns. I have narrowed down to bare minimum needs and I can possibly live like this till I die.
But now it seems I want to live in a better way, in the right way according to Dhamma. Instead of getting back to rat race I can live some other kind of way to make money, go find a girl (again), basically get into Samsara. Life seems to have gotten a new meaning if I choose to give it. It will be a repeat of the cycle, just better this time.
OR
I have made some good progress in meditation. If I continue with current focus for this coming year(2019) I am hoping to progress till a nimitta. Also, I have met a normal guy online who has attained Enlightenment, (from his words and actions he looks genuine) so following his example, Nirvana seems like an achievable goal within a human lifetime.
The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging. Now life seems like worth living again, although I am very much well versed with suffering.
So, in the end, my real question is how should I make a choice between Samsara(going back to make money and lay life) and Nirvana(single minded focus on meditation)?

if you have to ask this question, the answer is already told, because you have already chosen.

It all depends on what you want. Not everyone is meant to be a monk and you don't need to give up everything to follow the Dhamma. There is a middle way. Single-minded focus does not necessarily mean Nirvana. I don't think it's effective to think of Nirvana as a goal or a place you can reach. But, the question you should answer is what do you desire and only you can answer that.

A wise man once told me to never go backwards.  Thus, you should never go back to your old life.  However, if your are looking to go forward with your old life, that's a very different discussion.  Both phrasing appear in your question.

The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging.
This is a problem because you think that being reborn is good but actually it is suffering. If you want to be reborn in a heavenly realm you should know that these realms are also impermanent and it is much harder to practice the dharma there. And you also have no idea how much you might have suffered in samsara.
In SN 15.3, the Buddha said this.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."

If you want to achieve nibanna then practice the noble eight fold path.

"Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. [4] Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the arahant with ten.

You must also practice the four frames of reference. I’m not going to say how to practice it here but these four frames of reference are not four different exercises. Right mindfulness comes before right concentration so I think you should practice it if you want to achieve nibanna.

You can ask me if you are confused about something

If you choose life you choose death. Think of it in this way and as you grow older the choice will become more and more a 'no-brainer'. Besides, life is miserable without some degree of realisation. But I'd agree that when life is going well rebirth doesn't seem like such a bad idea, and you could always take a vow to return for the sake of others if you like it here. .

"So, in the end, my real question is how should I make a choice between Samsara and Nirvana?"   <--
Don't mean to discourage you but from reading your words and your question, you are very well in no foreseeable position to worry about "Nirvana or Samsara". Long way to go mate.
All you need to worry about is to continue practicing. Have you been following the 5 precepts? If so, continue. If ready, try the Theravada 8 precepts. Keep Practicing and follows the 8-fold paths.
After a while, if you practice well, you will be able to achieve enlightenment step by step. By that time, you will find out what is meaningful for your life and you will be able to answer your question.

Hi, you mis-understood me a little bit. I am not saying a choice like should I get Nirvana or not when I am in position to do that. I am saying should I go back to world, start making money, get a girl...but this time keeping the precepts or should I continue with single minded focus on meditation keeping away the world and aim for Nirvana. As an anology, think of a monk asking you should I disrobe and go back to job or should I remain a monk and work towards my Nirvana.

You might find this sutta helpful https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.075.than.html

Also this one https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.076.than.html

The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging.

This seems like craving for material desires. The 'discouragement' is your wanting, desiring and craving. This is what is known as a fetter which is intrinsically connected to dukkha (suffering); a ball and chain negating any advancement. This is a pivotal point in relation to progression. Here there is ambivalence: the pull further back to the realms of the six-sense doors and thus various degrees of unsatisfactoriness or the drawing to a greater realization.  Use the knowledge you have attained thus far to exit this troublesome mindset.

So, in the end, my real question is how should I make a choice between Samsara and Nirvana?

Keep it simple. Some questions to contemplate by yourself are: Since you've been practicing has your suffering decreased? If so, how does this inform your current predicament?

Thanks. I am in kind of self imposed seclusion right now, so I wont say material desires but I agree with you over sense based desires. But what about small-small moments life is made of, like a cup of tea, watching a sunset, taking a dip in water, looking at stars...all life will be gone into void...how do you reconcile with end of life?

That seems like an interesting question and is deserving of being asked as a main question on the site perhaps restructured slightly. In terms of material desires and sense based desires, they are interrelated, spherical or symbiotic, for example, if there is ear-consciousness leading to pleasure then there must be something material to complete that circuit. The latter component being rupa. You can still do your regular small things (tea, looking at stars). Everything will continue as normal, just your perception will change. It will become clearer, more precise.

Sorry, I did not upload the question as suggested. To me it felt like it will be an intellectual or philosophical rendering.

No matter what puthujjanas claim, kama is bad, there is no '''striving to avoid craving is a craving itself'', there is no ''I can delight in the senses without craving'' like philosophers craving to sensuality love to say. Puthujjanas always try to salvage the institutions and rules that they build and cherish, trying to say that they create their rules for the good of the people, but puthujjanas have no knowledge of what is right and wrong, and as long as you remain with those people, especially those puthujjanas who always down play the danger in sensuality, you will not progress. you are too weak to become a good person surrounded by bad people.
Same thing with the puthujjanas who always express the dhamma and knowledge into emotions, like love with the puthujjanas who invented vajrayana, or like depression with the puthujjanas who invented dry insight and their moronic ''dark night'' as ''knowledge into dukkha''.
Also, no matter what puthujjanas say about ''missing out on sensual pleasures'', the more you are good at getting the citta into right samadhi, the more you will be good at getting all the delights of the jhanas.
Most Puthujjanas cannot resist hyping sensual pleasures and pass themselves as expert of sensual pleasures while mocking the non sensual pleasures. Those puthujjanas addicted to sensuality fantasize that having non-sensual pleasures means becoming dead or living like a robot or rock or being egotist. And like any other toxic puthujjanas they base their life on their fantasies and emotions, while claiming they are ''rational'', ''pragmatic'', ''good people'' and that they know what they are talking about.
A puthujjana will never be wrong to get the citta in to samadhi and the only way to do this is to divide thoughts, words and actions into ones which are geared towards passion for the ''5 strings of sensuality''+ meanness towards others and ones which are about renunciation, viraga, nirodha and good will. Once the puthujjana keep track of thoughts and sanna, there remains to put right effort into cultivating the '' ones which are about renunciation, viraga, nirodha and good will'' and you will be fine and get the citta into right samadhi.
In the suttas, THe thing that is unclear is how to get the vipassanas: whether getting out of the famous jhana with ''neither perception nor yet non-perception'' means you reach nibanna or rather you need a reflection on this state [or even on previous jhanas], but as long as you focus on viraga, on not grasping, on nirodha, on akincana and son on, you cannot be wrong.

You should not take this reply or my experience as a definitive answer, but look if you may find something useful in it.
I was also in your position a while ago.
I was (and sometimes I still am) going back and forth between clarity of the mind and nostalgia for the old days, even knowing how much unsatisfaction was present in my life at those days. I was afraid of letting go. I was afraid of not being able to enjoy life again as I used to do.
A few months ago I saw a video from Ven. Yuttadhammo's channel on YouTube. It was a little Q&A session, and the topic of that specific question was about letting go.
https://youtu.be/hkT4chlOTjU
After seeing it, something "clicked" in my head.
You don't HAVE to let go of anything. As "Krizalid" said, keep going with your practice, and maybe, dissenchantment will come by itself. The fear and the doubts about letting go come from still being attached to the objects of attachment; they still look satisfying and something worth investing your time and energies on.
The "little" change I did with my mindset was to let go and detach from the fear of letting go and detach. I opened myself to the possibility of disenchantment. Maybe I'm not ready yet to give the big step. Maybe I've not seen the way things are clear enough. Maybe I'm still deluded by my sense and my convenient lack of short and long term memory (when the thing to remember is the frustration and constant anxiety I usually had to dealt with).
Despite all of what I've said, one thing is for sure:
What "I" am today is the best version of "myself", and I owe my inner peace to the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha (and certainly to this "e-Sangha" as well).
I keep reminding myself that the effort spent was totally worth it.
Have a nice day!

Thank you. Attaining 'disenchantment' from life, that is something very useful.

There is a difference between desiring and having

Instead of getting back to rat race I can live some other kind of way to make money, go find a girl (again), basically get into Samsara.

The problem with the rat race is how it tends to drive people to be motivated by acquiring more money, a higher position, more material possessions (to justify the desire for more money) and this is a downward spiral due to the desire, not the possession. You can have a good job, a high pay and possessions (in my opinion) without falling foul of the obsession that corrupts most people.
You can have money and put it into charity work, helping local small businesses, helping people out of poverty...the uses are up to you, there is no shame in earning a high salary.
So don't feel like you have to avoid those things (as long as you can control yourself) - live the way you think is worthwhile and Nirvana or Samsara will sort themselves out.

It will be a repeat of the cycle, just better this time.
Doctrinally I think that Mahayana might have some things to say -- including about Samsara and Nirvana, renunciation and so on -- I don't see any Mahayana-tradition answers here, so, maybe there's another kind of answer/view (elsewhere) to your question.
But, I am not equipped (with its doctrine) to answer from that perspective.
The problem is that the idea that if I get Nirvana I will not be reborn again seems discouraging.
I guess my understanding from the suttas was something like,

Birth is painful and so on -- even now, with your life (much more) in order, you're uncertain, maybe subject to craving
Nothing you might want to do, nothing worthwhile, benefits from having a self or being a self. For example if knowledge or skill is required (wuld be beneficial) somewhere, then (just) convey knowledge or skill to that place, to that situation -- it's not better to also bring a bunch of "self" along with that. I think that "self-view" is maybe unskilful and better abandoned -- do without it, you know.
I think that abandoned "self-view" maybe changes the perspective of "I will [not] be reborn" etc. -- i.e. your view of whether that's good or bad or even meaningful: "to the extent that you don't exist now, what does rebirth mean?"
Beyond self-view (as a fetter), I think the suttas1 mention other 'fetters' -- notably e.g. craving for "existence" and for "sensuality" -- I suppose you might want want to identify these, in a "know your enemy" (Mara!) kind of way.

I think that Buddhism accepts that a lot of people are going to live in Samsara -- it's not exactly wicked to (e.g. if you keep the precepts) though perhaps not ariya, but, I think that Buddhism warns it's subject to dukkha -- IOW death as well as birth, etc.
1 Please forgive the link to Wikipedia instead
So, in the end, my real question is how should I make a choice
My immediate reaction, my habit, on seeing a question like that, is to say that "that's a false dichotomy" -- for example:

The difference between the two is mind-made, a figment of your imagination (or an artefact of having "seized a view")
You don't have a choice -- you couldn't escape Samsara even if you wanted to (by which I mean only that maybe you hadn't while you write this question)
So given that you're in Samsara at the moment, maybe a better question is how well (how Nobly) you can live

The moral precepts keep people from self-harm and maintain normal health. It seems you have already clearly learned this fact from experience.
As for meditation, when jhana is reached (although also beforehand), this provides a pleasure that far surpasses sensual pleasures, including the pleasure of loving affection. Generally, a person that reaches real jhana does not return to sensuality or worldly relationships; unless they do so purely from compassion for another person.
As for reincarnation, this is obviously  a misinterpretation & corruption (by the ambitious clergy) of what the Buddha taught (such as the clergy's composition of the Jataka Tales, which eventually resulted in the extinction of Buddhism in India). Without promises of good reincarnation, how was the Buddhist clergy supposed to make money?
What 'Samsara' truly means to repeatedly attaching to things as 'self', as explained in SN 22.99:

There comes a time when the great earth is consumed with flame, is destroyed & does not exist. But for beings — as long as they are
  hindered by ignorance, fettered by craving, running around & wandering
  on — I don't say that there is an end of suffering & stress.
Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
  an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
  ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
  regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
He assumes feeling to be the self...
He assumes perception to be the self...
He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness.
He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
  that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
  from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
  from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
  from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
  set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

You have already been reborn in hell, with the suffering you have experienced in this life. Your life is impermanent. The suttas say all conditioned things are impermanent & subject to vanish; that all that is subject to arising is subject to cessation. Whether you aspire for jhana & Nibbana or simply live a moral life, this will not change the impermanence of your life. Whatever Dhamma path you choose will make little difference because living a life following Dhamma generally (more or less) avoids rebirth in the lower realms of 'animal birth' ('psychopathy'), hungry ghost ('addiction') and 'hell' (suffering, depression, anguish, torment).
This above said, the suttas teach the household life is 'stuffy & burdened'. Generally, 'a girl' wants to get pregnant and have a family; which requires personal & financial commitment and also choosing the right girl. To be a householder requires much commitment & serving the aspirations of the girl. Then when you have children, there is the potential to worry & fret over the children and over the family in general. The suttas say about this worry & fret in the here & now:

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while running &
  wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined
  with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are
  greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son...
  the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with
  regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have
  shed over loss with regard to disease while running & wandering this
  long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is
  displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than
  the water in the four great oceans.
"Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes samsara. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are running & wandering on. Long have you thus
  experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the
  cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things,
  enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
SN 15.3


text:
Can anger be acceptable?
When doing physical work, there are times that anger helps to overcome physical obstacles, as a way to arouse energy where force is required, but for the purpose of doing good (thru service, altruism), not harm. But anger is a form of aversion, a defilement, unhwholesome root.
Did the Buddha say any words on whether the use of anger, or force, is ever acceptable?

There is no place for anger in Buddhism for any reason.
Right effort is what is required.

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

I'd say righteous anger is okay as long as it is voluntary and under control. . ,

You could say so, in an answer of your own, or in the chat -- that might be better than simply contradicting SarathW's in a comment (see, "instead, post an actual answer"). :-) There is e.g. a topic What is a wrathful Buddha?. I'm unsure I'd concur with that answer though (that anger is okay) e.g. from my experience. :-)

@PeterJ are those the Buddha's words? can you give a reference from the suttas?

@avatarKorra - My comment comes from various discussions on this topic but not from the suttas. I feel that it is never right to take an extreme view such as anger is always right or always wrong. . It is my opinion and not an uncommon one but I didn't intend to suggest I was quoting the Buddha. Perhaps his admonitions against holding extreme views would support my view but I know this is arguable.

All passions including anger are to be removed but until you achieve perfection don't cut too deep, don’t remove the passion against ignorance.
Quoted below is from Shantideva's Bodhichryavatara / The Path of light. (emphasis my own)

Ah, when I vowed to deliver all beings within the hounds of space in
  its ten points from the Passions, I myself had not won deliverance
  froth the Passions. Knowing not my now measure, I spoke like a
  madman.. Then I will never turn back from smiting the Passions. I will
  grapple with them, will wrathfully make war on them all except the
  passion that makes for the destruction of the Passions. Though my
  bowels ooze out and my head fall off, I will nowise abase myself
  before my foes the Passions. An enemy, though driven away, may
  establish himself in another spot, whence he may return with gathered
  powers; but such is not the way of the enemy Passion. Where can this
  dweller in my
spirit go when I cast him out; where can he stand, to labour for my
  destruction? It is only that I—fool that I am—make no effort; the
  miserable Passions are to he overcome by the vision of wisdom. The
  Passions lie not in the objects of sense, nor in the sense-organs, nor
  between them, nor elsewhere; where do they lie? And yet they disturb
  the whole world
They are but a phantom. Then cast away thy heart's terror, and labour
  for wisdom; why shouldst thou vainly torture thyself in hell? Thus
  resolved, I will strive to fulfil the rule as it has been taught; how
  should he who needs medicine find healing, if he depart from the
  physician's command?

Anger is unskillful and destructive. Anger gains its power from a lack of restraint--we explode at a problem and obliterate/kill it. Strong anger leads to killing. Given that the first precept is "do not kill," angry action is Wrong Action.
Therefore if our physical work is demolition, we should exert ourselves mindfully so as not to harm ourselves or others. For example, it takes a lot of skill to demolish a house quickly, efficiently and safely. It takes skill because large forces are involved and they need to be gathered and directed with precise and calm control. Would you hire an angry or a calm construction worker?
Anger is seductive in that one thinks that "a little anger helps a bit, so maybe I can allow a little more anger. Maybe I can control this anger if I let it out just a bit." That is the delusion of anger.

When a person is angry, overcome and overwhelmed by anger, their friends and colleagues, relatives and kin avoid them from afar. --AN7.65

Even if you just slam your phone on the desk out of anger directed at no person, others will shy away from you.

“When what is incinerated do you sleep at ease?
When what is incinerated is there no sorrow?
What’s the one thing, Gotama, whose killing you approve?”
“When anger’s incinerated you sleep at ease. When anger’s incinerated there is no sorrow. O deity, anger has a poisoned root and a honey tip. The noble ones praise its killing, for when it’s incinerated there is no sorrow.”
SN1.71

It is not so that the Buddha rejected aversion at all. The path is not just an "increase of love" (e.g. greed), but to develop a lot of dislike and aversion in regard of what is akusala ("unskilful"), and like and desire for kusala ("skilful" -- from ku = bad, sala = cutting away -- so even the word for "good", skillful, wholesome, carries a very sharp cutting away of root).
There are times, inwardly or outwardly, where aversion is required; times, inwardly or outwardly, greed is required. For each situation it's different, and it's required to know of what is good and bad very clearly, and simply follow it.
One should not have to less aversion in regard of one's anger -- and it's suggested to kill it right, if appearing, and make its total liquidation one's foremost project: sometimes requiring aversion, sometimes greed, all however based on wisdom (but if basing on one's bias or preoccupations, for sure there will be circle-drifting, and mis-investigation of what has come into appearing).
And to have spoken here of right effort: it's good to investigate this factor more carefully. Sure, one may place improper aversion here to do so... and fools himself in both directions at the same time.
Just to get sure: there is no skillful, good, aversion which causes other being's destruction of life, depriving of their possessions, abuse, depriving of truth. As pointed out by the Buddha: neither affection (love) nor hostility can can end conflicts but are abandoned by non-hostility. Again requiring a lot of aversion to abound (abandon) and cut off non-beneficial.
(Note: Neither given for trade, exchange, other stacks, worldly gains and down-binding entertainments)

We must forgive and be kind with everyone, including every enemy.
See the path of purification, CH. IX THE DIVINE ABIDINGS, (1) Loving-Kindness page 291.
The only one anger accepted by the Buddha is anger that keeps the practitioner goes on in the meditation. Sutta. See Tī. Ma. Sakkapañhasuttaṃ:

‘When I cultivate this kind of sadness, unskillful qualities grow, and skillful qualities decline.’ You should not cultivate that kind of sadness.
‘imaṃ kho me domanassaṃ sevato akusalā dhammā abhivaḍḍhanti, kusalā dhammā parihāyantī’ti, evarūpaṃ domanassaṃ na sevitabbaṃ.

Sutta. Ma. U. Saḷāyatanavibhaṅgasuttaṃ:

"And what are the six kinds of renunciation distress? The distress coming from the longing that arises in one who is filled with longing for the unexcelled liberations when — experiencing the inconstancy of those very forms, their change, fading, & cessation — he sees with right discernment as it actually is that all forms, past or present, are inconstant, stressful, subject to change and he is filled with this longing: 'O when will I enter & remain in the dimension that the noble ones now enter & remain in?' This is called renunciation distress. (Similarly with sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas.)

P.S. The anger must feel sad.


text:
Are the Jhanas related to some of the 31 realms of existence
When I say 'related' in this sense means more about the hue that accompanies a jhana, this might be a very pleasant feeling, mind state or perception.
I don't know what school this question refers to. I'm just responding from some kind of intuition so any Buddhist sect is fine.

The jhanas are related to to Brahma realms

"There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the devas of Brahma's retinue. The devas of Brahma's retinue, monks, have a life-span of an eon. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
"Again, there is the case where an individual, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Abhassara devas. The Abhassara devas, monks, have a life-span of two eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
"Again, there is the case where an individual, with the fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Subhakinha devas. The Subhakinha devas, monks, have a life-span of four eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
"Again, there is the case where an individual, with the abandoning of pleasure & stress — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither-pleasure-nor-pain. He savors that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there — fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Vehapphala[4] devas. The Vehapphala devas, monks, have a life-span of 500 eons. A run-of-the-mill person having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, goes to hell, to the animal womb, to the state of the hungry shades. But a disciple of the Blessed One, having stayed there, having used up all the life-span of those devas, is unbound right in that state of being. This, monks, is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor, between an educated disciple of the noble ones and an uneducated run-of-the-mill person, when there is a destination, a reappearing.
AN 4.123

So as you can see, if a person dwell in the first jhana often until he dies then he will reappear in the brahma’s retinue. So I think you have to master the first jhana and dwell there very often and not lose the ability to enter it until you die. Only then you might be reborn in the Brahma retinue. If you enter the first jhana once and start killing your parents or an arahant then you probably won’t appear in the Brahma realm and will go straight to hell because you will probably lose the ability to enter jhana.
If you want to know more about the 31 planes of existence then go to this link. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html

This answer most accurately informs my insight.

In the original teachings, the jhanas were not related to the 31 realms. In the original teachings, the jhanas were merely the Samma Samadhi of the Noble Eightfold Path.
But in what appears to be the later Brahmanisation of Buddhism (to convert the common Indian people to Buddhism, probably by the clergy of King Asoka) the jhanas become related to the 31 realms (similar to how Vajrayana introduced Hindu gods, such as Tara, Yellow Jumbala, Avalokiteshvara, etc, into Mahayana Buddhism).
Refer to (questionable) suttas such as AN 4.123 and MN 1, which equate the jhanas to Brahmanistic gods.
As the Buddha predicted, relating the jhanas to Brahmanistic cosmology lead to the extinction of Buddhism in India. Because people are unable to abandon the self-survival instinct, this corruption of Buddhism continues in the 'modern' world.
The former Supreme Patriarch of Thailand described these godly realms as "ancient geography".

View on Heaven and Hell of Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara, Supreme Patriarch of Thai Buddhism. "As we are so familiar, in religious
  sphere, the concept of heaven and hell is a very prominent belief. In
  many cases, it becomes the goal of religious practice itself. On this
  very subject, His Holiness critically analyses that the very concept
  and belief of heaven and hell in Buddhism is a cultural influence of
  indigenous culture and belief. He states: (I quote) ‘the subject of
  cosmology appeared in Buddhism is clearly can be seen that it is not
  ‘Buddhist teaching’ at all but an ancient geography. The concept and
  belief about it was included in Buddhist Canon merely because of
  strong influence of popular belief of the time. Later Commentaries
  further explain about heaven and hell in a greater detail distant
  itself from the original teaching of the Buddha. If Buddhism teaches
  such belief on heaven and hell it would not be Buddhism at all but an
  ancient geography. Buddha wouldn’t be the Buddha who delivered the
  Noble Truth and ‘timeless’ message for mankind.’ (p. 1) (end of the
  quote) He then shows in his teaching that the concept of heaven and
  hell in Buddhism are in fact symbolic, representing the quality of
  mind and spirituality instead. One can be in heaven and hell in this
  very earth and life. No need to wait until one dies..."
Supreme Patriarch of Thailand H.H.Somdet Phra Nyanasamvara. (Head of
  the Buddhist monks in Thailand).

In the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their
  meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited.
  They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't
  regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will
  listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets,
  elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of
  disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on
  knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping &
  mastering.
In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with
  emptiness — will come about.
The Buddha: Ani Sutta


text:
Finding a dharma teacher
I am examining ways of going further on my dharma road. At this point i am entirely self taught, for better and worse. I strongly believe that from here, some form of guidance from a more experienced teacher could help. Preferably face to face if possible.
Does anyone know if there is someone committed to teaching in west sweden?
Also, is there a sangha (anywhere in the world, really) that formalizes dharma teaching in some form of curriculum? I think a more structured approach could help my western mind learn dharma.

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

Thanks for the notice, i'll check out the links.

Erik,
If the are Sanghas (of the Buddha's monks - a mixed or lay community shouldn't be called a "Sangha") or possible one or another monk alone, it's good to visit them, observe them, and to ask them -- if it's the case that you can trace a good amount of independence between the monk[s] and the "students" (e.g. the monks don't live from students, and instead go for alms independently). If such a person is traced, one might ask questions on any matter of doubt, having found trust, to possibly gain right view. If having gained right view after listening the true Dhamma, there is no more much to worry and the path will develop step by step.
If not finding such, take, if given by a Monk personally (!), the Tipitaka. Usual ways, although common, seldom or never bear any fruits, and it's far better to simply avoid the many teachers who teach for a trade (i.e. for reward). Even if they knew what water was, you would only get an empty bottle: to be sure you would have to return to them!
Maybe this is your personal guide heading toward independence: Into the Stream
And for the case that Erik has already found firm faith, it is because of doing it to an end that the Buddha has found this religion, Sangha, open to make use of it and such might then be not so much a matter of "west Sweden".
[Note: This is not given for any trade, exchange, stacks or what ever ordinary gains within the world.]

I've seen other people/answers recommend the World Buddhist Directory.
Though there may be another more Sweden-specific directory, this "World" directory was about as complete as any other local/national directory that I found online in 'my' country.

I strongly believe that from here, some form of guidance from a more experienced teacher could help. Preferably face to face if possible.
You have to first finalise which school you are most comfortable with, whether Theravada (South Asia, mostly Srilanka, Thailand), Vajrayana(Tibetians) or Mahayana(Zen) ( China, Japan ) (West has all).
Also, that ways people on this site will be able to guide you to exact teacher you are looking for.
Also, is there a sangha (anywhere in the world, really) that formalizes dharma teaching in some form of curriculum? I think a more structured approach could help my western mind learn dharma.
Tibetean schools has structured programs something akin to PhD's of university degrees but that will need you to learn Tibetean language.
Theravada offers best structured approach. You can have a look at Ajahn Brahm's monastery in Australia. They might have some program for you. There are some monasteries in Thailand, which offer shorttime-stay-monk-lives and teachings for westerners.
From your question it looks like Zen approach wont suit you. But still, if you are in Sweden you might want to check Plum Village in France.
I dont think there will be a curricullum for lay buddhists that can be offered by a monastery. Very often the monks will give teachings based on 'you'. But for any curriculum you will have to first choose a school. For an acedemic study an e-sangha like this site is best. Take a look at questions on book recommendations on this site.

Also, is there a sangha (anywhere in the world, really) that formalizes dharma teaching in some form of curriculum?

There's Ven. Bodhi's lecture series on the Majjhima Nikaya and the on-going series on the Anguttara Nikaya (livestream every Saturday morning 10AM Eastern US time). More info. is available from the baus.org web site and their youtube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/venbodhi

You're welcome, Erik. Question for @ChrisW, recently someone continuously downvote all of my posts for no reason. While I don't really care about the point system, I do care about confronting trolling activity on the forum and suspect someone is actively engaging in sabotaging the forum environment. I'm sure you moderators folks can easily track down the troll and take the proper action. Thanks.