text:
How to deal with people and colleagues who are angry, complaining or seeking attention?
For some reason I'm a magnet to bad people or people who are chronic complainers or attention seekers. They often come to me when they need to talk or vent. Especially at work. I don't really want to talk to them but I'm too friendly and not good at setting boundaries and I often just listen to them offering advice. It stresses me, especially when they are angry and they come to me to talk about it.
How can I deal with this in a skillful manner? I tried practicing Metta towards them which didn't work due to their negativity being too strong.

Praying will help. " May I be happy. May my enemies be happy. May all sentient beings be happy     ". You may make your own prayer. I'd suggest you to leave the workplace if needed. Peace is priority.

Difficult question because you wouldn't want these angry people turning on you because such people in the workplace often do. These people are often loitering in the workplace and can be a real danger. I left my last job due to such a person, who for years, I listened to, so often helped them with their work & at times even did their work for them. They were a talk-aholic, who had very low productivity (who I could manage due to my high productivity). But, during a certain issue, they turned against me & were used as a pawn to attack me.
Your 1st priority is your work. You don't want to be seen by your employer spending your time talking to others rather than working. The suttas say:

The employees thus ministered by their employer show their compassion
to him in five ways:
(i) they rise before him, (ii) they go to sleep after him, (iii) they
take only what is given, (iv) they perform their duties well, (v) they
uphold his good name and fame.
Sigalovada Sutta

In Buddhism, it is taught to never harm oneself for the sake of another.

Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be
intent upon the good.

Dhammapada

You can possibly begin by replying: "I am really busy now and must focus on my work. Maybe we can talk during the tea break or lunch break".
You might find these people won't want to waste their tea & lunch break talking.

Thank you very much for this! Very helpful. As a matter of fact one of them, the worst one, turned on me and is now angry with me. He's the worst of them because he's so angry all the time and he talks loudly, yells, curses and has intense body language. I'm enjoying my peace now due to him not contacting me at the moment. I hope it lasts. I don't want to reconnect and have decided that if he approaches me again I will tell him that I can't have contact with him anymore, except when its purely work-related. The verse 166 really helps with this. Thank you.

nice advice and good question & nice gracious comment: maybe just be less explicit re why can't be talking as much, and also simply say less, or if see them outside of work; telling them theyre rejected/ignored isn't really necessary & doesn't really add any value and so is merely a risk & in itself also a form of interaction: so maybe just be pleasant & simply engage less: description of workplace & work could also be helpful for advice  :)

Good listeners are often magnets for people who talk. Significantly, any emotional affirmation given while listening can perpetuate that very talking. Such emotional encouragement can stem from our own cravings and aversions. Therefore this is an opportunity for practice that can benefit us. In particular:

MN62:8.5: This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

Such practice will at least curtail involvement, but good listeners are often sought out for new problems. Because of this, good listeners often have to do more than merely listen, especially when time is short and other needs more pressing. And in this case the limitless release of the heart can help.

MN127:7.2: It’s when a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.  They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion … They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing …  They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. This is called the limitless release of the heart.

So after listening, one can ask what love, compassion, rejoicing or equanimity can be found here. And if the answer is "none", well then that complainer will become speechless under your gaze and walk away mute. And if the answer is a thoughtful silence, then that complainer will have found a new perspective to be grateful for.

That's very helpful, thank you!


text:
Is emptiness conventionally non-empty?
Is emptiness conventionally / provisionally non-empty?  Please include reference to whose perspective you are replying from.

By empty I mean non-substantial, how dharmas are constantly arising and perishing, and nothing is the same from moment to moment, but in flux.
By conventionally I mean in the sense that enlightened beings can use "I" to refer to themselves, even though they ultimately lack any self identity at all or sense of "me and mine".
BY non-empty I mean permanent.

I know that there are debates about the identity of the conventional truth and emptiness, and Nagarjuna said that emptiness is empty.
I read Gelek Rimpoche - Geluk lama - say that he'd "love to say emptiness is impermanent, but emptiness is meant to be permanent", because it is uncompounded and uncreated. And a translation of The Great Prajna Paramita Sutra, saying it is neither permanent nor impermanent.
Personally, I would guess that it is identical to impermanent dharmas (there's discussion about that in early ch'an, seemingly explained by Zongmi), not permanent, and yet does not arise or cease, is not impermanent.
Then it's both empty and non-empty: changing in accordance with conditions, but not dependent on any individual conditioned thing. Arguably, I am rich independent of any one of my financial investments, even-though it changes with all of them. Not a great analogy, but I can't think of anything else that could be "permanent".

good wellwritten question; very good that Asker specifically describes what the intended meanings are for the topic words of the question: in a lot of recent writings in English there's misinterpretation because of specialised meanings for standard English terms/words, so it can be tedious to try transmit intended ideas: especially nicely understandable done by Asker re 'permanent' & 'emptiness' etc; trying to describe these Existential Concepts with conventional language isn't typically vague enough: the concepts are different from conventional concepts & conventional descriptioning;  good :)

No, of course not. Sorry, I don't have any references to back me but it just seems to be common sense...
How can emptiness be non-empty even provisionally if it [emptiness] is not a distinct existence, it's just a label for not having anything solid enough to serve as an absolute reference point?
Emptiness itself can't be an absolute reference point either. So even in conventional sense, you can't say "here's emptiness and there's the seeming solidity of samsara" or "here is emptiness and there's nirvana", or really for any other X, you can't juxtapose it with emptiness, you can only say "X is empty".
The only counterargument to that I can think of, is the fact that the noun "shunyata" exists. Every time we casually use the noun, especially with someone who does not really know it's meaning in-depth it's kinda like we are pretending that emptiness is non-empty.
We are not really claiming it is non-empty we are just saying the word with this face as if it were a something, and that slay of hand is the closest we come to reifying the concept to a level of something semi-non-empty.
Lol. I'm sure actual philosophers would give me an F for this, but here we go :)
P.S. I mean, if you get to the bottom of it, the real question is, does any "sign" (in the sense of semiotics) have a referent which itself is not a sign? When we say "X is empty", that is what we mean, right? that it is merely a sign? So how can we use "emptiness" as anything other than a sign, even conventionally, especially conventionally?

The analogy i can give is to a role-playing game. There is a way to role-play and there is a way to analyze the mechanics of the game itself.
Similarly Ariya analyze the game based on logic and their verbal system of understanding is based on philosophical inference for demonstrable basis. They understand what can be rightly inferred even about thinking by thinking. They understand intellect in and by itself and here 'how one thinks' is the thing they solved for.
Existence is of delusion, delusion can be spoken of as faulty notions of objectification, objectification is thinking about and 'naming' what the five senses present and the intellect which knows and thinks about thinking.
When ariya rightly think about the senses & what the senses present, in that context they infer various elements but 'a self' isn't inferred.
The doctrine of self is known to be false and is also [by them] known to be adhered to by many other beings who grasp with wrong view the senses and what the senses present complete with intellect.
The doctrine of self is an unsubstantiated interpretation of reality [the RPG] and most beings adhere to it [role-play].
It so happens that role-playing here is abandoned by role-playing.
The thing is that, as the world role-plays, the use of role-play language for communication is required to interact with others to do anything in-game as it is to the only mean and it to an extent describes the environment even tho it is flawed & incomplete understanding.
In other words, one stuck in this game is here required not only to understand the predicament but is also required to play out the role-play scenario and if he is going to interact with delusional people then he has to talk in terms which are common norm.
If those he interacts with are favorably predisposed the Aryan can teach the Dhamma and those with eyes to see will be able to abandon adherence to the doctrine of self and come to agreement with the proposition that all which can be thought about as being existant in the game or being in-game or of the game, all that they call existence and it's rightly [due inference] categorically classed as repulsive.
They eventually know & see that which isn't objectified nor included in the allness of that all, isn't included in word 'existant' nor associated with game, the principle by which game is extinguished is by them classed as 'good and pleasant'. They do not delight in the discernment of principally changing persistence, they incline their minds to the discernment of the principal cessation of changing persistence, the principle of cessation becomes the primary happiness and a destruction of taints.
In regards to the world [the game] it does not occur to them 'this is good' they know that it's wrong, should not be and shouldn't occur. There being no longing the game ends as it is only conceived & sustained in-game by intellect subscribed to the doctrine of self [wrong view].
I could use the word 'convention' to describe some of these circumstances but i am disinclined to do so because it's imo become somewhat of a buzzword and i guess people might have preconceived notions.

good point re 'buzzwords'/ terms which arenot clear(if at all) unless carefully described in detail for & within particular contexts & venues; also, wasn't readily able to follow the initial the analogy utilised  :)

The following is taken from my longer article on this subject. This quote is jumping in at the end of that article, but it summarizes my answer to the question asked. This answer may not seem to respond to the OP’s question as asked because it is coming from the non-conventional view, but it is responding to the incorrect view encoded in the question. The OP is very clear about what he/she/they is asking, but from the non-conventional view the question is meaningless. The Two-Truths doctrine is important to our understanding, but it shouldn’t be a justification for making-believe we still understand the conventional world today as humanity once did two and a half millennia ago.
"Forms are Empty, Emptiness is Form"

...please note that Emptiness is not Suchness, and is not the nature of anything—because then suchness wouldn’t be empty of an intrinsic self. We can say it is the essence of Suchness, elevating the absence of what we thought was there in the appearances to the stature of the absolute source of all, but that is just overkill and so wrong. It’s useful for a while, but it has the nasty effect of retarding our progress.

“Know that pointing out appearances as mind and mind’s nature as emptiness (thus making the duality of appearances and emptiness into a unity) is not the method of Nyingtik pith instruction. Such instruction may be given occasionally, but only as a provisional means to elevate the mind of an individual initiate, certainly not as a definitive truth.”

“Neither existence nor nonexistence nor space-time is to be found here. Appearances and emptiness are indistinguishable, so that neither eternity nor the void are anywhere perceptible.”

(Quotes above  attributed to Longchenpa in the “Yeshe Lama,” Jingme Lingpa)

Suchness is the presencing of forms (otherwise there would be no distinguishing anything), and forms are empty of any intrinsic self. Yet we can discern the inherent essence of each form. Where we get lost is in confusing the “nature” (inherent essence) of a form, which sets it apart from other forms, with an intrinsic self. Our problem lies in the confusing multiplicity of meanings for the word “nature.” If we just thought of it as “intrinsic self-naturing” versus “essential character,” we'd be on our way to lessening our confusion.
Thus, “Emptiness” (note the capitalization) is a form also—it’s a thought form, called a “concept.”
So repeat after me: “Forms (suchness) are empty, Emptiness is form.” This will remind us that “Emptiness” is just an idea that took hold when we noticed we were originally wrong about everything.
The essential character of Suchness is Pure Spontaneous Presencing. And I feel the need to again remind you that suchness is not a thing, it's the name we give to this activity—“presenting as form.”
And the nature of this is not something else, it’s the activity. So Pure Spontaneous Presencing is not a thing. It’s simply a description of the salient characteristics of the activity that is our phenomenal existence—of suchness.
Thus, it defines nothing, because there is nothing to define. As Garab Dorje said:

“Transcending all discrimination in its arising, Transcending all discrimination in its release.”

And as Jigme Lingpa said:

“While safeguarding the continuity of the wonderful intrinsic perfection of our existential presence, if the thought “the nature of pure presence is empty” springs up in the rational mind, by ascribing an objective focus of emptiness to pure presence, buddha is precluded.”

Forms are empty, Emptiness is form.

Addendum in response to the OP’s comment to this answer (placed here because of length)
By “permanent” you mean all of time? Time is the epitomization of arising and passing away—tick toc, tick toc—so would we say Time “itself” is permanent? I think we do, and yet even scientists are starting to say Time is just a convention that organizes events into orderly sequences. They are being forced into accepting a Two Truths doctrine because they and we share the same reality (i.e., Buddhism is right on this point). We say Time arises and passes away, but our experience of the arising and passing away of all things is only contingently factual because Time as we conventionally understand it, doesn’t exist.
But what does that word “reality” mean? The set of all events? A container in which everything “comes to pass”? What’s missing here?
It’s the motivating ‘force’, which in Buddhism is sometimes called “emptiness”. (It’s a terrible word because it’s an abstracted quality of all that manifests, but we conventionally use it as if it is something, but it’s truly only the absence of any intrinsic self-nature.)
So how did the absence of something become a motivating force? Habit. Lazy thinking. Misunderstanding. Because the truth is more bizarre than we imagine. Pick one.
The word “Emptiness” is a dialectical term. This means that when you apply it to things, you are asserting that they have no substance, no self, no intrinsic self-nature. And when you apply it to Emptiness, that also is without substance, no self, and no intrinsic self nature. It all just dissolves away. Thus, as you mentioned, Nagajuna said Emptiness is empty, which means Emptiness is just a mental form that has no intrinsic existence, but also that there is no Nature—just naturing.
So no, Emptiness is not permanent, because even what it points to (the absence of an intrinsic self-nature) is ultimately empty of meaning.
And because Time is not permanent, nothing that exists is permanent.
But your comment opens up the possibility of looking for something “relatively” permanent.  Is there some conventional quality of experience that does not arise and pass away?
Emptiness is empty, awareness stops and starts in lockstep with what arises, so what’s left?
The motivating ‘force’, which is called Mahākarunā in Buddhism (or just Buddha nature, but that sounds like some thing). This simply means that stuff shows up in response to extant conditions. But not deterministically because the responses are stochastic in character and show a certain drift or creativity in what actually happens. The show is endless and it is spontaneous—but always coherent in some way from appearance to appearance. This is conventionally so, but not because we are ordering the appearances, but because the truth is a little bit different.
What is Reality? The Absolute truth? Time is impermanent, and not to be found absolutely. Awareness therefore is empty of meaning, for what would an awareness of no duration be? Emptiness is empty, as we said. So how, and to what, does Buddha nature respond?
This. This is all there is. The past is just the conventionally ordered conditions that made This possible, and they are intrinsic to This, not something attached like a string of moments of time that we remember. The Now we conventionally speak of as being the time that This is happening is not a moment in time because there is no such thing. Rather, it’s a vignette consisting of the conditions and the response to the conditions—all showing up Now—without any intrinsic substance or self. Just This, awesome beautiful display. And it never ends because it never begins. All there is, is this Now.  That’s the stage. The how is beyond thought.
So to recap, conventionally, the appearances show up, and that is true. Ultimately, there is only the responsive naturing of appearances, and because time doesn’t exist ‘we’ somehow manage to organize these appearances into a moving image—the prior images in the sequence being the conditions intrinsic within the vignette Now. It’s like the entire ‘universe’ is just the imputed motion in a sequence of still images in an endless epiphanic display of Mahakaruna—and it is this that we break down into me, you, we, doing stuff to things, and making things happen.

I mean to ask whether emptiness is permanent and whether our idea of it refers to conventional existence: i.e. if there is some conventional quality of experience which does not arise and cease.

My response to your comment, Anon, got long, so I appended it to my answer above.

nice answer and comments; the clarifying explanation of the terms & contexts is helpful. thank you :)

It depends.
At the start of your emptiness contemplation you experience both emptiness and non-emptiness. However when you attain Nibbana you experience total emptiness.
Please refer to Cula Sunnata Sutta and Maha sunnata sutta.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.075.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html

Good householder Anon,
All saṅkhāras are anicca, good householder. What ever in that all, and most ideas, are void of any substance, yet have causes.
And of course, the sense of the common, common run-a-mill people, doesn't see, taking inconstant for constant and constant for inconstant, seeking refuge in an emptiness...
And what is all?
How ever, and that is importand, the run-a-mill person, one who's still a householder, does good to investigate form, the five senses and it's objects first, otherwise one become simply an "merit-off-consumings"-BSE star, head and heedless spreading useless comments to try to maintain ones identifications.
This might help to find back from Mohayanas and their brothers in arm to the Buddha and his Sangha: The Concept of Emptiness in Pali Literature - Medawachchiye Dhammajothi Thero but at least, brain-mastubation stays just brain-mastubation, is neither the path, nor it's aim.
So here on it: The Essence of the Dhamma
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, wprld-binding trades... but for an escape from this wheel]

Emptiness means that nothing exists in the ultimate sense.
It's like in sciences: all theoretical knowledge we have there is hypothesis. Newton's laws were good for centuries, but a time has came when we needed some other laws and equations to describe seemingly the same things (Einstein's etc). So any moment some new facts can arise, which would require to change our formulas.
That's what emptiness means. It means that everything in our "knowledge" is just a piece of experience: we have experienced something in perception; then we experienced some thoughts about that; that's how some piece of knowledge was created.
We say "we know it", but it's still a hypothesis based on experience; it's not an ultimate truth which would be true absolutely.
Likewise, "emptiness" is our concept. We assume that this concept is always true. We make that assumption on a basis of our experience and how we imagine the world.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
You are simply seeing light touching your eyes
I was listening to a buddhist monk talking about masturbation addiction and his advice about it:

When you see the human body or these sexual acts on a screen or
magazine page you are not actually seeing these things. You are
simply seeing light touching your eyes. And when you can come to
this realization, where seeing is simply seeing, then you will have no
thought of the person's hair, teeth, beasts, etc. There is only
seeing. So you are able to see anything and see it simply for what it
is. Thus there is no connection made. Seeing is seeing, because that's
what it is. You don't see a human body and say that it is beautiful,
because you realize it's ridiculous to say that, because this is
simply light touching my eyes

I have difficulty to understand what the monk means by that, what is the difference between seeing a screen and the "seeing light touching your eyes"
Could you give me some pointers ?

That's a great insight. Might you by any chance be able to add the name of the monk?

the videos are on YouTube "Ask a monk" , the adress is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5Lg9P-VekA, but I found the reference in a book by Paul Taniguchi on masturbation addiction

for the previous comment, I am not sure if I violate some rules. If it is the case, please delete it.

The attribution seems quite proper and gives Ven. Yuttadhammo due credit for an open and inspiring lecture. Thank you.

@Makoto Are you sure you have the right link? I clicked on it and all I got was light touching my eyes and sounds touching my ear. There was nothing else.

Broadly, he was saying "the map is not the territory". Sadly, it seems - in your interpretation - he put it so poorly as ro render it mostly meaningless.

Comment only: Almost all comments and answers, and the original quote conflate masturbation and pornography as if they are inseparable. While they are usually companions, and while considering it impossible for them not to be may be common,  this is not a necessary association. Examining this point may be  of benefit.

The quoted passage reminds me the Bāhiya Sutta. "When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Reality is our interpretation. The signs that stimulate lust (certain curves, sounds, lines, colors) take your effort to get converted into an erotic picture in your mind. If you stop applying that effort you'll just see the raw signs - shapes, colors, lines - that's it.
It's up to you to see it erotically or to see it as something else. The interpretation happens in your mind. You can learn to control it, or at least to see through it.

thanks a lot for your answer !

Andrei Volkov appears to be saying the Buddha recommended using pornography as a meditation object.

Hence it was said:'He saw the bones that were her teeth'.

In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.
When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.
Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.
These examples go to show that objects do not have the meaning given to it by the mind. In fact, some of these are not even objects, except that they have been objectified by the mind.
What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.
What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.
This concept is called papanca, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.
This does not mean that things don't exist, except in my mind. It means that things don't exist as how my mind thinks it does.
From your question, you talked about seeing, let's say, attractive people on a screen. To an ant, it's just lights of different colors. If a mouse sees them - it's just an image of what it may perceive as humans - a threat. But to you, they are attractive people.  So why are they "attractive people"? It's because that's how your mind objectified and classified them relative to yourself. That's how your mind reified them. That's papanca.
Fully enlightened persons like the Buddha and the arahants see things the way they are, without objectifying and classifying them relative to the idea of the self.

What kind of mind does the honey bee have?

@JadeEmpire You can get a glimpse of that (honey bee's mind) in this video.

thanks a lot for your answer !

@ruben2020. They are sweet and cool.

Good answer to convey the idea that this world of five aggregates is a personal thing. We think we live in a same world with others and expect them to see the world as we see. But this won't never happen because we don't see the objects as they are but perceive only the eye consciousness based on the capability of our own eyes. We have to understand that the eye consciousness is not the object. It's an entirely different thing than the object.

Simply zoom in, to get more clear, and what good householder will face are just pixles... "light". What's actually there to get foolish on it? Zoom even into the single pixel. More, deeper. What's there that makes one foolish? Z00m out again, look another time.

And now try the same investigation with your skin, hair... You may come to a point where all disolves.

And after this, try to investigate touch in same way.
No! Not just intellectual, no brain-masturbation now, enough. Look and see.
So once again, as it than can be also investigated in regard of ones ideas. Fetch one and dissolve it as far as possible to find an essence.
[Strict non-commercial. Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades but for an escape from this wheel]

The advice in the video is illogical & contrary to Buddhist principles because a practicing Buddhist will never see pornographic images (apart from when doing an internet search on another topic but sometimes pornographic images appear).
The scriptures refer to controlling the mind when a monk sees a woman or a scantly dressed woman in the village while going on alms round. The scriptures do not refer to monks visiting brothels and controlling their mind in a brothel.

Monks, even if a monk is of impeccable character, he might be
suspected and distrusted as a ‘bad monk’ for five reasons.
What five? It’s when a monk frequently collects alms from prostitutes,
widows, voluptuous girls, eunuchs, or nuns.
Even if a monk is of impeccable character, he might be suspected and
distrusted as a ‘bad monk’ for these five reasons.
AN 5.102

Apart from the ordinary seeing of women, such as when walking down the street, a practising Buddhist should never see pornography because pornography is something a Buddhist totally avoids.
In summary, what the monk named Noah Greenspoon advised in the Youtube video is both illogical and is simply something an addict cannot practice. It is simply too advanced for an addict to practice.
The Buddhist path is comprised of sila (morality), samadhi (concentration) and panna (wisdom). A tree is climbed from the bottom and not from the top. The intellectual conceptual theoretical higher wisdom (panna) in the Noah Greenspoon's video is not possible for an immoral person to practice.
Buddhism teaches a person that does immoral things such as watch pornography will be reborn in hell; just as those actors in pornographic movies will be reborn in hell.

corrupted too with prostitutes— that’s the way to disaster’s woe.
Sn 1.6

For example, i went to school as a child with a beautiful blonde girl who later did soft pornography. She eventually committed suicide in her 30s. Recently, when I happened to connect with old school friends from childhood on Facebook, they were still lamenting her demise.
When I ran meditation retreats, I met prostitutes who ended up a psychiatric hospitals. Once a porn lady became obsessed/infatuated with me and the nuns in the monastery had to remove her from the monastery and put her on a airplane back to Europe.
If you do research, you can discover the many pornographic actors and actresses that have committed suicide, become addicted to drugs, become mentally ill or, most positively, quit pornography.
Pornography harms oneself & others and should be totally avoided, similar to how poison or poison snakes, sharks, crocodiles, etc, are avoided.
The tribal monk is the video named Noah Greenspoon appears not willing to condemn pornography and the tribal people in the industry for the evil they are.
Pornography is similar to drugs such as cocaine or heroin. A real Buddhist does not give advice: "after injecting heroin or snorting cocaine, after you feel the rush of its affect upon your mind, you just feel it as feeling".
If you can realise how fake & false the advice of Noah Greenspoon is, they you are one step closer to progress.
It appears you have a history of making wrong misinformed choices, such as the choice to watch pornography or choosing the wrong monks for advice. The scriptures, such as SN 14.14, refer to how similar elements are attracted to similar elements.
It is important to avoid both the sharks in the tribal pornographic industry as well as the sharks in the tribal Buddhist industry. You should take refuge in men of integrity and not anyone that is soft on the destructive nature of pornography.
In conclusion, if you are practising Buddhism, the only practise is to view an urge & thought to watch pornography as:

not personal
an energy or urge created by ignorance
leading to suffering & harm
impermanent
something that arises & passes
subject to vanishing

A practising Buddhist never reaches the stage of watching pornography itself.

Hi Dhammadhatu, thanks a lot for your detailed answer. The thing, I began to practice meditation because I did want to rely on a method based on repression, that's why I have looked for answers. The monk seems to want to help in his own way, but as I am a beginner, I wanted more explanations –

thanks but your ideas of "repression" & "beginner" are not related to buddhism. a buddhist does not watch pornography. the only work is managing internal thoughts & urges. i clearly said the ideas of Noah Greenspoon in the video are not related to Buddhism

thanks, I know it is not directly related to the topic, could you give me some reference for managing thoughts & urges ?

@Dhammadhatu Sir, Why does the first in noble eightfold path (right view) come under the last in threefold training (wisdom)? According to this answer and your comment to this answer, people practice dana and sila because of right view. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31206/14468

structure of threefold training is not as important as the structure of the 8 foldpath. right view always comes 1st

@Dhammadhatu Sir, Then your statement in the above answer, "The Buddhist path is comprised of sila (morality), samadhi (concentration) and panna (wisdom). A tree is climbed from the bottom and not from the top." would not be applicable here. Am I correct?

The expression of the monk is certainly not clear. As it actually is, we don't see the light 'touching' the retina, we just don't.  We can however understand and conceive of this eventuality as a requisite condition.
It can be known that the light in contact with the eye is a requisite for what is thought about as seeing and which is named 'seeing' or 'the seen'.
One might say 'the eye is for seeing.' Not necessarily true, if a person is in a dark room then even with 2 eyes he won't see anything placed in front of him.
So the eye is not for seeing but it can be inferred that when there is eye and light, then seeing can occur.
One might say 'the eye is for seeing when there is light.' Not necessarily true, if a person is unconscious or is unconscious in regards to the eye faculty, then even in a room with light everywhere and even with 2 eyes he won't see anything placed in front of him.
So the eye is not for seeing but it can be inferred that when there is eye, when there is light, when there is eye-consciousness and with the contact that can then be delineated between eye-consciousness, the eye and the forms visible by the eye, then what is thought about as 'seeing' occurs and it doesn't occur without it's requisite conditions such as the eye and etc.
In this sense eye is for seeing but that is in as far as it is a requisite.
What one thinks about the seeing, it is in the scope of thinking about seeing or the seen. What is called 'the seen' is whatever it is except from what you think about it and whatever you name it ie 'the seen'.
There is a sutta about Bahiya, therein Buddha instructs one to let the seen just be the seen. As i understand it, rather than conceiving of a self in the seen or of a self doing the seeing, one simply analyzes the causes & requisite conditions for seeing.
Rather than asking 'what do i see?', ask the question 'how do i see?'.  In asking the latter you can think about perception itself rather than getting caught up in what is thought about as being perceived.

What he means on a basic level is that porn is basically just "light from a screen", not "light reflecting from a partner". Honestly, I don't find it a good argument. The problem is, you can apply the same reasoning like this:

When you read the sutra's, it's just light reflected from paper, not the Buddha speaking
When you use the Buddhism SE, it's just light reflected from your screen
When I see a person, it's just light reflected from a bag of skin
etc.

Following the monk's reasoning, in none of the examples listed would you be able to "make a connection", as the reasoning is close to that of phenomenology.
But in fact, some people have attained enlightenment during sex (mostly in the Tantric disciplines). In some Buddhist schools, monks can get married. This surprises many Westerners, because the early Buddhist texts teach that sensual enjoyment and desire in general, and sexual pleasure in particular, are hindrances to enlightenment. However, over the centuries, Buddhism has responded to sexuality in a variety of ways, sometimes suppressing the sexual urge, sometimes sublimating it, sometimes cultivating it, and, on the highest levels, transforming it.

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


text:
There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation
I am a beginner and I stumbled upon the sentence in a video given by a monk.

There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a
pleasant sensation

I will give you the context

We have to remove this idea that there is something beneficial about
the happiness. This is probably mind  blowing for most people if
they've never studied things like Buddhism. But really what objective
and what answer can you give if I ask objectively or intrinsically
"What benefit do you gain from pleasure ? From physical pleasure ?
What is positive about it ?" And you know you can simply you can give
a tautology and say "it's good because it's pleasant" or "pleasant
sensations are good because they're pleasant" which are both
meaningless of course.
And this isn't simply a tricky sort of argument, it's not an
intellectual trick of sorts. It's actually true that there is no
benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant
sensation.  (...) The issue is this clinging, this craving for
pleasant sensations and the idea that pleasure is somehow positive.

As the monk said, it is a bit mind blowing for me. If I take an example, when I am hungry, I am in pain, which is the nature way to tell me "Time to have a meal" and when I am full, the nature is telling me I have eaten enough and I do not need to eat more.
And when I am listening to pleasant music or when I am with people I like/I love, I feel my mind at ease and I am happy.
So my question is: what does the monk really mean ?

It's really simple. (Long-term) benefit and (immediate) pleasure don't always go hand in hand, and more often than not they are in the opposition to each other.
Life can be lived with pleasure as one's guide, always choosing what's pleasant now regardless of its long term harm or benefit.
Or life can be lived with long term wellness, health, and happiness as one's guide - regardless of whether it is immediately pleasant or unpleasant.
Guess which method actually leads to more pleasure down the road?
This is the basic idea, that pleasure is a bad advisor. Children and naive people pursue pleasure over benefit. Wise people pursue benefit over pleasure.
Now, not all pleasure is misleading. There's a category of pleasure that accords with Dharma. A pleasure of peace, a pleasure of simplicity, a pleasure of laying down a burden of attachment, a pleasure of understanding the Teaching, a pleasure of recognizing one's attainments.
But if you are looking for a simple rule of thumb as a beginner, then the easiest way to practice is by separating all your thoughts, impulses, and motives in two classes: ones that lead towards peace, harmony, enlightenment, Nirvana - and ones that lead away. Pursuing long-term benefit you'll attain both benefit and pleasure. Pursuing just pleasure you'll attain none.

That's the main idea, and the second, more subtle idea, is that the pleasure in and of itself is an illusion. Sweets that seem tasty to young children are awfully primitive  to most adults - but try to explain that to a kid. Experiences seem pleasant when the observer is naive enough to evaluate them in a superficial way.
It is with other experiences like it is with the tastes - they are only pleasant in contrast with each other and only in certain combinations and only when you're hungry. Sexual act is only pleasant when you are "hungry" but quickly becomes a burden when you are satisfied and your partner begs for more. Not to mention the sexual disgust of having to share a bed with a person you don't find attractive.
If you carefully examine a pleasant sensation such as taste, smell, touch,  or even a more subtle pleasure of looking at a beautiful picture - you will notice your brain hard at work making the experience pleasant, comparing and contrasting it with other experiences and memories of experiences - all to convince itself that this sensation is in fact pleasant.
To a lucid observer pleasure is insubstantial like a lens flare and so is pain. However bright it's just a reflection.

thanks a lot, I really appreciated the effort to explain, specially the metaphors in the second part in the answer. I have just not understood your last sentence. I agree with you, pleasure works with comparison, but so are a lot of things in life: which job I prefer, which path of spirituality I want to follow, which person I want to marry, All that is based on previous experience and comparison. They are not insubstantial.  I think I may have missed a point.

Another thing: I do not understand why you seem to think that pain is an illusion. There are (very) rare cases where people are desensitized to (physical) pain. These people tend to have huge health problems because pain is the way of the nature to tell there is a danger.

A lot of time in Buddhism we talk from a perspective of the immediate phenomenology. So here I'm talking about the raw experiences of pleasure and pain. The previous experiences and comparisons may well be relatively real and valid. But the pleasure-ness felt at a specific moment in time is ephemeral like a desert mirage. It's not reliably pleasant, it seems pleasant and then it's not. What you said about pain is common knowledge. I'm not saying the information most people experience as pain is useless - I'm saying the "painfulness" of pain is a mirage overlayed on top of the original signal.

thanks a lot for your comment, i'm starting to get what you mean

All feelings are categorically classed as unpleasant in the Dhamma. If any feeling whatsoever was classed as good, something longed for, something that should be, as something that should occur and as worthy of being maintained, then in that case one can not be expected to develop disenchantment towards feeling & perception.
Whatever is felt is to be seen as impernanent, as a thorn, as dukkha. For one such as this disenchantment and turning away is possible.

As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Just now, lord, while I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'Three feelings have been spoken of by the Blessed One: a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain,[1] & a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. These are the three feelings spoken of by the Blessed One. But the Blessed One has said: "Whatever is felt comes under stress." Now in what connection was this stated by the Blessed One: "Whatever is felt comes under stress?"'"
"Excellent, monk. Excellent. These three feelings have been spoken of by me: a feeling of pleasure, a feeling of pain, & a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain. These are the three feelings spoken of by me. But I have also said: 'Whatever is felt comes under stress.' That I have stated simply in connection with the inconstancy of fabrications. That I have stated simply in connection with the nature of fabrications to end... in connection with the nature of fabrications to fall away... to fade away... to cease... in connection with the nature of fabrications to change.

"It may happen, Ananda, that Wanderers of other sects will be saying this: 'The recluse Gotama speaks of the Cessation of Perception and Feeling and describes it as pleasure. What is this (pleasure) and how is this (a pleasure)?'
"Those who say so, should be told: 'The Blessed One describes as pleasure not only the feeling of pleasure. But a Tathagata describes as pleasure whenever and whereinsoever it is obtained.'"

There is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation

Pleasant feelings do have a benefit, in that they allow the mind to be at ease in concentration (MN 36 paragraph 39). Pleasant feelings from meditation also allow the mind to overcome the temptation of sensual pleasures (MN 14 paragraph 3) .
As for "no intrinsic positive nature", this can only be understood by those minds that have reached higher levels of meditation, where knowing/touching the Nirvana element surpasses the benefit of pleasant feelings (AN 9.36).
In short, Buddhism teaches there are two types of pleasant feelings:
(i) arising from sensuality; and
(ii) arising from Dhamma practise.
Refer to the Sukha Vagga in the Anguttara Nikaya.
The second type of pleasant feelings have benefit. The Buddha taught they are to be developed and not feared (MN 36 paragraph 39).

We have to remove this idea that there is something beneficial about
the happiness.

"Happiness" is a word often used in a positive way in Buddhism. For example, the scriptures say: "Nirvana is the highest happiness" (Dhammapada 203 & 204).
As said above, it is important to distinguish between the different types of pleasant feelings and also distinguish between pleasant feelings and happiness.
While ultimately, the highest happiness is Nirvana or Non-Attachment, dhammic pleasant feelings have a strong role in the Buddhist way of life, such as the pleasant feelings & equanimous feelings of jhana.

This is probably mind blowing for most people if they've never studied things like Buddhism.

There is nothing "mind blowing" about the verbal drivel & babbling of monks that don't understand Buddhism.

But really what objective and what answer can you give if I ask objectively or intrinsically "What benefit do you gain from pleasure ? From physical pleasure ? What is positive about it ?

The Buddha taught "The Middle-Way" in his 1st sermon, which is a path of non-sensual pleasure and the avoidance of self-created pain (called 'self-mortification'). The quote above is not related to Buddhism but is sheer nonsense.

And you know you can simply you can give a tautology and say "it's good because it's pleasant" or "pleasant sensations are good because they're pleasant" which are both meaningless of course.

The above quote sounds like just Western philosophy. "Pleasantness" is "Dhamma" because pleasantness makes life bearable & liveable.
I already mentioned the Buddha taught there are two types of pleasantness and the 2nd type of pleasantness is to be developed and not feared or shunned.

And this isn't simply a tricky sort of argument, it's not an intellectual trick of sorts.

Sorry but the above is an intellectual trick, i.e., a trick of ignorance.

It's actually true that there is no benefit and there is no intrinsic positive nature in a pleasant sensation. (...) The issue is this clinging, this craving for pleasant sensations and the idea that pleasure is somehow positive.

Since the true pleasant feelings of Buddhism arise from non-clinging, the above quote is illogical and heretical nonsense.
In conclusion, the quote in the question is unrelated to Buddhist principles and is probably best posted on Philosophy Stack Exchange.

If I take an example, when I am hungry, I am in pain, which is the
nature way to tell me "Time to have a meal" and when I am full, the
nature is telling me I have eaten enough and I do not need to eat
more.

The Buddha taught to eat food as follows:

In this a monk takes his food properly considering, not for sport, for
intoxication, for adornment or beautification, but purely for the
maintenance and nourishment of this body, for keeping it unharmed, as
an aid to the practice of the holy life, thinking: 'I shall put an end
to the old [unpleassant] feeling and not produce any new [unpleasant] feeling [from over-eating or excitement due to lust]. Thus I shall keep going, incur no fault and live at ease.' (SN 35.120)

And when I am listening to pleasant music or when I am with people I like/I love, I feel my mind at ease and I am happy.

For common ordinary unenlightened people (called 'puthujjana'), some types of music are not greatly harmful. However, from the viewpoint of enlightenment, music is sensual pleasure and an obstacle to the higher path.
As for associating with wise people (such as myself), yes, Buddhism recommends this. The Buddha said this will be for your welfare & happiness.

Good householder,
Good explaining by the Venerable in regard of what one seems to be most attached. How ever, people tend often to take things out of larger context to maintain certain sensation. So:
It's important, so that one doesn't get it wrong, falls even toward aversive approaches, or householder-equanimity, that there is also intrinsic negative nature in what is negative sensed, felt, and no intrinsic neither-positive-nor-negative (neutral) nature in what is neutral sensed. It's the nature of all touch, all feelings caused by touch on the six senses, all grasping and clinging arising on it, to be not real, not lasting, not to be controlled, taken to be ones own.
Just look for your self whether the certain object of sensation, the touch, the feeling that arises, the intend toward touch, the perception, the consciousness... what ever on being touched, lasts, is real, can be taken as refuge, regarded as own.
And if something can not be taken under control, can actually not be made ones own, isn't it stressful, loaded with suffering, Dukkha, good householder?
So importand, to understand, is to abstain from brain-masturbation, and actually look for one self in "real" occasion. Take one object of the eye and investigate touch, feeling, craving... perception, intent... the ear,...nose, thonge, body, intellect and see for your self.

Who sees the pain in happiness and views the painful feeling as a thorn, perceives the transience in neutral feeling which is peaceful —
right outlook, truly, has such a monk who fully understands these feelings;
And having penetrated them, he will be taint-free in this very life.
Mature in knowledge, firm in Dhamma's ways,
when once his life-span ends, his body breaks,
all measure and concept he has transcended.  Datthabba Sutta: To Be Known

And importand addition: ...aside of telling good householder that it isn't for his best to approach in a imature and faithless community of doubters, enjoying there times here on commercial interest of the giver, as not able to undertake something requiring given by themselves... but he might be bound likewise... no more of demerit increasing then seeking touch, association with fools.
Better to approach the Venerable or others of the Sangha of monks of the Buddha then to pull their gift into the dirt of doubt and attachments, bad conditions for grow. Anyway, as there was just a possibility, it was given for those who could be healed.
[Note that it isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]


text:
let go of wanting to change the past in my meditation practice
I remark that, when I am doing my meditation practice, I am still clinging to want to change the past. To make short, due to parents who had their own special way of education, I had quite a difficult adolescence (little freedom, constant shouting and constant dissatisfaction from my parents despite having quite good scholar results and causing no major problems (no drugs, no smoking ...),  constant humiliation from my parents & my peers in middle & high school ).
It was unfair and it was cruel.
On an intellectual level, I understand I cannot change the past. But on a deeper level, I still wished I could have had a "normal" adolescence.
I feel that due to a low level of confidence, I missed some good opportunities.
And I am still clinging to this wish during my meditation practice (concentration on the breating). Could you give me some suggestions to help me ?
By the way, I do not know if this question belongs in this forum. If this is the case & you tell me, I will delete this question.
Edit after reading & thinking about the answers provided:
First, I want to thank you all.
Second, I had some epiphany after reading answers, thinking about them and listing to a meditation which was mentionned in one of the answers. I explain: in the meditation, the teacher speaks about a trip in which he was in a bus for nearly a day. He was stuck in a seat close to a place that was very smelly, and unfortunately, there was no other seat available. He first decided to focus on his breathing, but remarked after a few hours, that this had resulted in building tension. He remarked that he had used meditation to push the uncomfortable situation out of his mind. Once he  used meditation to open to the uncomfortable situtation, things went better. And I thought: Oh, this is exactly what I was doing. I used meditation to push uncomfortable thoughts & feelings ouf of my mind. In fact, I realized that I did not want to accept what I had suffered. I thought I had accepted but deep down I had not. So now in my meditation practice, I try to open up to uncomfortable feelings & thoughts.
Thank you all

The way I worked out this exact problem was just sat down with my parents especially my father and with calm mind without showing emotions talked to them about the way they treated me and what I expected them of. Once I had this talk I gave them a big hug and in my my heart generated the feelings of forgiveness and loving kindness. That is called as metta in buddhism. So thats how you let go of the past burden.

I am not a teacher nor do I understand Buddhist teachings to a great extend yet therefore my answer is more of a sympathising approach.
I myself was brought up in what I consider a narrowminded religious environment. And I can't deny I held a grudge against my parents for some things they did or said.
I guess what it comes down to is the idea: What if my parents treated me differently? Would I be better of? Would I be happier?
But in my humble opinion that does not withstand close examination.
If they treated you differently you would still need to pay rent. You would still need to work to eat. You would still catch the flu and suffer from fever. You would still have to suffer the pain of parting with things you hold dear.
Looking at it from the other side (here I have to speculate): I assume they fed you when you were hungry. They took you to the doctor when you were sick. They gave you shelter from the elements.
If it weren't for them, would you be able to live as healthy as you do? Would you be able to live in a peaceful environment as you do now?
This is not about being best friends. It's not about forgiving and forgetting just because you will otherwise be punished.
It is about being grateful for the help we received and wishing for other peoples happiness. Even when we consider them to be bad people.

Thanks a lot for your answer, to give more info: yes they fed me, took me to the doctor, ... did all the "material things" parents normally do. What was wrong was on the "feelings " side. They hated me (for reasons I can only speculate, maybe I was too "soft") whereas I wanted them to love me. So basically when you say I would have to pay the rent or work, well I have no problem with that. I just wish for them to love me. So yes if they had treated me differently, I still think I would have been happier.
That's the thing I would like to let go in my meditation practice. How do I do this ?

Find out why you are holding on to it. With asking this question here you told us how holding the rope tight hurts because your muscles cramp. You told us what you are holding so tightly and I guess you think you told us why, but actually you haven't or at least I still don't know.

I can only tell you how griping with your hands work. How the fingers encase the rope so it won't go away. I can try to show you reasons why it is not worthwhile holding on to it. How relaxing it will be for your hand to let go. There are 2 things I can not. Know why your griping it and make you letting it go.
There is a mismatch between how you feel things should be and how they really are. Find the reason for this and I am sure you will be able to let go.
The story of the fox user20010 gave is more or less what I try to find words for.

thanks a lot for your advice

and thanks for having taken the time to reply to my comments

The scripture Iti 74 says a child who practises Dhamma is superior to parents who do not practise Dhamma.
You cannot change the past.
However, you can clearly comprehend the immoral & wrong actions of your parents and then aspire to live in the opposite way.
You can aspire to not be like them, which means you treat other people in the manner you yourself wished you were treated.
In other words, you aspire to never ever repeat your parents mistakes & errors.
If you have some care for your parents, you can dedicate your efforts to your parents, as though to make merit for their sins.
As for 'gratitude to parents', the scriptures say children honor & venerate their parents who have been compassionate (rather than cruel) towards them. Refer to Iti 106.
Also, refer to my answer to this related question.

Case 2 of the Mumonkan
The Wild Fox
Every time Baizhang, Zen Master Dahui, gave a dharma talk, a certain old man would come to listen. He usually left after the talk, but one day he remained. Baizhang asked, “Who is there?”
The man said, “I am not actually a human being. I lived and taught on this mountain at the time of Kashyapa Buddha. One day a student asked me, ‘Does a person who practices with great devotion still fall into cause and effect?’ I said to him, ‘No, such a person doesn’t.’ Because I said this I was reborn as a wild fox for five hundred lifetimes. Reverend master, please say a turning word for me and free me from this wild fox body.” Then he asked Baizhang, “Does a person who practices with great devotion still fall into cause and effect?”
Baizhang said, “Don’t ignore cause and effect.”
Immediately the man had great realization. Bowing, he said, “I am now liberated from the body of a wild fox. I will stay in the mountain behind the monastery. Master, could you perform the usual services for a deceased monk for me?”
Baizhang asked the head of the monks’ hall to inform the assembly that funeral services for a monk would be held after the midday meal. The monks asked one another, “What’s going on? Everyone is well; there is no one sick in the Nirvana Hall.” After their meal, Baizhang led the assembly to a large rock behind the monastery and showed them a dead fox at the rock’s base. Following the customary procedure, they cremated the body.
That evening during his lecture in the dharma hall Baizhang talked about what had happened that day. Huangbo asked him, “A teacher of old gave a wrong answer and became a wild fox for five hundred lifetimes. What if he hadn’t given a wrong answer?”
Baizhang said, “Come closer and I will tell you.” Huangbo went closer and slapped Baizhang’s face. Laughing, Baizhang clapped his hands and said, “I thought it was only barbarians who had unusual beards. But you too have an unusual beard!”
I think you're looking at this backwards.  There is ultimately nothing that anyone can say that will help you.  Your past is your past.  How it impacts you in your present life is up to you to disentangle.  All of those feelings of regret, of wanting something to be other than it was, all of that is uniquely yours for 500 lifetimes unless you can find the key to liberation.  Fortunately, the fact that you're sitting puts you half way there already.
But what kind of sitting are you doing?  When we first start down the path of meditation, we can quickly become enraptured by the states it offers.  It can almost feel like those sits that aren't peaceful, tranquil, and transcendent are missed opportunities.  All of the distractions that we endure, all of those petty unresolved aspects of our personal history - we get agitated because they disrupt that bliss.  How can we become Buddhas if our pasts keep pulling us out of samadhi???
So many people stupidly ride an ox the foot of the hill when really they should be dancing with foxes in the mountains.
We all have our foxes and each one is a terrific opportunity to wake up.  Clinging to what could have been has a red face and a bushy tail. Keep sitting and looking at that clinging.  Make friends with it.  Get to know what it likes, who its friends are, and what it eats for dinner.  Sit with it.  Nourish it with your practice.  Feed it with emptiness.  Dance with it under the moon. And when it finally dies, I promise you that you'll want to give it a monk's funeral.

thanks a lot for bringing up the metaphor

I think that memories have to be explored and expressed warmly and strongly and emotionally and loudly when they are agitating you, and that you should not sit still, so find some forest or put on some music or find a friend or a worker who is good to talk to about these things, and express yourself. I have similar memories and they take time to abate, and expressing them without the constraints of society will give your mind some peace. Over time the memories will become less fresh in your head and your will fill your life with nicer memories which will replace them, and you will find that memories are like a sting or a cut or a depression, it's good to express feelings and also find better memories and goals and dreams to motivate you.
Having a good talk with a friend or a good shout about something when you are chopping some wood or shaking some trees or is the natural way to feel better, and it gives a good feeling after, and you need to do it as many times as you need to until your memories have an emotional outlet. Perhaps it takes 10/20 years, but it's better to express memories.
Buddha came from a very happy and serene and peaceful home. He only witnessed worldly hardships when he traveled away from his parents and his home. This gave him an advantage for studying spirituality, temptations, meditation, but Buddha's teachings are less developed than some of today's psychology for expressing traumatizing memories, because Buddha didn't allegedly have very many of them.
This means that you have a strong emotional barrier in your mind. Meditation is very good for mental focus and inner peace, although you can try modern methods of dealing with complex repressed memories which are trying to be externalized.
I'd recommend talking to a psychologist or an energy worker or a good friend or a tree or some rocks and telling them how you feel, so that you get the words out that you want to say. I expect that you want to express yourself on the subject and that has been suppressed, so it is trying to rise up. Scientology is generally corrupted, although there is a positive notion of going into early memories with a positive memory worker and finding what your memories mean to you.

thanks a lot for your time and your comment !

I hope this finds you well today.
Lots of good advice here addressing the roots, causes, conflicts, and how the sacred texts apply. But if you’ll indulge me, I’d like to step back and look at it terms of practice.
Think of it like, you’re getting a lot of good advice from doctors, and I’m just your buddy at the mental gymnasium.
There’s a Catch-22 will recurring thoughts. On one hand, they are disrupting your practice. On the other, the thoughts are not good or bad. They just are, and fully experiencing them is part of the way.
My Secular Buddhism 101 way to approach them, focusing on practice and not doctrine or dogma, is through the practice of noting. I don’t wanna put words in your mouth, so speaking generically, maybe categorize it as regret or reminiscing or obsessing about the past. Noting, then, is the first step in the process described by the three most powerful words in the universe: simply begin again. You note the thought, feeling, or sensation, and then remind yourself to simply begin again.
A good refresher is here:
https://mindfulnessexercises.com/noting-thoughts-to-see-where-the-mind-is/
Another good reference is the seven part Basics I course by Joseph Goldstein over at tenpercent.com
For my money, no one covers noting better than Joseph, and his writings, lectures, podcasts and what not are pretty easy to find.
I also wanna throw one more thing out there, that works for some people, others not so much, but definitely worth a try. I first heard it from the writer and teacher Jeff Warren,
https://jeffwarren.org/exploration/welcome-to-the-party/
Jeff’s technique is to take noting, apply some humor (which sounds counterintuitive for dealing with anything serious or traumatic), and welcome the thoughts to your session. For me, it is typically regret for past actions that I have not fully put aside. “Hello, regret, welcome to the party. Together, let’s simply begin again.”
One more pop culture quote that I think summarizes it. From Andy Prudhomme: The part of your mind that is thinking will try to tell you that more thinking is the answer. This is no different than any other social interaction. If you are a farmer, and your crop is struggling, the guy who sells seeds will tell you you need to buy better seeds. The guy who sells fertilizer will tell you that you need better fertilizer. And the guy who sells tractors will tell you that you need a new John Deere. Our mind does the same thing to us, and the thinking part of our mind tells us that we need to obsess and analyze and contemplate everything in our past. So, from a “training the mind“ standpoint, we are acknowledging the thinking part of our mind, asking it to walk with us, and simply beginning again.
Just wanted to look at it from a “how” instead of a “what” or “why” standpoint. I hope there’s something useful for you in here.
Be well and stay safe!

Metta practis, (starting ones session, after Venerations, with metta spreading, but also much of it best all the time) is the usual counterpart to overcome ill-will, good householder.
What ever meditation, trained without right view present, without gratitude, without metta, if even gaining concentration, would lead just to wrong concentration. So actually better to do not develope a wrong path. Right effort turns around right view, right resolve and virtue.
Ill-will toward ones parents, lack of gratitude, is a very grave sign of wrong view, young householder. No change to ever progress if ones beneficer aren't placed right in ones heart.
[note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, or other world-binding trades, but for an escape from this wheel]

look I do not want to enter in a argument, but they did very bad things, it was abuse (but not in a sexual way).  I have tried to mend the relation several times but they do not change. So it is difficult to feel gratitude, except if you tell me that it is required to feel gratitude for abusers to escape from the wheel. I do want to escape, but with authenticity (aligning myself with the truth)

Does good householder like to make progress, or stay in the wheel and wander on with this unfortune folk here you are caught? So simply don't argue, for it wouldn't be right anyway, if desire for better. Or go on and seek win.

Good householder wanted to come and it's much more common that ones chosen parents would kill one of. So in no way a change to be not obigated, indebted toward ones parent. Of course such does not mean to approve possible wrong, yet huge giving remains,nobody else did, nobody, for a child.

And yes, metta has to be developed even torward the most cruel abuser. As for right, those might be of help: Justice vs. Skillfulness

Aren’t the main questions there first what you remember your teacher expounding and then what your teacher said when you raised this very Question?
I don’t need to be a Buddhist to know there are broadly two types of meditation: transcendental and others.
Broadly, the “transcendental” part of TM is literal: the method moves above and beyond any idea of letting go, or wanting, change or past even while it’s letting go.
Broadly, other methods - possibly including Buddhist - concentrate on a subject for what can be learned from it. Concentrating on the breathing puts your teaching in the second group, though closer to TM than most.
Who doubts that if in meditation you are clinging to wanting to change the past, that’s broadly for two reasons.
The first would be that in the context of meditating, all the details in your Post were simply details with no bearing on the idea of the past, or of changing it, or of clinging.
Further, if you must mediate on a subject don’t you think that subject should be not the past, nor wanting to change it, but the concept of clinging?
Personally, I don’t think this Question belongs to Buddhism, unless someone’s suggesting Buddhism is most about meditation.


text:
What is panna? Is it permanent?
Because panna (wisdom) is the understanding of anicca, dukkha and anatta, it leads to the cessation of ignorance, greed and aversion and therefore to Nirvana. Now Nirvana or the state of being enlightened is permanent, so panna must be too, mustn't it? The cessation of ignorance alone is not enough, because it could rise again, couldn't it? I mean it already happened one time...
So to hinder ignorance from rising again, panna must be permanent. This is how I always understood it. I always thought of it as an aspect of Nirvana, and therefore not a part of the impermanent (?) skandhas.
Now I read a text which says that panna is a sankhara. Aren't sankharas as the 4th skandha impermanent and cease to exist when entering Paranirvana?
So what is panna?
Thank you.

Light is movement of photons which vibrate within a certain frequency range and travel at the speed of light. If there there is no one present with eyes to sense light, is there still light? I would say yes.
Nibbana is a permanent phenomena (dhamma) which is like light. Even if there are no enlightened ones to experience it, it is still there.
From MN 49 with corrected translation from this answer:

That which could be known (Nibbana), is invisible, infinite, radiant
all round—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on
earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the
gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of
abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all.

Also Ud 8.1-4.
But wisdom (panna) is different. It depends on the mind. If the mind ceases, then wisdom ceases. When the Buddha passed away, his wisdom ceased, but his teachings (Dhamma) which arose out of his wisdom, continue to exist through the suttas and the noble sangha.
So are the teachings (Dhamma) permanent or unconditioned? I would say no. If the suttas and the noble sangha disappear after many centuries or millennia (i.e. the end of the current Buddha sasana), then the teachings also disappear.
Some have asked if physical space is permanent or unconditioned. From Einstein's theory of general relativity, we know that physical space-time is conditioned.
So, in every case, we can see that only one phenomena is permanent and unconditioned and that is Nibbana. It is that which is experienced by the mind when it is free of defilements and fetters. It is not a mental idea or state of mind or state of consciousness.

Dear @ruben2020, This is how I think and I may be wrong. Light is the way that the photons are cognised by eye consciousness. If there's no consciousness, photons are just photons but not light. I know this is a deep topic for us. You can find a Sutta reference instead of a metaphor. I remember some of the content of a Sutta you can include here but couldn't locate it in Sutta-Central or Access-to-insight.

@Damith Well, that's just the convention of physics. Anyhow it's called "speed of light" not "speed of photons". Furthermore light is both electromagnetic wave and particle (photons). But usually we use the term "light" to mean visible light, ultraviolet light and infrared light. But we don't usually use "light" for other types of electromagnetic waves like radio waves, microwave, gamma rays etc.

But what is won then by me attaining enlightenment? There are still beings caught in Samsara, suffering. Do they get less and less with time, until there are no beings there anymore, so Samsara is extinguished completety and all what remains is Nirvana? Is that true? Othewise I don't see the sense of pursuing enlightenment. Because if Samsara would go on to exist forever, that means there is infinite suffering. If I attain enlightenment, a certain amount is subtracted from that infinite suffering. But it's still infinte (∞ - 100 = still ∞)

@Vinc What is won by you? The cessation of suffering. Plus you can help others along the way. There is no way to end suffering 100% in the universe, at least from Theravada's view.

sutta explain that panna [discernment] and consciousness are conjoined.

What one cognizes, that one discerns. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference between them.

consciousness is to be understood and panna is to be developed.
developing panna one comes to understand consciousness, having understood consciousness one has developed panna.
Suppose a person attains full understanding of consciousness but lacks in the power of concentration. Suppose this person then dies without having attained Arahantship and is born again.
It is not same body that is born and it is not the same faculties that are consequently constructed but the body and faculties that come to be are a result of previous development.
There is no discernable point in the past where there was no delusion with a consequently discernable appearance of delusion.
Perfected Panna has such result that it always leads to the consequent perfection of the other faculties in no more than 7 births. The perfection of faculties results in extinguishment of conditions that lead to death & birth altogether.
Therefore if faculties had ever been brought to culmination in the past, then this birth wouldn't have occurred.

The panna of an arahant is permanent during the arahants lifetime, per MN 12, which says:

Sariputta, even if you have to carry me about on a bed, still there
will be no change in the lucidity of the Tathagata's wisdom.

But because the mind of an arahant ceases when life ends, obviously, panna does not last forever. Therefore, ultimately, panna is impermanent.
Nibbana is an unconditioned independent element of nature that permanently exists forever. The suttas says regardless of how many Arahants abide in the Nibbana element, the amount of the Nibbana element never ceases, changes or fluctuates (AN 8.19).
But panna is a conditioned mental element that is impermanent. For example, when there is no arising of Buddhas, there is no real panna in the world. There are times when panna does not exist; such as when Dhammadhatu is suspended from BSE.

Thank you very much for answer. I am only wondering: Why then is Nirvana permanent, if there is no panna which hinders ignorance from arising again?

Nirvana is an external element. It is not something "mental". Nirvana exists permanently even when there is no awareness of it. For a crude metaphor, there is an underlying "stillness & peace" that pervades the whole universe. This is the Nirvana element.

Dear @Dhammadhatu, "The panna of an arahant is permanent during the arahants lifetime". This is not true because three marks of existence true for all the conditioned things, even for the panna mental factor (element) of an Arahant. Panna arise, exist, cease with the consciousness momentarily.

Please re-read my answer, which explained everything. Your idea of momentary consciousness is wrong because it does not affect the wisdom of an arahant. Regards

No, it's not nicca, but the final means for liberation. Pañña-vimutti. This path is for liberation, and for nothing else. Of course "knowledge about liberation" will be ones last and most helpful knowing, wisdom. Liberated, unbound, there is no more use of this, saṅkhāra of this raft.
May one investigate the heartwood-similie suttas on this account.
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding traded, but for liberation only]


text:
What happens to consciousness/awareness when entering Paranirvana?
If consciousness/awareness as the 5th skandha is impermanent (?), shouldn't it cease to exist when entering Paranirvana?
But in SN 22.53 the Buddha says:

"If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then
owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there
is no landing of consciousness. Consciousness, thus not having landed,
not increasing, not concocting, is released. Owing to its release, it
is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its
contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is
totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
world.'"

Here cuddlyable3 answers with a quote which says that:

Damien Keown states: Nirvana [...] involves a radically transformed state of consciousness which is free of the obsession with ‘me and
mine’
when a person attains nirvana, they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies, their physical body disintegrates
and their consciousness is said to be completely liberated. They are
not reborn in the ordinary sense. Their consciousness does not take
rebirth into a physical form
terms like ‘born’ or ‘not born’ do not apply in the case of an Arahant, because those things—matter, sensation, perception, mental
activities, consciousness—with which the terms like ‘born’ and ‘not
born’ are associated, are completely destroyed and uprooted, never to
rise again after his death

Doesn't the last point contradict with the others? For me it makes much sense that consciousness is that which gets enlightened and that Nirvana is the state of free, liberated consciousness. I mean if everything what I am, even consciousness, which I think I ultimately am, vanishes, why should I pursue enlightenment then?
Thank you.

The question would be more correct if you use "after parinibbāna" rather than "entering Paranirvana". If you use the word "entering", it may give the idea that parinibbāna is another state (of mind, matter, or both). But the truth is nothing would be remain after parinibbāna.

The term "parinibbana" does not always refer to the ending of the life of an arahant. Parinibbana can also refer to here-&-now Nibbana, such as in SN 22.53, which uses the term or verb "parinibbāyati".  SN 22.53 refers to nibbana in the here & now, which is the destruction of craving.
Nibbana is not a state of consciousness but is an object (ayatana) of consciousness (Ud 8.1).
"Birth" & "death" are self-views. Arahants are free from birth & death. For example, MN 140 says:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall
be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a
conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be
neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is
a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming
all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage
at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and
does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might
be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he
die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should
he yearn?

Enlightenment is pursued to end suffering; just as food is eaten to end the pain of hunger or a doctor is consulted when sick. Just because life eventually ends does not mean we stop eating food everyday. Similarly, just because life eventually ends does not mean we do seek real happiness & real peace in the here-&-now.
In summary, when life ends, consciousness, which is dependent upon the mind & body (SN 22.82), also ends (SN 22.85). Therefore, in the final Paranibbana of an Arahant or Buddha, as described in DN 16, the consciousness of the Arahant or Buddha ends, as described in SN 22.85.
But when Nibbana is attained in the here-&-now, consciousness does not end, as described in SN 22.53. The term "cessation" ("nirodha") does not mean the cessation of consciousness but means the cessation of ignorance & craving polluting consciousness. Refer to SN 22.5, which explains the meaning of "arising" ("samudaya") and thus "cessation"; as follows:

What is the origin of consciousness? Here, bhikkhus, one seeks
delight, one welcomes, one remains holding.
And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of consciousness?.... Here,
bhikkhus, one does not seek delight, one does not welcome, one does
not remain holding.

According to Iti 44:

And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is
released through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain
and, owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant &
the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is
released through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being
unrelished, will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding
property with no fuel remaining.

Ven. Thanissaro in his commentary of Iti 44, stated:

With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining
(anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the
flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the
fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel"
here is the five aggregates. While the arahant is still alive, he/she
still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not burn with the
fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the arahant passes away,
there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or anywhere else.

This means that consciousness ceases on parinirvana (i.e. when no fuel is remaining).
Nibbana with fuel remaining is when the arahant is living, and his five aggregates are still functioning, but they are no longer clinging aggregates (SN 22.48) i.e. they are no longer defiled.
So, living arahants still have sankhara. What they do not have is latent tendencies (anusaya), defilements (kilesa), effluents (asava), fetters (samyojana), craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana).
"Consciousness, thus not having landed, not increasing, not concocting, is released" (SN 22.53) simply refers to consciousness that is no longer defiled i.e. consciousness that is not a clinging aggregate - also please see this question. It does not mean that it is permanent. Upon parinirvana, it will cease - I'm referring to the Nibbana element without fuel remaining. Please also see this answer for details.
In MN 49, there was a "consciousness without surface" or "consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round" (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ) that some people imagined to be a permanent consciousness of sorts, which turned out to be a mistranslation, according to the answers of this question. The sutta was talking about Nibbana. I've also explained this in this answer.
What about the notion that "their consciousness does not take rebirth into a physical form"? The idea of the consciousness of an enlightened one continuing to exist after death in some form without rebirth is not part of the teachings of the Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs).

Hello ruben2020, here (buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/17639/what-is-difference-vedic-consciousness-versus-pali-text-terms-deathless-aw/40979#40979) (I don't have enough reputation to post the comment there) you write about Nirvana: "It is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements." This mind which you speak of, is that mind also made out of the 5 skandhas and is therefore impermanent? So can Nirvana only experencied when one is enlightened AND alive? Or does this mind continue to exist after the death of an enlightened being?

@Vinc No, the 5 aggregates cease at death for the enlightened - Unbinding element without fuel remaining. Please see Iti 44 in this answer.

I mean if everything what I am, even consciousness, which I think I ultimately am, vanishes, why should I pursue enlightenment then?
To end suffering.
Suffering pervades our lives, touching all that we relish. We spend our lives chasing the rebirth of past pleasures large and small. The first kiss leads to the second and then one day there are no more. This is the first noble truth, the truth of suffering.
The second truth is the origin of that suffering.

MN9:14-18.8: It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, looking for enjoyment in various different realms. That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for continued existence, and craving to end existence.

Consciousness comes and goes. It is a burden to be borne, yet we cling to it as precious. In seeking continuity of consciousness there is suffering.  Since consciousness arises, it must also die. Grasping at consciousness is therefore delusional, since it generates and perpetuates suffering.
"Everything what I am" is a lead weight. Why carry it?

But what is won then by me attaining enlightenment? There are still beings caught in Samsara, suffering. Do they get less and less with time, until there are no beings there anymore, so Samsara is extinguished completety and all what remains is Nirvana? Is that true? Othewise I don't see the sense of pursuing enlightenment. Because if Samsara would go on to exist forever, that means there is infinite suffering. If I attain enlightenment, a certain amount is subtracted from that infinite suffering. But it's still infinte (∞ - 100 = still ∞)

@Vinc because without enlightenment we add to the suffering of others.

Any form of existence after parinirvana is "an inconceivable" in the Buddha's Dharma. This is equally true of Theravada as it is of Mahayana here. The Buddha, "after death," is inconceivable. The Buddha's mind, after death, is inconceivable. The Buddha's mind, before death, is also inconceivable. The Buddha questions Vesālī:

“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as form?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as feeling … perception … choices …
consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as in
form?”
“No, sir.”
“Or do you regard the Realized One as distinct from form?”
“No, sir.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as in feeling … or distinct from
feeling … as in perception … or distinct from perception … as in
choices … or distinct from choices … as in consciousness … or as distinct from consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as
possessing form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, sir.”
“What do you think, Anurādha? Do you regard the Realized One as one
who is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, sir.”

(Anurādhasutta SN 44.2)
The Buddha is not defined via five aggregates like a sattva is. This is before even parinirvāṇa. After parinirvāṇa, the Buddha is also not defined via five aggregates. With this in mind, we can go to the 25th Parīkṣā of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā with the Madhyamakaśāstra commentary from ~2-400 AD by Venerable Vimalākṣa (青目, an alternate Sanskritization is "Piṅgala" )

25:17 The Tathagata, after parinirvāṇa, is neither said to exist nor not to exist, nor is he said to both exist and not exist, nor neither exist nor not exist.
25:18 The Tathagata, presently, is neither said to exist nor not to exist, nor is he said to both exist and not exist, nor neither exist nor not exist.

"Presently" here should be taken as "while alive."

25:19 Between nirvāṇa and the world, there is not the slightest differentiation. Between the world and nirvāṇa, there is also not the slightest differentiation.
25:20 From the true apex of nirvāṇa to the apex of the world, like this, there are two apices with not a sliver of difference between them.
25:21 "Existence or nonexistence after parinirvāṇa," et cetera, "the boundaries of existence," "constancy," et cetera -- all (of these) views depend on nirvāṇa being in the future or in the past.

Venerable Vimalākṣa comments:

(1) "The Tathagata after parinirvāṇa exists," or (2) "The Tathagata does not exist," or (3) "The Tathagata both exists and does not exist," or (4) "The Tathagata neither exists nor not exists," or (5) "The world is finite," or (6) "The world is infinite," or (7) "The world is both finite and infinite," or (8) "The world is neither finite nor infinite," or (9) "The world is constant," or (10) "The world is inconstant," or (11) "The world is both constant and inconstant," or (12) "The world is neither constant nor inconstant" -- these in three kinds are twelve views. When after the Tathagata's parinirvāṇa he is (1) existent or (2) nonexistent, et cetera (3-4), those four views arise dependent on (the notion of) nirvāṇa. When the world is (5) finite or (6) infinite, et cetera (7-8), those four views arise dependent on (the notion of) the future. When the world is (9) constant or (10) inconstant, et cetera (11-12), those four views are dependent on (the notion of) the past. Whether the Tathagata after parinirvāṇa exists or does not exist, et cetera, is inconceivable, and nirvāṇa is also the same. Like the origin and destiny of the world, if it is finite, infinite, constant, inconstant, et cetera, it is inconceivable, and nirvāṇa is also the same. Consequently, we say that the world and nirvāṇa are not different.

Āyuṣmat Nāgārjuna's Kārikā continues.

25:22 If all phenomena are empty, what is finite, infinite, both finite and infinite, or neither finite nor infinite?
25:23 Why is there the one and the many? Why is there the constant, and inconstant, and both constant and inconstant, and neither constant nor inconstant?
25:24 All phenomena being inconceivable is the cessation of the frivolous ponderings. To no person and in no place has the Buddha ever spoken.

Venerable Vimalākṣa comments again:

All phenomena at all times of every variety conform to
dependent origination. All in all, they are empty, and thus they have
not their own natures (自性, svabhāva). Which body exists to be the same
as the soul? Which body exists to be different than the soul? Thus
proceeding are the sixty-two demonic views. Each and every one within
emptiness is untenable. When all existence completely ceases,
frivolous ponderings are entirely gone. When frivolous ponderings are
entirely gone, it is because we have penetrated the true aspect of the
many phenomena and attained the tranquil path. Hearkening back to the
chapter on causality, if we inquire into the many phenomena, they are
neither existent nor nonexistent, nor are they both existent and
nonexistent, and nor are they neither existent nor nonexistent. This
is called 'the true aspect of all phenomena.' It is also called 'the
true nature of the phenomena,' 'reality,' and 'nirvāṇa.' Therefore,
the Tathagata at no time, in no place, to no persons, ever spoke of
nirvāṇa as with particularized characteristics. When all existence has
entirely come to an end, frivolous ponderings have ceased.

(Madhyamakaśāstra T1564.34c14)
Which directs us back to the OP inquiry: What happens to consciousness when entering parinirvāṇa? It ceases.

Of all forms of disease, none is greater than that of having a body —
he extinguished the body. Of all forms of torment, none is more severe
than that of having a calculating mind — he erased it and submerged in
the vacuous. The mind is taxed by the body; the body is burdened by
the intellect. The two pull each other, turning like a wheel on the
endless road of misery. It is said in the sutra, “The intellect is
poison, the body is shackles. Because of them the quiet silence of
liberation remains beyond reach; they are the cause of all
tribulations.”
The Perfect turned his body into ashes and extinguished his intellect,
he relinquished his form and discarded his reason. Within, he
abandoned the stirrings of illumination; without, he put to rest the
basis of misery. Transcendent, perfectly free from all existents;
boundless, he became great and vacuous. Tranquil, inaudible, clear,
non-manifest, mysteriously gone forever into a destination unknown.
When a lamp goes out its flame is extinguished, the oil and the flame
gone all at once.
This is nirvana without remainder. In the words of a sutra, “The five
aggregates are no more, like a flame extinguished.”
[...]
The terms “with remainder” and “without remainder” are only external
appellations for nirvana, conventional designations for the divergent
modes of the sages’ responding to things.
[...]
As for these (two) appellations (of "with remainder" and "without remainder"), they are established to indicate the
various modes of sagely response. When the Sage manifests traces, we
call this “arising”; when he makes them vanish, we call this
“cessation.” His “arising” is referred to as nirvana “with remainder,”
his “cessation” as nirvana “without remainder.” All along both
appellations — “with” and “without remainder” — remain rooted in the
nameless. Surely the nameless will take any name? Thus, the Perfect
becomes a square when he inhabits a square, a circle when he stops in
a circle, a deva when among devas, a human being when among humans. To
become a deva or a human being in accordance with circumstance is
surely not something that devas or humans could do. It is precisely
because he is neither a deva nor a human that he can become one or the
other.

(Venerable Sēngzhào Zhào's Essays T1858, translator unknown by poster, published by BDK as Three Short Treatises by Vasubandhu, Sengzhao, and Zongmi)
Though the Buddha's mind ended upon parinirvāṇa, he was never identified as, with, or in his mind to begin with. When I say "to begin with," I mean "after the bodhimaṇḍa," after he touched the earth in response to Mara, the godling prince. Nothing changes for the Tathāgata when form, consciousness, etc., ends, because he has already discarded, transcended, and escaped all of these.
In the Sarvāstivādin Mahāvibhāṣa ("The Great Commentary" of the Sarvāstivādin Śrāvakas), it explains nirvāṇa using some clever wordplay: "Vāna" means forest and "nir" means escape.
As it is the escape from the forest of the aggregates,
it is called nirvana.
When we ask a question like "Is the Buddha aware after parinirvāṇa," we are trying to pin the Tathāgata down, to identify him, using the aggregates by which ignorant sentient beings are bound. This can't be done.
Overlong, but hopefully helpful in some way.


text:
Zazen for metta reasons
Is it OK to use zazen for the purposes one would use metta meditation? Because I don't want to do any meditation except zazen.

Generally, zazen has no content - only emptiness.  That said, I'm not sure why you'd limit yourself like that.  If you feel you need to do metta meditation, do metta meditation.  If you feel you need to say amitabhas, say amitabhas.  Zen training has no boundaries.  Adherence to a strict set of practice rules isn't the point.