text:
What is Buddhism "for" (in favor of)?
Aside from ending suffering, encouraging compassionate action and leading one to nirvanna, is there anything that Buddhism promotes, or says is good?
The reason that I ask is because in another recent question I asked about musical composers, and as I  look around at related questions, I find that dance, singing and listening to music seem to go against the 7th Precept. I am not aware of any sutras promoting art or creativity, other than skillful actions and insightful discourse. It seems pretty flat to me, but I cannot find fault with it.
As a person who has always danced and listened to music, and sometimes draws or paints, I am wondering just what we should be doing with our "one wild and precious life"? (Assuming that this is the last one.) Is life good in itself, once cleared of defilements? Can it not be enjoyed - meaning that something worthwhile is done that uplifts self and others?

In one of the teachings I received, there is this concept of Five Joys:

The joy of having your basic needs satisfied (food, shelter, safety).
The (higher) joy of material comfort and sensual enjoyment.
The (even higher) joy of professional/creative realization.
The (very high) joy of helping society: teaching, healing.
The (highest) joy of Enlightenment.

So assuming you're in your 50s and done with the first three, I suppose you can derive joy from helping the less lucky ones?

is there anything that Buddhism promotes, or says is good?

Buddhism promotes the well being of oneself and others or general good of society inclusive of onself.

“Guarding oneself, one protects others.”
    “Guarding others, one protects oneself.” - Sedaka Sutta

dance, singing and listening to music seem to go against the 7th Precept.

This is not interested for general householder. Generally you can enjoy the what this though it is called non pure. Also the joy of renunciation or joy born from parting from seeking sensual objects is considered pure. Extensive discussion see: Vedanā (Feeling): A study of the 2nd aggregate - Theme: A reflection on the Datthabba Sutta by Piya Tan

...  Is life good in itself, once cleared of defilements? Can it not be enjoyed ...

You have the joy and pleasure of renunciation. This is pure and considered more pleasurable. You have eliminated all avenues on which you can become unhappy, stressed or sad, hence you are joyful and happy person who can truly enjoy life.

Once you have renunciation, then what? What is a good thing to do with life at age 50?

Renunciation has is not taking delight in what you see, hear, .... The most common method to do this is going forth. When you do not delight in what is experienced bad experiences cannot hurt you also when positive experiences end.

Your question is very broad, with multiple aspects and many possible answers. I will just address one aspect. In the Pali Canon we do find a tradition of spontaneous ecstatic poetry, uttered at significant moments in order to express a realization or insight, especially in the Theragatha and the Therigatha but also in the suttas. This traditon developed into the Tibetan mahasiddhi tradition where spontaneous utterances puntuated ganachakras, or "tantric feasts," which in turn has analogies with the uposatha, properly the eve of the soma festival that the Buddha adapted to the sangha. The verbal expression of poetry is, of course, an aesthetic act, which seems to be what your question is about. Zen koans might also be said to have an aesthetic aspect, and of course one has the highly refined Buddhist aesthetics of China and Japan, also related to Zen.

Rumi is similar, and Milarepa's spontaneously uttered songs come to mind. This is similar to "spontaneous appropriate action", but verbal. Perhaps there is room for well-made paintings or dance also?

Thangkas in the Tibetan tradition.


text:
Teachings regarding Veneration/Respect (as one of the traditional 10 meritorious deeds)
Feel invited or maybe even inspired to share any teachings regarding "Apacāyana" (Respect or Veneration). It is one of the less taught, but very basic and fundamental, meritorious deeds. Teachings within Suttas, and Dhamma talks even from 'stranger' resources, if Dhamma, are welcome (in English and/or German).
They are actually difficult to find in the modern world, since they go a lot against the grain of how Dhamma was often introduced and promoted.
Such are of course just of beneficial use if they had originated and forwarded in line of meritorious deeds.
Atma would like to share this merits (Pattānuppadāna), not to speak of rejoicing with your merits.
It will not be easy to fully answer this question, so it might stay without an accepted answer for a longer time.
Asian dhamma talks are normally full of this matter, now here we can hardly find anything: of course from cause.
In addition: Even more complicated, such teachings should be Dhamma also given in line of Dhamma. So commercial stuff and taken things (althought it will be naturally less on this topic) is not useful since it has lost the line of respect.

Sadhu! Valued ChrisW, for your effort, not only to correct the spelling and grammar errors. Just that you know, and not a "countermove": It would be not proper to request, but it is no problem to give a opportunity. That is why such marks like "please" and "?" will be missed naturally.
Valued ChrisW, you are doing a very risky "job" here. It would (not sure if possible) be good if people could look into the original post, since others could be easily transgress simple precepts.
How ever, again, much mudita in regard of your effort which was for sure 100% well thought.

Atma assumes being invited to request the community in regard of "Apacāyana" (Respect or Veneration). It is one of the very less taught, but very basic and fundamental, meritorious deeds... as above.

Thank you for explaining that. Yes, people can easily see the original version by clicking on the link which says "edited ... ago". And yes please do assume (if it's proper) that you're welcome to ask questions or to post requests for information.

This is a site for questions and answers. I don't always understand every sentence that's posted, and so I look for the sentence which has a question mark in it (to try to ensure I understand at least the core of the question).

Sadhu! for the generous effort of further explaining (the technical possibilities) and for your kind invitation.mudita

Would a reference to Gārava be relevant to this topic, or is that different from Apacāyana?

Yes, that's another word for it, specific in a very dhammic way. That is for sure helpful for this quest here. Apacāyana, how ever, also maintains worldly aspects of reverence, such as respecting age, those more skilled, specially mother and father... Here is one Sutta that mentions the seven like quoted in the dictionary: Appamada Sutta: Heedfulness. On the path, out of this, Gārava would be enough, as a meritorious deed Gārava would be to less to describe the sphere and especially the roots where to start in d.life.

Ven. Sir. most likely Apacāyana is a word used in the commentaries more particularly appearing Abhidhamma commentaries like Attha,sālinī, Abhidhamm’attha,saṅgaha, Abhidhamm’attha,vibhāvinī, Moha,vicchedanī. (Search for Apacāyana within the Pali Canon returns nothing while other sources are mentioned in the background and introduction in Puñña,kiriya,vatthu Sutta compiled by Piya Tan)
The salient point with regard to practicing Apacāyana is that you dissolve the ego, pride and self-righteousness, within there is the perception of "I". In addition there is sense of gratitude1 or respect for higher virtue or attainment in the person you are venerating2.
As for source I would like to point out the following:

Apacayana means paying respects to those who excel you in age, morality, integrity, wisdom, virtue, etc. Paying respects to elderly persons such as your father, mother, uncle, aunt; offering your seat and making way for those worthy of respect; bowing your head and showing humility, clasping your palms in homage to Bhikkhus, doffing your hat, saluting according to custom, etc. are all signs of respect. However, if you show respect unwillingly to a powerful person out of fear or with some selfish aim, this cannot be called apacayana, because it is pretentious in nature. It only amounts to maya (trickery).
Note: Food for thought - bowing or curtseying is generally accepted as signs of reverence. In Myanmar some people put down whatever load they are carrying and prostate on the roads when they meet Bhikkhus. Some kneel down in the sidewalk or on the platform of a railway station to pay respects to monks and elderly persons. These actions if done with true sincerity, are not to be blamed. But in these days when people have to rush about in busy places, just a bow or a few humble words will suffice the need of apayacana. Kneeling down and prostrating in worshiping on meeting a Bhikkhu on the roads in a Bhikkhu on the roads or in busy crowded places in the presence of alien people are not really necessary.

Source: Abhidhamma In Daily Life / Chapter 6 - Ten Domains Of Meritorious Actions  / Domain 4 - Apacayana

Respect as a way of making merit should be known in such acts as getting up from
  one’s seat, welcoming one’s mother, father, elder brother, elder sister or an elderly person,
  taking his/her luggage, saluting him, showing him the way, and so on. Or generally,
  respecting others’ feelings, privileges, property, and life; regarding them with deference,
  esteem and honour; avoiding degrading, insulting or interrupting them; refraining
  from offending, corrupting or tempting them. Sadly, today the younger generation
  lacks respect or reverence.
According to Venerable Nāgasena, in Milindapañha, there are twelve persons who do
  not pay respect or show reverence to others: a lustful person because of his lust; an angry person because of his anger; a confused person because of his confusion; an arrogant
  person because of his pride; one devoid of special qualities owing to his lack of
  distinction; an obstinate owing to his lack of docility; a low minded owing to his low
  mindedness; an evil man owing to his selfishness; an afflicted owing to his affliction; a
  greedy owing to his being overcome by greed; and a businessman owing to his working
  for profit.
It is clear that, in contrast to the above persons, the reverent and respectful man develops
  his mind (and thereby accumulates merit), for by his attitude he cuts down the defilement
  of pride and replaces it by wise conduct of humility. Respecting elders and the
  Saïgha are clear examples of this aspect. Even the respect shown by a novice monk to a
  bhikkhu falls under this category.
Here again, the good intention that arises in one who shows respect or reverence is the
  way of making merit in respecting others.

Source: TEN WAYS OF MAKING MERIT by MAHINDA WIJESINGHE

Respectfulness (apacāyana) is the means by which one shows respect (apacayati), acts properly
  by way of honouring. Traditionally, respect is shown in such ways as when we meet a practising monk,
  salute him with joined palms, we take his bowl and robe, and offer him a seat and some water as appropriate.
  A common mark of respect would be to give way to elders when meeting them. “Respect” here
  should not be taken in the ritual way, which has very little moral value, as the intention behind such an
  action is not always pure. “Respect” properly means “accepting others as they are,” that is, using our present-moment
  awareness not to measure or judge others, but to relate to them (especially those near and
  dear) as if meeting them for the first time. In other words, when we show a sincere interest in people, we
  are more likely to encourage them to show their better sides. There is also “self-respect,” that is, abstaining
  from evil or unwholesome deeds through the feeling of moral shame (ottappa), that such negative
  results would bring disgrace upon us and those close to us.

Source: Puñña,kiriya,vatthu Sutta commentary and analysis by Piya Tan
Since gāravā is a loose equivalent as per the comments the following are the Suttas which has this word: search for gāravā within the Pali Canon.

1 Especially to those who helped in learning and coming in contact with the Dhamma, especially you teacher, the lineage of Sangha who preserved the teaching, the Buddha as if it was not for the Buddha we will have not come across the Dhamma at all and our Parami is not strong enough to realise it, and the Dhamma itself as even the Buddha kept it as his teacher.
2 Garava Sutta

Sadhu!
Valued Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena, Atma, knows the most excellent work of Abhidhamma In Daily Life which he received as Dhamma-Dana years ago from Budaedu. You may find a pfd of it here.
The work of of Upasaka Mahinda, which Atma came luckily personal in contact some weeks ago, who had personally given it for further share, was actually an additional motivation, to seek for more teachings in regard of basics, ...

...which people in traditional countries usually really do not lack, but modern world hardly does.
His work gratitude could still not be shared, because the print house seem to have protected the pfd. (Btw. if you know Upasaka Mahinda personally, he was to "shy" to have a picture of him published)
However, gratitude and respect for example are directly involved in each other and all of them are aspects of basic right view. On an modern website of Dhamma...

... one would not easily find even "Namo..." at first place or an dedication, introduction and veneration of the deliverer, sadly even if made by monastics. So there is a really big hole in western languages, as far as Atma has seen. Honestly, in regard of most interpretations of Mr. Piya Tan, Atma does not find much joy because many of them are really not in the frame of the path, but simply directed in community creation & affection. For example:  >" “Respect” properly means “accepting others as they are,” that is, using our present-moment awareness not to measure or judge others, ..."

If such talks, going straight to adhidhamma, like "The Lessons of Gratitude" are known, such are most helpful, Atma guesses, since they are more easy to follow. Yet good Abidhamma works and and lessons with good references to the suttas are also missing. One sees in both works, that the issue "Respect" is only touched a little. Today Atma started to translate MN 140, where one could see that even unknowingly such can be a transgression.

Sadhu! for the additions, however, Upasaka Piya Tans interpretations of the deeper meaning of "respect" does not fit with the teachings or the Buddha "In Buddhism, respect has a broader meaning of “uncondi
tion - ally accepting oneself and others as they are." (like again in the commentars to the Gārava Sutta and are merely a popular New age approach) A kind of sample where the forbiddance of any kind of respect, if one looks at respect in the Vinaya is very accurate. ...

Much of the commentary is from literature review in an academic perspective from Academic Researchers researching buddhism in English and discussion of the literature.  Many of the western researchers take a new age approach hence this is also reflected in the writing this is what is generally available as literature. Also this undertaking is more of an academic research effort. I also do not know if this is true directed in community creation & affection as I know it he doesn't have much of a following or community as such though he lectures at different institutes and universities.

Its also a usual appearance of such new age interpretations, that parents are mostly not mentioned by those people. How ever, it could be also that there is a misunderstanding, that not paying respect means straightly aversion, but actually its understanding. If it is a proper time to clearly express a disprove is another thing, yet not and never a matter of aversion but merely compassion, if understood rightly....

Another thing is, that he introduces it as a means of worldly gaining, which is actually akusala. Again, "modern" websites which introduce Buddhas teachings and lacing of "Namo ..." and "Expressions of Gratitude" are seldom resources of Dhamma in line on Dhamma. Yet, for the wise also a source. I trust that Upasaka does not take this additions as even personal critic, but simply a try to make the reason for the question and the difficulty of this quest more visible by samples. Sorry, Atma did not saw that you replied. Yes, most is just "academic" work, which has grow to business.

I think most of his commentary takes the form of a literature survey in academic research. There is helpful identifying what other researchers have done in this area related to the particular Sutta. E.g. Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies publishers many books and journals but it is difficult to identify what these publication have about say a perticular Sutta. The commentary many of the research done about the particular Sutta by other. Some researchers who publish papers hence get quoted or discussed may not be devoted Buddhist themselves.

It seems like that valued Upasaka indirectly brings up good samples of teaching people actually disrespect: Oxford University is on the way to make the Dhamma to a legal article of trade! With some discussions with scholars about fundamental things.
But actually it goes even deeper, since the ways of modern educations are already broad adopted within the Sanghas ways of educating new monks. Learning simply by books or internet, without interaction is the death of respect and gratitude. Less are left even willing to teach and to busy.

Many major universities now have departments doing research in Buddhism. Piya Tan's commentary help identify these sources. This is the main reason I use this and also formatting and more simpler and clear English in translations. Of course they more inclined towards New Age Buddhism which I would agree. Also publication come in volumes with a chapter being a Sutta. The 1st Chapter start with "Namo ... " e.g. An Introduction to the Satipatthana Suttas

Ven. Sir, I do understand the point you are making and partly agree. But non of the other translators identify related Suttas. What other scholars have got to say about a particular topic. How different scholars have translated or interpreted certain areas in a Sutta differently. In this perspective these are the best translation available due to this. Also implicitly and well structured formatting is easy to read. That is why I use them. If there is a better structured translations with commentary linking available literature and other Suttas I will definitely use it.

But there is nothing much out there which this has this amount of information and cross referencing available.

Sadhu! Valued Upasakas way of taking care and respect of every subject involved, while staying straight on wise line and truthfulness, are very praiseworthy and treacherous (in its, of course positive manner) for all.

"But there is nothing much..." means that is actually really a good invitation. Atma has tried to start some collections in a "wiki-teaching" like kind, but only in German and a rare as sketch so far. It's a actually a real "Modern Buddhist"-Enemy, this topic and like "serving" or "sharing merits" a red flag while going into spheres of Vipassana. That is not healthy.

Sadhu! Ven. Sir, looking forward to your work. Perhaps publish then in English as well in PDF form. This will be very valuable for everyone. With Metta.

Well that's actually in decency of the Veyyāvaca of those taking on the invitations like here. It seams that especially samples in action form people with deep cultural background and routine like your person are very much needed. When such comes from potential people who would "receive" such, there is always the possible critic that he might just have the interest to lift up himself. Atma has collected a sketch in de so far, but a matter that has really high impact on the whole practice & not only in this religion a urgent lack.

Upasaka Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena encouraged in the discussion under his answer to possibly share some teachings on veneration. Atma tried to expand the originally sketch which starts with namo, and did a surely poor translation into English. It should not be regarded as finished work, a lot of important further aspects are not included yet but still in the sphere of mind. Its also good if you would share possible missing parts and maybe even try to improve it. The topic is a difficult one, since it is such a natural thing for those having grown up in an environment of right view or live in such, while it is hardly ever seen for people used to grow up and live in spheres where such as right view is negated. So the part who knows its benefit would not easy see that there is a lot of lack and start to explain it while the blind part to it would not estimate to miss a important point. Its actually the peak point where Dhamma and no Dhamma collided or better split far apart. Knowing this it is of cause just for those with little dust in the eyes beneficial while for those with lot of gains even a further obstacle in line with there defilement. One of the main doors to break on through the other side (if one considers the lyric rightly):
Respect and Veneration
Table of contents

Introduction and dedication
Dedication
Object of reverence

Persons
Physical objects
Places
Places of pilgrimage
Graves and Relics

Actions

Actions of reverence
Reverence with the body
Salutation and flighty Encounter
Bow/Prostration
Prostrations as a means of practice
Deeds while receiving Dhamma
Reverence by Speech
Salutation title
Reverence and Appreciation of Deeds

Mind state and Benefit of the Practice
The Power of Reverence
Reverence and Worshipping in regard of Gods
Unskilful kind of Reverence
Duties of giving Respect for Monks and Nuns
Benefit and Backwards*

Benefits form the practice of Veneration*
Backwards of the omitting of Veneration*

Special Practice of Reverence in various Traditions

Puja

See also
Sources
Notes and Links

[ * new added]

On who is an elder and thus worthy of veneration:

We have heard, Master Gotama: “The ascetic Gotama does not pay homage to brahmins who are old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, come to the last stage; nor does he stand up for them or offer them a seat.” This is indeed true, for Master Gotama does not pay homage to brahmins who are old, aged, burdened with years, advanced in life, come to the last stage; nor does he stand up for them or offer them a seat. This is not proper, Master Gotama.’
“It then occurred to me: These venerable ones do not know what an elder is or what the qualities that make one an elder are. Even though someone is old—eighty, ninety, or a hundred years from birth—if he speaks at an improper time, speaks falsely, speaks what is unbeneficial, speaks contrary to the Dhamma and the discipline, if at an improper time he speaks words that are worthless, unreasonable, rambling, and unbeneficial, then he is reckoned as a foolish childish elder.
“But even though someone is young, a youth with black hair, endowed with the blessing of youth, in the prime of life, if he speaks at a proper time, speaks what is truthful, speaks what is beneficial, speaks on the Dhamma and the discipline, and if at a proper time he speaks words that are worth recording, reasonable, succinct, and beneficial, then he is reckoned as a wise elder.

Uruvela sutta 2 (AN 4.22)

260 A monk is not Elder because his head is gray. He is but ripe in age, and he is called one grown old in vain.
392 Just as a brahmin priest reveres his sacrificial fire, even so should one devoutly revere the person from whom one has learned the Dhamma taught by the Buddha.

Dhammapada: 19 Dhammatthavagga, 26 Brahmanavagga

Sadhu! Just do not forget the copy right. Thats a matter of respect and right view: © Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha (Wisdom Publications, 2012)
This excerpt from The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha by Bhikkhu Bodhi is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on the work The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha at Wisdom Publications.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at Wisdom Publications.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en_US

What do you think? Was that spoken worthless, unreasonable, rambling, and unbeneficial, like a foolish childish elder?

When Atma assumes right, Mr. Alexander or even Dmytro? Atma is confused, but some things make reason. Stay on the good side!! Robin Hood is not regarded as a worthy person in Dhammic views  even there are monks who follow in such ways. How ever, mudita that you still do in dhamma. (for others, who might be confused: Upasaka Dmytro was a generous layperson who had given many possibilities on sangham. And there is much obligation that such a person should not fall into wrong views.)

@Samana Johann, fair enugh, thank you, point taken

Sadhu! Such is a person, who is able to grow. (You can not share such things here according the TOS ) Only sell-able "Dhamma"  Just for the case you did not saw the second wink. Doing things unknowingly do/will hurt even more. Alexander or Dmytro (?) That means you should also change that on SC, because you can not take non-comercial and put it under the license of commercial (https://suttacentral.net/ru/mn1), as Atma had seen today. That is taking what is not given. Be careful!

Anything posted on this site is "user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required" which is not "NonCommercial-NoDerivs". I believe we may post relevant fragments from other works (with incompatible licenses) if our posts meet the various "Fair Use" provisions. When you inlude a quote in your post it isn't usual to reference to the license, but you should instead reference the source from which you copied the quote.

Something similar came up in another topic: this answer references the The Maha Mangala Sutta, one of whose topics is Gārava which (you wrote) is similar to Apacāyana.

Gaaravo: reverence. This includes the proper veneration of the Buddha,
  Dhamma and Sangha, and respect for parents and teachers, wise people,
  good persons and elders — in fact, a general high regard for everyone.
  Even the Buddha after his Enlightenment surveyed the world to try to
  find a teacher to revere. When he realized that no teacher surpassed
  his own attainments, then he proclaimed in verse that he would live
  revering the Dhamma through which Enlightenment had been discovered.
And the arahant-disciples too had reverence for the Buddha as their
  guide, for the Dhamma, for other senior bhikkhus and for the way of
  training.
The further one has gone along the path of Dhamma the more reverence
  one has for it — and for others who also practice correctly. It is not
  that reverence grows less as one practices! This is a way of
  estimating one's own position, for if a lot of pride and conceit can
  be seen then one has not got very far!
How does one show respect or reverence? The Buddha says that one gives
  such a person a good seat, stands up to receive them, makes way for
  them and, for religious teachers, one places one's hands together and
  bows at their feet. This is a blessing resulting in good future births
  and harmony in the present life.

A search for 'Gāravo' on Access to Insight may find that this word is used in several other suttas also.
You might also look at other related words (for example, possibly Nivāta as a synonym, or Māna as an antonym).
Another practice to consider might be 'prostrations' which is mentioned frequently on this site.
Prostrations are apparently a Theravada practice, though it might be more prevalent in other schools of Buddhism. See for example this answer which tries to explain the "Tradition and purpose of prostration practice".

Sadhu for the effort Upasaka Chris, You and others are everytime invited to share such maybe here in a related topic. Please don't understand Atmas leave as any fault of anybody here. You do a really good work here not to speak about the topics topic, where this community is far more developed as any other Atma has met on web. Sadhu!

source: Stack Exchange

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

authors: Баян Купи-ка

sort: votes


text:
Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself and instigate others as well?
Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself with the choice of becoming a Buddha (avoiding extinguishing dukkha) and instigate others as well to do so?
Given that this world is full of "Bodhisattvas", there is not one being who is not just here to help others out, why does a Bodhisattva instigate others to stay on this normal course of birth and death?
Does he need food to nourish his undertaking and fearing to find nobody and nothing as reason for further becoming?
Or what is the reason to instigate others to do such a work?
Just to become one day wise and listen to what the Buddha say and trap others who have the same blindness for it? (Given that the Teachings of the Buddha of our time is still available)
Or do they assume that there are no teachings which lead them out for now?

Could you please clarify in what regard you see Boddhisatvas as having burdened themselves, and how you see them as instigating others to do the same? I do not understand your question, thank you.

To speak in with a simile, Mr Ryan: to need 1000 arms one actually needs to have a real problem or burden with ones task. And why "instigating others to do the same" is simple the question "why instigating others to do the same" since it is obvious that "Bodhisattvas" do such in a big manner.

I've edited to try and make it more explicit what I understood of your question. Feel free to change it back if the result misrepresents the intended question.

That's tricky, but let it be like that :-) if Thiago Silva thinks it give food for thought.

Maybe it was not clear that the question was more about why does one likes to become a Bodhisattva at the first place not why does one like to get ride of dukkha. That was meant by tricky change and now even obvious no more visible what was meant with it, Mr. @ThiagoSilva

Yes, I got that. Sorry, these editions where trying to clarify what "burden" you referred to -- at first sight it is not clear why this choice of path is a burden. My thought was that given that a Bodhisattva is one who is resolute to become a sammasambuddha and avoids extinguishing dukkha until this is done, I just added the qualifications of the choice to make it clear in what sense it is a burden -- in the sense that one chooses to be subject to dukkha. In any case, feel free to edit it

BTW, what school or lineage do you practice in.

In the case Upasaka Dharmasena (@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena ) asked my person, Buddha Dhamma, or Dhamma Vinaya. Atma has no afflatus in anything aside the Lineage of the Noble ones which is not easy to trace. But in line of the question here, its maybe worth to say that a Bodhisattva would never tell about his tendency or that he walks that way. Such a noble aspiration of such a path was maybe destroyed in times of Millarepa and his lamenting approaches, now it has become a "hero" path.

@SumindaSirinathS.Dharmasena Or if that question was addressed to Thiago, see his profile.

Addressed to Ven. Sir so I can better align my answers when there might be common ground to thing I picked up.

A Bodhisattva 'instigates' others because he wants what is best for others (full enlightenment together with its causes). From this viewpoint, 'abiding nirvana' is thus not what is best for others,  because it is not the one final result of the one final vehicle (i.e. the Mahayana path).
There are two obscurations:

Afflictive obscurations - all the afflictions - which prevent one from achieving abiding nirvana, and
Knowledge obscurations - the imprints left by previous moments of ignorance - which prevent one from achieving perfect enlightenment, omniscience.

If he completely abandoned afflictive obscurations (which an arya bodhisattva does anyway from the 8th  bhumi), the practitioner would be free from the conception of inherent existence, but he would not be free from the appearance of inherent existence because such a mistaken appearance is  caused by knowledge obscurations. A bodhisattva does not aim at merely abiding in 'abiding nirvana', but wants to be completely free from all mistakes and thus be able to enact the welfare of others.
The bodhisattva does not set out to merely get rid of afflictive obscurations and achieve abiding nirvana. He set out, from the entry into the Mahayana path, to get rid of knowledge obscurations and achieve what Mahayana call 'full buddhahood', 'perfect enlightenment', 'omniscience', 'the four kayas', 'non-abiding nirvana'.
The wisdom directly realizing emptiness is said to be 'the mother of all three types of enlightenment - that of the shravaka, the pratyekabuddha, and the bodhisattva' because it is a cause of enlightenment. However, it is a Mahayana belief that full enlightenment (that of the arhat-bodhisattva, an arya buddha) can not be achieved by cultivating the wisdom-side alone. One needs the method-side, namely bodhicitta, the six perfections, and so forth.
Knowledge obscurations can only be removed by way of developing the two wings that are method and wisdom. When the wisdom directly realizing emptiness is conjoined with bodhicitta, that wisdom becomes what is called 'ultimate bodhicitta' and that puts an end to what prevents one from achieving omniscience, the omniscient mind of a buddha, buddhahood, perfect enlightenment. That is why a bodhisattva cultivates bohdicitta, which is 'the wish to achieve enlightenment for the benefits of all sentient beings'.
The classical analogy goes: the wisdom realizing emptiness is like an axe while bodhicitta is like the strong arm. You need both the axe and a strong arm to cut the tree (that is here knowledge obscurations).
We say that from the path of seeing, an [arya] bodhisattva comes back in samsara but is not wandering in samsara. So his aggregates are not contaminated anymore, and there is no 'true suffering' involved. It is not the case that he will suffer for eternity. This is because he does not come back under the power of karma and afflictions, but under the power of compassion and aspirational prayers.

Sadhu for the effort to try to answer that, Mr/Mrs Tenzin Dorje. But actually it does not real. Given that such is needed (to help others) to find a way out, why instigate others as well to do so?
And an additional question accuses or a previous gets more blatant with "Mahayana believes...", what if there believes effect if they actually believe such since a long time and even get one being after the other on there track. There is a lot of causing harm, dukkha and death involved in only one turn of live, so it is somehow assumable how big the mountain of corps is, caused by such ideas.

I added a few things in order to answer what I believe was your question. Please, feel free to tell me if I'm still besides the point.

Why does/would a "Bodhisattva" burdens himself with the choice of becoming a Buddha (avoiding extinguishing dukkha) and instigate others as well to do so?

Many people misunderstand Nirvana as permanent happiness or permanent absence of any trouble - which is impossible due to Impermanence. So Bodhisattva explains that such "Nirvana" is impossible, and invites all who has ears to hear to partake of true Nirvana, which is suchness - true extinguishing of dukkha by not clinging to what passes and not rejecting what is and not craving for what is not.
Second, if one wants to teach others Dharma, dukkha will inevitably be generated due to mismatch between "what is" (the confused student) and "what should be" (the student that understood). So in order to teach one has to be Okay with dukkha - which in itself is extinguishing dukkha.
So Bodhisattva really only consistently applies Dharma to its completion.

Given that this world is full of "Bodhisattvas", there is not one being who is not just here to help others out,

This statement is false. There are millions if not billions of selfish people here - and you know this. Sarcasm is a form of false speech too.

Or what is the reason to instigate others to do such a work?

Compassion.

Or do they assume that there are no teachings which lead them out for now?

The desire to get "out" is the desire that Bodhisattva overcomes to attain the non-attainment of suchness, the true Nirvana.

Could I ask you to please give a quote from an authoritative text to explain 'Bodhisattva explains that such "Nirvana" is impossible, and invites all who has ears to hear to partake of true Nirvana, which is suchness', though?

FYI I tried to follow on this comment which recommended explaining "the 4 types of nirvana."
There's a description of that in this video, Four types of nirvana starting at about time 13:05.

Natural nirvana -- the emptiness of the mind
Nirvana with remainder -- an arhat (the "remainder" being their body)
Nirvana without remainder -- an arhat after death

Some schools believe that an arhat's mind and body cease at death, which begs the question "who has nirvana?" The venerable's (Gelug) school teaches that, instead, when an arhat dies they shed their polluted body, acquire a mental body, and reside in a Pure Land in meditative equipoise (on emptiness) until the Buddha arouses them and says they need to enter the Boddhisatva path: at which they have to start on the Boddhisatva path (even though they've realized emptiness before) and acquire the great merit of a Boddhisatva. And that's why (she says) we're encouraged to enter the Boddhisatva path directly without become arhats first ... because that (entering the Boddhisatva path directly) is the quicker (than becoming an arhat first and being in meditative equipose for a while) way to enter full awakening, accumulate all the merit that you need to accumulate to become a Buddha.

There are many motivations.
One of the main motivations is loving kindness. You do this to the benefit of the others.
Though this might not be generally considered, a small strain of sense of challenge, achievement, accomplishment or to achieving the ultimate can also be present. These may fade away depending on the stage you are in but surely a motivation early on to wish for Buddhahood. Buddhahood is at the pinnacle of working towards a most perfect form of existence. This on it's own right becoming.
Also external influences can motivate this. I have heard when there were no Buddhas for a long time some beings who are is some stage of sainthood  in higher planes influence possible earthlings to aspire to become a Buddha by telepathic influence and planting the seed or initial thought of aspiration.

Why, Upasaka Dhamasena, would those "beings who are is some stage of sainthood in higher planes" inspire others rather to just do it themselves? That goes back to the OQ "Why burden others?"

It is said manomaya nidana happened this way in the Jataka

Well wanting to become a Buddha it self is "manomaya", but that was not the question in this specific case, Upasaka Dharmasena. Its just a reasonable question. As I would for example say to Upasaka "Come on, you could free your self form suffering. Do not waste your time with fantasies of becoming a Buddha" What does Upasaka Dharmasenat thinks, which of both would be the voice of Mara and which the Buddhas advice?

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


text:
Can anyone recommend a good diacritic keyboard for rendering Pali, Sanskrit, etc?
This isn't particularly about Buddhism, but I'm wondering what people are using for unicode characters.

Maybe move this to meta?  It does pertain to Buddhist languages.

I don't know... Doesn't belong on the meta either. If anyone has an answer they can reply here in the comments I guess. The rules are just rules but there is a reason we have to keep enforcing them...

No worries.  Other than a little comp sci dabbling, I have the technical skills of a slightly sophisticated caveman.  ;-) I just wasn't sure where else to look than here.

I don't know if this will be useful for you but when I need to write Pali letters, I find them on google and copy/paste them into Buddhism SE. Of course this might not be helpful if wanting to literally write the language. For small sentences, words and letters the copy/paste-method can work.

Found one - http://fsnow.com/pali/keyboard/ .  I can write Pāli now!  It's certainly a more effective solution than hammering on my keyboard with a large brontosaurus bone!

Pali is usually rendered in Roman/ Latin characters with diacritical marks - the same ones used by Sanskrit. Pali doesn't have its own script. However, I think it's possible to render Pali also in the Sinhala script and the Devanagari script (used by Sanskrit). Hence, you can also use keyboards that render Roman/ Latin characters with Sanskrit diacritical marks, Sinhala script and Devanagari script.


text:
Is Mindfulness the same as having an Observer?
If this was bone-obvious to everyone else, then silly me, but I just thought of it because I heard these two words separately long ago and connected them while answering another question...
Are "the Observer" and the process of being Mindful, in essence the same thing? Does one involve the other inherently?
I have used them differently and never connected them before, because I thought:

The Observer is a developed system within "me" (which is a collection of points of view of varying levels of awareness) and not everyone has an Observer or is aware of it all the time.
Mindfulness is something I do and is not the activity of another point of view within "me".

But, trying to be mindful when I have only one point of view is not very possible, and who would be mindful, other than the Observer?
Finally: is transcending the Observer (and the need for Mindfulness) the same as Nonduality? I think it is. (Don't worry about answering this question, it is just an idea.)
EDIT: My Healing Teacher said that I have to get people to "define their terms", so here are my definitions:
The Observer is the experience of being aware of myself. It feels like I am witnessing my own thoughts and actions.
Mindfulness is the process of being aware of what I am doing. (To me, this does not require an Observer, but that is what I am asking.)
"Being aware of myself" means... Well, that I know what I am doing right now. Different from the other two.
A Mind - is something that could do otherwise, it exercises choice on some level.
Awareness is the action of a sufficiently developed mind.
Consciousness is awareness of being a self.
A Self is something that knows it is a self, and that other selves know, etc.
(Don't even get me started on the idea of Mindfullness being a way to empty the mind!)
Has this made it any clearer what I am asking? Please try to use words such as these for an answer, supplementing with the appropriate Buddhist terms.
ADDITION: here are some links which I hope can help people understand what I am asking:

This RYUC one is a bit of a muddle, but the Observer corresponds with what I am asking about, and also is similar to what I call a Neo state. The Witness is more like how I would describe nonduality.
This one about Energy Healing says that "In Buddhism, developing the witness/observer is a foundational piece of their teachings." Ha!
In this one, they use the words observer and witness interchangeably.

Is this question related?

Beware that Lanka is suggesting that "mindfulness" is a term used rather loosely (I presume that's from the perspective of the Theravada school and according to the vocabulary of the Pali canon). Mindfulness might be the English word used to describe something which is also translated as "bare attention" but there are nuances (other kinds of mindfulness and/or attention).

@ChrisW Ask a simple question, get a complex answer. sigh

My mum dislikes my using non-English words (for example I lost her interest as soon as I tried to mention dukkha).

For future reference I guess you mean the word "observer" e.g. as you used it in this answer.

@ChrisW The best translation I have heard for dukkha is simply "unsatisfactory": no matter what you do, things either don't work out as you wished, or they ultimately fall apart. I am trying to use simple English words here. Cannot there be a simple English answer? As Einstein said, "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."

Also if the question is primarily about observer-as-agent versus mindfulness-as-activity, or about mindfulness-as-I, then a related topic might be Why talk and think about self as noun?.

@ChrisW Indeed. That is the question that I answered which caused me to think of the question I am asking now. If light traveled long enough, would it come around and hit you in the back of the head?

@ChrisW In the self/noun thing, the OP commented: "A relation that relates itself to itself, not the relation itself, but the relation’s relating itself to itself in the relation. That's what I mean by action" Gack! No six year old would get that.

Maybe we can cut through the verb noun issue by saying: the Observer is being aware of yourself, Mindfulness is being aware of what you are doing. They seem different to me, but are they? Or are they intimately connected?

Einstein, eh? It reminds me of this video I saw today where he says that we're trained to expect an answer to every question (e.g. "what is the date today?"); but there's one type of question (i.e. "who are you?") that's especially difficult to answer. In this question, you make some statements using vocabulary and ask whether those statements are true. If Wolfgang Pauli were being rude he might reply to your Einstein that the statement is "Not even wrong".

It seems to me that using vocabulary like "being aware of yourself" begs the question (e.g. that there is some well-defined "yourself"). IMO that can't be done unambiguously using conventional (for six-year-olds) words, and instead you might (or then again might not) want to use technical vocabulary with more precise definitions.

@ChrisW you must have been talking to me while I was making lunch, just now, because I was realizing that... Time for an EDIT to the Question...

You already gave defintions for both mindfulness and observer. From then, since it's a model you are conceiving, you are instrumented to tell if you regard them as the same or not (e.g. do you understand processs and experience to be the same? and so on). Unless you are asking the relation of these to Buddhism?

If I do algebraic substitution (i.e. logic) using the first three definitions, then the question resolves to, "is 'the experience of being aware of what I'm doing' the same as 'the process of being aware of what I am doing'?"

@ThiagoSilva OK, so: do other people (such as Buddhists) have the same model as I do, or am I the only one? I can't be, since I got these words from other people. Either I understood them correctly, or I am in a complete muddle. Please instruct me.

@ChrisW I will accept that as a statement of the question, although I suspect you have either reduced it to nothing, or I have misunderstood the ramifications. I am not a Philosopher, and not so great on Mathematics, either. If the answer does not now leap out at you from your own experience, then I think we have to call it a dead-end inquiry.

In Buddhism, developing the witness/observer is a foundational piece of their teachings. That's a bit hard to fathom. It's true that practice like "watching the breath" is pretty orthodox.

The Observer is the experience of being aware of myself. It feels like I am witnessing my own thoughts and actions.

In Buddhism, "myself" as an entity would be a mind-object: a concept, something one conceived / imagined, which receives attention -- a 'self' is taught to not be in the range of actual experiences such as a touch, a smell or primitive mental phenomena (such as a mental image, or mental sound) that can be contacted.
In Buddhism, one is "aware" of the detailed micro experiences (that, among other things, give rise to a concept of self). In buddhism, this "detailed awareness", or "attention" to a specific "primitive experience" is called consciousness (vinanna), which is formulated in buddhism as six-fold: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness1.
Then, it's said that if there's  eye organ and visual forms,  eye-consciousness arise. The coming of the three is contact. For example in my visual field now there are bed sheets, wall frames and a TV. But while I write this, I'm not conscious of any of these forms, only of this visual character I'm typing right now.
For example, I just realized there was a lamp in the ceiling with lights on in my visual field, even though it has been reachable all the time. Until that moment, there was no contact (my consciousness was not directed) to this particular visual object.
The same occurs with mind as a sense: there are mind objects (e.g. thoughts) a "mind organ", and a mind-consciousness arise; the coming of the three is contact (e.g. when one gives attention to a particular thought). With contact, pleasant, unpleasant (or neither one) occur -- and so on.

Mindfulness is the process of being aware of what I am doing. (To me, this does not require an Observer, but that is what I am asking.)

I think this is close to what  mindfulness (sati) is in buddhism. It has different/related meanings depending on context but without going into details, I would summaryze as Thanissaro Bhikku put it: "What does it mean to be mindful of the breath? Something very simple: to keep the breath in mind."

"Being aware of myself" means... Well, that I know what I am doing right now. Different from the other two.

I'm not sure how your "being aware of what I am doing" is different than your "know what I am doing".

A Mind - is something that could do otherwise, it exercises choice on some level.

In buddhism, I think this could be mano, sankhara, or even possibly cetana.

Awareness is the action of a sufficiently developed mind.

I don't quite understand what you mean on this one.

Consciousness is awareness of being a self.

I would not say one is aware of a self (or 'myself', see first point) -- e.g. as if 'self' was an experienced object grasped by any of the 6 sense faculties. But one does elaborate a (by buddhism, incorrect) understanding of being or having 'a self'.
Now, to the question...

Is Mindfulness the same as having an Observer?

In Buddhism (and if you understand mindfulness to be sati), no.
For a detailed investigation on the meanings of mindfulness I suggest  Tse-fu Kuan's Mindfulness in Early Buddhism

1: The point, I think, is not to say that there is such a thing as consciousness and it can be perfectly divided in six part (an ontological statement). Rather, it is that understanding the mind in this way is useful / helps with training and understanding of dhamma, and consequently, with final liberation.

I agree that the answer to my question is No. I am not sure how you can say that you know you have a self (even knowing it is illusory) yet not be aware of being a self? It seems like "awareness of self" is the only thing that can be said about selfness. Not being aware that it is, renders it, not. I am not sure that you would pass the Turning Test under that criterion. By contrast, "knowing what you are doing" means that you can answer questions about why you did it. Shrdlu could do that.  The Observer, in essence, is like a friend who sits there being aware of what you are doing.

As far as I know, Observer (kṣetra-jñaḥ - "the knower of the field [of experience]" or Vedagu - "the one who enjoys [the objects of senses]") is a Hindu concept. It's an ancient expression for the subject of experience, the spectator in the Cartesian Theater:

The king said: ‘Is there, Nāgasena, such a thing as The Knower?’
[Nagasena:] ‘What is this, O king, The Knower (Vedagu)?’
[King Milinda:] ‘The living principle within which sees forms through the eye, hears sounds through the ear, experiences tastes through the tongue, smells odours through the nose, feels touch through the body, and discerns things (conditions, “dhammā") through the mind—just as we, sitting here in the palace, can look out of any window out of which we wish to look, the east window or the west, or the north or the south.
  ...
  Then the Elder [Nagasena] convinced Milinda the king with discourse drawn from the Abhidhamma, saying: ‘It is by reason, O king, of the eye and of forms that sight arises, and those other conditions—contact, sensation, idea, thought, abstraction, sense of vitality, and attention —arise each simultaneously with its predecessor. And a similar succession of cause and effect arises when each of the other five organs of sense is brought into play. And so herein there is no such thing as The Knower (Vedagu).’

Mindfulness in Buddhism is entirely different. It is not a thing, it's a quality you develop. In my opinion and in contrast with modern trends (DBT etc.), mindfulness in Buddhism should not be understood as open-ended awareness. It is mindfulness of something specific you are trying to cultivate, habituate, get used to - in order to change your patterns.
EDIT:
From Buddhist perspective, we misinterpret our experience of awareness to implicate an entity that is aware. "I am aware" we say -- and this recipient of data, the point of view, the source of light, is what ancient Hindu's used to call Vedagu. Buddhists say such "point of view" is merely a perceptual illusion - like a bush that looks like a dog until you look closer. If you look very carefully, they say, you'll clearly see that there is no "you" that is aware. Instead (this is a Yogacara explanation) there is a simple feedback loop. The current dharma (state of mind - citta) serves as an input into the associative perception mechanism (sanjna) which finds matching imprints of previous experiences (samskaras) among those recorded in memory (alaya-vijnana). These imprints become the new state of mind, which serves as an input into the next iteration of the cycle and so on.
If you look at it this way, it is easy to see why we are fooled into thinking there is a subject of experience, "the point of view" that does the watching. As yet another thought takes shape, the gap between it and the next thought seems like there is "I am watching", then from this gap comes the association - this seems like "I think", but all it really is, is the associative perception mechanism (sanjna) that closes the loop by connecting the mind with the memory. "I am this thing that perceives" / "I am the observer" - is the mistake of identification with sanjna.
I guess you could shift the emphasis from the associative mechanism to the repository of past imprints that serves as the source of the next thought - and alternatively say that it is our memory that is The Observer, that it is our memory that "pays attention" to our thoughts/experiences and comes up with associations - which can lead some people to identify with samskara-skandha (the imprints group, basically memory) - another view that Buddha rejected.
The subjective experience, the virtual life-of-I created by our mind that we mistake for reality, is called "vijnana". This is the whole story that includes The Observer, the observed, and everything that happens between them.
What looks to us as self-awareness, with its sense of depth, is merely the recursive nature of the associative loop. It is a similar kind of effect you get when you point a video camera at TV that shows its own output - with a filter in the middle that adds matching elements of past memories. The same basic principle is at work behind Google's DeepDream:

We ask the network: “Whatever you see there, I want more of it!” This creates a feedback loop: if a cloud looks a little bit like a bird, the network will make it look more like a bird. This in turn will make the network recognize the bird even more strongly on the next pass and so forth, until a highly detailed bird appears, seemingly out of nowhere.
  ...
  The results are intriguing—even a relatively simple neural network can be used to over-interpret an image, just like as children we enjoyed watching clouds and interpreting the random shapes.
  ...
If we apply the algorithm iteratively on its own outputs and apply some zooming after each iteration, we get an endless stream of new impressions, exploring the set of things the network knows about.

Glossary:

Cartesian theater
state of mind (Citta)
associative perception mechanism (Saṃjñā)
imprints of previous experiences (saṃskāra)
recorded in memory (ālaya-vijñāna)
the imprints group, basically memory (samskāra-skandhas)
subjective experience, the virtual life-of-I created by our mind that we mistake for reality (Vijñāna)

No, I was not positing a homunculus at all. my "observer" is the sense that I am aware. It is like feeling your fingertip even though it is not touching anything (which happens if it gets injured, is too hot or cold, among other possibilities). So, the Observer I was asking about is just a point of view in the mind, one among many points of view. It is special in that it is a prompt for self-awareness, or IS perhaps the "feeling" of self-awareness. This is recursive, reflexive. The Observer, in my experience, acts like a tool to help one cultivate Mindfulness. (Back to noun-verb again.)

You are totally positing a homunculus my friend, and you call it "I am" ;) - I hate to say this but you are very confused as far as Buddhist theory of mind is concerned. Your "point of view in the mind" is a perceptual illusion, like a bush that looks like a dog until you look closer. The recursive/reflexive process you are describing is the associative loop. The feeling of self-awareness, with its sense of depth, is the same effect you have when you point a video camera at TV that shows its own output :) I added more details to my answer above. I hope some of it makes sense to you.

Thank you for explaining that cycle of consciousness or data flow diagram, i.e. citta -> saṃjñā -> saṃskāra -> ālaya-vijñāna -> citta. It looks plausible! I haven't seen it before. I have (previously) found those Wikipedia articles impenetrable, as if they were (static) entity-relation diagrams, but without any (runtime/dynamic) thread/sequence diagram; so it was hard to see how they 'run' in practice.

I know it is an illusion, hon. Everything is an illusion. We have no choice but to discuss illusions. I was simply asking about two of them in particular, and how they accord with the illusions of Buddhism. I will peruse the additions to your answer.

It's not enough to say it's illusion and yet to keep talking about them as if they were real. We need to look inside the bush to see for ourselves how there is no dog.

Especially if one is dyslexic. Or Agnostic. : )  It appears that you are saying that everyone who answered should rather have kept silent. I sometimes agree with the saying: "It is good to say little. Better still to say nothing." But people did respond, and from what I can tell, not one person has actually understood what I mean by the Observer. Since many people do know what I mean, I wish to warn you that this is likely to arise again, and a storm of words is not going to settle the question. It is a difference among people, which merely needs to be understood, not explained away.

No, I don't mind talking, as long as both try to hear each other's point. I think I hear what you're saying - your question is, can what-you-call-mindfulness function without what-you-call-an-observer. And my answer is, yes of course such "mindfulness" does not require such "observer" - because "point of view in the mind" is a fantasy you keep on make-believing with your own thoughts. Also, what you call "mindfulness" is just paying attention, the opposite of absent-mindedness. It's not what Buddha calls mindfulness. What is your goal with these questions, to confirm your views or to learn?

OK. I wish to stress that the Observer experience that I am talking about is not a thought that one has. It is not chosen, it simply arises, like an itch. It is a particular sort of mental experience that apparently, few people have. It occurs, then goes away. I regret even bringing it up. My goal was to learn, something about Buddhism. I thought that I was using a term that at least a few people would be familiar with. I was wrong. I agreed with you all along that the answer was No, but it occurred to me to ask, because it interested me as a way of understanding people, and so to help.

Like I said, Observer is a standard term in Hindu (Samkhya yoga) that refers to the subject of all experience, the end goal being to discover it to be identical with Ishvara (the absolute). But in Buddhism instead of grasping on things as "this is real" we tend to "explain things away" like you said. So we say there is no Observer. Now, if you are talking specifically about intermittent self-awareness, that is called "manas" - as in "mano-vijnana" (the experience of one's own mind) and "man-indriya" (the "organ" of self-reflection).

So I guess the answer is: "There is Manas, and there is Mindfulness, and they are different." Which is what I thought. Note the links I added, and see that many many people have this Observer thing happen within them. It is not the same as a posited entity - the Hindu subject of experience. Not the same at all. I have "felt" that the Observer is there, without identifying with it in any way, it feels like not-me, like someone else watching "me". It is a very distinctive thing to have occur. Not a choice. But, it can be developed, whether wisely or not I no longer know.

Yes, I think we are on the same page now. Mindfulness, in the sense of "non-absentmindedness" or "paying attention to what you are doing" does not equate "observing your mind". This being the case, I'm saying this type of mindfulness is useless and not what Buddha taught. Not thinking about anything else while eating, defecating, driving your car - is not the path to enlightenment, otherwise idiots would be Buddhas. Right mindfulness means mindfulness of something useful, something you're trying to cultivate - while going about your day - like mindfulness of body or mind or breath or death etc

According to Mahayana abhidharma,

Mindfulness is a non-forgetfulness of the mind with respect to a familiar object. It has the function of non-distraction.

It is one the five object-ascertaining mental factors, and it is called 'object-ascertaining' because:

These mental factors hold [an object] through apprehending the
  individual features of the object. They are said to "individually
  ascertain objects."

As it is a mind, it is by nature clear and knowing, and it is a basis of designation of the person but is not the person. It is an apprehender, an object-possessor, but it is not a 'observer' because an observer is a person.
A mind, a cognizer such as mindfulness and so forth is possessed by a person (the agent), it has a function (the action) and apprehends its object.
There are various levels of nonduality. In general, a realization that occurs in a non-dualistic manner is free from the appearances of objects and subjects. So it is necessarily free from the apprehension of the object and the subject as being different substances.

In addition, mindfulness is not a process, it is a mind. As such:

It has the nature of being clear
It performs the function of knowing

That it is clear refers to the fact that it has the ability to take the aspect of its object. An eye-consciousness seeing blue takes the [subjective] aspect of blue.
That it is knowing refers to the fact that it apprehends its object. This point is quiet complicated and there is much debate. By nature a mind experiences its object. I hope this answer helps you, as you defined your "Observer" as an experience.

Thank you, I am chewing on this, as the word references are complex. Perhaps Buddhism does not use 'Observer' in the manner I am familiar with? To me, it is the sense that something watches from within, unmoved by whatever happens. Many people refer to it, such as Wayne Dyer who said, "The Witness inside never ages. It can't." Is this witness / observer just a New Age concept, or is it described in Buddhism also? I call a self without ego a Neo, and it is essentially only a witness, an experiencer with no values, goals, ideals, etc. Nonduality comes after the self / witness dissolves.

@nocomprende My "chewing on those word references" rewords the answer as follows -- 'Mindfulness' is the ability to keep something in mind without distraction. It's one of the 'five mental object-determining mental factors', which are listed here. So "mindfulness" is defined as (or is a translation of) Sati or Smṛti. Mindfulness means a mindfulness of the features of the object in question.

The mind is not a person (I guess in the same way that the eye, or vision-sense-discrimination, isn't a person). The mind is a 'basis of designation' of the person (which is defined here as meaning, "The parts or attributes upon which something is labeled. In the case of the I, it is the aggregates." ... where 'aggregates' is probably Skandhas). A person (the agent) has a mind, which has a function (its function is to apprehend an object).

A non-dual realization doesn't have the appearance of "subject and object" so of course it's free of that apprehension (where 'apprehension' is now understood as 'what the mind would do to an appearance').

@ChrisW: if non-dual realization does not apprehend, and apprehending is the function of mind, then does non-dual realization occur in a mind? Does the mind go away in that case? But if a person "has a mind", then the person goes away too. Maybe that is what she meant when she said, "there are no 'other people'." That is a lot to be mindful of. Without observing it, of course :-)

Thank you ChrisW for clarifying. @nocomprende Prasangika say that generally, the wisdom directly realizing emptiness realizes it by way of emptiness not appearing to it. In this case, what it realizes is the 'object of engagement'. In this context, if a Prasangika was to say 'there is no other people' he means 'no other people appearing at that time' because nothing appears at the time of direct realization of emptiness (except in the mind of a Buddha)

@nocomprende if non-dual realization does not apprehend, and apprehending is the function of mind, then does non-dual realization occur in a mind? Maybe that first "if" is wrong. I think the quote was that, "a non-dual experience doesn't have the appearance of subject-and-object, and is therefore not apprehended as a dual subject-and-object". To consider a concrete example, a violinist and their violin might appear to be non-dual; and (I hope someone will correct me if this is a bad explanation) the mind apprehends (experiences) that non-dual appearance.

There is no thing 'watching and unmoved by whatever happens', a consciousness is always consciousness of something, in a way 'moved' by that something.

@TenzinDorje You wrote, "Mindfulness is a non-forgetfulness ... (and) has the function of non-distraction" and that it's "one the five object-ascertaining mental factors". Can you confirm whether the function of non-distraction is "mindfulness" (Smṛti), or is non-distraction instead "concentration" (Samādhi)?

I confirm it is smṛti (Sati), not samadhi. Here is the text I refer to http://www.fpmtabc.org/download/teaching/geshe-chonyi/bp/lorig/handout/Mind%20MentalFactors%20Textbook_KachenYesheGyeltsen.pdf

Yes @Uilium, this is when the idea of an Observer dissolves, and the person realizes nonduality. I have seen people on both sides of that awareness. I recall making a joke to someone about the Observer, like what you said. He looked puzzled.

mindfulness analysis and meaning(s) by Joseph Goldstein: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://insightsd.org/transcripts/&ved=0ahUKEwi0-9HX1IvKAhVE6iYKHQuRDUoQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEvFDsF0F16fOiI5S9VuUB3kNCuzw&sig2=6cUyBxHvZIA8EzKv0Ab1Zw

@Uilium: It is right here in the page you linked, whether there is an Observer or not: "on a more subtle level, even when Mindfulness is spontaneous, unprompted and effortless, we can still discern whether there is a presence of an observer.  We can notice the presence of a reference point in that Mindfulness, whether there is a sense of someone being mindful or not." This is a little different from what I meant, but it is pertinent.

@nocomprende Are you saying the sense of someone being there is atta?

@Uilium: to me, atta is a thought, a concept, an attitude, if you will, something that one consciously identifies with and defends. But the sense of an Observer is more like a feeling, that is not wanted or sought, it just arises. I don't know of anyone who identifies with their Observer, they just notice that it is there, like noticing a blister on your foot. It can be useful, in calling your attention to awareness, which is probably why it develops, like how a blister lets you know that your foot is having a problem. Why can no one recognize what I am talking about?

@Uilium I think that in the reference you linked, the stated distinction of "someone being mindful or not" is like the distinction of saivikalpa samadhi ("with difference") and nirvikalpa samadhi ("without difference"). Awareness without the sense of someone there is what I would call nonduality.

What is realised at the experiential level is the Dhamma for you. What someone else experiences is not the Dhamma for you. In this sense there is no nonduality as people experience reality in different way (as for what I have learned.) There is nothing similar between experiences of disciples, though perhaps experience of among Buddha's may be similar since they experience all what is conditioned. The main goal of experiencing "reality as it is" to develop revulsion to the 5 aggregates. So what you you experience should be to the extent to avoid unwise attention of attention tained by perverted perceptions, thoughts and views. In this context there is always an observer who experiences phenomena though consciousness aided by the faculties, or one that who feels1.

1

“It is to one that feels that I teach Dhamma,
  not to one that does not feel.”
  —The Awakened One

Also see: To one that feels by Luangpor Teean Juttasubho

Sati (mindfullness) has the agenda of remembering, keeping in mind, so its quite proper to give it the name "observer" on the level of being an "overseer". Samma sati (right mindfulness) keep the right things in mind. It is often compared with a door-keeper (of the fortress of practice), a good one.
Some short but very usefull essays, to get out of common misunderstandings are:

The Agendas of Mindfulness
Mindfulness Defined
Untangling the Present: The Role of Appropriate Attention

(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

I briefly read your reference: "Untangling the present". For me, the Observer is like where it says: "we focus not on what we are, but on what we are doing." The Observer is like a part of the mind that develops to help with awareness. It feels like someone has sat down next to me, saying nothing, just watching what I do, which is that I am being aware. It reinforces awareness by also being aware. It is a help, not a hindrance.

'Mindfulness' ('sati') means to 'remember' rather than to 'observe' ('anupassi').
In the context of basic meditation, 'sati' remembers to observe rather than forgets to observe.
'Mindfulness' & 'observing' are two distinctly separate functions & activities of mind, even though they function together in mediation.

And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous,
  remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said
  long ago. SN 48.10

"What is sammasati? Sati means to bear in mind or bring to mind. Sati is the state of recollecting, the state of remembering, the state of
  non-fading, the state of non-forgetting. Sati means the sati that is a
  Spiritual Faculty, the sati that is a Spiritual Power, Sammasati, the
  Sati that is an Enlightenment Factor, that which is a Path Factor and
  that which is related to the Path. This is what is called sammasati."
  [Vbh.105, 286]

The Blessed One said, "Suppose, monks, that a large crowd of people comes thronging together, saying, 'The beauty queen! The beauty
  queen!' And suppose that the beauty queen is highly accomplished at
  singing & dancing, so that an even greater crowd comes thronging,
  saying, 'The beauty queen is singing! The beauty queen is dancing!'
  Then a man comes along, desiring life & shrinking from death, desiring
  pleasure & abhorring pain. They say to him, 'Now look here, mister.
  You must take this bowl filled to the brim with oil and carry it on
  your head in between the great crowd & the beauty queen. A man with a
  raised sword will follow right behind you, and wherever you spill even
  a drop of oil, right there will he cut off your head.' Now what do you
  think, monks: Will that man, not paying attention to the bowl of oil,
  let himself get distracted outside?"
"No, lord."
SN 47.20

Do you ever have the feeling that you are being watched? Does it ever feel like the point of view of that observer is inside your mind? It is like a déjà vu of being oneself, but it is happening to an awareness-stream that one doesn't have insight in to... It felt so good when it stopped.

I thought that my experience was fairly commonplace, but after reading several answers from people in this community that I have great respect for, and no one seeming to understand at all, even after a year, I admit that I feel perplexed. It would be as if I wrote about having a pebble in my shoe and no one could relate or had ever heard of such a thing.
An Observer is as if there is a whole other self inside my mind, just sitting there watching what happens. If you haven't had it, then there is no way it can be described. It is not like anything else, it is not a function or factor of anything else, it cannot be reduced to anything else or explained in any other terms. It simply is an experience, like feeling sad, or wanting to go outdoors. It just happens to be the experience of part of the mind observing the rest of the mind. It happens. It is not a thought that I am having, because it has itself.
My sense of it is, that as one strives to be more aware, the mind develops an extra awareness track that helps one to do that. It is the persistent feeling that even if I get lost in phenomena, that Observer will not get lost, and so realizing that it is watching me, I tend to act with more awareness. Eventually, one outgrows it or something. I won't even get started on describing how it is to have an Accompanying Voice, which is entirely different, and which I also thought was common, but is apparently known only to me?

Yes the observer and the mindfulness are the same in essence they are the ability to import information of your environment,world and self this observation is the key to apply mindfulness to reason and logic why the observer is interacting with self and environment.the observer needs the mindful to reassure the self awareness of ones thoughts and further how these thoughts are influencd and influence the environment.it is a duality of many dualities all becoming the one non dual reasoned logic which further builds character both inner and outer.awareness of the self is further built by mind fullness to know oneself.autism means to know thyself this autismal or automatic duality leading to no dual is the observer and mind as one.

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


text:
What is the origin of the Buddhist expression "Practice as if your hair is on fire"?
I remember this phrase but I have not been able to locate it in the texts.
I do not recall the correct words but it's something like this: "Meditate/practice as if your hair is/were on fire".
I have searched on Buddhism SE and on Google and found the phrase mentioned a couple of times but no solution to the origin of it. This article mentioned by Matthew says;

"Practice like your hair is on fire!
A traditional aphorism, which probably goes back to Buddhism in India. Gelek Rinpoche makes it the theme of his recent article in Buddhadharma. And it shows up in the Zen tradition and elsewhere."

And this article says:

Zazen makes waiting into a science. I'm intrigued by the Zen injunction "Sit as if your hair were on fire."

Still no solution to the origin of the phrase. I'm looking for valid sources such as the Theravadan, East Asian and Tibetan texts.
Thank you for your time.

Dear Lanka:  In response to your request for a reference to "Hair on fire", Bhikkhu Bodhi ed  Anguttara Nikaya:  Book of Fours II93 verse 3 pg, 474  "...Just as one whose clothes or head had caught fire would put forth extraordinary desire, effort, zeal, enthusiasm, indefatigability, mindfulness, and clear comprehension to extinguish {the fire on} his clothes or head, so that person should put forth extraordinary desire, effort, zeal, enthusiasm, indefatigability, mindfulness, and clear comprehension to obtain both those wholesome qualities. Then, some time later, he gains both internal serenity of mind and the higher wisdom or insight into phenomena. "  The reference varies slightly in repetitions found on pgs, 879, 1222, 1405 & 1498  Hope this may be of some help to you. /jojo

Tissa (Thag 1.39)   {Thag 39}
As if struck by a sword,
  as if his head were on fire,
  a monk should live the wandering life
      — mindful —
  for the abandoning of sensual passion.

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thag/thag.01.00x.than.html#passage-39

This reference has been bugging me all day. Thank you very much Suminda.

Its referred to in the Phena Sutta (or Phena Pinduma Sutta) as follows, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

Thus a monk, persistence aroused,
should view the aggregates
by day & by night,
mindful, alert;
should discard all fetters;
should make himself
his own refuge;
should live as if
his head were on fire —
in hopes of the state
with no falling away.

Alternative translation here by Bhikkhu Sujato:

An energetic mendicant
should examine the aggregates like this,
with situational awareness and mindfulness
whether by day or by night.
They should give up all fetters,
and make a refuge for themselves.
They should live as though their head was on fire,
aspiring to the imperishable state.”

Samvega is the very root of practice.

Affirming the Truths of the Heart: The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega
  & Pasada, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (1997; 5pp./14KB)
      Popular interpretations of Buddhism today often ignore the importance of two powerful emotions, emotions that propelled the
  Buddha — and all those who have sought Awakening since — towards the
  goal of Awakening: samvega, a sense of urgency to escape the round of
  meaningless existence; and pasada, a clarity and serene confidence
  that allows one to proceed confidently towards the goal without
  lapsing into despair. In this short essay the author explores the
  meaning of these essential emotions and how we can encourage them to
  blossom in our lives.

Verbal mentions are very often, since an idea of Dukkha, and the urgency to escape, are the righteous reasons to practice the Eightfold Path:
Person with Turban or head on fire: AN 6.20 (a, b), AN 10.51, AN 10.54, Thag 1.39 (already generous mentioned by Upasaka Dharmasena here) and point out a very prerequiste to practice: aroused persistence:
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of trade and keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

The Blessed One:
“Short is the life span of human beings, The good man should disdain
it. One should live like one with head aflame: There is no avoiding
Death’s arrival.”

Source : SN 4.9 Paṭhamaāyusutta https://suttacentral.net/sn4.9/en/bodhi

I am not sure if this information is entirely appropriate to your question, however there is a meditation technique that came to mind when reading your question and the equivalent sutras.
No idea what the official name for it is but it's basically burning of energy through activating the nervous system - the shivers or goosebumps.
Basically, I activate the sensation of goosebumps (yes, just with a thought - however it can still activate with a elevated emotional stimulation) and if you can associate the sensation of getting those shivers all over and often it feels like it comes off your head and shoulders like fire.
I practice multiple times daily and lately the notion has been arising to observe what the limit would be - as I have been observing this technique diligently for a few years and have reached a bottleneck, so to speak.
This research paper may give a little insight; its a real thing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6071615/
!! A heads up; anyone who gets any ideas about trying it for yourselves I will express very clearly that energy has to come from somewhere in the body.
If you burn yourself out too strong and too often, it can potentially be taking energy away from vital processes - Therefore exercising caution is essential.
For those who are already "voluntary piloerectors", the methodology is simple:

Get control of activation, turning it on when you want to.
Hold it for as long as possible, which leads to pressure.
Isolate anywhere in the body that it seems to get blocked and clear those blockages.
Circulate it long enough to keep it going in a continuous stream.

For those who are not; do not stress yourselves too much about it. Our physical constitution can potentially have an impact - I know people who can't remember ever getting goosebumps - if you can though, good here are some steps to gather control over voluntary piloerection:

Familiarise yourself to the sensation, associate with things that stimulate your emotions to recreate this reaction (music, sporting events, sentimental situations).
In the case of music, make a Goosebump Playlist or something of the sort.
When you notice getting goosebumps, pay attention to where they come from inside, because they have to start from somewhere.

From my personal research, I hold the hypothesis there is a correlation between this sensation of "hair like fire" goosebumps, the hypothalamus (the seat of circadian biorhythms, emotion, hunger and thirst, growth, etc) and the condensed mitochondria in the pockets of brown adipose tissue. The reason why is because I burn off energy, I am less stressed as a result, because I don't have the energy to stress after 'burning it all off".
To validate that hypothesis is something to find out when I am far enough in my degree to research it 'officially' haha!
Apologies for the digression.
Cultivate in harmony

Does this answer have anything to do with Buddhism? Is it on-topic on Buddhism.SE?

It is a cultivation technique directly associated to the four noble truths.

Through acknowledging the four noble truths within ourselves through cultivation, our influence on the world we interact with is not imposed on suffering caused by us.

https://www.intechopen.com/books/hypothalamus-in-health-and-diseases/anatomy-and-function-of-the-hypothalamus - "Through its neuronal connections, it is involved in many complex functions of the organism such as vegetative system control, homeostasis of the organism, thermoregulation, and also in adjusting the emotional behavior."
I have found stimulation of this part of the brain through "burning the hair" has an effect of regulating emotion. Meaning it would help with "emotional outbursts" which would result in suffering.

Thank you for the connection though Ruben2020!

It has recently come to my attention @ruben2020 the official name for this technique may be Samatha. The descriptions of the five joys apply directly to the experiences of what I have been practicing.
At first it's just getting goosebumps, then when you first get control it dissipates just as fast as when you activate the sensation. "Showering Joy" is where I am at now. I can maintain the sensation for an extended period of time before it dissipates and gathers before I activate it again.

Yes. Samatha meditation leads to states of jhana. The first level of jhana includes the experience of rapture (piti) and joy (sukha). Rapture is what you call goosebumps.


text:
What's the role of the detailed descriptions of the other planes of existence? Why it was important for the Buddha to tell them?
There are many repetitions of categorization of the different worlds in the Pali Canon that make me a bit confused.
I'm not trying to rationalize them as metaphorical or as a "later addition to the scriptures". I am also not searching for a confirmation. The universe is probably endless and we percept only a tiny fraction of waves coming to our ape senses. There could be myriads of other planes and beings that are present but undetectable with any human-made tools and observable only by an enlightened mind.
But why did he even bother to start on this topic? He wisely answered with Noble Silence to other existential questions that could bring additional disputes and disagreements (like the Buddhist cosmology does today in "Buddhism vs. Scientific Worldview" debate despite scientists allow themselves to make up concepts like "Boltzmann brain" or "multiverse" without any issues).
And then there is this strict distinction between these worlds although they are not even "real realms" but a flow of dependently originated events. Like we're saying "human world" and "animal world" but in the modern eyes they are not even separate.
So what am I missing? Why the Buddha couldn't reduce it to "bad karma leads to hellish worlds, good karma leads to heavenly worlds" but went for this detailed naming and descriptions of beings, deities living there?

No one can really know why Buddha did what he did or said what he said, so any answers to this question are necessarily going to be opinion-based. Maybe you can rephrase the question to ask, what role does the teaching about the realms play in the bigger system of Dharma?

Yes, that's basically the same question. I don't understand the point and importance of the detailed descriptions.

@AndreiVolkov I updated the title and removed the opinion part.

A realm is defined by the quality of experience.  Typically there is a being and a perceived environment.  The beings and their environments share the same ultimate nature, but on the relative level based on one's conduct, one shall "travel through" different realms of experience.  All that can be known experientially is known by a Buddha.  If you could travel at ludicrous speed through all your previous lifetimes and report back on the patterns/tendencies/routes you observed, you would also know the multitude of realms.  They are, however, as variegated as the colors of the rainbow.

Also, please read about the Bhavacakra or Wheel of Existence.  Samsara means "spinning."  May freedom blossom in your heart.

Mr Ivan ("god is merciful"), because the Buddha did not like Mr Ivan to mistake an realm of existence for Nibbana, or the heartwood. That is why he described those states of being in detail. So when you start to travel, and do not just ponder why you should not travel yet, Mr Ivan is well prepared.
In which plane of existence did you now take place? Nobody aside of Mr Ivan would know that, does Mr. Ivan do?
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

So what am I missing? Why the Buddha couldn't reduce it to "bad karma leads to hellish worlds, good karma leads to heavenly worlds" but went for this detailed naming and descriptions of beings, deities living there?

Well, the Teaching wouldn't be complete if the Buddha just provided only a bird's-eye view to everything. There're the bird's-eye view, worm's-eye view, view from 10,000 feet, or close-up view. One cannot use a microscope to view the stars and galaxies nor use a telescope to view bacterias and viruses. Similarly, to teach math to small kids, one would use arithmetics; for college kids, calculus; and for grad students, topology..


text:
What is the meaning of *suffering*?
What is the meaning of the word suffering or (pali) dukkha when it is referred to in topics around Dhamma and Vinaya or Buddhism?

According to the Suttas, there are three categories of Dukkha:

"There are these three forms of [Dukkha], my friend: the [Dukkha] of
  pain, the [Dukkha] of fabrication, the [Dukkha] of change. These are
  the three forms of [Dukkha]."
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn38/sn38.014.than.html

(I've put in the original Pali for the sake of clarity)
Dukkha of pain refers to when something is literally painful either physically or emotionally. When I stub my toe or feel sad or upset, that is the Dukkha of pain.
The Dukkha of fabrication is a deep existential thing. It means that all fabricated things (i.e. everything that comes about through causes and conditions) cannot give us the happiness we want from it. That doesn't mean that everything is painful, but rather that everything is imperfect.
The Dukkha of change refers to the fact that pleasant things change. I like ice cream, but eventually I will eat the whole thing. This fact is called the Dukkha of change.
It is very important to understand that when Buddhist texts say that all formations are Dukkha, they always mean it in the sense of the Dukkha of formations or the Dukkha of change, not the Dukkha of pain, because obviously there are things in the world that are pleasurable.

Dukkha is the characteristic of all human experiences (or what is felt) either pleasant, painful or neutral. Pain is Dukkha in it's own right. Parting with pleasantness is Dukkha. Also any conditioned existance is Dukkha even in the neutral experiences as becoming is present which has inherent suffering like birth, aging, painful life experiences and death .

Definition of dukkha
This article, Dukkha, is a page of references to three or four suttas which define dukkha.
The first definition on that page is the description of the First Noble Truth, in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta:

Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

Sariputta's elaboration describes all these various terms in more detail.
I'm used to thinking of dukkha as, "the First Noble Truth", but perhaps I should note that it's not the first thing mentioned in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: the first thing mentioned is the Middle Way, and the second thing mentioned is the Eightfold Path.
Various translations
The page then gives a "contemporary definition" i.e. a list of possible English-language synonyms or translations (words). To this list of words I'd add that "stress" is another translation (some people have disagreed with whether it's a good translation). I might also suggest "dis-ease" or "uneasiness".
Antonym of sukha
I think it's worth noting that dukkha may be (may have been understood as) an antonym of sukha.

Sukha is a Sanskrit and Pali word that is often translated happiness, ease, pleasure or bliss. From the time of the earliest early scriptures, sukha is set up as a contrast to preya "pleasure", where sukha is a deep and authentic positive, fulfilling state of being that is lasting and not merely transient and ultimately unsatisfying, requiring constant modification, like preya. In the Pāli Canon, the term is used in the context of describing laic pursuits, meditative absorptions and intra-psychic phenomena.

Types of taṇhā
Given that stress and craving are related (as described in the Second Noble Truth), you might understand it further by knowing the different types of craving described in the Second Noble Truth:

And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

Wikipedia has a further description of the three types of craving ... and each term such as 'Vibhava-tanha' is mentioned in several posts on this site.
Types of dukkha
There is a sutta which describes "three types of dukkha".
I'm not sure how to interpret that: Bakmoon's answer gave what I think is the usual explanation; however this article, Three forms of suffering, reinterpreted suggests another interpretation, i.e.:

sankhāra-dukkhatā doesn't mean, "the suffering of conditioned existence" nor "fabricated things are unsatisfactory" ... instead, what it means is that there's a type of dukkha that's fabricated.
vipariṇāma-dukkhatā doesn't mean, "anything that's impermanent is unsatisfactory" ... instead, what it means is that there's a type of dukkha that's impermanent, and/or a dukkha which re-arises because pleasure is impermanent

I'm not sure about the second of these (I suspect that other suttas say explicitly that what's impermanent is unsatisfactory) but I hope that at least the first (about sankhāra-dukkhatā) may be a useful description/insight.

So when did the interpretation of sankhāra-dukkhatā  and vipariṇāma-dukkhatā -- or at least change of order -- arise? I have posed this as a new question -- http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/13909/original-source-for-all-pervasive-suffering-etc