text:
If devas are real, than why don't they show us themself?
If semigods/devas/dities are their, than why don't they tell us that they do exists, so that people will follow dharma with out doubt?

not to play the fool, but do devas have the dharma, or do humans?

@user3293056 According to MN 26 and Wikipedia, Brahmā Sahāmpati, said to be the most senior of the Mahābrahmās, was the deity who visited the Buddha when he attained enlightenment, and encouraged him to teach the Dharma to humans.

They are around, just that you don't see them. Likewise bacterias are everywhere, you don't see them.
Not seeing/hearing is not existing obviously is scientifically proven false, but people tend to dwell in this fallacy without remorse.
The way to learn is to improve the capacity. Bacterias can be seen by inventing microscope, but the Buddha seen them 2500 years ago. Maybe one day someone can invent devascope to see them; yet again you can learn what Buddha was capable and see them ?year ahead the inventor ~ :D

- The OP asks for elaboration, I extend my answer -
Dialogue for those who's minds are not contaminated by the neo-Buddhist. (Neo-Buddhists - those who believed in their "scientifically-authenticated-Buddha".)
Prelude:
Buddhists from tradition and Buddhists at heart are seeing the emerging of the trend of neo-Buddhism, a Buddhism invented by applying so-called scientific methods, surgical skills and dissecting analysis are callously utilized. Taking the convenient standpoint that Buddhism is a religion/(not a religion) appealed to reasoning, unlike Christianity or other faith-based. Therefore, anything that's not scientifically proven should be stripped, for it's either misunderstanding/mis-translating the words, primitive superstitions or later additions by fanatic religious... etc. In a nutshell, they want to reduce the Buddha to be a merely human, any feature of Buddha a Buddha is committing suicidal scientific fraud.
Traditional Buddhist and Buddhist at heart knows the Buddha is the Buddha, yet Buddha is also human therefore it completed the teaching that we humans can become the Buddha, or be liberated forever like the Arhat/Arahant by dwelling in Nirvana.
The blindness of the neo-Buddhist is that they equal reasoning with science. Science is only one of the many methods for searching the ultimate, science is not the ultimate. Reasoning includes scientific methods, but scientific methods not the totality of reasoning. Buddha's teaching is the teaching from the ultimate, he is not searching for the ultimate; reasoning is a method taught by the Buddha to realize the ultimate by oneself, reasoning itself is not the ultimate.
We are seeing science characterized by the ability to re-adjust itself, such as Newtonian physics disproved by Einstein's Relativity. The day will come when E=mc2 being disproved (I said the c, speed of light, is false. How do I know? I learnt it from the Sutras - not directly the Sutra with explicitly this saying but one has to really get it). This is the goodie of science - being able to adjust; the very way science survived is by disproving itself. Applicable is this rebuttal logic used by the Epicurean refuter on "pursuing happiness is the very reason happiness will never be obtained by the pursuer", likewise science is refuted. We can never predict what science will come up next, but surely can predict whatever come up next will be refuted late; hence a sound mind can infer thus see clearly that "scientific methods" we called nowadays can never obtain the ultimate. Therefore, can we trust scientific authentication? You know better than me. Do you trust someone who come up day after another day, time after another time, telling you, "Sorry, what I said before was wrong, in fact it should be so and so...?"
The Dialogue:
Why don't the Devas show us themselves? I don't think I can answer this question on behalf of the Devas, or as the envoy of the Devas ;). Ultimately one should get his own answer by knowing it directly himself. But I put in my two cents to enrich this investigation:
A) It's really as hinted above, they are around but we don't see them since we don't have the ability to see them, nor it's their duty to let themselves be seen by us.
Here is the incident I read in the Vinaya, that may illustrate this: A Bhiksu/Bhikkhu chopped down certain village sacred tree for building his little hut, the tree Deva's kid just playing around that tree accidentally being chopped off his finger. The tree Deva, devastated, went straight to complain to the Buddha... You see, here this Bhiksu is definitely unable to see, if, for example, he didn't get accomplishment in Dhyana/Jhana. Else he wouldn't chop off the Deva kid's finger, nor it's for the kid to make himself visible in normal circumstance; the Deva didn't file complaint to him directly since he wasn't able to see him.
B) Only with special cause that the Deva to the human can be seen.
A case to illustrate this is from a linked Sutta I read in this forum. In it talked about a Bhikkhu visited by a Deva requested to bring him to the Buddha for asking a question, for the Buddha was surrounded by many higher Devas he didn't have a chance to get near. The reason for this Deva to seek for his help was due to in eons lives before, they were relatives... or something like that.
Therefore, there must be cause (Karma) to fulfill the criteria. Likewise, Aishwarya Rai won't come to see everyone in Mumbai, but she may come to see her friend if she has one there.
C) It's not allowed for the Devas to take "mass-appearing" to induce people following Dharma/Dhamma, for it violated the rule:
(i) Another incident I read in Vinaya, about Maudgalyāyana/Moggallāna being accused faking Dhyana/Jhana for he told the rest that State A would win the battle against State B for he saw the Yaksas (city protecting Deva of State A) winning the other Yaksas in their battle. But it turned out the opposite for while M. reporting this the battle of the Devas made a significant turn...
(ii) Another case I read from the Sutra, said Śakra/Sakka paying tribute to the Buddha for Buddha's teaching turned more people to good hence it increased his citizens decreased the Asura's citizens.
Therefore it shows that the Deva worlds and human world are synchronizing, the battle of the Devas is playing out in the human world, so is the human world reflected back to the higher realm. Imagine, if the Devas made their mass-appearing to induce followers, then the Asuras will do the same, then the battlefield will be shifted to the human world... can the human world sustain such turmoil? (I think the Mahābhārata was such event happened eons ago when Planet Earth was the celestial realm, or semi-celestial realm, before it degraded to be only suitable for humans).
(iii) Last, the Parinirmita-vaśavartin (pleasure from other's pleasure), the highest of the celestial realm ruled by desire, the Lord of this realm is Mara, named Pāpman (Pali: Pāpiya or Pāpimant), his sustaining and joy is produced by the desirous activities carried out in the lower realms, particularly the human realm, he won't allow this mass-appearing, he would prefer humans staying in Samsara, being under his rule.
Ok, it's a bit too sophisticated for it related to ample studies in the Sutras, Vinayas and Sastras to understand, especially many of the sources are not available in English.
The above is very pictorial, vivid, narratively dramatic... for in the tangible it manifested as people, places, events... but in the intangible, it should be decipher differently.
... is it enough now to buy a Big Mac meal in McDonald's, huh?

they maybe around, and maybe humans can't see them. but my question was why they/ devas don't communicate with us? are devas unaware or unconcious who don't know of their own existance? why don't they communicate with humans? are just just energies of universe or something which is self aware?

When you walk in a park and find some ants walking in a row, bend down and look at the ants and observe what they are doing. Then wave your hands at them and say, "ants, how are you today?". They don't respond back. If you place your finger somewhere near their path, they would ignore it and continue onwards.
You would find that the ants are completely oblivious of your presence.
Similarly, the devas or brahmas who are said to be superior to humans, may be watching us and attempting to interact with us, but we may be completely oblivious of them.
We don't need to trust that the teachings of the Buddha are true by proving that devas and brahmas exist. All we need to be convinced of, is that the Buddha was truly enlightened in the nature of reality, just as we trust what Einstein taught in physics, because we are convinced that Einstein was enlightened in his area of physics. And just like physics, the Buddhist teachings are very empirical, in the sense that it is verifiable by practical experience.
In this answer, I stated that it's quite possible  to have "retrograde realization" (to quote Andrei Volkov) i.e. to realize upon reading some teachings of the Buddha, that it really fits your own observation of the workings of your mind. However, if the Buddha did not point it out, you would not have noticed. This kind of "aha" moments can convince you also, of the truth of the Buddha's enlightenment and skill in teaching.
You can read the story of the world's happiest man, Tibetan Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard, through whom neuroscientists empirically verified the efficacy of the Buddha's teachings, using 256 sensor nodes. Ricard also encouraged us to similarly verify the Buddha's teachings in his statement: “Try sincerely to check, to investigate. That’s what Buddhism has been trying to unravel — the mechanism of happiness and suffering. It is a science of the mind.”

To quantify just how happy Ricard is, neuroscientists at the
  University of Wisconsin attached 256 sensors to the monk’s skull. When
  he meditated on compassion, the researchers were shocked to see that
  Ricard’s brian produces a level of gamma waves off the charts. He also
  demonstrated excessive activity in his brain’s left prefrontal cortex
  compared to its right counterpart, meaning he has an abnormally large
  capacity for happiness and a reduced propensity towards negativity,
  the researchers say.
During the same study, the neuroscientists also peeked into the minds
  of other monks. They found that long-term practitioners—those who have
  engaged in more than 50,000 rounds of meditation—showed significant
  changes in their brain function, although that those with only three
  weeks of 20-minute meditation per day also demonstrated some change.

You need to develop the divine eye faculty to see Devas and ghosts. Read the  Visuddhimagga if you are genuinely interested in it.

First, we have to distinguish between mundane devas and supramandane deities. The mundane devas can either follow Dharma or not, but usually they do not,  because of their illusion of everlasting happiness. This means they are not compassionate and so they don't have a cause to deign to humans, nor human beings have an ability to see them, just like ants don't have ability to see humans and/or communicate with them, or just like humans usually don't treat ants as their peers.
Second, those mundane devas who follow Dharma might be compassionate, yet they can hardly be noticed by those humans who haven't achieve an ability to see devas and/or supramandane deities.
Last but not least, the supramandane deities require a practitioner to have special abilities and/or to be determined by some special causes to see them. E. g. all the  - if I am not mistaken - Kashmiri women put together are the manifestation of the Shri Devi's speech, yet which mortal can perceive all the Kashmiri women at once?

Good people have no doubt in Devas, having no doubt in devas, they watch out their deeds, knowing that they are next and here. Watching out their deeds, they are no more ugly and bad smelling for Devas and those established in good ways are not deprived to come even in a human life in reunion with them.
Devas, like good people, avoid uglines and bad smell. Those who watch over their qualities are not in lack of their company.
Would you, for example, join a community of pigs and act in their ways so that you get recognised and be followed by them? What else as a pig keeper, those who gain benefit of them, would a common pig follow aside of it's kind?
Likewise Devas do not appear to common men, will be not found in their reunion. Even if they appear from time to time, it's not for those incapable to see and hear the meaning of their voice.
Maybe an inspiring story for those open to it:

“Devas possess divine sight and divine hearing, enabling them to see and hear over great distances. They know about the good and bad of human affairs better than do humans themselves. Couldn't you find a way to make humans more aware of right and wrong? I feel that you are more capable of it than we human teachers are. Is there any way you could do this?” ...An Impeccable Human Being

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for use of commercial purposes and other wordily gains but intended and bound to awakening and liberation, and so good shared.]

Upvote for mentioning "Devas... avoid uglines and bad smell". It's very true, mentioned in many places in the Sutras.

They are as real as Adam and Eve ie a metaphor. From what I gather through various readings and podcasts the Buddhist story of Mara is also not meant to be taken literally. These are fables.  If a demon did appear it would have been in Siddartha's mind.
Its unwise to take religious teachings literally in my opinion. You only have to look to these Christians who do so with the Old Testament to see the negative effects it has.

There is no reason to assume that the gods follow dharma. Some may. Others may not. It is my understanding that it is best to be human since humans have the combination of opportunity to practice and the suffering that that can motivate to practice. Gods with less suffering are not as motivated. But back to the original question, people make their own choices with or without gods, miracles, evidence, and so forth. This is what I love about buddhism. It is based on logic and evidence. You do not have to take anything on blind faith. Experimentation with positive practices produces positive results. Succumbing to negative states (anger, grasping, etc.) produces negative results.


text:
What does the Tibetan book of the dead say happens 14 days after death?
What does the Tibetan book of the dead say happens 14 days after death?
I don't have my copy to hand. I'm asking, because I suspect a dear friend of mine may have died last week.

In general, the process of the Bardo can last between 7 - 49 days with a chance of rebirth or liberation every 7 days.
Depending on your friend's knowledge of the Bardo he could either still be in the Bardo, or in the process of seeing his next life / being reborn / in utero.

i read that the essential teaching ends after 14 days, the 2nd week being the wrathful deities. i just hope he is ok

@user3293056 even the wrathful deities are trying to teach and guide your friend. They just teach different lessons.

The general heuristics in Bardo Thodol can be summed up - always follow the brightest, most unpleasant/painful light and be brave - never hide in a dark/shadow.
Easier said than done of course. That is why it says that there has to be someone present constantly reading to the deceased. In perfectly calm, legible voice.
Keep in mind that a lot of actual text is derived from their own mythologies and therefore has no meaning to us. The sole thing you can (hopefully) remember for your critical time is the light.
So "reading" can be understood as "talking to" and due to cultural impedance mismatch focusing on short and clear sentences is much more efficient. It may sound almost like a continually repeating "mantra". One of the reason why it's best not done in presence of a group.
So there's nothing you or anyone else can do "from a distance". Bardo Thodol is a very practical book for practitioners.
Assume that the deceased may hear your voice only occasionally and is completely disoriented, unless he's the one who was really, really well prepared. The well prepared will try to transition in the first 7 days, first day if he can.
Normally, the deceased should be reborn in 14-21 days (if he didn't accumulate a lot of bad karma) and no it doesn't have to happen exactly at 7 day boundaries - whenever he consciously/bravely follows that light. Beyond that, chances are slim that he'll come back as a human at all.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Loneliness in Buddhism
I am wondering what is the antidote to loneliness, or the approach towards it, within Buddhism. I am finding myself quite lonely despite being previously familiar and at ease with solitude.
I am using social media quite often, mainly to chat with others; I find this might have exacerbated my feelings of loneliness.
I am wondering two things primarily: (1) What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it? What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?
(2) Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long term?
And perhaps (3) what is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?

What has changed for you since the time when you were "previously familiar and at ease with solitude"? Whatever that change means has to be part of an answer.

I am wondering what is the antidote to loneliness, or the approach towards it, within Buddhism.

In Buddhism loneliness is viewed and treated exactly as any other undesirable mindstate.

What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it?

Any mental activity that involves "feeding" (sustaining) the description or image of the world as such that considers socializing to be a core valuable activity, would naturally cause the feeling of loneliness. This includes watching TV series and using social media. Also, as ChrisW said - comparing one's situation to others who are social, attachment to past pleasant social experiences. All this can be summarized as unwise application of attention which serves as feeding/sustenance of craving.

What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?

The same old trick, wise application of attention. Moving one's perception into position where the problem of loneliness does not exist. The possibilities are infinite, from getting oneself involved with abstract sciences, to computer programming, creative performance and art, music -- to convincing oneself that loneliness is not only acceptable, but in fact natural for persons of high realization and beneficial for their well-being -- to direct Jhana experience of reviewing one's mental continuum and praising it for the absence of typical ups and downs that would have inevitably accompanied socializing.

(2) Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long term?

Yes, exactly. See above.

(3) what is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?

Mahayana view would be, that as long as your motivation is to help others, the use of social networks is appropriate, even if it causes you personal pain. In other words, Mahayana is totally fine with paying the price of suffering for  the higher goal of helping others reduce theirs. This thought in itself reduces personal suffering.
Of course it fragments awareness. But this is the spirit of times, and we want to be in tune with it if we are to be relevant.

OP: What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it?

I see the desire for companionship as a type of sensual craving (kama tanha). When you engage in social media and obtain the pleasure of companionship and entertainment by chatting with others, you could increase this craving. When you imagine pleasures you could enjoy, by watching the lives of other people, who delight themselves in things that you have not, again, you could increase this craving. When you watch others, you could also experience the craving to become like them (bhava tanha).
When craving is not met, it leads to negative feelings. In this case, when the craving for companionship is not satisfied, it leads to loneliness.

OP: What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?

As stated by other answers, you can redirect your mind to other pursuits, for e.g. reading a book. I suggest the book "In the Buddha's Words" by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Please also see this answer.

OP: Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or
  attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long term?

Yes.

OP: what is the Buddhist view on social media use?
  Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect?
  Does it have no benefits?

Over-excessive indulgence in social media could be akin to habitual partying, with potential exposure to bad companionship and potentially increasing laziness.
According to the Sigalovada Sutta:

"These are the six dangers inherent in habitual partying: You
  constantly seek, 'Where's the dancing? Where's the singing? Where's
  the music? Where are the stories? Where's the applause? Where's the
  drumming?'
"These are the six dangers inherent in bad companionship: any rogue,
  drunkard, addict, cheat, swindler, or thug becomes a friend and
  colleague.
"These are the six dangers inherent in laziness: saying, 'It's too
  cold,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too hot,' one does not work;
  saying, 'It's too late,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too early,'
  one does not work; saying, 'I'm too hungry,' one does not work;
  saying, 'I'm too full,' one does not work. With an abundance of
  excuses for not working, new wealth does not accrue and existing
  wealth goes to waste."

Of course, it is also possible to find good friends and be a good friend to others through social media. From the same sutta above:

"Young man, be aware of these four good-hearted friends: the helper,
  the friend who endures in good times and bad, the mentor, and the
  compassionate friend.
"The helper can be identified by four things: by protecting you when
  you are vulnerable, and likewise your wealth, being a refuge when you
  are afraid, and in various tasks providing double what is requested.
"The enduring friend can be identified by four things: by telling you
  secrets, guarding your own secrets closely, not abandoning you in
  misfortune, and even dying for you.
"The mentor can be identified by four things: by restraining you from
  wrongdoing, guiding you towards good actions, telling you what you
  ought to know, and showing you the path to heaven.
"The compassionate friend can be identified by four things: by not
  rejoicing in your misfortune, delighting in your good fortune,
  preventing others from speaking ill of you, and encouraging others who
  praise your good qualities."

Social media is like a knife that both the surgeon and the murderer could use, in my opinion.

.

I am wondering what is the antidote to loneliness>

Be mindful and keep attention on your breath.

I am using social media quite often>

If you investigating Dhamma and discussing Dhamma it is ok.

What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it? >

Unrest

"What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it?"

The cause are mental fabrications that fabricate loneliness.

"What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?"

Stop fabricating mental fabrications that fabricate loneliness.

"Does active and directed attention, whether in meditation or
  attending to tasks, alleviate feelings of loneliness in the long
  term?"

Try it and see it yourself. Everybody has his own ways to cope with loneliness.

"What is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently
  fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?"

In your case, if you're using social media to ease loneliness, it's like postponing the resolution of suffering to a latter date. Instead of focusing on the cause of your loneliness, you're focusing on social media. You think you need social media to ease loneliness. In reality you most probably don't need social media ... you just need to get rid of loneliness. Once you'll get rid of loneliness, you'll probably stop spending time on social media.
What you're experiencing is normal suffering due to loneliness. Psychologists will tell you it's normal as long as it does not interfere negatively on your physical or mental health. Most people do something to ease feelings of loneliness (make new friends, read, do sports, watch TV, ..). But that's not curing loneliness. It's like having a disease and alleviating its symptoms. This is no different than being depressive and drinking alcohol to ease the depression. Off course it's not dysfunctional as drinking alcohol, but the mechanism is the same: you suffer, and instead of resolving your main problems which are the cause of your suffering, you're postponing their resolution to a later date.

It is important to have loving friends. There are many Buddhist groups around who practice mindfulness meditation. There are also mindfulness centers that offer mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) therapy. Some of these centers support a community of meditators, supervised practice sessions, psychotherapy, and other special therapies such as MBCT (for depression). You might consider joining one of these groups to make new friends.

What are the things that cause loneliness and exacerbate it?
I don't know. Hypothetically or from my own experience, I suppose it includes:

Attachment (contrasting present solitude with memory of previous social situation)
Comparing yourself to others (e.g. "They have friends and are happy, where I do not and am not") -- which, apparently, is an aspect of "conceit"

I guess there could be other reasons too, e.g. imperfect morality (generosity, brahmaviharas, and the implementation of lay social life with friends and family and teachers and so on described in DN 31).
What are the non-social antidotes to loneliness?
I try to rationalize attachment by asking, "Was that relationship impermanent and disatisfactory (in which case it doesn't make sense to wish for it), or is it satisfying (in which case it doesn't make sense to mourn it)?"
What is the Buddhist view on social media use? Is it inherently fragmenting awareness as I suspect? Does it have no benefits?
There's a lot of advice about social media use, but the advice may not be "Buddhist" (or at least not canonical).
Yes there are people who advise you should have some "real friends", and not just "Facebook friends".
I suppose if you suspect that social media use is harmful for you, then you should limit it (perhaps like you would limit alcohol).
I think that a Buddhist retreat, at least, would have a rule that you should put away your social media device.

Funny how everyone here seems to think that wanting to be with other people is a mark of some kind of problem to be solved. Humans are social animals, they survive collectively, and life really has no point if one is alone. Nelson Mandela said that solitary confinement is the most inhumane punishment. Loneliness is no greater of a mystery or problem to be solved than being hungry or tired. It is built in. Just find some people! Doing what you must do is not wrong or a cause of trouble. Why do Buddhists resist ordinary necessities?

The OP asked for "non-social antidotes to loneliness".

And my question to him of what changed has gone unanswered. Without that piece of information, there is no answer. My guess is that he became more mature and realized that "the self is too small an object for perpetual enthusiasm", and so he must interact with others in order to continue to grow (another built-in imperative). The Middle Way doesn't say abandon everything as a matter of dogma, it says choose wisely. Replying without knowing what we are addressing is bad medicine.

I think this site is not exactly trying to prescribe medicine, but to answer questions about "Buddhism". This meta-topic says to answer the question that was asked. Yes there would have been [much] more to say if "social antidotes" hadn't been specifically excluded, and I suppose there are other topics on this site about social relationships.

While many answers have already been provided, and are much more extensive, let me share a simpler version.
Social media is one of dopamine addictions, along with gambling, drugs, sex, status, money, etc.
In general, dopamine makes us pursue things, as we need food for sure. But when used unskillfully, it leads to Dukkha of wanting.
The more social apps we have, the more we are sucked into these virtual environments, with distorted and biased social networks and hierarchies.
When wake up from this virtual social illusion, there is ease of solitude, not loneliness. and instead of "fear of missing out", one can finally discover the "joy of missing out". We get time we never spent to orient ourselves back to the right view, and with mindfulness, with every breath, we fall back to a natural dharma path.
May this conversation brings more light, be happy ♂❤

I’m am not lonely, but I want to express myself. That is a quite a problem. The emotions, the intellect, the conditioning (I want to win). I can’t express without another. This is unfortunate for human beings. Buddha is capable of relying on experience; relating with nature, harmony. But in our world, where is the nature and harmony? It’s near the high cliff.  Krishna is Mara.
Edit: if someone was here I cnot indulge.  I’m bound by formalities. Fine, you might say reality is worth the price, but peace and quiet is only desired when it is no longer available. Basic supply and demand

--Fun Time poetry-- p.s:- can add some more unpredictable examples but let's not pull too much shame here!  If gotama would have been alive, would have made his fun like this too..
Lonely, ohhh! I m so lonely. It's so alone out here.
Lonely, ohhh! I m so lonely. It's so alone out here.
I m still breathing, but it's lonely.
I m hungry, but it's lonely.
I just ate food, but it's lonely.
I listen song 'lonely'. But I m still lonely.
I looked at her but am still lonely.
I looked at another(miss!) but am still lonely.
** Another(miss!) 50 - uncountable numbered ones.. looked all but still lonely.
ohhh! I m so lonely. It's so alone out here.
I approached her and few others, alas! Stepped back when they responded, tried to talk and showed signs. As I will remain lonely.
Dukkha come too much, happiness doesn't stay much. Why to have another one in life. I am so lonely.
Why me! Why not me! Songs good too. But I am still lonely.
May be the living style not good and incorrect. But am still lonely.
Ohhh! Just wrote down /thought mixed instructions with correct(samyak) & ? living style but who cares!
After few days, hmm let's tear this living style having some middle path instructions as who cares. But am still lonely.
After few more days, how those instructions came? Maybe the representation of loneliness. Noone would believe. Now I don't understand and forgot as well. Ooh this loneliness is good.
Maybe I did harm someone that's why I am lonely. Wrote/thought few 100 times as, "my goodness should be there and others goodness should be there too". Oh! But I am still lonely.
Oh this loneliness was good because since that writing, I am having trouble in straight thinking as "who should have goodness first?". And now so many thoughts, so much irritation coming. I want loneliness back.
I am so lonely. Loneliness is good. Loneliness is bad.
Doing so many things, but am still lonely.
--Fun time over--
You came alone and will go alone, will liberate alone. But can share dukkha and sukkha with multi , decide what to do.

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


text:
How is suffering the supporting condition for faith?
In Upanisa Sutta Suffering is noted as a supporting condition for faith, I have a faint idea of how this could be, but I have a hard time following it as I did all other supporting conditioned listed in a successive order. Could you please shade a light.
Thanks a mil

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.

Upanisa Sutta: Discourse on Supporting Conditions_translated from the Pali by
Bhikkhu Bodhi

The sutta lists links of dependent origination, backwards.
So I'd read it as "With existence as condition, birth. With birth as condition, suffering. With suffering as condition, faith."
I expect it means faith in the four noble truths, for example: i.e. because of (conditioned by) suffering you agree with the noble truths (including the first noble truth), and develop confidence in the Buddha's teaching.
Note that suffering is the end or final result of samsara ... and faith is the beginning or first step towards liberation. So this sutta lists two sequences of links (the conditions of suffering and the conditions of liberation), and links the two together there.
There is a longer article on the sutta here, which talks about how faith arises, and a shorter one here.
You might possibly be confused by the term "supporting condition": other translations may include "proximate condition", "requisite condition", "prerequisite".

@ Chris Thank you.

So, in upanissa-commentary said that suffering refer to suffering that buddha or buddhasāvaka explain to the listener who can understand suffering-explanation of buddha. Then the listener has faith arise because of that explained suffering.

Suffering drove Prince Gautama to renounce his comfortable life and find the path to the end of suffering. Hence suffering should be enough to motivate us to have faith in the path found by Gautama Buddha.
From the Sukhamala Sutta:

'Subject to birth, subject to aging,
  subject to death,
  run-of-the-mill people are repelled by those who suffer
  from that to which they are subject.
  And if I were to be repelled
  by beings subject to these things,
  it would not be fitting for me,
  living as they do.'
As I maintained this attitude —
  knowing the Dhamma
  without acquisitions —
  I overcame all intoxication
  with health, youth, & life
  as one who sees
  renunciation as rest.
For me, energy arose,
  Unbinding was clearly seen.
  There's now no way
  I could partake of sensual pleasures.
  Having followed the holy life,
  I will not return.

You can find the definition of the faith (or conviction) follower and dhamma follower in the Kitagiri Sutta and the Vinnana Sutta (and the other suttas in SN25).

It is interesting to note that it was not his own suffering that drove the prince to seek an end to it, but the realization of the truth of the suffering of all people (beings). Perhaps the supporting condition of wisdom and realization is compassion?

It is said in the suttas that one who is suffering will sink even more in suffering or will begin a search out of it. Now when one hears the Dhamma that initial suffering helps the person to have faith in the Path.
Also when one is enjoying the sensual pleasures of the world, somone like a prince, on hearing the Dhamma faith may not be established in him.

Suffering motivates the practice of mindfulness meditation, only if (1) a person understands what type of experience constitutes suffering, (2) a person understands the causes of such suffering, and (3) a person understands how mindfulness meditation removes the causes of such suffering. There is a psychology behind mindfulness meditation that is not easy to understand. You can ask a meditation master who is accustomed to Western students. Or you can read my book on meditation.


text:
Processing of Emotions
I would like to ask a question about the psychology of emotions in Buddhism.
I am aware, from reading books on this topic, that emotions are complex phenomena distinct from vedana, or feelings. But what exactly are they? And how does one process such emotions?
Similarly, I wonder which method is most conducive to either processing an existing emotion, or release and allow unfelt (repressed/suppressed) emotions to arise.
I am particularly curious about the relationship of these meditative techniques towards emotions: (1) breathing meditation (2) visualization (3) body awareness
(4) reappraising/re-framing cognitively.
Lastly, I wonder whether it would be more beneficial to focus on feelings (vedana) or emotions themselves as an emphasis.
Thank you for any response.

Correct, emotions are complex psychosomatic events, of which vedana is but a small component.
For the purposes of liberation, Buddhism differentiates between emotions in their affecting or intoxicating function, and emotions experienced as a result.
The first type are called klesha, they are traditionally defined by example, as want, hate, delusion, and all kinds of combinations of the three. (For the sake of accuracy I should say that not all kleshas are exactly emotional in nature... they can be strong mental concepts skewing or clouding one's interpretative and goal-making functions.)
The second type are various shades of "agreable" and "disagreable" experiences, including of course the cornerstone of Buddhism, duhkha and its false opposite, sukha. Again, I'm mixing all kinds of stuff in the same bucket here - some of these experiences are primarily somatic in nature and so would classify as vedana, and some are mostly mental - I suppose the most accurate way of saying would be that they are different mixes of mental and somatic states.
In Buddhism it is generally understood that emotions are conditioned by mental dispositions such as attachments, aversions, prejudices, assumptions, generalizations etc - which in their order come from past experience. Plus, the everpresent component is one's current attitude, conditioned by one's level of insight or ignorance about the nature of phenomena and mind.
The methods for working with emotions vary from one school to another. Traditional summary from later schools, is that earlier schools like Theravada primarily worked with (undesirable) emotions through either suppressing them or switching attention away to a different topic, -- from this we go to Mahayana schools which are said to work with emotions through underlying mental dispositions - by deconstructing the ego complex, and removing attachments, generalizations, assumptions etc. culminating in realization of Emptiness -- and then on to Vajrayana schools which are said to work with emotions directly in their psychosomatic form as energies, by using visualizations and yoga-inspired psychosomatic exercises. This stereotypical classification is obviously wrong, as in reality all schools use combination of all three approaches, presented in various ways. Indeed, if you think about it from psychological perspective, the three approaches are merely different embodiments of the same underlying principle. Especially as it comes to producing desirable emotional states, the schools show surprising unity of approaches, each presenting in their unique style.
To get to your specific questions,

I wonder which method is most conducive to either processing an existing emotion, or release and allow unfelt (repressed/suppressed) emotions to arise.

There is no single method that works for all people in all circumstances, otherwise Buddhism would be a very simple thing. There are cases when suppressing/avoidance /distraction works best, practiced either momentarily or over a long term - there are cases when experiencing emotion in full, without analyzing/feeding its mental stimulus, works best - and then there are cases where analysis of assumptions&attachments is the most effective.
As for unfelt emotions, I think I can safely say that most schools agree that meditation is a very effective practice to help suppressed emotions come up. Also, in Mahayana and Vajrayana schools teachers use all kinds of scenario-based improvisations to have the apprentice meet their suppressed emotion or assumption face-to-face.

I am particularly curious about the relationship of these meditative techniques towards emotions: (1) breathing meditation (2) visualization (3) body awareness (4) reappraising/re-framing cognitively.

To me, (1) breathing meditation is a great way to connect with the body and get in touch with the types of emotions stored in the body that are so deeply habituated as to be effectively unconscious.
(2) As I said, visualization is an active generation technique that may be used to directly stimulate certain emotions. These are primarily practiced in Tibetan Vajrayana schools. These techniques range from, should I say, abstract psychosomatic visualizations (colors, shapes, letters - imagined over various parts of one's body) - to vivid impersonations that involve imagining oneself as a certain persona or deity. complete with not only costume and appearance but most importantly the thoughts, emotions, and attitude that such character would have experienced.
(3) Body awareness is practiced in all schools, usually on beginner's stages - although the significance of this technique cannot be overemphasized. My various teachers were fond of reminding importance of posture, gait, comfort, speed of movement, grace, and generally good connection with the body.
(4) Reappraising/re-framing is taught in all schools, both in form of traditional frameworks, and custom-tailored teacher/student 1:1 work. Theravada, Mahayana/Zen, and Vajrayana has their own favorite themes and contexts that are too numerous and too deep to review in any details here.

Lastly, I wonder whether it would be more beneficial to focus on feelings (vedana) or emotions themselves as an emphasis.

My personal advice is to treat emotions as two separate phenomena: bodily feelings, and mental dispositions that cause them - and to work with each separately, one at a time. Treating emotion as single unit ("here is what happened and now I feel this") can lead to projecting the emotion onto the world ("I can't live without my GF who made me heartbroken; or I hate her etc.") - so in effect you are creating a realm and inhabit it with your imaginary self, at the same time declaring oneself a helpless victim of situation. Instead, treating emotion as bodily feeling + mental disposition allows one to take on master's role and be in charge of one's mind and emotions.

On processing emotion, the Buddha states that emotion can be pursued either with vitaka and vicara (attention and evaluation) or without vitaka and vicara, which is more refined. The only other time I have found vitaka and vicara mentioned in the suttas is with reference to the jhanas. Therefore, one can conclude that a difficult and repeating emotion is best processed in a jhana state. The emotion is the object of meditation and with relaxation, attention and evaluation, the emotion is allowed to move and come out. Invariably in the form of tears. I practice this regularly. and it works. If the body is entirely and deeply relaxed and the mind is directed to unpleasant feeling (which usually collates around the lower chakra areas), processing will occur. As one moves onto the second jhana, without vitaka and vicara, this may happen spontaneously. Furthermore, I have found that breaching the third jhana entails this emotional processing on subconscious level that you have no control over. The body will do it automatically as part of transitioning to third jhana. Its quite intense and can cause convulsions, displays of light and spontaneous tears. It is part and parcel of moving forward in jhana practice.

What is the word for "emotion" used in the suttas?

In the sutta I extrapolate this interpretation from, the Buddha talks about how grief 'soka' should be pursued with vicara and vitaka or without. Pointing towards how to deal with difficult emotion. The Pali term for emotion I believe is cittavega. Which to me reads something like 'mind force'.


text:
Certainty and Skeptical Investigation
I know Buddhism promotes skeptical investigation, and finding things out with a personal conviction about them, i.e. not believing the Buddha on hearsay but rigorous examination.
I wonder: how is such a certainty achieved? I would think the combination of shamatha and vipassana is the answer, but I wonder what EXACTLY is the closest determinant of a feeling of certainty, whether sensory (seeing something and feeling quite certain of the perception) or cognitive (feeling certain of some analytical reasoning).
Personally, I feel like I often achieve a feeling of certainty, but it usually fades into doubts and alternate hypothesis. I can't seem to generate a sturdy sense of truth.
I appreciate any answer to this question.
Thank you.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu explained this very well in one of his works, can't find the link at the moment. He said, Liberation is more like a hands-on skill than a pure sterile insight. As with any skill, the understanding and the dexterity grow in lock-step supporting each other. You learn through trial and error, and as you watch the results of your attempts, you infer the mechanisms at play. At the same time, you study theory - explaining the mechanisms - which sheds light on your practice.
Certainty comes as a result of having acquired the skill. This may or may not come from theory, and may or may not be something you can explain in words. Conceptual model is the optional part that aids one's practice and helps transmit the teaching forward, but cannot give the sense of certainty by itself.
In Vajrayana schools, certainty also comes from the lineage blessings through a ritual known as empowerment (abhisheka).

You mentioned something here, too, about certainty.  Maybe that's of a different kind, though, i.e. about "theories" rather than "hands-on skill".

Yes... that was the certainty of stream-entry... that comes from having exhausted all theories and having finally faced "the elephant in the room". As with samatha and vipassana, learning the theory and mastering the skill grow together and support each other, so both happen before and after stream-entry, but, for me, stream-entry is a turning point from mostly learning to mostly mastering.

"I wonder what EXACTLY is the closest determinant of a feeling of
  certainty, whether sensory (seeing something and feeling quite certain
  of the perception) or cognitive (feeling certain of some analytical
  reasoning)."

When you look at at the sun, you know with certainty the sun is there. Or when you think about something in your mind, you know with certainty the thought is in your mind. This is the feeling of certainty.
To get this feeling I'm talking about you must get insights through shamatha and vipassana, then you need to ask yourself questions and the answers will logically come if you gained enough insight from meditation.

It is sufficient to understand the psychology of mindfulness meditation to be appropriately motivated to practice it. But relative certainty about this psychology can be based only upon skill in very advanced states of mindfulness meditation during which a person can systematically observe the unconscious processes that create karma. This advanced practice is traditionally practiced after Enlightenment by meditating on the Theravadin Abhidharma. The reasonable person seeks evidence, not certainty. No knowledge is certain. At best, knowledge can only make sense given the evidence. This is the nature of the mind.

I use hypothesis testing. Conceptually, theoretically, philosophically, physically, spiritually, scientifically ... I test things against their most staunch adversary in all different points of view. And I demand the most back-breaking, ego busting opposite viewpoints that I can find.
Of course this becomes an almost impossibly hard standard to meet when examining philosophical or theoretical or spiritual areas and checking for their basis in fact and science. So I guess my final test is always true, modern science and then focused more on data than explanations. But at least being a plausible physical theory other than "magic". That's a must.

The Buddha found certainty by only trusting what could be directly observed and verified (is the 'falsified' a pleonasm?). The characteristic of impermanence (anicca), for directly observed things (not inferred 'things' like Plato's Forms or God), is present for all that has been seen at all scales, whether a proton a sandwich or a black hole, whether at the time of the Buddha or now. One can posit permanence somewhere beyond what is observable (the Hubble volume these days), but it would be a hypothesis outside of all observation up to now.
That impermanent experience, is unsatisfactory (dukkha) is simply logical, as even happy experience ends.. (this is subject to the economic problem, 'unlimited wants, limited resources', but then  space-time is not a resource we can extend anyways)
Direct observation of non-self (anatta) with regards to 'oneself', is inferred until nibbana.
The modern world offers more well defined insights along the lines of the Buddha from the scientific method imo, as the two share a core requirement for observational verification. You have Copernican, Gallilean, special, general relativity and relational QM, which explain conditioned experience progressively more and more accurately. Science is heading towards having to accept anatta soon because what is directly observed now is no different from what was observed 2500 years ago - impermanent and empty of self referential information.. or likely more 'impermanent and describes observed experience less accurately if observer independent or self referential properties are assumed'!
Both the scientific method and the Buddha however, cannot offer 'certainty' for conditioned phenomena. QM states that the Sun will not come up tomorrow with some probability (say quantum tunnel into a black hole), statistics cannot reject the null hypothesis at the 100% significance level. It is not necessary to be skeptical about impermanence with regards to conditioned phenomena however, because there is not a single bit of observable and verifiable counter-evidence up till now.

Doubt(Vicikiccha) is a defilement. Do Vipassana meditation. Samatha is not necessary. Once you attain the first stage of enlightenment(Sotapanna), doubt will be completely cut off. Do not stop the meditation to think up theories regardless of what you saw or felt. That will either take you in wrong paths or slow you down at best. If a thought of doubt enters the mind, note it as doubting... doubting... doubting... until it goes away and then get back to your default place of focus. Keep meditating until you reach Nibbana.

The lack of certainty is doubt, one of the five hindrances.
In this essay on the Five Hindrances, Ajahn Brahm advises on doubt:

Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one
  should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own ability
  "Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right way?", or
  even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be remembered
  that such questions are obstacles to meditation because they are asked
  at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion, obscuring one's
  clarity.
The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
  recognising any landmarks.
Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instructions, having a good
  map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the unfamiliar
  territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go. Doubt in
  one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good
  teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces the sports
  team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one can, one
  will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and patiently
  follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'! Experience
  also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt whether this
  is the right path. As one realised for oneself the beautiful stages of
  the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable of the very
  highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.
The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
  "How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
  best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
  meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
  when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
  meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
  the end to uncover its meaning.
The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full
  trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner speech.
  Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey out of
  trust in the driver.


text:
Dealing with Lust
I am wondering about the nature of lust and its remedies. I know Buddhism posits that lust depends on the sense organs, and contact with an object. Thus, I've read it promotes decreasing this contact and guarding the senses.
Yet, I find myself experience lust seemingly detached from contact, or rather, lust with a subjective emphasis. It is my imaginations that flare and cause me to experience lust, but only at certain key moments. I specify this because most of the time, I do not experience lustful thought processes. Only at certain moments does it almost seem like my guard is down, and my mindfulness absent, and lust resurfaces in an almost obsessive way.
I have not managed to find a way to decrease the periodic surfacing of lust I describe. It seems more inherent to myself as a subject than caused by objects intrinsically.
In terms of remedies:
(1) I wonder whether natural masturbation without erotic material is bad. Could it potentially reduce these types of surfacing lust? Or, rather, would abstinence decrease lust more effectively. I feel in this second case the libidinal drive might simply increase, whereas in the first libido is kept even. But perhaps I am wrong.
(2) Is there any Buddhist information on interior causes for such lust?
Thanks for any answer.

The YouTube video "Ask A Monk: Pornography and Masturbation (and Addiction in General)" by Ven. Yuttadhammo may be helpful to you.
He discusses "interior causes for such lust" from the perspective of Dependent Origination in the video.
He says that we can break the cause of the arising of lust through wisdom.
One way suggested by him is to mentally take apart and analyze the parts of the body (the so-called contemplation on unattractiveness or asubha). You can find some info in this question and this question. But also see this answer - this type of contemplation should be replaced with the mindfulness of breathing if it triggers negative thoughts of suicide.
The other technique he proposes is to watch your mind for triggers and observe how lust arises in the mind and recognize it (basically insight meditation). You can find more info on this in his chapter entitled "Daily Life" of his booklet "How To Meditate".
In any case, this summary that I wrote, does not cover all the details discussed in the video. So, it's better to watch it completely.

I found this video very useful. The Ven. Yuttadhammo does an excellent job of explaining this touchy subject (no pun intended) in terms that even this layman (me) can understand. I had left my view of that at the doorstep of merely accepting bodily urges as an event that happens and by just addressing it directly and not giving it too much thought. Like taking a breath. But Ven. Yuttadhammo  convinces me of another train of thought. Good reference and answer. Thank you so much!!

I know Buddhism posits that lust depends on the sense organs, and contact with an object. Thus, I've read it promotes decreasing this
  contact and guarding the senses.

No. Lust depends on ignorance. Guarding the senses does not mean decreasing sense contact. It means having wisdom at sense contact.

It is my imaginations that flare and cause me to experience lust, but only at certain key moments.

This is due to ignorance or a lack of wisdom.

I wonder whether natural masturbation without erotic material is bad. Could it potentially reduce these types of surfacing lust?

Masturbation will not reduce lust.

Or, rather, would abstinence decrease lust more effectively.

Wisdom & metta decrease lust.

I feel in this second case the libidinal drive might simply increase, whereas in the first libido is kept even. But perhaps I am
  wrong.

Ideas about 'libido' are materialism. Lust arises from wrong view. For example, if right view knows the most beautiful sex object in the world has a sexual transmitted disease, lust would not arise in relation to that object. This shows how view determines lust.

Is there any Buddhist information on interior causes for such lust?

Buddhism explains lust arises from the sign or theme (nimitta) of 'beautiful' or sexual objectification. The mind views or thinks about a sense object only in terms of sensual pleasure. The mind does not view or think about the drawbacks, unsatisfactory &/or suffering aspect of the object. The mind does not have metta-karuna (loving-kindness & compassion) towards the object; therefore lust arises.
The Bharadvaja Sutta offers three methods for reducing or ending lust:

Loving-kindness (viewing women as mothers, sisters & daughters).
Meditation upon the non-beautiful
Guarding the senses, by not grasping at any themes, such as the theme of 'beautiful'.

I doubt the last two methods can work well without mastering the 1st method.

I dont disagree with your answer, it just saddens me. I am saddened that the method to deal with beautification is to remove the appreciation for aesthetic beauty. This is the part of discipline where I draw the line. I do see beauty in the human form or in a rainbow or in a soft kitten. I sense it. I may even desire it. And I feel that taking joy in the limited senses we have in this form is a positive. I know this is a view I must get past. It is a burdensome dilemma (which is part of the suffering it creates).

@KauvaAatma - I don't think this has to be seen in such a negative light. The trick is to appreciate beauty but not as an object of lust or desire (or aversion).. The Buddha, when tempted, is said to have turned Mara's dancing girls into cherry-blossom. Iow, he retained the beauty but abstracted the lust. . .

@PeterJ Isn't it important to appreciate a person's virtue (good behaviour, good intentions, skill)? Don't you find that "grasping the signs" of how handsome or otherwise a person's form is, is a distraction from discerning anything about their character, motive, and so on? This says specifically that "external appearance" is an "unreliable" way to "evaluate" a person.

@ChrisW - All fine, I'm not disagreeing with any of that, I wasn't suggesting grasping at anything. Good point about physical features distorting our discrimination and discernment. .

I know Buddhism posits that lust depends on the sense organs, and contact with an object ...  I find myself experience lust seemingly detached from contact ... It is my imaginations that flare
Buddhism posits six sense organs: like the eye contacts visual objects, the mind contacts mental objects (ideas).
So I think that's consistent with your saying it's triggered by "imaginations".
Or, rather, would abstinence decrease lust more effectively.
My experience is that any habit (or intentional action) is difficult to stop once started. If I have a cigarette, I want another later. If I have an alcoholic drink one evening, then I want another the next evening (because a thought occurs, like, "Suppose I have another drink, now, like I did previously?").
Conversely the longer it has been since stopping, the easier it is to stay stopped -- even if the thought reoccurs, when you have learned to stop, you can be aware of the thought if it arises but let it go again without its entraining more intentional action (i.e. without deciding to act on it, with deciding not to act).
I feel in this second case the libidinal drive might simply increase
I think that Buddhism teaches that (at least for monks and nuns) sexual intercourse (even when alone) is to be cut off completely ... which I think says something about (everyone's) human physiology.
It's not like hunger: you need "food" and if you don't get it, then... But "lust" isn't in that same category.

Maybe there are some components of sexual intercourse that can be wholesome: social intercourse, physical exercise.
I hesitate to say so because a monk may teach that social intercourse and physical exercise are for the birds, but, whatever.
My point was that if you feel you need something, maybe what you need is something wholesome (like, I don't know, social intercourse; or physical exercise). So if you do view lust (or libido) as a need, maybe identify/disentangle wholesome (or less harmful) components/activities to practice.

Actually if your conditioning is tough then its better off that you make some kind of clearance before you silently meditate because your mind is not silent it has a lot of noise.I recommend dynamic meditation prioritized by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in the 70's where you move your whole body releasing all the bent up tension while staying as a watcher in the process.
here are links:
https://www.oshorajneesh.com/osho-meditation-music-download.htm
http://www.oshodynamic.com/five-stages.html

How is Osho seen in the Buddhist community?


text:
In tendai, can the 1st and 5th teachings be called "potentiality" and "possible"?
In tendai, can the 1st (huayen) and 5th (lotus) teachings be called "potentiality" and "possible", respectively?
I know the word "potential" from Heidegger's Being and Time, who has appeared in comparative studies. The most eye catching phrase, being "my ownmost potentiality for being", that amounting to death therein. By possibility, I just mean the not "necessary" or "actual", in the standard analytic philosophical terms.
I won't go into why I might suppose that could be a viable interpretation.

Are you referring to the classification into the five periods of the life of the Buddha by Hsuan Hua?

@Codosaur no i don't mean to limit it to Hsuan Hua, a name i do not recognise

What I meant was, by which classification are you referring to the 1st and 5th? There are multiple classifications of teachings in the Tendai school and I'm not sure which one you are referring to.

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


text:
Mutually Exclusive Approaches
I had begun writing a question, but it was so long I needed to re-frame it simply in fewer words. The basic theme of my question was: aren't some Buddhist techniques mutually exclusive?
The simplest idea which comes to mind is traditional techniques of avoiding and analyzing detrimental states (e.g. Vitakka-Santhana Sutta) versus the modern notion of mindfulness (e.g. Jon Kabat-Zinn). I feel it is difficult to combine these two aspects.
Similarly, I thought the way of emptiness as found, for example, in the Dalai Lama's book The Middle Way alters completely all reference for reality. With Nagarjuna's philosophy, nothing exists intrinsically in itself, but as dependently originated. Dhammas as ultimate and essential realities are invalidated.
I cannot help but feel all these aspects of Buddhism are somewhat exclusive, to a degree. I could conceive their unity through a kind of symbiotic compromise, but I have trouble understanding at a mundane level (i.e. conventional reality) how these can interact.
Thank you for your time.

There are many techniques that were taught by the Buddha and also later, other techniques were developed by Buddhist teachers over history, that are based on the Buddha's teachings. You are right that some of these techniques may be mutually exclusive to each other.
However, we must understand that each technique is used for a particular purpose, for a particular situation, to cater for a particular need.
It is just like how a master chef uses various techniques to craft the best results based on the needs. Sometimes you need to boil, sometimes you need to bake, sometimes you need to fry and sometimes you need to sautee. These techniques are mutually exclusive but used at different times to achieve different results.
I'm not sure, but I guess Kabat-Zinn's mindfulness is similar to insight meditation (vipassana). You can find guidance on the basics of insight meditation in the booklet entitled "How To Meditate" by Ven. Yuttadhammo. This technique is used to gain insight into the workings of dependent origination. Also read "The Way of Mindfulness" by Ven. Soma Thera, which is an essay that discusses the Satipatthana Sutta.
But you can't progress in insight meditation, if you are strongly assailed by the five hindrances. To solve this, one technique is in the Vitakka-Santhana Sutta which teaches the forceful removal of unskillful thoughts. Forceful removal of thoughts is not part of insight meditation, but if you are too disturbed by unskillful thoughts, then you need to forcefully remove it.
To eradicate the hindrance of ill-will, you can use Loving Kindness (metta) as the technique for eradication. Intentionally generating thoughts of loving kindness is also not part of insight meditation.
For overcoming lust (as a hindrance of sensual desire), you can use the contemplation on unattractiveness (see this question). But too much of it may lead to negative thoughts of suicide, in which case, use the mindfulness of breathing (see this answer) to counter it. Intentionally contemplating on unattractiveness, is also not part of insight meditation.
Also, samatha meditation (see the article entitled "Entering the Jhanas" by Leigh Brasington) is yet another technique used to calm the mind, and create focus and concentration. This is yet another technique that could help insight meditation. But it can be developed on its own too.
If you are continuously disturbed in every way in meditation and cannot progress further, then the technique to solve this, is the development of virtue (sila) outside of meditation - see this answer for details.
So, although different approaches appear to be mutually exclusive, they are actually complementary. The Buddha taught the practitioner to be multi-skilled. That's why there's the Noble Eightfold Path, rather than a Noble One Single Technique to End Suffering. No one technique is sufficient to achieve the results.

I'm not sure what did you consider as being mutually exclusive concerning emptiness. Philosophically, emptiness is defined differently in the Theravada and Mahayana traditions. You can find out about it in this question. Emptiness in the Theravada tradition is about the five aggregates and in fact all phenomena, being empty or devoid of a self. This is relevant for insight meditation, in the contemplation of mental objects (dhammas) i.e. for the fourth foundation of mindfulness.

Yes, organised Buddhism is exclusive, confusing and in conflict with itself, for a wide range of complex reasons to long to list here. Best to steer clear of organised Buddhism and read the Sutta Pitaka for yourself.
Kabat-Zinn's mindfulness practice is derived from the Visudhimagga, a commentarial paper written around 900 years after the Buddha's death. More specifically Vipassana meditation, which was not taught by the Buddha. The western appropriation of mindfulness as a psychological healing tool derived from a paper not containing the words of the Buddha naturally does not reflect the reality of the Buddha's teachings in the original discourses. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of mindfulness in the west too entrenched to uproot.
Emptiness is also a hugely conflated concept, which was originally used by the Buddha to simply talk about a state of Samadhi found within deep states of meditation, via the practice of jhana. One will not easily directly experience emptiness outside of deep meditation.
What you may be experiencing is the result of combining too many opinions which come from  varying groups who in some way all reject fundamental principles in the Sutta Pitaka.

This isn't exactly a Buddhist answer, but the phenomenon you describe reminds me of the science I was taught in school; for example:

Is an electron a particle, or a wave?
Is mechanics newtonian, or relativistic?
Are air resistance and friction negligible, or not?
How should we describe the world: using physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, or...?

They're each useful.
And it's not that "they interact", it's that we have to pick the appropriate model -- and the "appropriate model" changes depending on what we're trying to describe, or what problem we're trying to solve.
Consider just mathematics: is maths algebra, or is it trigonometry ... which is it? When do you use which? How can they interact?

A couple of Buddhist examples:

See the quote from Ajahn Chah, quoted at the top of this answer
There's the (famous) parable of the blind men and the elephant, where the dhamma is compared to an elephant

There's also the simile of "the raft". The purpose or emphasis of Buddhism might be slightly different depending on who's teaching it, but here for example:

This is a discourse about clinging to views (ditthi). Its central message is conveyed in two similes, among the most famous in the Canon: the simile of the water-snake and the simile of the raft. Taken together, these similes focus on the skill needed to grasp right view properly as a means of leading to the cessation of suffering, rather than an object of clinging, and then letting it go when it has done its job.

I'm not sure it's right to call them "mutually exclusive" either, though maybe you can't consciously practice all of them simultaneously.
Imagine there was some old inscription, faded by centuries, on rock or wood, difficult to read. To try to read it you might  illuminate it from one side, to try to see the shadow of the letters ... then illuminate it from the other side, to see a different shadow of the same letters.

Since Eggman wrote on a "common sense level" (which is wise and timely) it's good to read The Essence of the Dhamma and it's good not to follow people missinterprate and not capable to understand.
The abounding of the raft is something most really do not need to think about yet, believing that there might be a philosophical short-cut without doing the work first.
Mind it!


text:
Problems with Inactivity
My question is basically as to what constitutes skillful and unskillful activity.  I noticed I return to unskillful craving-related activities when I am idle. However, I cannot ascertain what is skillful in terms of activities. I would think the application of effort is important in terms of an activity, because I am often contemplating/analyzing ideas, but in a slightly lazy way.
Concretely, is idleness bad? For example, I often take public transport, wherein I contemplate certain subjects. But, I often tell myself I should read in public transport instead.
I think to me, some contemplative activity occurs when idle, but it is not focused, nor effortful. Can mere contemplation without much effort or focus be called meditation? Or is it simply wasting time?
Thank you.
EDIT: Also, I would think activity and industriousness generates energy in some sense. What states accompany idleness? (e.g. lethargy, fragmentation, etc.)

Seek activities that awake enthuziasm in you. I keep hearing this these days so I am just forwarding it. I too am of the lazy idle type:) also dont be hard on yourself about this, you are human. Humans are very diverse and all humans belong where they are, how they are.

In Vitakkasanthana Sutta, the Buddha advised:

Just as a skilled carpenter or his apprentice would use a small peg to
  knock out, drive out, and pull out a large one; in the same way, if
  evil, unskillful thoughts — imbued with
  desire, aversion, or delusion — arise in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme, he should attend to
  another theme, apart from that one, connected with what is skillful.
  When he is attending to this other theme, apart from that one,
  connected with what is skillful, then those evil, unskillful thoughts
  — imbued with desire, aversion, or delusion — are abandoned and
  subside. With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right within,
  settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it.

So, if you're afflicted with thoughts imbued with the three poisons (desire/ greed/ attachment, aversion/ hatred and delusion), then this is the sign of unskillful thoughts. The Buddha advises above to switch to other thoughts which are skillful (which are the opposite of the three poisons), then advises to concentrate the mind (in the context of meditation).
Of course, outside of the context of meditation, one should recognize unskillful thoughts imbued with the three poisons, then switch to other themes.
Concerning idleness or laziness, the Sigalovada Sutta states:

"And what six ways of squandering wealth are to be avoided? Young man,
  heedlessness caused by intoxication, roaming the streets at
  inappropriate times, habitual partying, compulsive gambling, bad
  companionship, and laziness are the six ways of squandering wealth.
"These are the six dangers inherent in laziness: saying, 'It's too
  cold,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too hot,' one does not work;
  saying, 'It's too late,' one does not work; saying, 'It's too early,'
  one does not work; saying, 'I'm too hungry,' one does not work;
  saying, 'I'm too full,' one does not work. With an abundance of
  excuses for not working, new wealth does not accrue and existing
  wealth goes to waste."

Although I couldn't find the exact sutta reference, this essay by Lily de Silva states:

In one sutta (A. III, 293) the Buddha explains how to prepare for a
  peaceful death. One has to organize one's life and cultivate an
  appropriate attitude for this purpose. The instructions given there
  are as follows:
(1) One should not be fond of a busy life involved in various activities.
  (2) One should not be fond of being talkative.
  (3) One should not be fond of sleeping.
  (4) One should not be fond of having too many companions.
  (5) One should not be fond of too much social intercourse.
  (6) One should not be fond of daydreaming.

There is a kind of a middle way advised above, where one should neither be too busy in too many activities, nor daydreaming or oversleeping or over-socializing.
If you have idle time on your hands, you can use it for skillful activities like reading good material (like this book), or by cultivating mindfulness.
In his booklet "How To Meditate", Ven. Yuttadhammo advises in "Chapter Six: Daily Life":

Once one has put aside activities that interfere with clarity of mind,
  one can begin to incorporate meditative awareness into ordinary life.
  There are two ways in which one can meditate on ordinary experience,
  and they should be practiced together, as follows.
The first method is to focus one’s attention on the body, since it is
  the most clearly evident aspect of experience. As in formal
  meditation, the body is always available for observation, and thus
  serves as a convenient means of creating clear awareness of reality in
  daily life. Since the body is generally in one of four postures –
  walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, one can simply become aware
  of one’s posture as a meditation object to bring about clarity of
  mind. .......
When cooking, cleaning, exercising, showering, changing clothes, even
  on the toilet, one can be mindful of the movements of the body
  involved, creating clear awareness of reality at all times. This is
  the first method by which one can and should incorporate the
  meditation practice directly into ordinary life.
The second method is the acknowledgement of the senses – seeing,
  hearing, smelling, tasting and feeling. Ordinary sensory experience
  tends to give rise to either liking or disliking; it therefore becomes
  a cause for addiction or aversion and ultimately suffering when it is
  not in line with one’s partialities. In order to keep the mind clear
  and impartial, one should always try to create clear awareness at the
  moment of sensory experience, rather than allowing the mind to judge
  the experience according to its habitual tendencies. When seeing,
  therefore, one should know it simply as seeing, reminding oneself
  “seeing, seeing”.

From the comments:

OP: Would it be possible to be mindful of discursive thoughts? The bodily and sensory mindfulnesses mentionned don't involve thoughts. Is
  mindulness only perceptual?

This question is answered in Ven. Yuttadhammo's booklet "How To Meditate" in "Chapter One: What Is Meditation" referenced below.
The additional foundations of mindfulness after body, are feeling, thoughts and dhammas (mental objects).
Concerning feelings, if you feel happy or calm, acknowledge it as "happy, happy" or "calm, calm".
Concerning thoughts, when your mind drifts away, usually pondering about the past or future, as soon as you recognize it, acknowledge it as "thinking, thinking". The idea here is to detach from them and not cause you to react to them. For e.g. if you remember some past unpleasant event, it will make you feel unhappy. But through mindfulness, you just acknowledge and let it go. As soon as you realize that you are thinking and acknowledge it, the thinking might stop.
Concerning mental objects, the example given in the excerpt is only the five hindrances. But there are also others. For more information on the Foundations of Mindfulness, please read this essay entitled "The Way of Mindfulness" by Ven. Soma Thera.

When we feel happy, we acknowledge it in the same way, reminding
  ourselves of the true nature of the experience, as “happy, happy,
  happy”. It is not that we are trying to push away the pleasurable
  sensation. We are simply insuring that we do not attach to it either,
  and therefore do not create states of addiction, attachment, or
  craving for the sensation.....
Likewise, when we feel calm, we say to ourselves, “calm, calm, calm”,
  .....
The third foundation is our thoughts. When we remember events in the
  past, whether they bring pleasure or suffering, we say to ourselves,
  “thinking, thinking”. Instead of giving rise to attachment or
  aversion, we simply know them for what they are – thoughts. When we
  plan or speculate about the future, we likewise simply come to be
  aware of the fact that we are thinking, instead of liking or disliking
  the content of the thoughts, and thus avoid the fear, worry, or stress
  that they might bring.
The fourth foundation, the “dhammas”, contains many groupings of
  mental and physical phenomena. Some of them could be included in the
  first three foundations, but they are better discussed in their
  respective groups for ease of acknowledgement. The first group of
  dhammas is the five hindrances to mental clarity. These are the states
  that obstruct one’s practise: desire, aversion, laziness, distraction,
  and doubt. They are not only hindrances to attaining clarity of mind,
  they are also the cause for all suffering and stress in our lives. It
  is in our best interests to work intently to understand and discard
  them from our minds, as this is, after all, the true purpose of
  meditation.
So when we feel desire, when we want something we don’t have, or are
  attached to something we do, we simply acknowledge the wanting or the
  liking for what it is, rather than erroneously translating desire into
  need. We remind ourselves of the emotion for what it is, thus:
  “wanting, wanting”, “liking, liking”. We come to see that desire and
  attachment are stressful and causes for future disappointment when we
  cannot obtain the things we want or lose the things we like.
When we feel angry, upset by mental or physical experiences that have
  arisen, or disappointed by those that have not, we recognize this as
  “angry, angry” or “disliking, disliking”. When we are sad, frustrated,
  bored, scared, depressed, etc., we likewise recognize each emotion for
  what it is, “sad, sad”, “frustrated, frustrated”, etc., and see
  clearly how we are causing suffering and stress for ourselves by
  encouraging these negative emotional states. Once we see the negative
  results of anger, we will naturally incline away from it in the
  future.
When we feel lazy, we say to ourselves, “lazy, lazy” or “tired,
  tired”, and we will find that we are able to regain our natural energy
  in this way. When we are distracted, worried or stressed, we can say,
  “distracted, distracted”, “worried, worried”, or “stressed, stressed”
  and we will find that we are more focused. When we feel doubt or are
  confused about what to do, we can say to ourselves “doubting,
  doubting” or “confused, confused”, and likewise we will find that we
  are more sure of ourselves as a result.
The clear awareness of these four foundations constitutes the basic
  technique of meditation practise as explained in the following
  chapters. It is therefore important to understand this theoretical
  framework before beginning to undertake the practise of meditation.
  Understanding and appreciating the importance of creating a clear
  awareness about the objects of our experience as a replacement to our
  judgemental thoughts is the first step in learning how to meditate.

Would it be possible to be mindful of discursive thoughts? The bodily and sensory mindfulnesses mentionned don't involve thoughts. Is mindulness only perceptual?

Replied in the answer.

Skillful activity is getting your head and your heart to respect each other, and in being mindful as you go about in life. Then your head and your heart can take each other far when you can remain mindful, even amidst the hustle and bustle of everyday life. Your heart needs the help of your head to generate and act on more skillful emotions. Your head needs your heart to remind you that what's really important in life is putting an end to suffering. They need each other.  When you come to this realism, you will dwell in “kaya passaddi”.
To explain the above, I must give you another meaning to words like “Kaya”. Such words come under Adhi-vacana – meaning - the same word has different meanings depending on the sutta, and how it gets used. Here “kaya” refers to action; action of the mind. So, “passaddi” refers to serene, tranquil nature of action. Actions of mind become tranquil only when the mind is devoid of “heat”, resulting from the existence of defilements such as lobha (greed) and dosa (aversion).
There is a tendency of mind to grasp objects. The action of mind (kaya) is always to grasp something. When one’s mind reaches the stage of passaddi (quietude, serenity), the action of grasping takes place in a tranquil manner.  A person who has developed this quietude of mind discerns greed or aversion exactly at the time that these qualities appear in his mind. This discernment which synchronizes with the arising of greed or aversion in mind is the correct way of “anupassana”. Anupassana means “discard according to the principles learned” (“anu” means according to and “passana” means to get rid of).
Let’s take an example where a youth coming face to face with a pretty girl. The sight of a pretty girl is a sensuous sense object for a young guy. If this guy is one who cultivates good or worthwhile qualities in the mind, then, he sense the arising of greed at the sight of the pretty girl. Therefore, he applies “anupassana” in respect of the sense object. Likewise, if this girl walks past the boy completely ignoring him, that could cause anger in him. If the boy could note the anger in his mind, then, he applies “anupassana”. As his sole objective was to maintain a wholesome state of mind, devoid of greed and aversion, he was successful in doing so at the sight of a pretty girl. This is meditation, if you take it in its truest sense of meaning.
When you conduct yourself in this way, in whatever you do, or wherever that you go, then you experience that more often than not, your body calms down and your mind is completely relaxed. Your brain's thinking is slower, your mind is clear and you may even feel slightly drowsy or idle. But worry not, as this is “being intelligent”. Being intelligent signifies being able to exist with a happy, blissful mind. Happiness is the tranquil nature of mind. Happiness arises in mind. It manifests through bodily and verbal actions.  Such a person will go about things in a happy, blissful way.
However, such a mental state is shrouded with our own suffering if we cannot get our head and heart to respect each other, and in being mindful. Once this is done and once the suffering is eliminated, dormant happiness begins to surface in a mind. Then anything that you do constitutes skillful activity.

I think my teacher put this best - "half of Zen practice these days is teaching people how to be a loser!"  In the West (and Japan), at least, we are addicted to work and productivity.  The most "virtuous" among us are those who forgo sleep, work an asinine amount of hours, and generally occupy their time with all manner of industry.  It's at once a delusion and an addiction.  These social norms impel us to monetize every moment.  The also make us wholly negligent of the calm required for effective internal contemplation.
When chopping wood, chop wood.  When carrying water, carry water.  When you're on the bus, just sit on the bus!  Let loose.  Relax.  Let the samatha arise.  Sit back and enjoy the ride.

I find it delightful to read your answers! Very helpful!

Glad I could help!

Would it be possible to be mindful of discursive thoughts? The bodily and sensory mindfulnesses mentionned don't involve thoughts. Is mindulness only perceptual?
"Inactive" needn't mean "mindless".
I gather that "mindful" is supposed to mean "remembering" or "keeping in mind".
I suppose that what you remember, bear in mind, keep in mind, is called "the object of meditation".
Sometimes people use a visual object of meditation: a kasina, maybe a candle, or a mandala, or even a landscape, or  wall.
Or the object of a meditation might be metta bhavana (the development of metta).
I notice that "object" (at least in English) can have two meanings: it's the immediate perceptible thing which you concentrate on and pay attention it; and "the object of something" can mean your purpose or goal, your reason for doing something. In metta bhavana I suppose it's both: you focus on metta in order to bring it into being.
Anther type of meditation or mindfulness in Buddhism is "mindfulness with/when breathing" (anapanasati). I think that has two components, i.e. breathing and being mindful. To the extent that "mindful" means "remembering", though, I don't think that means "remembering to breath" -- I think it means more like, "remembering the object of meditation while being aware of breathing".
Anapanasati is famous: people teach it. Perhaps it's taught in too much detail, e.g. in this answer I tried to answer a question just about the mechanics of "breathing long" (selecting quotes from one 500-page book about anapanasati in general). Forms of meditation are also described in the suttas (and elsewhere) and contemporary teachers (meditation centre, monasteries) teach in person.
Another object of meditation, some else to take as the "object" of meditation, is "letting go" or "non-attachment" (see for example this answer, or the same texts in a bit more detail here).

You're asking what you can do when inactive. I guess in general you can study, do homework ... maybe socialize!
But "inactivity" might be an opportunity to practice the meditation portion of the noble eightfold path.
That (subject) leads to more that's been written on the subject: e.g. Right Mindfulness.

I think to me, some contemplative activity occurs when idle, but it is not focused, nor effortful. Can mere contemplation without much effort or focus be called meditation?
I don't know. And maybe it depends on the school of Buddhism, and the translation (not just between languages but between people.)
For example, "No Attachment to Dust" ends with,

Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe. Pass each day in peaceful contemplation.

... which implies that contemplation (or as you put it, "contemplative activity" or "mere contemplation") is recommended.
I guess the flip side though is that "contemplation" might be a cover for thirst and attachment -- if by "contemplation" you meant some "obsessing about gaining something", for example.
Apparently the body needs to eat but shouldn't be encouraged to eat obsessively.
And the eye is used to see, but, they say, sometimes people try to endless fill their eye with sights.
Similarly it's possible for the mind to develop some craving for objects of the mind (ideas and emotions maybe, news and views) ... maybe that would be a "wrong" kind of contemplation ... not ariya, or, not "peaceful".

I would think activity and industriousness generates energy in some sense.
In some sense, yes.
But I'd also try to recommend detachment as liberating.

My question is basically as to what constitutes skillful and unskillful activity.

Skilful is without greed, hatred & delusion:

And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome;
  abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome;
  abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious
  speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome;
  abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is wholesome;
  non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the
  wholesome.
7. "And what is the root of the wholesome? Non-greed is a root of the wholesome; non-hate is a root of the wholesome; non-delusion is a root
  of the wholesome. This is called the root of the wholesome.
MN 9

I noticed I return to unskillful craving-related activities when I
  am idle.

This is normal for ordinary people.

However, I cannot ascertain what is skillful in terms of activities.

For the lay person, unskilful is serious bad kamma, such as killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, intoxicants, gambling, porn, etc.
But mild sensual pleasures, such as sports, music, arts, committed sex, etc, is not unwholesome.

I would think the application of effort is important in terms of an activity, because I am often contemplating/analyzing ideas, but in a
  slightly lazy way.

For serious meditators, effort is important. But for the average layperson, effort is important for important duties, such as work. When not working, having a rest or idle time is important. The work of meditation is different to worldly work. Because meditation work creates peace & energy, rest is not required, unlike with worldly work.

Concretely, is idleness bad?

If you need to rest, no, idleness is not bad. For example, I like to have a nap in the middle of the day on weekends.

For example, I often take public transport, wherein I contemplate certain subjects. But, I often tell myself I should read in public
  transport instead.

Contemplation is OK.

I think to me, some contemplative activity occurs when idle, but it is not focused, nor effortful. Can mere contemplation without much effort or focus be called meditation? Or is it simply wasting time?

In Buddhism, we can contemplate on subjects of Dhamma. On public transport, one can sit in formal meditation or samadhi, not thinking about anything. Or, otherwise, one can contemplate on the sense objects seen in a dhammic way.

Practical, Eggman, Nyom Volker, who ever interested:
The Buddha gave his monks the duty:

to either dwell in silence,
3rd of Jhana,
or to talk on Dhamma.

So if not jhanaing,
listen, think, read, reflect, talk...
on Dhamma is quite fine.
Don't 'relaxe' on unskillful causes. When ever possible, instead of letting attention get off, take the hand of an admirable, friend, ni-mitta,
Whether by mind, speech*,
Or the body of breath.
Appamada!
[*]
Food is used to become free of desire after food, so train your hunger all the time and don't let you become a Sea Squirt
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purposes or other wordily trade]


text:
Does Krishnamurti claim of No Path, No Progress, No Goal fit with Buddhist thought?
Quoted below is an article posted on BuddhaNet Magazine relating Krishnamurti's philosophy with Buddhism. The writer relates Krishnamurti's view that there is "no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules" with Buddhism referring to The Sutra of the Heart.
The writer claimed that this Sutra teaches that "There is ... no path, no wisdom, no attainment..." I haven't read this Sutra, but I have a hard time following anything which states that there is no "Wisdom"! If what the person says is true then it's wisdom and if false then there is wisdom!
Learning from other schools of thought, the critical response for anyone who says " listen to me there is no wisdom" is that what he/she says is meaningless because it fit perfectly with the liar paradox.
At the end of the article, the writer quoting to a Buddist teacher said that the Buddha "compromised" himself by teaching on the two different levels...  and that Krishnamurti's view is identical with the higher level of teaching.

....
To Krishnamurti there is no "path", no procedures, no organization, and no rules that should be laid down by men for other men to follow
  on the road to enlightenment. As part of the path, Buddhists must
  observe a very typical, man-made, structure which begins at the top
  with The Three Precious Ones: the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha.
  Each of these pillars has subsets of rules associated with it: The
  Five Skandhas, The Eight Siddhis, etc. Some would have us believe that
  learning all these articles of faith are necessary for enlightenment.
Much Buddhist literature suggests that in following Buddhism there is
  a great object that one must attain and that one progresses towards
  this goal as one takes each step along the path. To Krishnamurti
  setting a psychological goal and working for progress in any direction
  will only lead to more confusion and suffering. Any attempts at
  psychological self-betterment will amount to no more than just one
  more futile duplication of many similar past efforts, all of which had
  previously failed.
The typical pattern of human behavior that we always seem to fall
  into, perhaps by virtue of conditioning, is the "work for a reward"
  stereotype. One finds a religion and sees something desirable in it
  which becomes an object of attainment. The next step is to devise a
  plan to acquire the object, and finally, with great deliberation we
  set about to carry out that plan with hard, unrelenting work.
Krishnamurti tells us that the "work for a reward" operandi has been
  tried countless times by homo sapiens, but it has never led us to
  anything new or different in the area of spiritual enlightenment. What
  do we make of all this? Buddhist leaders round the world tell us that
  there are Buddhist goals and a path of hard work and attainment for
  reaching these goals.
Here again Krishnamurti seems to be more in agreement with the very
  core of Buddhist teachings than the Buddhists themselves. The Sutra of
  the Heart of Transcendent Knowledge sounds more like Krishnamurti than
  does many of the Buddhist teachers: "There is ... no path, no wisdom,
  no attainment, and no nonattainment ..." Here Krishnamurti is telling
  us to live up to the precepts of this great Buddhist Sutra. He is not
  telling us to follow a path, but to under stand that there is no path.
  He tells this just as bluntly and simply as the Sutra does. There is
  no apparent sympathy or embellishments for the benefit of those who
  either fail to understand or for those who have beliefs in goals to
  which they must continue to cling.

http://www.buddhanet.net/khrisna.htm

It seems to me that the topic of the question isn't really Krishnamurti's claim, instead the topic is what BuddhaNet says about his claim. And, you're not even really interested in what BuddhaNet says about his claim, instead what you're questioning is what BuddhaNet says about the Heart Sutra. And, you say you haven't read the Heart Sutra. But I think what your question is asking is, "BuddhaNet says that the Heart Sutra says that 'there is no wisdom' ... but if the Heart Sutra says 'there is no wisdom; then surely the Heart Sutra can't be Buddhist?"

@ Christ thanks for summarizing my question, but I'm also interested to know how Krishnamurti's view is seen by Buddhists. if you think BuddhaNet writer is misquoting Krishnamurti or even more so misrepresenting Buddism I would be glad to hear you thought. IMO the first paragraph negating the triple gem is also disturbing, but the writer absorb this a higher teaching?

@Epic Heart Sutta isn't mean no path in initial state it is when there's no self, when one being pure after followed path and all things. Heart Suttra - "The Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom".And if Buddha's teaching is lower level then why he enlightened and not krisnamurti?  I don't think his philosophy is useful even if higher level cause Buddha spend his whole life with it. Thanks

See also Have any notable Buddhists commented on Krishnamurti's teachings? (there were two Krishnamurtis); I don't know whether Krishnamurti was or is considered (or considered himself) "Buddhist".

People have written about the Heart Sutra too (on Wikipedia and on this site).

Jiddu K.? No one understands Heart Sutra, HS has been mis-translated, nor the HS really addressing Avalokitesvara... The Buddha doesn't teach what called Middle Way - nevertheless this is the Theravadin's favourite etymology, this saying is like saying the Buddha taught in compromise - can truth be compromised?

The idea there is no path is itself a path, which obviously has a goal. If there was no goal, why did KM teach?
The Buddha's path, properly comprehended, is the abandonment of craving & letting go. This is similar to what KM was attempting to teach but, unlike KM, the Buddha comprehended there is actually a path (patipada) or method (gamini).

See also Why is the Buddha described as trackless? (also here). And the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15) can talk about desire having an "end", and thus the path having an end.

Brahmana Sutta is spoken by Ananda and best ignored, Regards