text:
Emptiness and Mental Disposition
Upon reading Andrei Volkov's answer on this post, I am stricken by a deep questioning. My two questions are: (1) can emptiness be unsuitable for some dispositions? and (2) can emptiness be partially achieved?
Forgive my probable vast elaboration on this question, I just feel I should explain.
1.
Within Tibetan Buddhism, there are different schools teaching emptiness: Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Svantantrika. The Dalai Lama, in his books [a],[b] often suggests this corresponds to different mental dispositions. Similarly, he suggests in some books that religions are different because of different mental dispositions [c]. So, I'm wondering if emptiness could be detrimental when taught to certain types of mental dispositions, i.e. different individuals?
2.
For the second part, I feel on the basis of strong faith in Buddhism, and overconfidence on my own cognitive abilities, and a degree of pride, I studied emptiness and -- through that strong motivation -- understood a large degree of it. But, because of pride's delusional quality, I learned things in a flawed way. By faith and pride, I thought I understood, but I concluded I understood on partial grounds, which is "inadequate [according to Buddhist logic and epistemology]" [a]. So, I wonder here if it's possible to learn certain aspects of emptiness, but either apply or conceive it in a very partial, dissatisfactory way?
Lastly, would humility help in this case? Here, I specifically mean recognizing one's limitations, not overestimating understanding, or insight.
Thank you.

There is a difference between conceptual understanding of Emptiness, and experiential realization of Emptiness. The first is at best a simile, a model, leading to the second. In worst case the first can even be an obstacle to the second.
Because of its nature, experiential realization of Emptiness may have demotivating effect. It certainly also has liberating effect, but there is demotivating effect as well. Which is pretty expected, considering that it cuts off the root of desire.
So, if the person has not developed strong Sila (ethics, altruism, compassion) and strong Samadhi (here, mental discipline, control over one's mental/emotional state) premature realization of Emptiness may make person either somewhat unhinged or else rather meek, depending on disposition.

The effects you describe characterize me completely. What would you advise for premature realization of emptiness (assuming this could be the case)? How would such a person motivate themselves / resume desire?

That's it, you're screwed. I'm kidding. I'd say the last resort in this case is to find an actual (Varjrayana)  master and ask him to fix you. But you'd have to go all the way, even if they do what you do not like.

(1) can emptiness be unsuitable for some dispositions?

Yes. Genuine emptiness is the death of the self-instinct, which most minds cannot do. This is why some people have psychosis at meditation retreats or when taking hallucinogens, such as LSD. The self-instinct accords with ordinary nature. Where as emptiness is contrary to 'the world'.

(2) can emptiness be partially achieved?

For an unsuitable disposition, I doubt it. This is probably why many Buddhists give lip-service to emptiness but cling for their lives to reincarnation. But for those with disposition, yes, probably there can be partial emptiness achieved.
In short, the Buddha did not generally teach the Four Noble Truths, let alone Emptiness, to most lay people. DN 31 states a monk should teach a layperson morality & the path to heaven.


text:
How to increase will power?
What are some Buddhists techniques by which I can increase my will power? I lack will power which is basic to practice 8fold path. I don't have will power which makes me stray to be consistent on spiritual practices. Please shed light on the ways to increase will power.
Edit: If someone says "You should do AnApan to increase will power" then I need will power to do that consistently AnApan, so such answers doesn't completely help me. Please tell any alternative. Maybe some practice which gradually increases will power.

Will power is very connected with virya - energy. Notice how, when you feel inspired, what they call "on a roll" - you can do things that are normally difficult, easily applying force as needed. In the same vein, when you are depressed and demotivated, doing even the simplest chores requires lots of effort to get going.
So the secret to will power is to develop the faculty of energy (viriyindriya).
Development of energy is not directly emphasized in Pali Suttas but in some Vajrayana schools it is the main practice, esp. in higher tantras.
So, how does one develop energy? In real teacher-student situation, you learn it by watching and imitating the teacher, and from occasional very casual and often sarcastic pithy instructions. To cover all that in a single answer would be impossible, but here is a brief summary of what I was taught:

Vitakka / vicara aka autosuggestion to raise inspiration, e.g. what football/basketball coaches do. It looks silly but it works, esp. if you connect it with emotion.
Wise application of attention - avoid dwelling on "victim-perspective" topics that make you feel hopeless, focus on things you are mastering / have mastered.
Discontinue or minimize activities known to sack energy, e.g. alcohol, masturbation, facebook, arguments.
Mindfulness of the body and overall grace. Learn to always feel comfortable: walk comfortably, sit in comfortable posture, stretch enough, move gracefully etc.
Mental comfort / speed - do not rush yourself, do not beat yourself, give yourself enough respect.
Take responsibility and learn to live on your terms.
Stop seeking outside stimuli (so-called "hunting dog mind"), slow down and find the right practice right where you are, in your everyday activities.
Use Meditation as another chance to stop and get to your senses, as opposed to forcing yourself into something contrived.
Develop stronger core muscles, esp. abdomen.

Out of all these practices, the principal one, and what I will emphasize the most is living on your terms. Maybe because it was the most difficult and eye-opening to me when I learned it.
What weak-willed people do a lot is allowing circumstances or people to rush us or to force us do things we are not Okay with. Instead, we should learn to take responsibility for our lives, take a stance - and methodically live our life on our terms, step after step. If you start on a solid foundation, every subsequent action will build a solid step, and another one and another one. Do not let anyone ever force yourself go against your best judgement, nor go against your judgement because of urgency or time pressure. Do things impeccably to your own standards, look impeccable in your own eyes - and from this will come energy and strong will power.

By meditation. One of successful meditation method is "Anapanasathiya". You have to do is count your breath with full of concentration.

Yes but how do you get the willpower to do Anapana?

@Lowbrow Yes that's why I asked this. Thanks for understanding my query so clearly.

doing Anapansathi, you will practicing to gain willpower. Its not easy. you have to be patience and concentrate on your breath. you have to practice your mind to keep attention. you will not success in your first attempt. keep doing and you will have your willpower in step by step.

Meditation's pros and non-meditation's cons are required first.
Introductions of each meditation in the path of purification already guided whether how to grow the meditation inspiration by pros & cons vision, so you can see there.
For the example, 8fold path meditation, you have to see an introduction of sīla-chapter for sammāvacā sammākammanta and sammāācīva, then start to see an introduction of pathavīkasiṇa-chapter+ānāpānsaati-concentration-maditation-chapter for sammāvāyāma sammāsati and sammāsamādhi, then start to see  an introduction of paññāniddesa-chapter to until the end of book for sammādiṭṭhi and sammāsaṅkappa.
Sammāvāyāma, in 8 fold path, is efforts to stop, keep stop  unwholesome minds, grow, and keep grow wholesome minds. What is mind? sīla mind, concentration meditation mind, and insight meditation mind that is described in path of purification.

Human motivation (will power) is a product of karma (mostly the product of mental decision-making or mental actions performed in response to past experience) that extends back to one’s early childhood and to previous lifetimes. The result of this endless complexity is that what motivates one person does not motivate another. Given this fact of life, there remain two major sources of motivation that remain available. One is to be inspired or motivated by a genuine friend or teacher. The other one is based upon common-sense motivation based upon an explanation of how a meditation works that genuinely makes sense to you (not just to someone else, even a friend). The problem is that such an explanation is very hard to provide (by a Buddhist monk, guru, or psychologist). That is why most meditation teachers cannot provide an explanation except in terms of their personal experience, experience that may be very different from your experience. However, you do have a few options: (1) There are many schools of Buddhism that teach Buddhism in very different ways. Look around. You might find one that you like. (2) Recent developments have occurred in the use of mindfulness by psychotherapists. There are MBSR communities to be found in large cities. (3) You would probably do well to find a psychotherapist who you like and who can deal with suffering caused by a problematic family history. (4) If you are familiar with modern psychology and philosophy, you may consider reading my book on how mindfulness meditation works. You can download the ebook version for a few dollars.

There are good answers here, but I believe they are missing something. Sometimes obstructions in cultivation (eg: lack of willpower) can be "fixed" by creating merit. So if you know the techniques to develop willpower (eg: meditation) but are unable to do so consistently I recommend you go to your local temple and volunteer regularly; most of the people who do this find that they become able to follow the instructions better.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Establishing What is Not Dhamma
I realized that often, individuals provide insight which differs from typical Buddhist philosophy. For example, people either allude to a self in some way, or deny the dissatisfactory nature of phenomena. They might, in this last case, advise spiritual achievements leading to joy, but not equanimity and detachment.
My question is : what is the best way to recognize such non-Buddhist teachings?
I mean this especially in regards to (1) obviously non-Buddhist teachings (e.g. a person putting forwards an existing self) and (2) seemingly Buddhist teachings (e.g. deviating views on emptiness, compassion).
So: What is the best way to recognize authentic Buddhism?
I think this question is complex, and study and contemplation might be involved, but I am curious as to your answers.
Thank you.

Any teaching that has one or more of the following elements is not the authentic Dhamma:

eternalism (god or self or soul or world is eternal)
annihilationism (there is no self and nothing after death)
an independent, standalone and eternal entity or agent at the core of all experience (the self or the soul)
extreme asceticism
extreme sensual indulgence
does not contain the four noble truths
does not contain the noble eightfold path
promotes non-virtue (killing other beings, lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, intoxication, hurtful speech etc. - typical example is "waging holy war")
promotes wrong livelihood (trade in prostitution, slavery, meat, weapons, poisons, intoxicants etc.)

The authentic Dhamma is the opposite of the above.

See also What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?

I guess there are various forms of Dhamma, for example:

Suttas
Abhidhamma (and other books like the Visuddhimagga)
Mahayana teachings
Contemporary books and Dhamma talks

It was that I had read only contemporary books, i.e. modern authors writing about Buddhism; or, paraphrasing (retelling) doctrine such as the story of the Buddha's life.
Thankfully I  found and have been able to read some more-or-less accurate translations of the suttas (see here and here).
After that (having read some translations of various suttas, from various translators on sites such as  accesstoinsight, suttacentral, and dharmafarer), it seems to me that I may recognise what sounds like true dhamma. The literature is lengthy (i.e. there are many suttas) but maybe it's fairly coherent, with maybe a dozen or so major topics, and maybe some underlying/unifying theme[s].
I also like to read essays about suttas, or which quote suttas.

One way to recognise adhamma is that it seems to contradict what you'd recognize as dhamma.
One example might be, if it makes an assertion like,

This is a war between righteousness and unrighteousness (dharma and adharma) and it is your duty to slay anyone who supports the cause of unrighteousness, or sin.

... then I'd think that's maybe not Dhamma because it seems to contradict the first precept.
Another way, in my own experience, is based on the literary style. For example here is a list of about two hundred Fake Buddha Quotes -- the author commented on each one, so maybe that's a good introduction/explanation as to how to recognise them.
Maybe don't read them all, but scan or skim the list, and read any that seem interesting or borderline: for example if there are any where you ask yourself, "What's fake about that?"

This answer is incomplete in that I won't try to explain how to recognise dhamma (or adhamma) other than the suttas -- so it doesn't do justice to the rest of the tripitaka or to  later (e.g. Mahayana) authors, which are unlike the suttas both in content and in style, so beware of that.
I recommend the answers to What should you do when someone teaches false Dharma? which help to answer this question.
You mentioned examples of "obviously non-Buddhist" and "seemingly Buddhist" teachings. I like to end this answer with a reference to AN 11.12:

"Furthermore, there is the case where you recollect the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.' At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting the Dhamma, his mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on the Dhamma. And when the mind is headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous, the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one at ease, the mind becomes concentrated.
"Of one who does this, Mahanama, it is said: 'Among those who are out of tune, the disciple of the noble ones dwells in tune; among those who are malicious, he dwells without malice; having attained the stream of Dhamma, he develops the recollection of the Dhamma.'

I expect there are Dhamma-talks on this subject, but it's another way to distinguish true and false Dhamma; this is summarized again here:

The Six qualities of the Dhamma:

Svakkhato: The Dhamma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely. Therefore it is Excellent in the beginning (Sila: Moral principles), Excellent in the middle (Samadhi: Concentration) and Excellent in the end (Panna: Wisdom),
Sanditthiko: The Dhamma is testable by practice and known by direct experience,
Akaliko: The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence.
Ehipassiko: The Dhamma welcomes all beings to put it to the test and to experience it for themselves.
Opaneyiko: The Dhamma is capable of being entered upon and therefore it is worthy to be followed as a part of one's life.
Paccattam veditabbo vinnunhi: The Dhamma may be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples who have matured and enlightened enough in supreme wisdom.

I think there are some ("false") teaching which sound kind of baffling, aren't really actionable, don't seem to point in any specific direction.
I suspect there's something else important about any statement (dhamma or adhamma) you're considering i.e. the effect it has on you and how it may tend to affect interpersonal relationships.
Some point in a wrong direction: perhaps they are flattery for example, leading to conceit; or perhaps they're meant to make you dependent, by making you doubt any wisdom you have; etc.

Not in any way to be a trick answer, but in the Pali Cannon, Shakyamuni told followers not to take what he said on his word, or any teacher’s reputation, but to investigate oneself. I treat my Buddhism practice as a big experiment, on myself, testing, trying this or that, this teaching or that, this meditation and find what seems to work. But I don’t settle evers than I have any final answer, but follow what seems to work for me. And, my experience is that the Buddhism path is very personal.

Obviously, at the time of the Buddha, there was an authentic Buddhist teaching that was provided over a 40-year period, although I wonder how much his students would have been able to agree exactly on what that authentic teaching was. Since then, the interpretation of the Buddha’s teaching has long since diversified, rendering different schools of Buddhism incompatible in profound ways. Even within these schools there is disagreement among their experts. The original authentic Buddhist teachings are therefore not recoverable. And there is no way to recognize authentic Buddhism except for the simple and obvious beliefs or dogma. But there is another problem that runs much deeper. Even when an original text, such as the Satipatthana Sutta, is complete, meditation instructions are briefly described without explanation. This presents a serious problem for any modern meditation teacher or Buddhist monk when it comes to teaching modern, well-educated students who want to understand how or why a meditation works. The reality is that the teacher of the Dharma can only provide inspiring success stories. Providing an explanation of any meditation that makes sense has turned out to be extremely difficult. Monks with 10, 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years of meditation experience (such as myself) provide very different explanations. The answer to your question? Even when you find an authentic Buddhist text, you do not find what you need to know, if you are an intelligent and knowledgeable student.

I seek some refuge in science to support the views I follow. This helps me separate the wheat from the chaff behind many ancient explanations found in some suttas and the Dhammapada. The psychology/biology behind sensory deprivation and psilocybin studies offers an interesting examination of the benefits in focus exercises.

"Gotamī, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered and not to being fettered; to shedding and not to accumulating; to modesty and not to self-aggrandizement; to contentment and not to discontent; to seclusion and not to entanglement; to aroused energy and not to LAZINESS; to being unburdensome and not to being burdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" — Cv.X.5

And again, just by association with people of right view from one can be expected to gain right view by himself: How to address wrong view?
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

All teachings are false teachings. All holy scriptures bullshit.
You cannot know the truth - You can only experience it
After 30 years of study and practice with the best Gurus India could offer, Sidhratrra only got disappointment and disillusionment
 Buddha is a state of mind, not a state of knowledge.

See also Should this 'zen type' answer be deleted?

Chris - You may delete the comment but you will never delete the truth

See also Answers vs Advice however -- if the question is "how to recognise non-Buddhist dhamma?" then "there is no (true) Buddhist dhamma" isn't exactly an answer to that question, IMO.

Is like asking "how to recognize a flying elephant" because you saw Dumbo in a movie once. Buddha acknowledged the perils of dhamma and consequently never wrote anything down (same as Jesus) being afraid is going to turn into dogma. Those are the facts and Buddha was right Ego will corrupt even the purest of teachings.- and please allow compassion for my trespassings I'm still not where I aim to be

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


text:
Arising of Contact, Feeling, Perception, Thinking
I have seen in many places the description of the phases of contact, feeling, perception, thinking and etc. upon this site. I have three questions:
1) What is the name of this chain? Is it distinct from the links of dependent origination?
2) How can this chain and its parts best be explained?
3) Is there any book which can explain this chain, possibly in detail?
Thank you.

1) What is the name of this chain? Is it distinct from the links of
  dependent origination?

It is called 60 piyarūpaṃ-sātarūpaṃ in saccapabba of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta.
It is a present part of dependent origination, nothing difference.

2) How can this chain and its parts best be explained?

Contact = metting of a sense + a sense-organ + a sense-data.
Feeling = result of contact.
Perception = memory of feeling for recollecting next time to
take/avoid the memorized feeling.
Thinking.

3) Is there any book which can explain this chain, possibly in detail?

Abhidhammatthasaṅgaha Chapter 8.

Why is perception memory when in the sutta is said "it perceives red, blue, yellow"

Sañña = memorizing, marking to recollect/remember/recall again next time.

That definition is not from the suttas

It is very generally use in pāli, but pāli-skill-less student can't not notice. i.e. " Idha, bhikkhave, tadevekaccesu janapadesu ‘pātī’ti sañjānanti, ‘pattan’ti sañjānanti, ‘vittan’ti sañjānanti - Bhikkhus, in a certain state the bowl is known (remember) as Pātīti, in another .... (M.N. Araṇavibhaṅgasutta). In this context, it means "everyone in some state identically memorize bowl as Pattaṃ, some state as Pātī..." Sañjānanti, in everywhere of tipitaka, is used like this case, too. It can connect the word in context better, especially 5 aggregates and paticcasamuppāda.

Yogakara, expounded by Asanga, and more famously Vashubandu that integrates the Theravada masterwork Abidadhamma with the emerging Mahayana thinking and teaching is a great source for study in this area I find it a better discourse on the earlier dependent origination. Some early Theravada texts in which the Buddha designates the conditions for arising of one of the five first senses, say sight, needs the object, the proximity of the object to the eye, and the seeing of the eye. Yogakara has a more nuanced take on this. Yogakara by the way, is a foundation thread in Mahayana and Cha/Son/Zen as is the Lankavatara, though some American Zenists are unaware of the history of their practice.

You are mistaken, there's no such named "Theravada" in the Early 18/20 Buddhist Schools, Theravada is used only recently no more than 100 years ago, to rename the different sect from Mahayana, existed in SE Asia. This modern Theravada has only the Abidhamma in their Canon called Visudhimagga from what they can recite from their oral keeping, how could it develop the Yogacara that existed at least 1000 years ahead of it?

Any book recommendations on books by Asanga and Vasubandhu? I can't seem to find books by such authors anywhere, and I don't know which specific ones to seek.

(1) What is the name of this chain?

This chain should be held distinct from dependent origination (as explained below). In this chain, contact-feeling-perception are inseparable and will always arise together (refer to MN 43 quoted below). Vitakka (thinking) is optional however to undertake ordinary life & social activities, a Buddha, for example, must think. Therefore, thinking (vitakka) can be included in sutta that mention feeling & perception.
The above said, different teachings in the Pali suttas use names approximating this chain, such as:

The eighteen mental examinations (manopavicārāti) - AN 3.61
The six sets of six (chachakka) ayatana - MN 148

The above two teachings are not dependent origination because they are not about the origination of suffering.

Is it distinct from the links of dependent origination?

This chain of mental cognition can be distinct from the links of dependent origination because contact, feeling, perception & thinking can be undefiled, enlightened & non-suffering; where as dependent origination refers to the 12 links leading to suffering, in which every link is defiled, tainted or polluted by ignorance, as follows:

And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
  condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
  condition comes mind-&-body. From mind-&-body as a requisite condition
  come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
  condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
  feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
  craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From
  clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From
  becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering. SN 12.2

For example, the quotes below are not dependent origination because dependent origination refers to the 12 links leading to suffering:

On seeing a form with the eye, he does not lust after it if it is pleasing; he does not dislike it if it is unpleasing. He abides with
  mindfulness of the body established, with an immeasurable mind, and he
  understands as it actually is the deliverance of mind and deliverance
  by wisdom wherein those evil unwholesome states cease without
  remainder. Having thus abandoned favouring and opposing, whatever
  feeling he feels, whether pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant, he does not delight in that feeling,
  welcome it, or remain holding to it. As he does not do so, delight in
  feelings ceases in him. With the cessation of his delight comes
  cessation of clinging; with the cessation of clinging, cessation of
  being; with the cessation of being, cessation of birth; with the
  cessation of birth, ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  grief, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of
  suffering. MN 38
Bhikkhus, dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; the meeting of the three is contact; with contact as condition there
  arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a pleasant
  feeling, if one does not delight in it, welcome it, and remain holding
  to it, then the underlying tendency to lust does not lie within one.
  When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one does not sorrow,
  grieve and lament, does not weep beating one’s breast and become
  distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion does not lie
  within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant
  feeling, if one understands as it actually is the origination, the
  disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard
  to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance does not
  lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of
  suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant
  feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards
  painful feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance
  in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning
  ignorance and arousing true knowledge—this is possible. MN 148

2) How can this chain and its parts best be explained?

I explained it broadly above as a "cognitive" chain because these mental phenomena must occur in all people, including enlightened people.

3) Is there any book which can explain this chain, possibly in detail?

The book called The ABCs of Buddhism may possibly be relevant.
There are Pali suttas that include contact, feeling (vedana), perception (sanna) & vitakka (thinking), such as:

With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one
  thinks about. MN 18

There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to
  him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside.
  Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known
  as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when
  developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness. AN 4.41

Feeling, perception & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another,
  to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one
  perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. MN 43

Bhikkhus, in dependence on an element there arises a perception, there arises a view, there arises a thought. SN 14.13

Bhikkhus, sensual thoughts arise with a source, not without a source; thought of ill will arises with a source, not without a source;
  thought of harming arises with a source, not without a source. And how
  is this so?
In dependence on the sensuality element there arises sensual perception; in dependence on the sensual perception there arises
  sensual intention; in dependence on the sensual intention there arises
  sensual desire; in dependence on the sensual desire there arises
  sensual passion; in dependence on the sensual passion there arises a
  sensual quest. Engaged in a sensual quest, the uninstructed worldling
  conducts himself wrongly in three ways - with body, speech and mind.
In dependence on the ill will element there arises perception of ill will...
In dependence on the cruelty element there arises perception of harming...
In dependence on the renunciation element there arises perception of renunciation...
In dependence on the non-ill will element there arises perception of non-ill will...
In dependence on the harmlessness element there arises perception of harmlessness. In dependence on the perception of harmlessness there
  arises intention of harmlessness; in dependence on intention of
  harmlessness there arises desire for harmlessness; in dependence on
  desire for harmlessness there arises passion for harmlessness; in
  dependence on passion for harmlessness there arises a sensual quest.
  Engaged in a quest for harmlessness, the instructed noble disciple
  conducts himself rightly in three ways - with body, speech and mind.
SN 14.12


text:
Type of Energy from Meditation
I'm wondering whether 'physical pliancy' and 'mental pliancy' -- found in many meditation texts on samatha -- refers to physical energy. Is this linked or equivalent to virya? Would samatha meditation, despite not being a physical exercise, give one more energy and fight fatigue?

I'm wondering whether 'physical pliancy' and 'mental pliancy' -- found in many meditation texts on samatha -- refers to physical energy. Is this linked or equivalent to virya?

It probably refers to the balancing of the Five Spiritual Faculties, especially
Concentration (samadhi) and Energy (viriya).
If the Energy faculty is unbalanced, leading to the 3rd Hindrance of Sloth and torpor (thina-middha), one needs to arouse energy. This can be done in a number of ways such as;

One can splash cold water in the face before a meditation session
One can do walking meditation in a brisk pace before sitting meditation
One can go to a high place, e.g. a mountain or building and practice
One can make a firm determination to practice effortly and sincerely
One can practice Death-contemplation (Maraṇasati ) to arouse a feeling of urgency
One can reflect on the 5 daily recollections, i.e. That one will grow old, become sick and ill, die, loose everything that one holds dear and that one is the sole heir of one's actions.

In the book "The Way Of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, it's described how to overcome to the hindrance of Sloth and Torpor. Here he writes about the perception of light. I have made highlights in the quote:

3. Sloth and Torpor
Through wrong reflection on a state of boredom and the like, sloth and torpor come to be. Boredom is just dissatisfaction. Lassitude is bodily laziness. Languidity of body is the bending of the body torpidly in getting up and in similar actions. Lethargy after a meal is a dizziness or slight faint which is due to eating a principal meal. It is also called the discomfort which follows such a meal. The mind's sluggishness is the dullness of the mind. An abundance of wrong reflection on boredom and similar states of mind produces sloth and torpor. Therefore the Blessed One said that much wrong reflection on boredom, lassitude, languidity of body, lethargy after a meal, and the mind's sluggishness, is a condition for the production of fresh sloth and torpor and the increase and expansion of sloth and torpor already come into being.
Through right reflection in inceptive energy and similar states of mind is brought about the overthrow of sloth and torpor. Inceptive energy is the effort first set afoot. Exertion is more powerful than the inceptive energy because it leaves indolence behind. And because of its assailing further and further of the destructive condition, progressive endeavor is more powerful than exertion. By the exercise of right reflection intensely on this threefold strenuousness sloth and torpor are cast out. Therefore the Blessed One said that the condition for keeping out new sloth and torpor, and for casting out sloth and torpor that is old, is abundant right reflection on the element of inceptive energy, of exertion and of progressive endeavor.
There are six things which lead to the casting out of sloth and torpor: The seeing of the reason of sloth and torpor in the fact of eating too much or gluttony; the changing of the postures completely; reflection on the perception of light; staying in the open; sympathetic and helpful companionship of the good; and stimulating talk that assists in dispelling sloth an torpor.
There is the following explanation of these six things: The bhikkhu who has eaten gluttonously is assailed by sloth and torpor while doing his recluse duty of meditation in his day or night quarters as by a mighty elephant pressing down on him, but that one who practices moderation in food is not troubled thus with these hindrances. In one who thus sees the characteristic of sloth and torpor in gluttony there is the casting out of sloth and torpor.
Sloth and torpor disappear in him who changes over from the posture which induces sloth and torpor to another; in him who reflects on the brightness or the light of the moon, a lamp or a torch by night, and on the light or brightness of the sun by day; in him who lives in the open; in him who associates with sympathetic and helpful companions, like the Elder Maha Kassapa, who have dispelled sloth and torpor; and by stimulating talk connected with a strict recluse-regimen.
Therefore it is said: Six things lead to the casting out of sloth and torpor. The yogi understands thus: sloth and torpor cast out by these six things are stopped from arising forever in the future by the attainment of the path of arahantship.
The bhikkhu who has eaten gluttonously after the manner of the well-known types of Brahmanical gormandizers mentioned in ancient Indian books. There are five kinds of these greedy eaters: (1) He who eats until he has to be raised up by the hand from his seat. (2) He who lies rolling just where he has eaten and eats as long as he likes. (3) He who eats until he slips off his waist cloth. (4) He who fills himself with food in such a way that it seems as if a crow could peck at the food in him. (5) He who having filled his belly full and vomitted eats more food again, or he who eats until he vomits.
On the light or brightness of the sun by day: The meaning should be understood thus: Sloth and torpor vanish in him, too, who at night is reflecting on the image of the perception of the brightness of the sun he got by day.
Here it may be helpful to state the eight ways of dealing with torpor taught by the Master to the Elder Maha Moggallana: (1) One should neglect to mind the thought which says that drowsiness is descending on one, or (2) one should reflect on the Dhamma, or (3) repeat or recite the Dhamma, or (4) pull both earlobes and rub or massage the limbs with the hands, or (5) getting up from the sitting position, apply water on and rub the eyes, and look into the distance, at the constellations in the starry sky, or (6) reflect on the thought of light, or (7) fix the thought on the ambulatory, aware of the ends of it with the controlling faculties of sense turned inwards and the mind kept in, or (8) sleep conscious of the time of waking and on awaking get up quickly thinking that one will not give oneself to the comforts of lying down, reclining and languor, when all other seven ways fail.

May this be of use to you.

Energy arises from purification, similar to how a rain gutter cleaned of leaves flows more efficiently.
In contrast, fatigue (sloth) is often systematic of the mind weighed down by defilements.
Therefore, the energy or refreshment related to genuine samatha (tranquility) is due to mental purity; which requires bodily purity as a foundation or cause.
The suttas (AN 10.61) say the three types of unwholesome actions (by body, speech & mind) are the nutriment (food) for the five hindrances (of which sloth or fatigue is one of the hindrances).

And what is the nutriment for the five hindrances? It should be
  said: the three kinds of misconduct. The three kinds of misconduct,
  too, I say, have a nutriment; they are not without nutriment. And what
  is the nutriment for the three kinds of misconduct? It should be said:
  non-restraint of the sense faculties. Non-restraint of the sense
  faculties, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment.
  And what is the nutriment for non-restraint of the sense faculties? It
  should be said: lack of mindfulness and clear comprehension. Lack of
  mindfulness and clear comprehension, too, I say, has a nutriment; it
  is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of
  mindfulness and clear comprehension? It should be said: careless
  attention. Careless attention, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for careless attention? It should be said: lack of faith. Lack of faith, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for lack of faith? It should be said: not hearing the good Dhamma. Not hearing the good Dhamma, too, I say, has a nutriment; it is not without nutriment. And what is the nutriment for not hearing the good Dhamma? It should be said: not associating with good persons.


text:
Identification with Negative States
I have noticed a certain phenomenon.
When I am in a positive mood, I don't identify with the mood. I don't cling to it, I am aware of its impermanence.
When a negative mood occurs -- as anger, or despair -- I completely and absolutely identify with it. I am this state, I believe it. I do not recognize its impermanence: I think about this mood as if it won't end.
Seemingly, negative moods make me unaware of non-self and impermanence, based on what I said.
My questions are:
(1) Is this a question of aversion? How can I avoid being phased by negative states?
(2) More specifically, how do I avoid identifying with such negative states, and how do I recognize their impermanence when they occur?
Basically, I know one ought to observe such states mindfully, but in their immediate occurrence I get caught up, I am motivated to act or speak in a negative way.
Thank you.

Old saying: "This too shall pass."

@nocomprende The story I heard with that phrase was of "a king who asked for" something that would "cheer him when he's down" and ... something, I forget what ... "calm him when excited" or something like that ... and so he was given a (finger-) ring with that phrase on it.

There is a good analysis of this, with regards to negative states of mind, in the Uddesa-vibhanga Sutta (MN 138).
Concerning the external scattering and diffusion of consciousness:

"How is consciousness said to be scattered & diffused? There is the
  case where a form is seen with the eye, and consciousness follows the
  drift of (lit.: 'flows after') the theme of the form, is tied to the
  attraction of the theme of the form, is chained to the attraction of
  the theme of the form, is fettered & joined to the attraction of the
  theme of the form: Consciousness is said to be externally scattered &
  diffused.

And the same applies to the other senses.
This describes how external sensual inputs can trigger a chain reaction resulting in the consciousness becoming consumed and following the drift of the theme. But why does this happen?

"And how is agitation caused by clinging/sustenance? There is the case
  where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for
  noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has
  no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. His form changes
  & is unstable. Because of the change & instability of form, his
  consciousness alters in accordance with the change in form. With the
  agitations born from the alteration in accordance with the change in
  form and coming from the co-arising of (unskillful mental) qualities,
  his mind stays consumed. And because of the consumption of awareness,
  he feels fearful, threatened, & solicitous.

And the same applies to the other aggregates.
For example, deep within you, you take the form to be your self. If you get a minor injury like a splinter in your foot, this would trigger despair and agony in you, because you take your foot (which is essentially part of the form) to be your self.
Another example is, you may take the mental fabrication of your ethnicity, to be your self. You may strongly associate yourself with your ethnicity. So, when someone insults you with a racial slur, it goes in through your ears, and triggers anger and rage in you, because you take your ethnicity (which is essentially a mental fabrication, specifically a mental concept) to be your self.
So that makes complete sense. Agitation is caused by clinging/ sustenance.
Now if you become angry as in the second case, as I'm sure you have previously experienced multiple times in your life, did you assault or kill someone? I guess not. Somewhere along the way, you came to your senses and gained control of yourself. You just need to ponder this chain reaction and how you gained control of yourself.
The method to control yourself here, is by practising heedfulness (or appamada), to watch your mind carefully. Please see this answer for details.
I'm trying to convince you here that you have managed to control your anger before in your life, so you surely can do it again. And the same applies to other negative states of mind.
There are details regarding the use of heedfulness (appamada) in the Vina Sutta (SN 35.205) as follows:

"Monks, in whatever monk or nun there arises desire, passion,
  aversion, delusion, or mental resistance with regard to forms
  cognizable via the eye, he/she should hold the mind in check.
  [Thinking,] 'It's dangerous & dubious, that path, thorny & overgrown,
  a miserable path, a devious path, impenetrable. It's a path followed
  by people of no integrity, not a path followed by people of integrity.
  It's not worthy of you,' he/she should hold the mind in check with
  regard to forms cognizable via the eye.
(and the same applies to the other senses)
"Suppose that corn had ripened and the watchman was heedless. A
  corn-eating ox, invading the corn to eat it, would intoxicate itself
  as much as it liked. In the same way, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill
  person, not exercising restraint with regard to the six media of
  sensual contact, intoxicates himself with the five strings of
  sensuality as much as he likes.
"Now suppose that corn had ripened and the watchman was heedful. The
  corn-eating ox would invade the corn to eat it, but then the watchman
  would grab it firmly by the muzzle. Having grabbed it firmly by the
  muzzle, he would pin it down by the forehead. Having pinned it down by
  the forehead, he would give it a sound thrashing with a stick. Having
  given it a sound thrashing with a stick, he would let it go.
"A second time... A third time, the corn-eating ox would invade the
  corn to eat it, but then the watchman would grab it firmly by the
  muzzle. Having grabbed it firmly by the muzzle, he would pin it down
  by the forehead. Having pinned it down by the forehead, he would give
  it a sound thrashing with a stick. Having given it a sound thrashing
  with a stick, he would let it go.
"As a result, the corn-eating ox — regardless of whether it went to
  the village or to the wilds, was standing still or lying down —
  wouldn't invade the corn again, because it would recall the earlier
  taste it got of the stick.
"In the same way, when a monk's mind is held back, thoroughly held
  back, from the six media of sensory contact, his mind settles
  inwardly, grows steady, unified, & concentrated.

Disconnecting the chain reaction above by watching your thoughts heedfully is one solution, but the other, is to gain compassion out of empathetic understanding or empathetic insight. Why did someone insult you? It's because he did not have control of his mind, because he is deluded. This way, you can grow compassion towards other people and tolerate their shortcomings. However, this method is only applicable when there are other people or other sentient beings involved. You cannot grow compassion towards a splinter.

(1) Is this a question of aversion? How can I avoid being phased by negative states?
(2) More specifically, how do I avoid identifying with such negative states, and how do I recognize their impermanence when they occur?

The answer is pretty simple; be mindful and guard the sense-doors.
If one is not mindful of an object impinging on the sense-doors, craving will arise, i.e. liking or disliking. If one is not mindful, insight into the Three Marks of Existence, cannot occur.
Here is a quote by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw on exactly this topic;

"If one does not observe mental and physical phenomena every time they arise at the six sense doors, one cannot realize that there is nothing to them but mind and body, which are conditioned, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self. As a result one will develop an attachment to the objects that one fails to observe.
If, on the other hand, one observes mental and physical phenomena the moment they occur, one will realize that there is nothing to them but mind and body, which are conditioned, impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self.
As a result one will be free from attachment to objects that one is able to observe. Thus the wholesome (kusala) action of insight liberates one from attachment and thus is considered renunciation. This renunciation, in turn, liberates noble ones from the cycle of suffering (saṃsāra) by developing insight step by step until nibbāna is attained. And so the wholesome act of insight is called “the great liberation of noble ones” (ariyanaṃ niyyanaṃ) because of its liberating effect".
-- Manual of Insight, p. 58, by Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.

"(1) Is this a question of aversion? How can I avoid being phased by negative states?"
"(2) More specifically, how do I avoid identifying with such negative states, and how do I recognize their impermanence when they occur?"
Here, I think @Lanka and @ruben2020 answered these.
"Basically, I know one ought to observe such states mindfully, but in their immediate occurrence I get caught up, I am motivated to act or speak in a negative way."
When one easily gets caught up and have a hard time being mindful in these circumstances, I believe one particular problem might be weak samadhi.
When samadhi is practiced, when tranquility and unification of mind is a bit more developed, there's a natural "delay" when unwholesome states such as anger arises, and there's a natural inclination for rejecting it.
By "delay" I mean, instead of being taken by it at the spot, one sees the anger arising. Not only does it feel "slow", but it also feels detached, "far away". Feeling detached, and "far away", one notices right there that it did not invade his mind -- though it is right there in the "vicinity".
And at that moment, it's as if it needs one's decision and active engagement to make it grow. If on previous occasions one would be taken by this sort of state almost instantaneously, now it requires effort to be taken in, though one may still be seduced to engage.
Against that seduction, one notices the natural underlying inclination to rejecting it. Perhaps because samadhi is found in one's mind at that moment, perhaps because one can bring to mind and remember what samadhi felt like recently and one instinctively (or objectively) knows that engaging in these negative states of mind sacrifices that very wholesome state. Be as it may, it's a precious thing to sacrifice and likely one can feel it.
In other words, and to put it simply, when samadhi is made stronger negative states are made weaker. When samadhi is stronger, it becomes harder to engage in unwholesome states. It's naturally harder for them to invade the mind, in the sense that it doesn't require special efforts to oppose them, as it would otherwise.

The Pali suttas say unwholesome states are caused by ignorance (rather than by a person or self). You can reflect as follows: "this anger & despair are produced by ignorance".

The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities..."
Avijja Sutta: Ignorance

why has this answer got so many negative scores (6 in total)? thanks

I don't know; I see a score of +2/-3 at the moment. It's short but answers the question, I could only add more more sentence to it, as a summary: "So it's not aversion but ignorance (the root of the 'Three Poisons'), and that's how to stop identifying with it too ("It's not 'me', it's 'ignorance'")." OTOH it didn't answer the question about why it's more difficult "when they occur" during a "negative mood" and what to do about that (nor about impermanence).


text:
Paths of Buddhism & Possibility of Compassion
I have read about different types of paths for spiritual aspirants. Namely:

Śrāvakayāna
Pratyekabuddhayāna
Bodhisattvayāna

Of the first, Asanga states their faculties are limited:

"These people are described as having weak faculties [...]"

Of the second, he states they have medium faculties:

"[T]hey are said to have medium faculties [...]"

Finally, he describes the bodhisattva as with sharp faculties. In the Sutra on the Ten Levels, it says the sravaka will have practised:

[...] through fear of cyclic existence and without [great] compassion, [...]

I know that this is mainly a Mahayanist view. Nevertheless, my questions are :
(1) Should I conclude from this that faculties can really be different between practitioners? That, some individuals have greater facility for the dharma, and that enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime?
(2) Does this imply that following a Buddhist path doesn't always result in great compassion? Can one follow a Buddhist path while neglecting compassion, and end up lacking it in the end? Or, can compassion always be developed, even  at some later point?

see also Is there a compassion only Buddhist path?

also, https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/8200/why-cant-private-buddhas-just-tell-people-what-they-did-to-achieve-enlightenmen

I always feel guilty giving interpretative answers with no references, but since that's exactly what you seem to be asking here, here we go.
Sure, there are people of different skills and capacities. I wouldn't blame it on them, it's just a matter of circumstances, previous lives karma, old ignorance, we all were ignorant at some point.
But yeah, as my teacher explained, there are people who get it immediately, people who never seem to get it and just keep worshiping it as religion, and most of us in between, who get it with enough instructions and practice. As Buddha said, it is for this category that we teach.
Enlightenment is feasible in one lifetime if one makes it a priority and stays honest with oneself. I can't say some people are hopeless, that would not be fair. But yeah, for some it's more difficult, because of conceptual stereotypes, karmic inertia, or emotional blockages.
Traditionally, it is said that Buddhist path does not always result in awakening of compassion. Traditionally, you can be an isolated Buddha, who just can't stand the pain of engaging, and keeps to the peaceful abiding at all times.
However in practice, I just don't see how someone who really gets it can help but develop grand,  immense compassion for all sentient beings. So if you ask me, I'd say, if you're honest with yourself, compassion always arises. But then again, I'm a Mahayana guy, maybe it's my bias, maybe I should learn to feel less pity for everyone :))

Let's consider the scenario of students in university.
The ordinary student, just studies what is taught in the lectures and does not put in extraordinary effort. Along the way, he might help one or two of his fellow students, who are his close friends, but he does not have the capacity or willpower to help many students. He graduates with a bachelor's degree in 3 years, but with a mere pass. He is now liberated from the student life.
The outstanding student, puts in extraordinary effort, including additional research and project work. Although not required, along the way, he helps many fellow students as a teaching assistant. He graduates with a bachelor's degree in 4.5 years, with first class honours or summa cum laude. He graduates at the top of his class. He continues further for another 5 years to complete his doctorate with high honours, and becomes a lecturer. He too is now liberated from the student life.
The goal for most people is to simply become liberated from the student life and start working. For this, becoming an ordinary student is good enough.
However, for the select few who are very ambitious, they would go the extra ten miles to graduate at the top of their class, earn a doctorate and become a lecturer, to teach others.
Similarly, the sravaka is like the ordinary student, and the Bodhisattva is like the outstanding student.

"(1) Should I conclude from this that faculties can really be different between practitioners? That, some individuals have greater facility for the dharma, and that enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime?"
The faculties definitely are different between people and some practitioners do have greater facility for somethings than others, dharma topics included. This is both modern understanding and buddhist understanding. There are many suttas talking about "X kinds of people in the world" where some of these talk about people who understand quickly and people who understand slowly, etc.
There are also a suttas describing difficulties peculiar to certain disciples -- drowsiness, sensual delight, difficulties attaining jhāna, etc.
But any conclusion about the possibility or impossibility of enlightenment in one lifetime is pure conjecture. I believe thinking about this only serves to convince ourselves we can't, or try to convince others that they can't. These don't sound like beneficial thoughts.
"(2) Does this imply that following a Buddhist path doesn't always result in great compassion? Can one follow a Buddhist path while neglecting compassion, and end up lacking it in the end? Or, can compassion always be developed, even at some later point?"
I'm don't think it's possible for an arahant to not have compassion developed, though this is just my opinion. I can't remember texts that clearly state either way.

(1) The motivation and meditative ability of a practitioner generally depends upon past experience acquired in previous lifetimes. If a person has experienced Enlightenment many times in previous lifetimes, then he or she will have the “faculty” to make rapid progress in the present lifetime. If a person has never meditated in a previous lifetime, then he or she will have the “faculty” to make very slow progress in the present lifetime. Indeed, enlightenment is not always feasible in one lifetime.
(2) As infants, we all have an innate capacity for compassion. If a person has experienced physical, emotional, or sexual abuse as a child, then the capacity for compassion can be very suppressed, making compassionate feelings or relationships almost impossible to achieve.
Part of developing compassion consists of becoming a friend with integrity towards everyone. This is the deeper meaning of the fourth vow (sikkhapada) taken by the novice monk (Samanera) to “refrain from lying (musavada).” It is one of the ten precepts (dasa-sila). To refrain from lying means to value truth, honesty, and the well-being of others (the opposites of lying). This vow consists of a contemplation on the impact of one’s actions upon others and making appropriate adjustments. It means putting others first on the basis of compassion and the support of others. It means carefully taking into account the views, feelings, motives, and experiences of other people. It means you actively look for ways in which you can be helpful to others.


text:
Concentration as a Trait
I have a simple question. Concentration occurs in the context of samatha meditation, but does the regular practice of samatha generate a trait-like concentration in daily life?
In other words, is there such a thing as being always more concentrated, more focused, outside of samadhi? Or, is concentration mostly restricted to samadhi in formal meditation?
Thank you.

I'm not certain it can be said that jhāna itself extends to daily life after meditation, with all the different interpretations of jhāna going around.
At the same time, consider the following excerpt from AN 3.63:

“Here, brahmin [...], I collect some grass or leaves that I find there into a pile and then sit down. Having folded my legs crosswise and straightened my body, I establish mindfulness in front of me. Then, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhāna, which consists of rapture and pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by thought and examination. With the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhāna [...] I enter and dwell in the third jhāna [...] I enter and dwell in the fourth jhāna [...].
“Then, brahmin, when I am in such a state, if I walk back and forth, on that occasion my walking back and forth is celestial. If I am standing, on that occasion my standing is celestial. If I am sitting, on that occasion my sitting is celestial. If I lie down, on that occasion this is my celestial high and luxurious bed”

So, the Buddha is describing a certain quality persisting after the meditation, referring to it as "celestial" (dibba). This might be the trait your are asking about.
Note also that, if after samatha meditation one were "just like before the meditation", then for every single meditation, the difficulty to practice samatha would be the same. However, it's expected that it gets easier with time and practice.
I would claim it gets easier because the mind acquires the qualities of samadhi, even though arguably these qualities may not be in their most potent state -- say, during jhāna.
This might not be surprising from a neurological point of view, since the chemistry and behavior patterns of the brain are bound to change with any kind of repeated practice.

Is there such a thing as being always more concentrated, more focused,
  outside of samadhi?

The simple answer to this question is "yes". The more developed is samadhi, the more it can be abided it at will & the more it will be prolonged, including outside of sitting meditation.

Speaking from experience, yes meditation improves the quality of everyday awareness. I'm generally super aware already, but after meditation my lucidity and peripheral awareness further increases. For example as I enter a room, I see more details at once without specifically looking for them. Emotionally, I feel deeply relaxed and at ease. Due to this deep feeling of "everything is good", my concentration improves too, I can focus attention on one thing and let the background awareness handle others, without worrying that I can miss something else. This increased lucidity is so noticeable, that two people who meditate will recognize each other in a room full of people who don't.
I don't know how much of this is a permanently acquired trait that lasts whether I meditate or not. I have a feeling that it slowly goes away after I stop meditating. Oh well, impermanence... ;)


text:
Correct Version of Meditation
I wonder if I have been practising wrongly all this time. I notice two patterns in my meditation:
(1) Usually, I meditate, but discursive thought still comments on objects, perceptions, other thoughts. I usually focus on the breathing with a commentary, i.e. "I'm breathing," "I should focus on this," "I should focus on that," "My mind is clearer," "My mind is confused," etc.
(2) However, today, I focused on the breathing with very little commentary, just perceiving the sensations at the nose. The rare thought which arose was: "Nothing is happening," "Everything's quiet." My mind was nevertheless alert, and I didn't feel lethargy.
Is this second instance what one should aim for in meditation?
I know one shouldn't control the thoughts, or judge experience, but since both methods mentioned are easy for me, I am curious. I would've thought the second leads to boredom, but rather I find a non-discursive alertness. I also feel that in that moment nothing happens. Thoughts?
Thank you.

"I would've thought the second leads to boredom, but rather I find a non-discursive alertness": I think that's a great discovery :)

Indeed. Well-spoken comment Thiago.

@Thiago - Yay. There's the answer in a sentence. To the OP - In the first case I'd suggest ommitting the 'I' and replacing these thoughts with  'There is breathing', 'There is a thought' etc, and not inventing an owner of these things. But the second practice would be more advanced. . .    .

(1) Usually, I meditate, but discursive thought still comments on objects, perceptions, other thoughts. I usually focus on the breathing
  with a commentary, i.e. "I'm breathing," "I should focus on this," "I
  should focus on that," "My mind is clearer," "My mind is confused,"
  etc.

This is OK for initial developing of meditative awareness or when the mind is exceptionally busy.
This is a way to slow down the discursive mind by replacing uncontrolled thoughts with controlled thoughts, as taught as the 4th method in MN 20.

(2) However, today, I focused on the breathing with very little commentary, just perceiving the sensations at the nose. The rare
  thought which arose was: "Nothing is happening," "Everything's quiet."
  My mind was nevertheless alert, and I didn't feel lethargy. Is this second instance what one should aim for in meditation?

Yes; this second instance is what one should aim for in meditation. The less thoughts the better.

I know one shouldn't control the thoughts, or judge experience

When possible, the Pali suttas teach to control thoughts & to judge & replace any unbeneficial discursive thoughts with beneficial thoughts, as taught in MN 19 & MN 20.

I would've thought the second leads to boredom, but rather I find a non-discursive alertness.

The 2nd method leads to calm & (if the non-verbal emotional hindrances can be calmed) to the joy of concentration.

I also feel that in that moment nothing happens. Thoughts?

To believe nothing happens is the hindrance of doubt rather than the spiritual power of faith/trust.
A person wishing to fully practise the Buddhist path should have faith in the teachings.
Before the mind can naturally energize & develop buoyancy & joy, it must settle down, which can appear stagnant for a time.

On the path to Nibbana, the most significant aspect is meditation. “Samadhi” (concentration) is the final element found in the Noble Eightfold Path is which derives from meditation. In this path to nibbana, Dana (generosity) ranks first, and Sila (morality) ranks in the middle, and culminates in the practice of meditation.
“Mindfulness on in-and-out breathing (anapasathi bhavana) enables one to identify the nature of the frame of mind within the Noble Eightfold Path. ‘Ana’ refers to the in-breath and ‘apana’ refers to the out-breath.  Being conscious of the process of in-breath and out-breath is known as “anapana sathi”. Mind which arises based on the object of breath is devoid of greed (lobha) and hatred (dosa) as one has unlimited access to air for breathing. Similarly, hatred (dosa) does not arise as one cannot do without air. Thus, consciousness without greed, hatred and delusion arises during the anapana-sathi meditation. This is a state of wholesome consciousness (kusala citta).
When one contemplates on one’s in-out breathing and observes the mind that is devoid of greed and hatred, one gets accustomed to apply the same wholesome mindset in respect of the objects perceived from the sense faculties such as eye, nose, ear, tongue and body. When this practice becomes intense one can deal with all objects with a happy, wholesome mind. This practice would ultimately lead to mundane nibbana. One who is adept at dealing with all sense objects with a happy, wholesome mind and is imbued with mundane nibbana would ultimately come to the final realization of supra-mundane nibbana (lokuttara nibbana). Afterlife would become a happy existence for one who leads a happy course of existence (sugati) in this life.
We need meditation to lead a life with happiness. Meditation enables us to deal with all sense objects with happiness. Meditation helps us deal with all worldly sense objects without experiencing any suffering while enjoying nibbanic bliss in the presence of these objects.
Subjecting one’s mind to suffering is an unwholesome deed. Getting rid of mind of suffering is a wholesome deed. One of the mental factors known as “thought” (savitakka) in meditation refers to the process of mind getting rid of these unwholesome mental states. “Sustained thought” (savicara) is to maintain these wholesome mental states in the mind. Piti (rapture) is the pleasure derived from maintaining these wholesome mental states in the mind. Sukha (joy) is pervading of the pleasure throughout the mind and body. Ekaggata (one-pointedness) is the culmination of the development of mind based on the convergence of mental factors savitakka, savicara, piti and sukha.
Success of meditation depends on the capability of mind to maintain the wholesome state developed through meditation in the face of worldly objects such as visual forms, sounds, odours, tastes, and tactile sensations. When one is at this juncture, Nibbana is attainable in this lifetime; present life itself becomes a happy course of existence.

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

Is this second instance what one should aim for in meditation?
Yes.
Verbalisation and commentary is Pannatti. This is something one should avoid in meditation.

My conviction is that it depends on what you are trying to do. For the aimless development i favor verbalization & thinking in general and if i have the goal of calming i favor a more passive approach. I've had successful absorbtion being preceeded by noting, therefore i don't worry about noting being bad but i've also come to see the value of developing the calm as well in times of restlessness.
Some people like Leigh Brasington favor the passive approach for the arising of pleasure, lights and forms. There should in general be no doubt that not noting is reported to work by many  and is possibly better for the attainment directed at tranquilizing of the breath. If one directs mind to a theme countering a hindrance then one is thinking as well until calmed and withdrawing from the theme when hindrances are supressed and one can further  just be mindful without not thinking.
I personally think both methods can be used to achieve the 1st absorbtion but if one is too active and is going from one theme to another it will probably hinder absorbtion.

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


text:
Questions on Attachment, Entertainment and Pleasure
Forgive me if I write many questions in a single post, but these all deal with the thematic of attachment. I hope to quit my addictions to pleasures, in major part social media, by gaining insight through these.

What are Buddhist ways to deal with attachment to entertainment? (And in this context, aside from deleting the social media account).
Is it better to tackle this problem as

stemming mainly from attachment to pleasure in itself
or to tackle it as a question of a specific pleasure, i.e. social media?

How does diminution of the activity work best? Namely, should one

quit immediately
or quit in increments? If by increments, how does one proceed?

Does multitasking or combining sources of pleasure -- e.g. listening to music and chatting, or chatting and watching a movie -- intensify the detrimental effect? How so?
Would engaging in a single activity at a time, without multitasking or distractions, deter one from the pleasurable activities? In other words, does mindfulness diminish attachment?
Should one try to engage in replacement activities, or should one actively diminish the addiction? In other words, should one find substitute activities to engage in first, or is abstaining from media more important?

Thank you.

What do we do depends on what we know and feel as meaningful.
If we have meaningful things to do, and some things know and feel as rather meaningless, then the correct choice comes naturally.
Due to habits we might lack awareness and we might dwell in habits. Then by regulating our priorities we can change our activities.
We can think of it as finding our wholeness, or "true self".
An illusory self is entangled in activities, conditions, attachments, submissions etc. "True self" is never there.
Think of it as not a real object, not a theoretical notion. Finding "true self" means the experiential discovery of the freedom.
There is nobody who could be attached. All things and their meanings are here, now.

What are Buddhist ways to deal with attachment to entertainment? (And in this context, aside from deleting the social media account).

Buddhism teaches pleasure or pleasant feelings is something important. The giving up of sensual pleasures (such as entertainment) generally occurs when the limitations of those sensual pleasures are clearly seen thus the quest arises for an alternative source of pleasure, such as the pleasure of Dhamma.

Is it better to tackle this problem as

stemming mainly from attachment to pleasure in itself
or to tackle it as a question of a specific pleasure, i.e. social media?

It depends on how unwholesome the pleasure is because some pleasures are more unwholesome (i.e., with more negative side effects) than others.

How does diminution of the activity work best? Namely, should one

quit immediately
or quit in increments? If by increments, how does one proceed?

Although it occurred before I found Buddhism & meditation, when I gave up gross sensual pleasures, I still relied on more wholesome sensual pleasures, such as more wholesome music & a very wholesome physical activity (body surfing). Therefore, using more wholesome sensual pleasures can help in giving up more unwholesome sensual pleasures.

Does multitasking or combining sources of pleasure -- e.g. listening to music and chatting, or chatting and watching a movie --
  intensify the detrimental effect? How so?

Multitasking does not sound meditative.

Would engaging in a single activity at a time, without multitasking or distractions, deter one from the pleasurable activities? In other
  words, does mindfulness diminish attachment?

It is important to feel pleasure, including from meditation. That is why the Buddhist practises include generosity, harmlessness & loving-kindness as things that bring spiritual pleasure. I think what is important is the quality or wholesomeness of activities.

Should one try to engage in replacement activities, or should one actively diminish the addiction? In other words, should one find
  substitute activities to engage in first, or is abstaining from media
  more important?

Meditation is a substitute activity however if transitioning to meditation is too extreme then, yes, replacement/substitute activities are beneficial & important. What is important is the wholesomeness of the activities. For example, doing a good charitable deed can bring happiness & inner contentment that lasts. Deeply knowing we do not harm ourself or others also brings a happiness that lasts. Or visiting Dhamma centres & meeting Dhamma people can bring happiness.

I think I gather -- and now agree -- that pleasure is essential, but of a wholesome kind. You have a great answer. I still wonder, then, if you would classify social media as wholesome?

Thanks Eggman. I do not really know what social media is. I had a Facebook for a short time  but this was not really entertainment for me but more became a social obligation, which I ended (having to say a bunch of "thank yous" to some old friends I hadn't talked to for 30 years).

FYI I think "social media" are media (e.g. web sites) whose content is primarily created by the public: so for example it includes Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn, but also reddit, YouTube, and (less famously) any StackExchange sites and Discourse sites (including e.g. the forum on SuttaCentral), and even Wikipedia too, also DhammaWiki and so on.


text:
Wholesome Pleasures
from my last question I wonder: what provides wholesome pleasure and joy in a context of mental states and Buddhism? I wonder about:

Objective pleasure, i.e. engaging in meditation on compassion for example, or meditation in general, or engaging in "positive activities" as found in positive psychology
Subjective pleasure, i.e. engaging in an activity one enjoys which isn't harmful
Goal-oriented pleasure, i.e. fulfilling ambitions linked to one's aspirations

And, again from the perspective of mental states, is happiness always reliant on subjectivity to a degree? Here, I mean to ask whether one's mood, or personal interest, or one's personality always play a part in generating pleasure and joy (aside, perhaps, from in meditation)?

"what provides wholesome pleasure and joy in a context of mental states and Buddhism?"
In general, anything that weakens greed, aversion and delusion is a potential source of wholesome pleasure.
From the suttas....
Abandoning what is unwholesome is a source of pleasure (AN 2.19):

because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, ‘Abandon what is unskillful.’

Similarly, the practice of sīla (the virtue group of the noble eightfold path) incurs in wholesome pleasures (AN 10.1):

“Ānanda, the purpose and benefit of wholesome virtuous behavior is non-regret.”
  “And what, Bhante, is the purpose and benefit of non-regret?”
  “The purpose and benefit of non-regret is joy.”

...which continues in a chain leading to jhāna and, further on, liberation. In the context of meditation, jhāna is specifically said to be a superior pleasure compared to sensual pleasures (SN 36.19) and, for example, seclusion and samadhi are sources of pleasure (in the first and second jhānas).
Also, the following are benefits associated with wholesome pleasure obtained when metta practice "has been pursued, developed, and cultivated, made a vehicle and basis, carried out, consolidated, and properly undertaken" (AN 8.1):

(1) “One sleeps well; (2) one awakens happily; (3) one does not have bad dreams; (4) one is pleasing to human beings; (5) one is pleasing to spirits; (6) deities protect one; (7) fire, poison, and weapons do not injure one; and (8) if one does not penetrate further, one moves on to the brahmā world.

Particularly, the abandoning of sensual pleasures (unwholesome) in favor of exclusive wholesome pleasures is taught in accordance with one's commitment. In this case, for those who enjoy sensual pleasures, the Buddha taught four kinds of happiness that may be achieved: "The happiness of ownership, the happiness of enjoyment, the happiness of freedom from debt, and the happiness of blamelessness" (AN 4.62).
Also, the Buddha said that "Longing and unrighteous greed are a defilement of the mind"  and taught them the proper way of gaining wealth, fame, long life, and a happy destination after the break up of the body (AN 4.61).
Thus, the preservation of the precepts, the practice of sīla, and teachings such as the ones above are the proper ways (i.e. according to the Dhamma) to engage in "an activity one enjoys which isn't harmful" and "fulfilling ambitions linked to one's aspirations".
"And, again from the perspective of mental states, is happiness always reliant on subjectivity to a degree? Here, I mean to ask whether one's mood, or personal interest, or one's personality always play a part in generating pleasure and joy (aside, perhaps, from in meditation)?"
Sure. For example, while a certain person may find herself delighting in, say, virtuous behavior, someone else may not. Some people may delight in concord while another may delight in discord (MN 41). Finally, some people find peculiar things as source of pleasure:

“What, bhikkhus, is the way of undertaking things that is pleasant now and ripens in the future as pain? Here, bhikkhus, someone in pleasure and joy kills living beings, and he experiences pleasure and joy that have killing of living beings as condition. In pleasure and joy he takes what is not given… holds wrong view, and he experiences pleasure and joy that have wrong view as condition. On the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell. This is called the way of undertaking things that is pleasant now and ripens in the future as pain.
-- MN 46

Very good answer.

(I hope you don't mind this theoretical answer to a personal-practice question.)
Apart from meditation and the bliss (sukha) of quieting and cessation, I think that it (i.e. "what provides wholesome pleasure") may be "skillful virtue" or "wholesome action" (i.e. kusala sila) -- see for example What are the benefits of practicing Sila?
Maybe it does but I don't think that Buddhism teaches "subjectivity" in that context: instead it uses words like "virtuous", "skillful", "wise", perhaps "noble" (and, at least initially, maybe "blameless" or even "praiseworthy" too).
The "subjective pleasure" you defined sounds just about OK, however:

Harmless is virtuous and not bad, but maybe benevolent and unselfish is even better?
"An activity one enjoys" is all very well, but (for example) some of the suttas which talk to monks about food say that food should be taken not as a sensual pleasure or craving but rather with the intention of ending sensation (i.e. to end a feeling of hunger, not to replace a feeling of hunger with a feeling of fullness), and for the purpose of living the holy life.

To try to relate that to personal experience, I gather from previous questions that you're looking for activities which provide "wholesome pleasures", to replace other "addictions" which you don't feel are wholesome. Perhaps that hints at a definition of what you consider to be "wholesome activity": i.e. they're actions that you don't regret, action whose reward is "freedom from remorse".

The canonical reference case for "wholesome pleasure" is Buddha's entering jhana by remembering how he sat under blossoming trees back when he was a child (can anyone find the actual sutta?) In my understanding, before that turnaround occurrence Buddha-to-be was excessively strict to oneself and did not allow even a slightest indulging in pleasant mental states.
So in traditional Buddhism "wholesome pleasure" refers specifically to jhana, also known as "pleasant abiding in the here and now". (Specifically, the first jhana is about joy generated deliberately by reflecting on one's actual wholesome qualities and spiritual realizations. This reflection is what's technically referred to as vitakka/vicara. Vitakka is the act of deliberate recollection of a particular point, and vicara is the reflection moment, to let the effects of the recollection permeate the mind. And then the subsequent jhanas are progressively more refined states of pleasant abiding centered around subjective feelings of wellness.)
In Mahayana, wholesome pleasure can be defined more broadly as any activity that leads to harmony and well-being, such as recreation in nature, sports, or arts.
To answer your question, we need to go back to the first principles - the noble truths and more broadly the principle of "this-that conditionality" (idappaccayata). The sukha/dukkha modality of emotions is driven primarily by a measure of match or mismatch between one's expectations of how things "should be" and one's evaluation/interpretation of actuality. So both suffering and satisfaction are always subjective, always - and come from our own subjective interpretation not only of the expectations but also of the actuality.
So in theory, satisfaction could be generated by adopting a completely arbitrary set of expectations and interpretations, as long as they match. However in practice, Buddha recognized that sentient beings do not exist in isolation from their environment. The environment cannot be arbitrarily changed. Therefore, to achieve permanent Nirvana in practice, we have to find a way to match our expectations and interpretations that would be compatible with existing environment. If one's frame of reference goes against the reality and the laws of nature, one will inevitably fall out of Nirvana, since suchness cannot be contrived in the face of an obvious conflict with facts.
This is why Buddha said that his Dharma is good in the beginning, good in the middle and good in the end. For Dharma (here defined as a set of expectations and interpretations that frames a way of living and acting) to be holistic it must be in sync with the laws of nature, and the ethics&laws of society (assuming the latter developed from the seeds present in the first). This very important requirement is reflected in the unity between Buddha's ethical teaching and his primary, soteriological teaching. Buddha's suchness is holistic, because it sits on the foundation of physiologically/psychologically healthy and the socially "blameless".
I hope this makes sense. To summarize this in context of your question, pleasure is always subjective, and you are free to find your own creative ways to match "expectations" and "interpretation of actuality" - as long as you remain in sync with the reality of nature (i.e. you do not destroy your physical body) and with the laws/ethics of society (don't create causes for future suffering).
One last caveat. Buddha states very clearly in the 2nd Noble Truth that  attachment to any permanent state remains the primary factor of suffering, and this includes addiction to the pleasure of jhanas. So just remember that whatever contrived pleasure-generating mindsets you employ, they can at best only be used as a form of recreation, they are not the permanent liberation. That said, the ability to be independent of circumstances in generation of one's own pleasure, satisfaction, and peace, is an important step towards true homelessness/baselessness of suchness, the permanent unconditional Nirvana.

In the Theravadin Buddhist tradition, the compulsive pursuit of pleasure is a hindrance (nivarana) to access collectedness (upacara samadhi) necessary for acquiring insight (panna, vipassana). Experiencing pleasure, strictly speaking, is not a hindrance. Instead, strictly speaking, a hindrance occurs only when it displaces or delays the experience of upacara samadhi. If the cemetery contemplations or the meditation on the repulsive parts of the body does not temporarily suspend your automatic pursuit of sensuous pleasure, then many months or even years of mindfulness meditation and monastic seclusion may be required to help you settle for more subtle sources of comfort and peace. There is no blame to be assigned because of a strong need for sensuous pleasure, because it is caused by a previous experience of great and tragic suffering. As you suggest, there are many meditation practices that are pleasant or even blissful. The answer to your question is “yes.” But, be certain that indifference to or “detachment” from pleasure of all kinds is not a path to Enlightenment.


text:
Why did Buddha praise the vedic Agnihotra as the foremost sacrifice?
Why Buddha praises the vedic Agnihotra as the foremost sacrifice and the Gayatri mantra as the foremost meter in the Pali Canon?

aggihuttamukhā yaññā sāvittī chandaso mukham.
Sacrifices have the agnihotra as foremost; of meter the foremost is
  the Sāvitrī

"On the Buddha's Use of Some Brahmanical Motifs in Pali Texts"

Your quote is not from theravāda-pali canon.

@Bonn Which quote?

Oṃ maṇi padme hūṃ

@Bonn when did I say it is from Theravada pali Canon? Are there any mantras in that Canon?

@Bonn You're interested only in Pali Canon? Okay then I will ask you. Why the Buddha praises the vedic Agnihotra as the foremost sacrifice and the Gayatri mantra as the foremost meter in Pali canon?

I answered below.

I think this is merely an attempt to find a Buddhist endorsement to Hindu rituals. You have to give up Hinduism if you want to practice Buddhism. This faith by endorsement thing won't work at all.

Your quoted text is from M.N. Selasutta, that buddha taught to selabrahmaṇa:

aggihuttamukhā yaññā sāvittī chandaso mukham.
Sacrifices have the agnihotra as foremost; of meter the foremost is the Sāvitrī

So, buddha didn't taught veda. Buddha just use selabrahmaṇa's knowledge, veda, to teach him the last line:

puññaṃ ākaṅkhamānānaṃ, saṅgho ve yajataṃ mukha’’nti
Saṅgha is the best foremost of wholesome-mind developers.

This last line is the real buddha's teaching. Your quoted line, veda, was used by buddha just as a simile, as a tool to make selabrahmmaṇa understand the last line.
Your quote is similar: it references an example of brahmaṇa-people's best thing, to show sela-brahmaṇa how the last line is the best. Only that last line is the buddha's teaching; your quote is just a borrowed example, which buddha borrowed from brahmaṇa's veda, to teach  sela-brahmaṇa the last line.
How can you teach a new language to a foreigner? You use their already-known language to teach them new language, right? That is what buddha did.

What's the connection with the last line and my Agnihotra quote?

Your quote is the similar example of brahmaṇa-people's best thing, to show sela-brahmaṇa that how the last line is the best. So, just that last line is the buddha's teaching, your quote is just a borrowed example that buddha borrowed from brahmaṇa's veda to teach  sela-brahmaṇa the last line.

Buddha has clearly praised  Vedic things except animal sacrifices. It's just that you're oblivious to it. You're reinterpreting what Buddha actually meant there.

No, no where in theravāda tipitaka-pāli and commentary-pāli looks like you said. I recite, memorize, and research tipitaka-pāli for many years. I never saw something like you said.
When you use current government-made stuff, it doesn't mean you supporting or agree with this government.

Isn't samyutta nikaya part of pali Canon?

Your quoted text is the part of pāli, but the meaning of it doesn't mean buddha  praised Vedic things. It is just an example for comparison.

I don't know how Samyutta nikaya is classified? Samyutta Nikaya 111? What does this mean?

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/23846/can-someone-explain-the-difference-classification-and-referencing-between-englis

@OnkarKarambe Apparently the phrase is used in two or three suttas, including SN 111 and MN 92. Bonn referenced MN 92 (in Pali): here is an English translation of MN 92 if you want to read the whole sutta. The connection is, the sutta says, "[Like] the fire sacrifice is the chief sacrifice ... the Communities of Bhikkhus is the chief to those desiring merit." If he'd been talking with a race-car driver instead of a brahman, he might instead have said "Like the Ferrari is the fastest car" oslt.

@OnkarKarambe The Ajanna Sutta is a good example. The Buddha first spoke about the nature and behaviour of an excellent breed of horse, and then used that as a simile to explain the nature and behaviour of an excellent monk. It doesn't mean that the Buddha is an expert on horses, or is giving advice about horses. The Parable of the Poison Arrow and the Parable of Simsapa Leaves are more examples of Buddha's use of similes and metaphors. The house builder in the Dhammapada is another good metaphor.


text:
Did Pudgalavada Buddhists claim the the "person" existed between lives and / or in one life?
Did Pudgalavada Buddhists claim the the "person" existed between lives and / or in one life?
The Pudgalavadins were an old school of Buddhists who thought there was a person. I'm currently unclear whether that is ultimately, in the sense that Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists use the term 'ultimate'.
They debated about this with e.g. the Vibhajyavada sect, which I think later became Theravada Buddhism. You can read about the canonical dismissal of it in Theravada Buddhism in the 1st chapter of their Kathavatthu.

To clarify, one of my links say

It is this self, they maintained, that dies and is reborn through
  successive lives in Samsara, continuing to exist until enlightenment
  is attained.

Is this the same person, each life?

The article you quoted says, "It is this self, they maintained, that dies and is reborn through successive lives in Samsara, continuing to exist until enlightenment is attained."

@ChrisW i didn't quote the article. a more reliable source would be good, but thanks :)

'continuing to exist' definitely suggests that the same "person" exists, each life. can't remember my motivation for this question now!

I would not go as far as to call Pudgalavada "a school", as with most early Buddhism there were people who held certain position, that later received a name and was used for comparison with mainstream traditions.
If I remember correctly, Pudgalavadins claimed that person exists for all practical intents and purposes, so I think that means conventional existence, not ultimate. You should be able to find more details on Pudgalavada in Ch. 9 of Abhidharmakosa-Bhasya of Vasubandhu. See this for a quick summary - pp. 89-91:

The Pudgalavadins introduce the notion that persons are conceived on the basis of the skandhas as fire is conceived in reliance upon fuel without being other than or the same in existence as fuel.
  Pudgalavadins assert that in addition to phenomena that are conditioned & unconditioned (samskrta/asamskrta),
  impermanent and permanent (anitya/nitya), the 12 ayatanas, the 18 dhatus, etc., there are, in addition, phenomena that are
  inexplicable (avakrtavya). For the Pudgalavadins, conventional realities may be substantially established (as they are for the
  Vaibhasikas) or inexplicable. Inexplicable entities are entities without separate identities – they are neither the same as, nor
  different from, the skandhas. The Pudgalavadins reject the logic that everything is either substantially real or substantially
  established. Inexplicable persons are conventional realities insofar as they are conceived in dependence upon the skandhas,
  but ultimately exist insofar as they exist apart from being conceived. Persons are single entities without separate identities, an
  inexplicable unity.
  The Pudgalavadins maintain that the person is perceived through an inexplicable
  perception incidental to a consciousness perceiving its proper object. It is an inexplicable perception because it is neither the
  same nor different from the perception of the object.
  The basic attitude of Vasubandhu, and others, toward
  the Pudgalavadins is that in their theory of persons, it can appear that the person is substantially real, despite attempts by the
  Pudgalavadins to refute this attribution.

Mahayana, in particular Tibetan Nyingma tradition, insists that to say that person conventionally exists still leaves the mind grasping after the person, so more for didactic than for analytical purposes they say that there is no person is the right view. See "Mipham's Beacon of Certainty" (Mipham uses the traditional rhetoric of "snake", "vase" etc. but what he means is person, or entity in the broad sense)
Also see Satyasiddhisastra of Harivarman pages 67-74 for various other views around Pudgala and their refutations. As of late I consider Satyasiddhisastra a key text providing the missing link between Early Buddhism and Mahayana, with Abhidharmakosa and Mulamadhyamakakarika correspondingly on one and the other sides of the divide (conceptually, not chronologically).

Thanks for the comment, and I (think i) agree with the 2nd paragraph. You didn't totally answer my question, though, which is about rebirth and life.

Updated the answer with sources, plz see above.

I'm not very familiar with all the technical terms or schools things, but many of the Early Buddhist Schools original works are preserved in the Chinese Canon, such as, doctrine of Vibhajyavada sect should be found.
But to another half of your title question:

...the “person” existed between lives and / or in one life?

Xuanzang's (玄奘 602–664CE) Karika on the Eight Consciousness has this piece:
去後來先作主翁. Means, the Alaya the last leaving the dying body and the first entering the concoction when life conceived. However, in other Sutras, the Buddha did stress that he hesitated to teach about this higher teaching for those unfitted would mistakenly grasping it as the Self, he only taught it to the qualified. Thus, Alaya shouldn't be simply equated as a "person", in this sense.
Nagarjuna clearly analyzed in his Madhyamaka, that saying there is Self or there isn't Self both are wrong.
There is huge misunderstanding about "mind stream" in convention Buddhist scholastic discussion; related to the Anatman/Anatta notion. Thus it inevitably caused awkward and unnecessary argument about if there is rebirth or not. This is mainly due to the incomplete understanding by referring to the incomplete teachings. If, those scholars or conventional Buddhists have the access to the Mahayana Canon, especially the Chinese, they shouldn't have this doubt. The mind stream never ceases, whether live or dead. Yet the mind stream also never is a stream, like a stream filled fully with water. It's more like the blinking light-bulbs on the X'mas tree, because they are blinking so fast, it gives you an illusion the lights trailing from end to end, like a stream of light. This is my metaphor why it appeared there a person. One is able to understand properly if one read and got the meaning from the higher teachings preserved in Mahayana Sutras.

i'm more or less in agreement, i think

glad you got it :)

i kinda didn't, but i do now. i don't practice much. gratefully.