text:
Is there concept of recollection in Buddhism?
Quoted below is from, Kitagiri Sutta MN 70

…There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a
  teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one
  lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the
  Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of
  the teachings. Penetrating the meaning,

The question is where it says “one remember the Dhamma ” does this mean that the person is recollecting from previous forgotten knowledge?  To be specific does mindstream-continuum from previous life reaching the person been thought contain knowledge of the Dhamma albeit forgotten?

Is there concept of recollection in Buddhism?

Recollection meditation is a form of contemplative meditation. You should recollect as such, in the case of recollection of the Dhamma:

Well-taught is the True Teaching [the Dharma] of the Blessed One,

visible here and now,

immediate,

inviting one to come and see,

accessible,

to be personally known by the wise.

Source: (Agata,phala) Mahanama Sutta, Dhajagga Sutta
The outcome of this contemplative practice if done right is:

mind is straight

gains inspired knowledge in the goal [the meaning of Dharma],

gains inspired knowledge in the truth [the Dharma],

gains gladness connected with the Dharma;

when he is gladdened, zest is born;

when the mind is zestful, the body is tranquil;

the tranquil body feels happy;

when one is happy the mind becomes concentrated.

Source: (Agata,phala) Mahanama Sutta

The question is where it says “one remember the Dhamma ” does this mean that the person is recollecting from previous forgotten knowledge?

In the Kīta,giri Sutta mentions the following list with regard to training:

he who has faith (in a teacher) approaches him.

Approaching him, he respectfully draws near to him.

Respectfully drawing near to him, he lends his ear [listens attentively] to him.

He who lends his ear, listens to the Dharma.

Having listened to the Dharma, he remembers [memorizes] it.

Having remembered the teachings, he investigates their meaning.

Having investigated their meaning, he reflectively accepts the teachings.

Having reflectively accepted the teachings, desire [will-power] arises in him.

When desire [will-power] has arisen in him, he exerts himself [he applies his will].

Having exerted himself [Having applied his will], he weighs [balances his practice].

Having weighed [balanced his practice], he strives on.

Having strived, he realizes through his own body the supreme truth and sees it by penetrating
it with wisdom.

What is said here is to learn attentively, remember what is taught and understand the theory and practice.

To be specific does mindstream-continuum from previous life reaching the person been thought contain knowledge of the Dhamma albeit forgotten?

This remembering is to commit to memory what has been though and nothing to do with past life recollections.

In Buddhist meditation there are also techniques to recollect past lives. For this you have to develop abhiññā through Jhana.

See this question and the answers below.
It is indeed possible in the Buddhist view to remember past lives.
However in the quote presented I believe they are talking about remembering a teacher's Dhamma within the same lifetime it was taught.  It seems to more be speaking towards interdependence of events and causality than the remembrance of past lives.


text:
Teachings vs self experience
As my mind willed I visited my local temple for a chat with the monks .
Surprised to learn,  this time I was advised to independently seek out my emancipation from suffering and only use the dharma for a guide !! Then arose this question ...are other peoples  experience etc on this path valid for my own personal path ( if u could call it so as mind has no beginning or end nor an owner , but the ego claim !!)
So why read up on Buddhism at all ? If my inner being is not compatible with the author of the book/ books ?

Ask and you shall receive ;) Experience is definitely necessary. For me what helps is comparing notes with other people after the fact.

If you want to build a house, it is easier done having read a book about it than without. It will guide you through the process, hint you at problems that may arise and give possible solutions. But then, there may be other solutions around, no problem with that.
On the other hand, reading the book alone will not be much beneficial; without actually building your house, you will not be able to sleep under the protecting roof.
As for "being not compatible" - I think this is rather unlikely, as long as you are open-minded. Of course, one has to be careful not to take laziness as incompatibility, i.e. it would be too easy to give up meditation after 30 seconds, labelling it "frustrating, my mind isn't built for that".
So I take the literature as a wealth of wonderful ideas I can ponder on.

independently seek out my emancipation from suffering

Nobody can emancipate you. Only yourself. Reason being liberation is based on experiencing the reality and not doing things which are not conducive / unskillful and doing what is conducive / skillful. No bodies experience can be a substitute to your experience. Say someone describes a taste of a good dish, you cannot reconstruct this task by any description without tasting it yourself.

use the dharma for a guide

The taught Dhamma is guide. It has theoretical and practical aspects about stress and the was out of it. The theoretical aspects will be milestones in the path for you to validate if you are in the right route. The practical aspect is how to travel the path. Anybody who walks the path will reap the benefits of the practice.

are other peoples experience ... on this path valid for my own personal path

You cannot validate the path by other people's experience. If there is an epidemic and you and your neighbour both sick you have to take medicine to become better. Just because your neighbour taking medicine will not make you better.

So why read up on Buddhism at all?

To learn the path and the milestones.

but the ego claim

There is much material regarding this in: self, anatman
Always our notion of self is deluded and tied with craving. Unless we let go of this deluded notion of self there is misery.

If my inner being is not compatible with the author of the book/ books ?

Buddhism is universal regardless if you agree with it or not. There are lot of misinformation about Buddhism. Some of this will become clear when you practice. Each step of the way validate the results at the experiential level. Also validated what you practice with the original teaching.

I guess this is helpful I've just been reflecting on my questions and the Buddha's words " in this life the only certainty is death ..." You know it ..I guess why I question at all is there is doubts in his own dharma...just to add even other philosophy and religion also don't offer the guarantee etc of being safe from death ..suffering ...sickness (life in general) !!

are other peoples experience etc on this path valid for my own personal path?

To an extent, you have to see patterns. What they did, how things happened, etc., But spiritual path is a very subjective process, your internal nature as it has happened by your past accumulations and external circumstances. It is about YOU. Unconscious and conscious mental/physical impressions have played a large part in how you are right now.
One more thing, please don't split yourself up into parts like ego, etc., It is all a mental construct. Throw it away. You are one person. Please be that first, and start from there.

So why read up on Buddhism at all ?

Why not? Simply read? Take what you feel is right? There are many explanations. You may be mislead. That's why I said simply read. Don't stop yourself from reading/exploring. But why should you get carried away by what's in the books of a person? Most importantly, start reading your own life. Look at what's happening to you in situations, how you react, how you respond, what you are doing. Take conscious actions. That will give you more than enough knowledge on what you need than all the books in the world.

If my inner being is not compatible with the author of the book/ books ?

What is this inner being? Define that clearly. For yourself. Ask yourself. Then worry about authors of books or something else.

You speak truth and have a strong ideas ...I guess the nxt thing my temple friends said won't offend you ...but we have to learn then let it all go to the void ( nothingness)..

my mind willed I visited my local temple for a chat with the monks…

You did the correct thing in seeking the company of the friends in Saddhamma. But is is not easy to find a true disciple.  On the ‘Noble Friend’s guidance, Ananda, one of many principal disciples of the Supreme Buddha, once asked the Buddha if half of the reason for the spiritual life was friendship with others. The Buddha turned to Ananda, rebuking him mildly with the words, “Don’t say that, Ananda. The whole of the spiritual life is for friendship.” This shows that the Buddha elevated spiritual friendship to the highest status.

was advised to independently seek out my emancipation…

Sadly many are of this view in the present day. So it is important that we compare todays views to the Sutta & Vinaya Pitaka, and to find out the truth of the matter. Always remember that the Scriptures are out Teacher. Buddha once said that “By not understanding, and not penetrating this doctrine beings have become entangled like in a knotted ball of thread and have become like munja grass and rushes, unable to pass beyond the woeful states of existence, and Samsara, the cycle of existence.”

are other peoples experience etc. on this path valid…

The simple answer is Yes. Specially at the outset, until you become a Stream Entrant others company & guidence is important. Just as the great ocean gradually slopes and inclines and shelves without any sudden drop, so too this Dhamma and Discipline there is gradual training and work and practice without any sudden penetration of final knowledge.

So why read up on Buddhism at all ?...

Because that is The ONLY Way. . Buddha said “Let an intelligent person come to me, sincere, straight forward and honest; I shall instruct him in the doctrine so that on my instruction he could practise by himself in such a way that before long he would himself know and himself realize …”(M.II.44)

Methodology of learning …

It starts with careful listening with full attention (Suthaa).
Then what he has heard has to be registered in the mind (dhathaa).
The next step is to familiarize himself with what has been learned by reciting (vacaya paricita).
Then it has to be internalized with pondering over it, contemplating the meaning by applying it to yourself.  (Manasaanupekkhitha)
The next step is practising what one has learned to become a real knower of the teaching - The realization. It is the result of the above 4 actions.  (Ditthiya Suppatividdha)

If my inner being is not compatible with the author…

The issue of compatibility is not what is important. Of utmost importance is whether your inner being has recognized the URGENCY. Whatever means that you will employ to instil a sense of urgency, then that is the way to go. If there is one single word that is more important than any other in the whole of the Dhamma of the Supreme Buddha, it is URGENCY. In whatever way, if one could develop a sense of urgency, then by all means stick to it. For that you have to develop a sense of dismay (samvega) with what is happening around you. To see the other side of life -  the universality of suffering and develop an attitude of heedfulness (appamada) to avoid being duped by types of desires that come our way.  How many will have a sense of urgency towards the practice of Dhamma?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does the wicked have a better bargain at death in Buddhism?
Does the wicked have a better bargain at death in Buddhism considering that there are no soul to transmigrate?
Let's assume there are two persons A and B, born to similar condition. Person A surround himself with virtuous people, learn the Dhamma and practice it. Person B surround himself with wicked people, don’t respect the Dhamma and does evil deed.
In this very life, both persons have conditioned free will, but person A open for himself preferable condition of choice by acting virtuously. For example, the joy of virtuous act as a condition to be preferred is only open to person A, person B will never feel this joy until he correct his volition. Likewise, both persons feel sensual pleasure the same, but person B crave for more endlessly, and he live in want.
Person A been compassionate to all beings future or present he delighted when he hear that, at time of death, because of his virtuous act the mindstream-continuum will form another being in favorable condition.
Person B is also happy when he hear the fruit of karma at death,because been evil he care less for condition of future beings and he is also happy that his life of want and endless craving will end at death, and he will be no more.

Does the wicked have a better bargain at death in Buddhism considering that there are no soul to transmigrate?

Though there is no soul (unchanging, eternal core in a being) there is a dependently arisen continuity of a person. If your are wicked, you continue in lower realms which are dominated by suffering, through like other doctrines this is not internal. In other words there is a continuum in the form of a causality driven process, but there is not solid, unchanging entity or part as person.
There is a probabilistic element what will be your last mind as this decides the next birth. In balance of probability your last mind will be good only if have done a great lot of good deeds near your death and habitually being doing good deeds. Also you do not know whether you die young or old so you have to cultivate goodness whenever you can.
Also being born in the different realms are like gravity. Lower realms attract the most. Also there is a higher chance that a bad thought will pop up at the last moment. So majority of humans end up lower. If you were to have a chance of getting to a higher realm you have to be very good. Therefore, it is the good that has some bargain for an upgrade from where they are.

Person A surround himself with virtuous people, learn the Dhamma and practice it.

Good friends are the main cause of being able to practice the Dhamma.

Person A surround himself with virtuous people, learn the Dhamma and practice it.

You should be careful when you act. If you act unwisely the result will not be desirable? If you are wise and act accordingly you will be able to reap favorable results.

crave for more endlessly, and he live in want

Unsatisfied desires is also a source of misery and stress. This produces additional karma which also result in stress.

happy that his life of want and endless craving will end at death, and he will be no more.

Reality is not what someone believes. Generally believes are far from reality. Dhamma is reality. You need to know it at the experiential level.
A person with the roots (craving, aversion or ignorance for lower rebirths and unselfishness, hatefulness and undecidedness for higher rebirths) will always be reborn. A person who is not liberate will have the roots. Also see: The Roots of Good and Evil by Nyanaponika Thera

Thank you I will read the Book by Nyanaponika Thera. But can we say person B will continue in lower realms. The mindstream-continuum will form another being on next life not person B.Person B is endowed with conditioned free will here and now and does the act of evil.

If there is a Mr. A who dies and is reborn as Mr. B, they are not the same not different. B is continuum of A but not A. Similarly, each moment that passes new person is created. If you take yourself now this is not the same as a moment ago not different. You are a process of causality based process, but there is not entity wise solid, unchanging, everlasting core. You can also say B is and rebirth / reincarnation of A, but this is not my means of transmitting the soul (everlasting, unchanging, eternal core) from A to B.

It mostly depends upon your state of mind at death. However, it is also said that your karma comes to weigh heavy on you at that time. When a good person dies, he dies with goodness and light karma. When a bad person dies, he dies with a disturbed mind and heavy karma.
There are six possible state of rebirth in samsara: hell, animal, preta, asura, deva, and human. They correspond to hate, ignorance, craving, jealousy, pride, and humans have not to much of any of these. So, this person you describe would be reborn as a preta. A preta is a craving monster who's appetite cannot be satisfied. A horrible fate.
Likewise, a good moral person who is born in the heavens of the devas gets to enjoy the heavenly life. I would say that the good person is luckier. Even though that existence, like all such in samsara, is limited.
Better to be reborn in the pureland of a Buddha. But you have to take refuge in that Buddha and end these mental deficiencies. It is the training ground of bodhisattvas who can eventually transcend samsara.

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


text:
Ordaining vs normal life
Lord Buddha left the normal life due to frustration he got seeing those four instances of human life.
In today when people get the same frustration they call it as depression, and motivate further to enjoy the normal life with lots of bonds and relationships. I'm confused in this scenario, what is the relationship between ordaining and depression ?

I would not say that it is due to frustration that Supreme Buddha left for we call the ‘Great Renunciation’ when he left all the worldly comforts and riches to find the end of suffering. You are partly right @Irasha... taken on its own, samvega can be a very depressing realization. Which is why it has to be paired with pasada, or confidence: confidence that there is a way out.  For won't not for a better word, in Sinhala it is called    “අවබෝධයෙන් කලකිරීම”. A positive thing.
In the famous story about young Prince Siddhartha seeing the old person, the sick person, and the dead person, he also saw a forest mendicant. That was his fourth vision. His realization after seeing the forest mendicant was, “This must be the way out. If there’s any way out, this is it.” And so he pursued that conviction with a strong sense of clarity and confidence.
Depression is different. In depression the mind harms itself. It keeps sapping its own strength, thinking in ways that get it depressed, thinking in ways that gets it fearful, that just drain its strength away. There are all kinds of wrong thinking that can do the mind a lot of harm. You may focus on thoughts that lead to anger, on thoughts that lead to depression, on thoughts that are self-destructive. That’s the most typical way most people focus their minds. Only way out is when you learn to give up those habits, you find resources of strength inside that you wouldn’t have anticipated. You can hold onto them.
All states of mind have mind as their forerunner. mind is their' chief, and they are mind made. Everything occurs with the prominence of mind . Thus says the pali text: "Manō pubbangamā dhamā - manō setthā manō mayā".  One’s unpleasant feelings that depress the mind are clung as suffering.
The more naturally prone to depression, anxiety, etc. the more likely and easily one could be adversely affected.
When one feels a sense of depression, a sense of sadness, there’s a physical side to it and there’s the mental side. The mental side is made up of lots of little thoughts that are all glommed together. So the Buddha recommends that you take it apart in terms of the khandhas, in terms of the aggregates. Look for the feeling, and then look for the perception. An important perception is saying, “This is my suffering, this is happening to me,” which may be true but you don’t have to think it. It’s an optional thought. You could simply say, “This is suffering,” and leave it at that. That would adequately describe the situation and would also be more helpful. The thing is, you have to catch the mind in the act of applying that particular perception. It will do it repeatedly again and again and again. That’s what clinging is. It’s holding onto a particular thought and just repeating it over and over again.
When you can see that happening, you realize that you’ve got the choice to drop it. You don’t have to keep hitting yourself over the head. As the Buddha said, there are things that may be true but if they’re not useful, if this is not the right time for them, we don’t say them. Take that principle and apply it to the mind, to your inner conversation. There may be perceptions that in one way or other are true enough, but they’re not useful and this is not the right time for them. They’re actually causing you suffering, so why bring them in?
To see things clearly is called discernment, seeing distinctions, being able to tease things out. Learn to be equanimous, patient, accepting of everything. Suffering comes, and you tell yourself that that’s just the nature of experience, that’s the way it is. Craving comes, well, just accept the craving, that’s the way it is. It is the ability to admit what’s going on. Then there is also a duty or a task to do with each of these truths. It is being mindful – it is a kind of meditation (sati sampajanna).
Meditation may be helpful with managing depression. Learn the right way to meditate, as there are a lot of nonsense out there and many blind alleys. Listen to “Budu Suwanda” on Youtube by Ven Kochchikade Seewali Thero or Ambanpola Gnanawijaya Thero. Start with a sense of pasada, that this is your way out. Stick with the practice with that sense of conviction, confidence, desire. If you approach the meditation in a desultory way, you’re going to get desultory results. You really have to be devoted to what you’re doing here.

Thank you sir, Yes I have the motivation for meditation but always fails to continuously do it due to academics overload and etc. Yes I must start and I will do this time, reading your replies is great always.

Depression is a form of Dukkha but Dukkha is not necessary depression.
If you take up robes due to frustration this does not generally last as you would end up more frustrated in robes due to austerities as a monk. When you are depressed you do not see things clearly, i.e., 3 characteristics.
The Buddha to be left householder's life partly out of wisdom, though not the ultimate form, to search for liberation. If your renunciation is prompted by wisdom and realisation than depression or running away from hardship, then your life as a monk maybe successful.

yes I understand your point, what I meant here by frustration is not being fed up of hardships, I'm referring to the understanding of the circularity of things: the reality.

I think Upanisa sutta answers your question.  Buddha didn't use words such as "frustration" or "depression" as you posted in your question but  he used "suffering".  For someone to ordain, one has to have faith fist and one of the supporting conditions for faith is suffering

"Faith, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for faith? 'Suffering' should be the reply.

birth -> suffering
Suffering -> faith
faith -> joy
joy -> rapture
rapture -> tranquility
tranquility -> happiness
happiness -> concentration
concentration -> knowledge and vision of things as they really are
knowledge and vision of things as they really are -> disenchantment
disenchantment -> Dispassion
Dispassion -> emancipation
emancipation -> The knowledge of destruction cankers

yes exactly!! that's what I'm referring here by 'frustration' as I have mentioned in the previous reply's comments too : the understanding of the circularity of things: the reality

and per your comment from your question "..nd motivate further to enjoy the normal life with lots of bonds and relationships.." , i dont remember from which sutta but it goes like; most beings when touched by pain and suffering not knowing the four noble truths, they would go and seek out 5 sensual pleasures (to mask the pain) without knowing that exact action is causing more (another) pain.

yes totally agreeing! And they end up even more suffering finally by wasting lot of time!

I think the relationship is that when ordaining one looks for an answer to these problems of death, sickness, old age and death. But when depressed one doesnt belive there is any solution and eventually considers suicide.

The Bodhisatta wasn't really depressed, he had a sense of shock, anxiety and spiritual urgency to escape the suffering of samsara AKA samvega.
Part of the question is, "today when people get the same frustration they call it as depression, and motivate further to enjoy the normal life with lots of bonds and relationships"
This is the  "normal" worldly path to happiness that  is most likely what is causing the depression. This normal path causes us much suffering and we get habituated into it so it will then take years to undo it with Dhamma practice.
One usually ordains to transcend suffering in some way. One can also ordain due to great intrest in Buddhism or truth.
If one is seriously depressed then one would probably not be accepted as a monk, not that it would necessarily be bad for one's depression to ordain.
The claim is that some mild depression and phobias can be cured by using a good method of mindfulness practice. Moment by moment, one puts more focus towards the depression or rather, the precise feeling of the depression that manifests as bodily or mental sensations. If one is practicing properly, one will eventually gain understanding, wisdom or insight(these three words mean pretty much the same thing) about the depression.


text:
In today's perspective is it possible to practice mindful meditation except bhikkhus?
Mindfulness: the Vipassana Meditation is a great methodology to reduce suffering, avoid attachments and gain pure happiness. But in present education, competition, living needs, relationships, responsibilities, duties etc too much are mandatorily attached to a single person. So is it really practical to practice this except bhikkhus?

just as I advised you in the earlier answer, listen to “Budu Suwanda” on Youtube by Ven Kochchikade Seewali Thero or Ambanpola Gnanawijaya Thero. Do exactly as instructed. I will answer to this OP for the benefit of others sometime later. With metta..

"mandatorily attached to a single person"? What does that mean? I am married and I can tell you from experience that    being married teaches me a lot.

@uuu The way I read it he is saying that the many duties of life are attached to us, it's not about relationships.

yes @Uuu that's what meant

@SapthaVisuddhi curious what your answer would look like

Thirty years ago when I was at your age I practiced Transcendental Meditation by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. It is a mantra meditation. In it you are given a ‘bija’ – a seed mantra - a kind of Kasina that helps to settle the mind of the meditation practitioner within a very short time. One can create an oasis of calm amidst the hustle and bustle of the outside world in this Transcendental Meditation. It is over 25 years since I stopped doing TM. Any ordinary "run-of-the-mill"  lay person can do TM, but it is not so with Buddhist Vipassana Meditation. It calls for a whole lot more from you and will take a much longer time. It requires a whole lot of commitment and preparatory work, much like that of the Noble Eightfold Path. The first seven contributory factors (Samma-ditthi, Samma-samkappo etc.) lead to the establishment of Samma-Samadhi. They are referred to as satta samadhi-parikkhara. In TM what you get is ‘Micca Samadhi’, but following the Saddhamma you get to Samma-Samadhi.
To come to Samma-Samadhi, one must first and foremost become a true disciple of the Supreme Buddha. It is to have Saddha - the confidence towards the understanding of Supreme Buddha (Saddhahati Tathagatassa Bodhin). One cannot go the distance in this Dhamma Path without Saddha. One who has come to Saddha is one of Samma Ditthi (right understanding of the four noble truths). A worthy person. This is not an easy thing. Only a fortunate few would arrive at this. If we gradually but firmly establish Saddha in us and develop it, our Sakkaya Ditthi (the idea of self) leaves us. This will not happen if we are the type that questions the first five Nikayas. These Sutta & Vinaya are our teacher, and we do not question our ‘Asama-Sama’ Teacher. There are many avenues that can lead us astray. But for Nibbana there is only one road. Only one guide - That single road is thinking that “Supreme Buddha knows. I do not know” (Keetagiri Sutta).  The only safeguard for us, in keeping us safe from harm is our association with a Kalyana-Mitta (Noble Friend in Dhamma). That is why I gave you the names of Ven Kochchikade Seewali Thero and Ven. Ambanpola Gnanawijaya Thero.
If you want to be in command – to be alone - amidst the hustle and bustle of the outside world, first work towards this afore mentioned goal – to be a Sotapanna, a Stream Entrant. Then you do not even have to become a Bhikku, or do Vipassana, and within only seven lifetimes at the most, you will achieve the sublime Nibbhana. You will inevitably get to be born in one of the seven havens of sensual pleasure.
I am not asking you not to do Vipassana, as then you can go to even higher planes of existence. There are various planes of existence of beings that are present even though we cannot see most of them. The Supreme Buddha taught that there are nine such different planes of existence. These are known as ‘Sattāvāsa’. Those who do Vipassana and come to at least the first stage of dyana will get to be reborn in these higher planes. Some of these worlds belong to the type called ‘Ēkatta Kāyā’ ‘Ēkatta Sagnyā’, ‘Ēkatta Kāyā’‘Nānātta Sagnyā’ etc. etc.. The ‘Ēkatta’ denotes a meaning of ‘single’. This means, all the beings in this type of worlds are like each other with respect to their bodies / minds. On the other hand, the human world and the seven heavens of sensual pleasure are different. They belong to the type known as ‘Nānātta Kāyā’ ‘Nānātta Sagnyā’, which means different bodies and minds.
Getting into the subject of Vipassana, to do this properly you must first work towards purifying your sila (Sila Visuddhi), you must work towards safeguarding your six sense faculties (citta-visuddhi) and you must practise the Buddhist way of consumption of food – be it vegetarian or non-vegetarian food.
Mind is the sixth sense that which encompasses the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. A quiet mind is possible if you could restrain these sense faculties by reining in kama-cchanda. The Pali word kama means anything pertaining to the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. Chanda means to delight in or agree with. Together the compound kama-cchanda means “delight, interest, involvement with the world of the five senses.” The wise who practice Dhamma in daily life very silently, are aware of their thoughts and spend a very simple but noble life in the world of hustle and bustle, amidst all outside distractions.
Only those who are wise enough to see things realistically in society would strive to lead a righteous life within our short duration of time. Even fewer are those with the ability to separate true Dhamma from contaminations through history and have the courage and wit to swim upstream. To do Vipassana, first one has to have a good understanding of the true dhamma – the Saddhamma – and be one who strives to practice the truth.

I don't think it is all that different than in past times. The distractions and duties might have been different, but there were surely many obstacles on the way.
The texts always mention householders and lay people for a reason.
The degree to which you practice or are able to practice may vary on your circumstances; many of those might not be that fixed as one may think, though. Too many possessions to look after? Too many duties that need your attention? If you need more time to practice, change the elements of your life. Downsize.
Most things that we think are necessary or "needs" are really useless if you think about them. With every excess you remove, life get's a whole lot easier.
Also, mindfulness can be practiced in many contexts. You could say: the harder the environment, the better the training.

Do you want to understand yourself where you are or not?
The truth is the truth but I am not so sure about what your saying. Is it that today's society makes it impossible for meditators to see the truth? No, it is always us as individuals who stop ourselves from seeing the truth, not them, not modern complexity.
Each one of us is a living,  breathing monestary. A bad modern society can teach us a lot,  it can lead us to act with courage we didn't know we had.
We don't need monasteries. We need teachers.

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven." Milton
Yes, the environment you face can affect how easy your path to enlightenment is.. After all, otherwise the Buddhists hells and heavens would not, at all, be differentiated from the human realm.
But whether you skip the buddhist world views or not, the path remains individual - whatever external (or internal) obstacles you choose to define for your paths, those are your external and internal obstacles. If you wish not to face them, recognise them as such and overcome them!

Great question.
The Dhamma is both timeless and of great benefit for all beings, no matter what position they are in or what life they lead.
The Dhamma teaches purification of Mind and permanent freedom from suffering.
In this life one might have many obligations. If one inclines greatly towards the Dhamma in this life, the next life might be different, i.e. more suitable for practicing the Dhamma.
I think its important to view your question (and answer) in the light of not a single life but many lives.

When that is said, there is always something one can do in this very life. Practicing even 5 minutes of meditation with correct technique is extremely valuable. When sharing the merits one just gained with all beings one is also practicing the 1st parami of generosity (dana). Having these intentions of good-will also conforms with the Right Intention (Samma Sankappa) from the wisdom group of the Noble Eightfold Path.
Do you have a pet? Did you feed it today? Did you lend an ear to a family member, sibling or friend? Giving your time and attention to somebody else, while having the right intention(s), is also to practice the Dhamma.
Following the 5 precepts, working on balancing the 5 spiritual faculties, studying the Dhamma or explaining the Dhamma to other people are also great ways to get closer and more familiar with the Buddhas teaching, eventually culminating in one reaching the other shore.
In Buddhism intention is important. The Buddha said that intention is what he calls Kamma. The first verse in the Dhammapada states mind comes first, intention comes first. If one has wholesome intentions, i.e. intentions of good-will, harmless and renunciation, happiness will follow and suffering will decrease.
Trying to follow the path by cultivating these 3 wholesome intentions which will completely change our outlook on the external conventional reality is something that can be practiced in this very life.
It can be practiced right now.

Yes, it is eminently practical. There are simply too many accounts of modern, everyday, busy people becoming (allegedly) highly attained on the Vipassana path (and others) to make the idea that it is practical only for bhikkhus credible.
A few examples, just off the top of my head, include: Daniel Ingram, Kenneth Folk, Shinzen Young, and a reasonable subset of the people interviewed at BatGap (if you're willing to broaden out beyond pure Vipassana and Buddhism and into Advaita Vedanta, for example, then look on BatGap specifically for Gary Weber). I think Young spent some quasi-monastic time, but I don't think he was ever a full-blown monk.
And of course for the par excellence example of a very busy householder of Olympic-grade Vipassana capability, you can't do much better than Dipa Ma

The main objective of Vipassana Meditation is to acquire.. Universal Consciousness ,Transcending Body Consciousness. Too much Psychological Stress or Physical suffering ,create STRONG BODY CONSCIOUSNESS . Too much pleasure creates ATTACHMENT TO THE BODY . The Buddha , therefore suggested the MIDDLE PATH ,for OPTIMAL PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT. However , in modern day situation ,working under HIGH STRESS and PHYSICAL PAIN , is quite COMMON. I believe , the spread of Christian Philosophy , is partly responsible for this. Christianity was taught to people living in Extreme Poverty .Live One Day at a time and leave the Future in the Hands of God , is the central teaching of Christianity .  Buddhism , on the other hand , was taught mainly to The Rich and Princely classes (NOBILITY), who did not have to worry about their day to day Existence. Buddhist teaching , therefore, is centered around Future Planning. ..Christianity rejects or ignores Future Planning.  Christianity believes in a Human, Father like God , who takes care of your Future.... Buddhism , on the other hand believes in a set of Universal and Eternal Laws , that governs the Material and Psychological Universe --on the basis of which , you can make future planning. Modern day Scientists , have succeeded in combining , these two concepts and succeeded in Cosmological Studies.  A simple way to start with , will be , to study popular books on Cosmology....  This will help you ,to acquire Universal Consciousness, in-spite-of the stresses and pains , you  are living with.

It's not manditory but if we plan on living in a world with mandatory attatchments we certainly need to know how to practice in the world so we can learn how to let go of those mandatory attatchments. Attatchment certainly isn't mandatory but maybe I'm not getting what you mean.
Silence isn't needed with vipassana(ok, ok, I mean with the kind of vipassana I practice). Silence is only very necessary for concentration practices. In The Mahasi Vipassana Method I was taught, we are not trying to get to any special state of mind but only whatever comes up in awareness. It's so simple I thought there had to be more to it but there wasn't and I wasted a lot of time trying to complicate the teaching.
So, I had a problem, did I need to go to a monestary? No. I had to find a good teacher.
If we plan on living in a monestary we certainly need to know how to practice in a monestary. Monestaries are great because everyone is on the same page and there are usually good teachers but the same could be said about a meditation center down in the middle of the city, were there are probably some good lay teachers and good monastic teachers.

Thank you @Uuu but I think it's possible to start without a teacher too right ? by referring materials etc ?

Yes. It is important to humble yourself with why you would even try. If there is no birth, decay and death there would be no Buddha. Reflection upon these three and your imminent fate should give you proper focus. If you lack this, try to obtain it by looking at the suffering around you and within you.
Once you have a clear fear of your imminent fate, you will then get intrinsic motivation to practice the solution.
Even experienced monks therefore practice marananussathi (contemplating imminent death) to avoid being late at meditation.

Yes - the answer is yes  with no doubt  -   you can practice vipassana meditation  and gain great success with it in this day and age in the lay life  - even with a demanding life
Is it better to be in a monastery ? yes also    -  its more easy to practice at a monastery

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


text:
asubha practice
why is it mentioned in the pali canon that Without the direct guidance of a teacher, this practice can be dangerous, as the canon of Buddhist literature includes a story of the Buddha teaching this mediation to pupils, a lot of whom commit suicide while the Buddha is in retreat.does this mean that I being a layperson, can't perform this?moreover, how can I not develop aversion while practising this but still reap it's benefit?

At the time accepted the answer I had not finished the answer. Below is the finished answer.

Did a few more adjustments.

why is it mentioned in the pali canon that Without the direct guidance of a teacher, this practice can be dangerous,

I am not sure if this is mentioned as dangerous in the canon. It is in the commentaries which say this is dangerous. It can be inferred as dangerous because of the above incident.

does this mean that I being a layperson, can't perform this?

You can do this. Only if done right it is not dangerous.

moreover, how can I not develop aversion while practising this but still reap it's benefit?

This is recommended if you inclined to see beauty in the physical form. That is, when you see something you evaluate it is beautiful you get strong attachment.
What is involved here is perception of beauty and the sensation.
Develope Opposite Perception and View
When you see a certain form or shape as beautiful then develop the perception  and view that is is not. This way, as your practice mature, your mental reaction to something beautiful will lesen. The form can you your form (own beauty or looks), someone else or even imaginary form.

when a monk sees a form with the eye, (in him) the agreeable arises, the disagreeable
    arises, the agreeable-and-disagreeable [the neutral] arises.
...
If he wishes thus, ‘May I dwell perceiving the repulsive in the unrepulsive,’ he dwells perceiving the repulsive therein
... mind-object .. mind ...

Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Sampasadanīya Sutta
Cemetery Contemplation
Also use external form to reduce attachment to ones own body, again at the level of correcting the perception and view as well as the reflexive response of the mind, i.e., to reduce reflexing arising of craving for sensation due to perceptions on form, and should not lead to reflexing arising of aversion for sensation due to perceptions on form.

he compares this very body with that, thinking:
  "Such is the nature of this body: it will become like that—this is unavoidable."

Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta
Changes Perception and View due to Internal Content
Also think if what is within the body is external and what was external was inside, you will be chasing animals away from pecking at you flesh! Also imagine what is below the skin. What comes out of the orifices. Imagine body parts piled up. This also a change in perception and view. The last view to break is that the stream of consciousness in internal or self.
Also see: In what Sutta(s) is there a References to Imagine the Body Inside Out and What is Below the Skin, Sampasadanīya Sutta
Whole vs. Parts and Effect on Perceptions and View
The body is made of parts. Sum of the parts are beautiful but not individually. The parts on their own does not have beauty, but put together only the perception and view of beauty arise. This way you reduce the mental reaction and attachment, to the sensation due to the mental reaction, that follows.
Also see: Mahā Sati’patthāna Sutta
Change in Form due To Decay Changes Perception and Views
Developing the view that the body is impermanent, subjected sickness, decay, old age and death. When you see someone beautiful then when they are sick, oozing excretions or on a pile of excretions, old and dead. Again this a way to adjust your perception and view so you mental reaction and the craving that result from the sensations due to how you mind's reactions are diminished.
Also see: Maha Dukkha-k,khandha Sutta, Does any Theravada Suttas / sources refer to Oozing orifices? What are the Suttas?
Method on Insight
Also when you evaluate some form as beautiful, plain or ugly you get a pleasant, neutral and unpleasant sensation. Use this to eradicate you latent tendencies for craving.

On seeing a form with the eye,
one explores a form that gives rise to pleasure,
one explores a form that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
one explores a form that gives rise to equanimity.
...
On cognizing a mind-object with the mind,
one explores a mind-object that gives rise to pleasure,
one explores a mind-object that gives rise to pain [displeasure],
one explores a mind-object that gives rise to equanimity

Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta

the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;

Pahāna Sutta
In the methods mentioned above, the 1st can be dangerous (from most dangerous to the lesser dangerous ones), if you develop aversion towards form, due to the pratice. This is what happened to the monks who committed suicide. They got repulsed by their own body. Meditation on repulsiveness is to bring balance to your mind (being equanimous know it is impermanent regardless of the mental reaction) than moving from one polarity to another (i.e., reflexively seeing beauty and develop craving to reflexively seeing repulsiveness and developing aversion). Developing Insight is the safest way to practice this form of meditation as you are not trying to adjust you reactive / reflexive response of the mind with the risk of overdoing it. A experienced teacher may help detect if you have overdone it and reduce the risk.
Also see: Patikulamanasikara, Vipallasa Sutta

As a layperson, you can practise 'asubha' without a teacher however you must understand its purpose is to end lust rather than to end life. A stock phrase in the suttas is:

Asubhaṃ bhāvanaṃ bhāvehi. Asubhaṃ hi te bhāvanaṃ bhāvayato yo rāgo so pahīyissati.
Develop the meditation of the unattractive. For when you are developing the meditation of the unattractive, passion/lust will be
  abandoned.
MN 62; MN 118

In my experience, the primary issue/problem with asubha practice, as occured in the Vesali Sutta, is not so much aversion but, instead, the loss of positive regard towards physical forms in such a way that results in perceiving life as having no purpose.
Therefore, the Buddha teaches in the Vesali Sutta that once 'asubha' practise has served its purposes in generating disgust towards the physical body & abolishing lust, the mind should then develop Anapanasati to make the mind peaceful & to direct the mind to develop final gnosis.

The direct danger comes from developing aversion to one's own body and other bodies. In short starting to view your own body and that of others as a "sack of shit" or just a general "sour grapes attitude" towards yourself and others. People have apparently commited suicide as a result of these views.
To avoid it, the contemplation needs to be structured with an element of compassion(Karuṇā) so that bodily vulnerabilities are contemplated and one developes a healthy caring attitute towards the concept of a body. Elements of Metta may be needed to balance out aversion hostility if such was to manifest in behavior. It seems that the aversion does have a natural tendency to manifest itself and a correction from a teacher is usually needed at some point if one is to do it on his own.
If one's mind is powerful enough there can rise alot of visions and signs, which can be used to enter Jhana, but if not done correctly these will be very frightening and uncontrollable and one will go crazy in most cases. IE: Vivid visions of rotting corpses, corpses dragged around, people attacking you etc, not during meditation but during daily life. These states are described as potential complications by Ven. Maha Bua in the book "Wisdom creates Samadhi"
In general it can get tricky, and the meditation is very powerful so there is no saying how a session will affect one. The views can change quickly, changing them back can prove to be difficult.
That being said i think its a wonderful technique if one does it under competent guidance. Preferably someone who has trained it himself and has trained many other people and can react adequately to complications.
I dont think this is something i would recommend to people, i think it has its place and probably is optimal way to train for some personality types if they wanted to train Samatha but in general its not the only option and runs a real, unnecessary risk. I think its worth noting that the bahavior is the last thing to change, views change much faster so by the time the problem behaviors manifest it may be hard to change it back and many teachers wouldnt even know how to do it.


text:
Schopenhauer’s inexplicable disturbance in the heavenly calm of Nirvana?
Arthur Schopenhauer on his famed work titled “On the suffering of the world” relate as quoted below as to how he think Buddhism's doctrine describe how the world of suffering came into being.
Are there any proper Buddhist reference to support his claims? Is in Samsara beginning-less cycle? And can there be any inexplicable disturbance in Nirvana?

According to the doctrines of Buddhism, the world came into being as
  the result of some inexplicable disturbance in the heavenly calm of
  Nirvana, that blessed state obtained by expiation, which had endured
  so long a time — the change taking place by a kind of fatality.

Studies in Pessimism,On the Sufferings of the World

Perhaps Mr. Schopenhauer had something in mind similar to this description by one of my teachers (not related to Buddhism per se): There are two real things - the Void (like shunyata), and Experience (everything that can be known). In the beginning was only the Void, but "the Void can't know itself", so it gave rise to Experience. So, the 'disturbance' is completely explicable, although we may not be able to comprehend it. I don't think that it is worthwhile to waste any effort on beginning stories like these, but they can help take the mind off of the question, by giving a plausible answer.

There is a similar question here: What is the starting of Samsara?.
I would be surprised if there was any Buddhist reference supporting Schopenhauer's claim that "the world came into being as a result of some disturbance in the heavenly calm of Nirvana." To me, this statement even sounds "plain weird."
Samsara refers to two phenomena:

A place
The contaminated aggregates

In Buddhism, the expression "the world" might refer to either, depending on the context -- see What does the word “world” mean in the Buddhist context? In either case, although it is said that the world is produced due to karma and afflictions, it is usually said to be without beginning. There are countless traditional texts and authoritative teachings establishing this statement. Here are a few:
In Cutting the Root of Samsara, Lama Zopa Rinpoche says:

[Suffering] comes from the past karma created by the self-cherishing
  thought and it is also dependent on our present-life attitude as well.
  From beginningless rebirth, it's been like this.

The Abhidharma Sutra says:

It is said: "Though beginningless, it entails an end -  What is
  naturally pure and consists of permanent dharmas  Is not seen, since
  it is obscured by a beginningless cocoon[...]

The third Karmapa's commentary to it reads:

Consequently, though samsara is beginningless, once the reality[...]

There are four types of nirvana. Without going in details, nirvana is the final analytical cessation achieved in dependence upon a union of calm abiding (shamata) and special insight (actual vipassana) directly apprehending the nature of reality, emptiness. According to Mahayana, abiding nirvana is the complete and definitive abandonment of afflictive obscurations while non-abiding nirvana is the complete and definitive abandonment of afflictive and knowledge obscurations. There is no disturbance "in" nirvana.
It is definitely not like we ever abided in nirvana and subsequently "fell" from it. There is no such "genesis" in Buddhism.

Digha Nikaya 27 https://suttacentral.net/en/dn27 is a 'Genesis' within classical Buddhist thought, and it gives a glimpse into how Samsara grows and prospers, so in a way giving people access away from it into a stable Nibbana. Bear in mind this account is one of the 62 discounted in the Brahmajala Sutta https://suttacentral.net/en/dn1 - and is therefore, in my opinion, not the core teaching of the Buddha, which is the understanding of stress, its origin, and cessation.
The Buddha never claimed a beginning for Samsara. It is not 'a circle', without a beginning, but simply not evident.

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

(dunno the reference)
'This whole mass of suffering' starts with ignorance in the 12 links  https://suttacentral.net/en/dn15
Nibbana is beyond coming and going, beyond conceptual construction, as Nagarjuna would say.

There can not be an inexplicable disturbance in nibbana because there are no conditions with nibbana. Nibbana is an experiencial state of mind.

+1. I agree and good answer. Maybe you could further improve content-quality by adding a sutta reference describing Nibbana?

The Brahmanistic folk-lore in Digha Nikaya 27 is probably the closest to Arthur Schopenhauer's viewpoint. However, DN 27 does not support Schopenhauer's viewpoint because it states:

Hoti kho so, vāseṭṭha, samayo yaṃ kadāci karahaci dīghassa addhuno accayena ayaṃ loko vivaṭṭati. Vivaṭṭamānevivaṭṭa loke yebhuyyena sattā
ābhassarakāyā cavitvā itthattaṃ āgacchanti. Tedha honti manomayā
  pītibhakkhā sayaṃpabhā antalikkhacarā subhaṭṭhāyino ciraṃ
  dīghamaddhānaṃ tiṭṭhanti.
There comes a time, Vāseṭṭha, when, sooner or later, after the lapse of a long, long period, this world passes away [devolves]. And when this happens,
  beings have mostly been reborn in [shifted to] the World of Radiance; and there
  they dwell, made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous,
  traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a
  long, long period of time.

This 'Abhassara World' seems to be the purest state found in DN 27, which equates to the 2nd meditative jhana (rather than is Nibbana), for example:

Again, there is the case where an individual, with the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, enters & remains in the second jhana:
  rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free
  from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. He savors
  that, longs for that, finds satisfaction through that. Staying there —
  fixed on that, dwelling there often, not falling away from that — then
  when he dies he reappears in conjunction with the Abhassara devas. The
  Abhassara devas, monks, have a life-span of two eons. AN 4.123

**

Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu... abides in the second jhana...this is the... world (lokassa) of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa). MN
  79

Also, in this Abhassara state/world, there is the idea or perception of "beings" ("sattā"), which can only occur in 'samsaric' becoming fueled by ignorance & craving.

....beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are roaming around & wandering on.
SN 22.99

**

'A being (sattā),' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception... fabrications...
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
  being.'
SN 23.3

Therefore, this purest state of Abhassara in DN 27 is not Nibbana nor it is Buddhist thought. It is Brahmanistic folk-lore, as stated in the sutta, as follows:

Surely, Vāseṭṭha, the brahmins have quite forgotten the past (the ancient lore) when they say so?


text:
Are Therevada's cosmology and the Mahanaya's sutras physically impossible?
Are Therevada's cosmology and the Mahanaya's sutras physically, rather than only psychologically, plasusible?
I read about the former in the abhidharmakosabhasyam, about all the hells and heavens that await us. And the Mahayana sutras often include reference to e.g. celestial bodhisattvas.
I'm skeptical that these things have physical, rather than psychological, truth, empirical (we've this heaven) or otherwise (we have evidence that these heavens exist). As with with classical georgraphy, and history. My specific question is:

do we have good reason to believe that physics will end up allowing a Buddhist timeline of events?

If you're sceptical (as I am) about all the gods, dragons, gandharvas, kimnaras etc. which appear in Mahayana sutras, then just look on them as symbolic.

Buddhism is a definite, and it is the same Dhamma preached by all Buddhas. Popular science is always changing with new theory replacing old ones. But having said this some similar theories have emerged:

Parallel universe - Multiverse
Multiple worlds - Planetary habitability
Cyclical universe - Cyclic model, One Big Bang, or were there many?, Multiple Big Bang theory could bring 'Copernican revolution' says Astronomer Royal

Also might be of interest:

Loka: The Buddha’s Formulation of the Universe by Richard R. Crutcher
Parallel universes by Piya Tan

I suppose one may wonder about multiverses we don't, and maybe never will, have a physical theory of. That we can imagine strange heavens, does not mean that they must exist, IMVHO, but it leaves that door open, whatever time it could open. So I accept your answer, I think it's a good one tbh

There are two ways in which physics could disallow a Buddhist form of cosmology:

A law of nature which creates measurable predictions in our universe (the human realm of existence) is discovered, and this law contradicts a prediction of Theravadin cosmology.
We gain the ability to measure new phenomena such as interactions with another realm or measuring a beings' mindstream. With these new measurements we can test a prediction of Theravadin cosmology and find that the prediction is false.

For the first point, Theravadin cosmology doesn't contradict any known laws (e.g. conservation of energy or non-decreasing entropy). Does Theravadin cosmology make any further predictions about things which we can measure but don't yet have a complete theory of? If so then there's a chance we could develop our theory and find Theravadin cosmology to be impossible. If not then we can't use this approach to question Theravadin cosmology.
For the second point, we really have to speculate about what we might or might not be able to measure in the future. Because this is based on speculation I don't think this counts as a good reason to believe that physics will end up allowing a Buddhist timeline of events.

Relational quantum mechanics is the mathematical description of co-dependent origination in my opinion, really neat too. It doesn't prove the cosmology but does seem to point to the accuracy or the main insights of the Buddha.
If you are talking about the cosmology word for word (like Digha Nikaya 27) then it would be a stretch - a lot of conceptual construction. The inflation/deflation Universe is cool though, and sounds like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce..
The Multiverse interpretation of QM (somewhat essentialist), gives for an interesting take on transmigration, in that the 'copies' can't be said to be either the same or different to each other.. Seems like a plausible image of transmigration to me.

The question: "Are Therevada's cosmology and the Mahanaya's sutras physically plasusible?" is impossible to answer & outside of the scope of Buddha-Dhamma, which is described as:

This Dhamma is to be seen here & now, immediate, inviting inspection, pertinent, to be realized/verified by the observant for themselves. MN
  38

SN 35.23 states:

The eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, mind & mind objects. This, monks, is called the
  All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe
  another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his
  statement, would be unable to explain and would be put
  to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range.

The various realms in the Pali suttas include psychological examples therefore obviously this is all that can be known. For example:

It is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the world, the origination of
  the world, the cessation of the world and the path of practice leading
  to the cessation of the world. AN 4.45

And what is the origination of the world? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness. The meeting of the three is
  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. This is
  the origination of the world. SN 12.44

Follow not the vulgar way; live not in heedlessness; hold not false views; linger not long in worldly existence. Blind is the world; here
  only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the
  net, go to realms of bliss. Lokavagga

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. And what is the cause by which kamma comes
  into play? Sense contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play. And
  what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in
  hell (niraya), kamma to be experienced in the realm of animals (
  tiracchānayoni), kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry
  shades (pettivisaya), kamma to be experienced in the human world
  (manussaloka), kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas
  (devaloka). This is called the diversity in kamma. AN 6.63

I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable;
  unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound
  one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose …
  Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object
  one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with
  the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely;
  disagreeable, never agreeable. SN 35.135

Here, Udayi, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual desires and thoughts of demerit abides in the first jhana: Overcoming thoughts and thought
  processes and the mind in one point internally appeased, without
  thoughts and thought processes abides in the second jhana. Again with
  equanimity to joy and detachment, feeling pleasant with the body too,
  abides in the third jhana. To this the noble ones say abiding in
  pleasantness with equanimity. Udayi, this is the course of actions,
  for realising the world of only pleasant feelings (ekantasukhassa
  lokassa).MN 79

Bhikkhus, there are three kinds of persons found existing in the world. What three? (1) “Here, bhikkhus, some person generates
  afflictive bodily activities, afflictive verbal activities, and
  afflictive mental activities. In consequence, he reappears
  (upapajjati) in an afflictive world. When he reappears in an
  afflictive world, afflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by
  afflictive contacts, he feels afflictive feelings, exclusively
  painful, as in the case of hell-beings. (2) “Someone else generates
  unafflictive bodily activities, unafflictive verbal activities, and
  unafflictive mental activities. In consequence, he reappears in an
  unafflictive world. When he reappears in an unafflictive world,
  unafflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by unafflictive
  contacts, he feels unafflictive feelings, exclusively pleasant, as in
  the case of the gods of refulgent glory. (3) “Still another generates
  bodily activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive, verbal
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive, and mental
  activities that are both afflictive and unafflictive. In consequence,
  he reappears in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive. When
  he reappears in a world that is both afflictive and unafflictive, both
  afflictive and unafflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by both
  afflictive and unafflictive contacts, he feels both afflictive and
  unafflictive feelings, mingled pleasure and pain, as in the case of
  human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower worlds. These,
  bhikkhus, are the three kinds of persons found existing in the world.
  AN 3.23

Sensual desire… ill-will (anger)… sloth & drowsiness… restlessness & anxiety… uncertainty is an obstacle, a hindrance that overwhelms the
  mind and weakens wisdom… when a monk has not abandoned these five
  obstacles… for him to understand what is for his own benefit, to
  understand what is for the benefit of others, to understand what is
  for the benefit of both, to realize a superior human (manussa) state
  (dhammā), a truly noble distinction in knowledge & vision: that is
  impossible. AN 5.51

Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole
  than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the
  human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no
  conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome
  activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual
  devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because,
  bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The
  noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the
  cessation of suffering. SN 56.47

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from
  actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal
  birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident. AN
  6.39

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a
  teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the wives of
  other honored persons. AN 2.9

Now on that occasion the wanderers of other persuasions had come together in a gathering and were sitting, discussing many kinds of
  bestial (animal) topics, making a great noise and racket. AN 10.93

Beings (sattā) are few who, when they pass away from the animal realm (tiracchānayoniyā) are reborn (paccājāyanti) among humans
  (manussesu)… those beings are more numerous are reborn in hell…. For
  what reason? They have not realised the Four Noble Truths. SN 56.102
  to 131

There are these four kinds of generation. What are the four? Egg-born generation, womb-born generation, moisture-born generation and
  spontaneous generation. What is egg-born generation? There are these
  beings born by breaking out of the shell of an egg; this is called
  egg-born generation. What is womb-born generation? There are these
  beings born by breaking out from the caul; this is called womb-born
  generation. What is moisture-born generation? There are these beings
  born in a rotten fish, in a rotten corpse, in rotten dough, in a
  cesspit, or in a sewer; this is called moisture-born generation. What
  is spontaneous generation? There are gods (devā) and denizens of hell
  (nerayikā) and certain (ekacce ca) human beings (manussā) and some
  (ekacce ca) destined to suffer (vinipāta); this is called spontaneous
  generation. MN 12

i've edited the question to clarify


text:
Is the emptiness of persons an emptiness of essence or just substance?
Is the emptiness of persons an emptiness of their essence, which (I think) would be a defining characteristic, like how "fire" is always "hot", or just substance?
Do any Buddhist texts say no?

In the Pali suttas, 'emptiness' ('sunnata') refers to emptiness of 'persons' or 'self' rather than emptiness of defining characteristics, which is why the Pali suttas state the five aggregates are empty, or the sense spheres are empty, or the elements (dhatu) are empty.
'Consciousness' does lose its defining characteristic of 'cognition'; the earth element does not lose its defining characteristic of solidity; the fire element does not lose its defining characteristic of heat; the Nibbana element does not lose its defining characteristic of peacefulness.

Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of
  a self or of anything pertaining to a self?
The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of
  anything pertaining to a self.
The ear is empty...
The nose is empty...
The tongue is empty...
The body is empty...
The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a
  self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the
  world is empty.
SN 35.85

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold,
  deformed by heat, deformed by hunger, deformed by thirst, deformed by
  contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is
  deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling. And what does it feel? It feels
  pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pain-nor-pleasure. ‘It
  feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called perception. And what does it
  perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it
  perceives white. ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called
  perception.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call them formations? ‘They construct the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called formations. And what
  is the conditioned that they construct? They construct conditioned
  form as form; they construct conditioned feeling as feeling; they
  construct conditioned perception as perception; they construct
  conditioned formations as formations; they construct conditioned
  consciousness as consciousness. ‘They construct the conditioned,’
  bhikkhus, therefore they are called formations.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness. And what does it
  cognize? It cognizes sour, it cognizes bitter, it cognizes pungent, it
  cognizes sweet, it cognizes sharp, it cognizes mild, it cognizes
  salty, it cognizes bland. ‘It cognizes,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is
  called consciousness.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
SN 22.79

And what is the earth property? The earth property can be either
  internal or external. What is the internal earth property? Anything
  internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by
  nutriment]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh,
  tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen,
  lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach,
  feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid,
  and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both
  the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply
  earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with
  right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my
  self.'
MN 62

in what way if any are the five aggregates a self, one without substance i mean

'self' is an idea or thought concept. refer to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.081.than.html

hmm thanks. what does it refer to, everything about the world??

'self' is a personal pronoun. it does not related to things, like 'clouds', 'sky', 'earth', 'consciousness', etc. 'self' is the sense of 'me', 'mine', 'I', 'you', 'them', 'us', 'ours', etc. these personal references or beliefs cause suffering. but the 'sky' or a 'cloud' does not cause suffering, until it becomes "my cloud". regards

so what does it refer it ?

Sabbo pajjalito loko,
  sabbo loko pakampito, pakampito
The entire world is burning, the entire world is vibrating, vibrating.

Source: Sīsūpacālātherīgāthā, Upacālāsutta
The entire physical structure and entire mental structure is is just wavelets of vibration and heat. There is not solidity are where, thus can be considered empty.
Also see: Closing Talk by S.N. Goenka (and Presentation of the First Volumes of Tipitaka in Devanagari script)


text:
What is this picture?
Even after referring to several books I simply cannot understand what this picture is depicting. I am not a Buddhist and am hence finding it difficult to decipher.

I found it on this page, whose title is, "The Buddha of Purification with consort". The description on that page says it depicts a manifestation of

"unity of the fully developed masculine and feminine energy: the complete purity and highest state of enlightenment".

If that's an accurate description, could you provide the explanation of that phrase?
The Buddha himself didn't want to get entangled in samsara, let alone unite with the other sex; so isn't this contradictory?

It's best to mention where (on which web site page) you found that image?

http://www.tibetan-buddhist-art.com/heruka-vajrasattva-by-carmen-mensink/

The page says, "The Buddha of Purification with consort" and says it depicts a manifestation of "unity of the fully developed masculine and feminine energy: the complete purity and highest state of enlightenment". I guess that doesn't answer your question though. So can you say what further question you have about that? Or do you want to ask for explanation of that description/phrase? Or are you asking for explanation of the various details depicted/symbolized in the art?

no..no..you have quite aptly answered the question.thank you!!

but it would be nice if you could provide the explanation of the phrase?buddha himself didn't want to get entageld in samsar,let alone unite with the other sex.so isn't this contradictory

I added the [tag:tibetan-buddhism] tag: I assume you're asking for answers from within the perspective of Tibetan Buddhism (since you're asking for an explanation of what's depicted by Tibetan art).

A related topic: Can somebody explain me this Kalachakra print?

I mean you no offense, but If you don't have a highest yoga tantric initiation, there is no need for you to "decipher it".

It's very dangerous to read a layman's writing who trying to use his own words and understanding to "tell" the reader an "occult" practice - for it is occult obviously the secret is concealed from the outsider, except for the teacher and his chosen student.

@Bhumishu米殊 Are you saying that the OP should have known that this topic is "obviously occult"?

@ChrisW what is OP? i'm just 'exclamation-mark'ing the flood of the internet making any type of "know-ledge" easy, cheap and handy.

@Bhumishu米殊 The OP is "littlemonk", the original poster. It sounded like maybe you were saying this question shouldn't have been asked; but I don't think there's an way for the general public (or "outsiders" as you call them) to know what is and isn't secret, is there? Or even to know that anything is secret.

fellow buddhists,i've learnt my lesson and henceforth refrain from asking such open ended questions.

@ChrisW OP = Original Poster, learnt, thank you. No, littlemonk has all the credits and rights to ask such question. An "outsider" is anyone who doesn't get "initiated"/ acquired the true knowledge, the post writer is she (I read the webpage) an "initiated"/ acquired? Thus everyone is writing something about anything. But this knowledge is not cooking recipe, if someone writing it on the public arena, not one's own dairy locked in one's own drawer, there should at least be a hint that the writer's words are "hearsay". However not everyone regards such sense of ethic.

That would be yab-yum.  I think the wikipedia entry will more than answer your question.  You can find that here.  The one thing the entry only hints at, however, is that this is an actual practice in Tibetan Tantra.  In fact, it's generally what comes to mind, for a popular audience anyway, when the word "tantra" is used.  I think it's an exercise in futility to try and justify this practice according to Theravada or Mahayana ethics.  Within a tantric context, it just is what it is.


text:
Can there be "one day becoming a fully-awakened Buddha" after Parinibbana?
The Buddha declare to venerable Sâriputra in the Lotus Sutra that he will become a Buddha one day as it read below, but Sariputta has achieved Parinibbana. Can there be becoming a fully-awakened Buddha one day after Parinibbana?

...Again, Sâriputra, at a future period, after innumerable,
  inconceivable, immeasurable Æons, when thou shalt have learnt the true
  law of hundred thousand myriads of kotis of Tathâgatas, showed
  devotion in various ways, and achieved the present Bodhisattva-course,
  thou shalt become in the world a Tathâgata, &c., named Padmaprabha,
  endowed with science and conduct, a Sugata, a knower of the world, an
  unsurpassed tamer of men, a master of gods and men, a Lord Buddha.

I do not agree with the down voting of an inquiry of this nature without constructive/refining commentary or an attempt to better understand the nature of the inquiry.  Such down voting is a disservice to the community.

I have no idea why this question get so horribly down voted. I suspect it's due to angry Theravadins who see this as being against Theravada orthodoxy of final permanent Nibanna.
The fact is the Lotus Sutra aims at deliberately over turning such conception about Arahatship,  Nirvana and Buddhahood. Mahayana Buddhism relies on Prajnaparamita sutras as to establish that there is no final permanent nirvana nor the fact that Arhats are merely to remain as Arhats, but should aspire to Buddhahood with the full capacity of a Buddha. The core doctrine used to explain this view is through the understanding of dependent generation, which consequentially result in the impermanence and hence emptiness and non dual nature of any phenomena.
In the Lotus Sutra, it is therefore posited that Sariputra (Sariputta) shall one day attain full and complete unsurpassed awakening as a completely realized Buddha. The sutra further establish that only with such view, would they be True Arhats.
The sutra further explained that it is through skillful means that the Buddha teach sentient beings to give up their desires and attain Nirvana. Because most beings want to end their suffering but are afraid of taking on the challenge to become a Buddha. This is compared to the story of a rich man whose son have ran away from home, and now becomes a poor labourer. Now the poor man eventually reunite but no longer recognize his own father and is afraid of him thinking he's unworthy of being equal to the rich man. The rich man assigned the poor son various tasks until he gained his confidence and can truly inherit his father's legacy. The rich man is the Buddha who assigned the poor man that is sentient beings work, I.e. the way to end suffering Nibanna. But they should not be content with merely Nirvana but should aspire to be truly equal with the rich man e.g. the Buddha.

Thank you for the explanation. May be in future I will add prefix “in the Mahayana tradition” in all questions related to Lotus Suta. That way those from other school/s may avoid reading the question through and through and feel time wasted.

Find out where in Tipitaka any of these things are being said by Buddha. There are more references contradicting Mahayana teachings than supporting. Now you see why an illusion such as Mahayana is being downvoted?

The Abhiddhamma wasn't spoken by the historical Buddha, I don't see Theravadins having qualms accepting this as Buddhadharma. In fact Mahayana exist to counter the ontological claims of Hinayanist schools.

Yes. Most Mahayana schools posit the one final vehicle (ekayana) and posit that everyone, in time, will become a fully enlightened buddha. As to the so-called Hinayana arhat, it is said that he has to enter the Mahayana path from the path of accumulation and go all the way to the path of no-more-learning, buddhahood. He has to go through the Mahayana path of accumulation, preparation, seeing, meditation.
According to Mahayana tenets, by way of generating bodhicitta, one enters the Mahayana path, whether one is established in Parinibbana (because the continuum is not severed), or abiding in nirvana with remainder, or an ordinary being.
Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen's commentary on Shantideva's Bodhisattvacharyavatara says:

In comparison to someone who enters the Mahayana path directly, a
  Hinayana arhat faces more problems. In order to achieve
  self-liberation he has been meditating for a long time. He has gained
  a level of bliss and great happiness. Because of this habit of bliss
  and happiness it is very difficult for him to think about the
  suffering of sentient beings. It is not a spontaneous tendency for him
  to think about others´ suffering. So bodhicitta is not coming easily
  for him. Therefore, it is advisable to enter the Mahayana directly,
  even though it is not that easy, instead of going through the complete
  liberation of a Hinayana arhat and then enter the Mahayana. To
  illustrate this, there is a story about a practitioner who met
  Shariputra. Shariputra wanted to tell him about the achievement of a
  Hinayana arhat. Later on the practitioner met Manjushri who told him
  about the views of the Mahayana. Based on that he developed wrong view
  and as a result was reborn in the hells. What happened next is that,
  even though he was reborn in the hells, he still had the karmic
  imprint that connected him to the Mahayana path. Therefore it is said
  that even though he spent some time in the hells, it was still quicker
  for him to achieve the state of a buddha, than if he had gone through
  the stages shown by Shariputra. Therefore, Buddha Shakyamuni praised
  Manjushri for being so skilful in seeing that the person would react
  in a very heavy way, propelling him to the lower realms, yet that in
  this way he would achieve buddhahood quicker.

You might further study texts on 'Grounds and Paths' (Tib. Salam) as well as Asanga's bodhisattvabhumi.


text:
Which Buddhists say that there are no conventionally existent wholes, and for what reasons?
Which Buddhists say that there are no conventionally existent wholes, and what's the best reason for the claim?
My "whole" I mean something more than the sum of its parts, an object that does not reduce to its parts.

I do not understand your question. What do you mean with "wholes", to start with?

@TenzinDorje so e.g. if X is a whole with parts Y and Z then an analysis of X can fill in for an analysis of Y and Z. the rest of the question is just gumpf, so don't worry about it

Could you please elaborate on what is meant on these words: conventironally existent, wholes, inexistent practice, annihilationism -Thank you :) Metta :-)

@Uuu they are standard terms in the scholarship.

conventionally existent = good for empirical prediction. wholes = a means to make sense of parts that isn't the part itself. inexistent = without being or not to be found. practice = meditation. annihilationism = the idea that there is nothing left of the conventional self when we die [note: this last one means that there is, exists, no conventional self because any "self" must be said to be completely different each moment]. my apologies if any of those have unusual definitions @Uuu

Yes, but standard terms have standard variations, especially when your trying to explain something in Buddhism and  I'm not a scholar. Scholars are issued a standard library of terms at what point?

Still trying to figure out what is going on here but annihilationism? , we are as annihilated in death as we are in life aren't we?

Any sect of Buddhism which emphasises the emptiness of all things probably says that there are no existent wholes but some sects would say that there are conventionally existent wholes. In other words, we can only talk about their existence from a conventional perspective.
Here's a nice description which talks about a car's existence and its emptiness

You're walking through town and you get to a street where you see a car. Is there a car? Sure thing! That's why we look left and right before crossing the street, and it would be dangerous to say that "there is no car" (without further explanation).
But if we take one car aside and take a closer look, there's no such thing as a car. The windshield isn't it, the wheels aren't it, the chassis isn't it, neither is the engine. What we call a car is just a bundle, a construct not only physically but conceptually.

It's a point which can be difficult to convey. Something is there which will hit you when you cross the street, we call this a car. On the other hand, if we take that car and dismantle it into its pieces we can not find any piece which is the essential car-like-nature.
This is the same as when we look at the self. We can investigate all five aggregates (body, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) and there is no inerrant soul or "me" to be found. However, we can still talk about the "me" existing by convention.

There are conventionally existent objects. Whether you call them wholes or parts does not make a difference, since a part is also a whole and a whole a part. For instance, the petals of a flower are a part of the flower, but a petal is a whole [as a petal].
Whatever is an object found by a conventional valid cognizer (such as the eye-consciousness, the ear-consciousness, and so forth) exists conventionally. Since I can see you, you are conventionally existent.
However, no object can withstands ultimate analysis. Another way of saying is that a cognizer analyzing the ultimate will find only emptiness of true existence. For instance, you will not be found by a cognizer validly analyzing "are you your body? are you your anger? are you your feelings? etc." but you are found by an eye-consciousness (since I see you). In the same way that sound is not apprehended by an eye-consciousness, no conventional truth is found by a mind of ultimate analysis.
That is the Madhyamika-Prasangika view. This being said, there is no Buddhist school that posits there is no conventionally existent objects.

do you have a reference for that last claim? sorry tio ask, i'm just skeptical, if by object you mean "whole". and maybe even if you mean "is" to be "exist". is there really no "school" which says e.g. that atoms don't conventionally exist, only appear in illusions? that wouldn't entail that all talk of atoms is likewise not conventionally true, i think

My main references on the topic belong to the textual genre of 'Presentations of Tenets'. For instance, Jetsün Chökyi Gyaltsen's Presentation of Tenets (a short one).

@user3293056 "Atoms don't conventionally exist" does not mean "wholes don't conventionally exist", so it is another question. Now, there are refutations of directionnally partless particles, but these are not atoms. There are also refutations of external establishment, but I do not think it answers your question.

"does not mean" i wasn't saying it did.

@user3293056 What were you saying then? You asked a questions about wholes. I take it a flower is a whole, but it is also a part of a field. A leaf is a whole, but it is also a part of a flower, and so forth. My answer was: no school posits that wholes (objects) do not exist conventionally. Positing so would be claiming they are utterly non-existent, and would be nihilist.

what was i saying where? when i asked about wholes i thought i had made it clear in the comments that i wasn't talking about objects but what has been translated as something more than the sum of its parts. denying these isn't nihilsim. nor is denying conventional existence, if by existence we mean something more that appearances. i'll edit the question

maybe i'm confused about how to define "whole", i think i am, but it is the case that some buddhists say that conventional existence is an illusion.

@user3293056 since an existent is an object of knowledge, if "a whole" exists, then it is an object. Furthermore, in general, in the Indo-Tibetan traditions at least, claiming that an existent does not exist is a form of nihilism. For instance, saying "I don't exist, you don't exist, my computer does not exist." It is not the case that some Buddhist schools say that conventional truths are illusions. They are "like an illusion" in that they do not appear the way they exist, however. Some schools also say they do not exist externally, but this does not mean they are an illusion.

"then it is an object" but it doesn't follow that they exist unless every object we can think of does. i'm not sure what the "indo-tibetan" tradition is, but it is the case that some buddhist schools say that conventional existence is an illusion.

The standard Buddhist picture is that

only momentary particulars are caused,

so given that

only causal things have any existence,

it follows that wholes have no existence. You can find arguments for these two claims pretty easy.

More than that, all existent, whether whole or part, to be worded conventionally must get the attributes of the 6 senses. Thus the Buddhist instead stops arguing whether there's existent independently existed outside of all the senses, which is the opposite of the scientist who is investigating the outside "objects", or the non-dividable "whole", in your word. Or the Trancendental, in Kant.

As @Tenzin Dorje used the flower analogy, to add is that, if you delete color and shape (eye vijnana 眼識), texture (body vijnana 身識), scent (nose vijnana 鼻識); taste (tongue vijnana 舌識), "flower is silent" (ear vijnana 耳識) and "it is a flower!" (cognition vijnana 意識), then the flower or the petal doesn't exist at all!


text:
Discussion with Chih-Tao in the Platform Sutra

... does not have the appearance of origination and does not have the appearance of cessation, much less the cessation of origination and cessation. Thus, nirvana is right here. But although it is right here, there is no
  concept of it being right here, which is why it is called everlasting
  bliss. This bliss is not experienced by anyone, nor is it not
  experienced by anyone. So how could anyone say there is one body much
  less...
ordinary fools call it death
other sects claim it's the end
those who follow the Hinayana
think of it as non action....

From Red Pine's translation page 283.
Are ordinary fools right to call "Maha Nirvana" death: is that an aspect of it?

wow, this quoted English Version of Platform Sutra is so blurred, one can't make any sense out of reading these sentences.

@Bhumishu米殊 sorry, the book i have has no preview on google, and it seems a lot to type out

i'm in doubt of this translation. the whole thing about Chan (zen) or Buddhist emptiness like Diamond Sutra is - to make the wordings like saying nothing and rejecting everything... this is my raw impression reading some Eng sutra related articles. But this is not.

red pine is an important translator! if you like, answer with a different translation, that would be amazing, especially if you can keep the question. i didn't get that just "rejecting everything" sense at all, really! @Bhumishu米殊

i just find the piece about this Chih-Tao (志道)'s Q&A, let me read and revert...

@Bhumishu米殊 you can edit the question however you like. the key point for the question is the first lineated phrase, tho i also like the phrase about it being "right here, there is no concept of it being right here", so would welcome a correction. cheers

it's rather long thus put in the Answer. my answer is just a reference. after i read the original Chinese Classical Platform Sutra's words, i would have much doubt about how those you quoted could convey the correct meanings of Great Huineng's teaching. unfortunately your favourable phrase "right here.... right here" was completely an alien wordings, when referring to the original ;)-

From the Platform Sutra in Classical Chinese:

T48n2008_p0357a19(05)║...剎那無有生相，剎那無有滅相，
  T48n2008_p0357a20(04)║更無生滅可滅，是則寂滅現前。當現前時，
  T48n2008_p0357a21(05)║亦無現前之量，乃謂常樂。此樂無有受者，亦無不受者，
  T48n2008_p0357a22(01)║豈有一體五用之名？何況更言涅槃禁伏諸法，
  T48n2008_p0357a23(00)║令永不生。斯乃謗佛毀法。聽吾偈曰：
  T48n2008_p0357a24(00)║「無上大涅槃，　　圓明常寂照，
  T48n2008_p0357a25(00)║凡愚謂之死，　　外道執為斷，
  T48n2008_p0357a26(00)║諸求二乘人，　　目以為無作，
  ...

In 'a split second' (ksaṇa (क्षण)) there is no sign (相, logo, form, nama) of arising; in a split second there is no sign of ceasing; further, there is no arising-ceasing [impermanent activities] to be annihilated (extinguished, ceased, terminated, stopped); thus 'absolute annihilation' (寂滅 Nirvana) emerges. When this emerged, it does not have the quality of emerging {亦無現前之量}, thus this is called constant bliss. For this bliss that is not obtainable, nor that is not unobtainable...
The above is equivalent to your quoted "... does not have.... not experienced by anyone". The bold Chinese quote are the words that's been translated.
This comes from the episode about Chih-Tao inquired the 6th Great Huineng his unable to understand the Mahanirvana Sutra (涅槃經), about the "arising-ceasing (or birthing-dying) annihilated, absolute annihilation as the constant bliss" (生滅滅已，寂滅為樂). It's too much too complex to explain in full. In short, in Nirvana, all signs (logos) created or conceived by the intellect and consciousness ceased (extinguished, annihilated). There, it is not even intellect or consciousness. In the whole one Ksana, it is constant bliss, this is Nirvana. Ksana has to be hinted for our intellect and consciousness created the space/time, Ksana is the minimal unit we could infer when using words to explain ideas. In the other way to say, in Nirvana there is no space/time; no space/time, thus no birth/death, for any change must have the element of either space or time, but space/time is an illusion, the absolute is Śūnyatā, Emptiness, it is beyond all the human intellect categories. Therefore "Maha Nirvana" has nothing to do with death. Death is only applicable to body, form, sign, existence, impermenance, and it's viability depended on the Birth.
Remark:
The newly bold are:

無上大涅槃，圓明常寂照，
凡愚謂之死，外道執為斷，
諸求二乘人，目以為無作， ...

These are part of the lines of Buddhist Hymn (偈) given by Great Huineng, to summerize what he taught Chih-Tao. The purpose of Hymns is to let students easily memorize, thus it's always concise, poetic and rhythmic in nature, for at that time people used to learn by heart instead of using CPU for data and search engine!
It goes as:

The unsurpassed Maha Nirvana, Perfect and bright, in constant absolute splendor;
unenlightened laity said that is death {凡愚謂之死}, heretical stuck that is cessation;
those secondary practitioners, regarded it as non-Doing...

In simplicity, Great Huineng commented those laity (your "oridnary fools") said death is Nirvana, which is incorrect.

thanks. a bit disappointed you didn't quote the statement about death and fools, it was the point the rest doesn't seem to be what the red pine translation is saying, i think you're right

@user3293056 u asked: "Are ordinary fools right to call "Maha Nirvana" death: is that an aspect of it?" i said: "Therefore "Maha Nirvana" has nothing to do with death." it's hard to define fool, not to say ordinary fool, neither death nor nirvana, thus i was playing smart by not answering it directly ;). or, i didn't really understand what intrigued u about the notion "death and fools"? maybe u could be more specific...

i saw you answered but you didn't quote, that's all i meant. why i asked the question is somewhat irrelevant, and maybe dumb, but i was wondering a) if death or the end is impossible and b) if that is entailed by maha nirvana

@user3293056 i was a bit rush thus bypassed ur quoted wordings about the "fools", i just added in the remark. to answer ur a) & b), "because of nirvana therefore death/ end is impossible" this analogy doesn't stand. death is, the body deceased, but "I" unharmed, this can be easily realized by doing a mind experiment: if my leg chopped off, is this still "I"? My eyes removed... my head cut... with all these the "I" is unscratched; if my eyes removed although i can't see but my category of seeing is unscratched... this is shown in Surangama Sutra about the undying "self" by the Buddha

agreed it is easy to show but really very very difficult to demonstrate. on your last sentence in your answer, isn't he saying these fools think that nirvana is death?