text:
What the characters of a human being?
What should or are the characters of a human being? In today's age, r people real humans ? As i feel , humans are those who have compassion towards others, love towards others wheather it be animals nature or other humans.. But i don't see this any characters in todays humans(>99%). Should i call them humans just because they have intillegence ? I think even the crow is intillegent. Is only self awareness enough to be a human being?

Beings with consciousness encompass all sentient beings, in addition to being self aware human being have a capacity to be compassionate, temperate, and just; generally humans have a capacity to be virtuous.
Quoted below is a stoic sage lamenting like you do (not Buddhist source i know, but i think its interesting to read. :)

Is he passionate, is he full of resentment, is he fault-finding? If
  the whim seizes him, does he break the heads of those who come in his
  way? (If so), why then did you say that he is a man? Is every thing
  judged (determined) by the bare form? If that is so, say that the form
  in wax is an apple and has the smell and the taste of an apple. But
  the external figure is not enough: neither then is the nose enough and
  the eyes to make the man, but he must have the opinions of a man. Here
  is a man who does not listen to reason, who does not know when he is
  refuted: he is an ass: in another man the sense of shame is become
  dead: he is good for nothing, he is any thing rather than a man. This
  man seeks whom he may meet and kick or bite, so that he is not even a
  sheep or an ass, but a kind of wild beast.

Gelugpa scholars define a human being as:

A sentient being that is of the type of speaking and understanding.

Thus, it includes baby humans, since a baby is "of the type of speaking" but does not speak yet. It also excludes animals, since animals cannot come to speak even if one trains them (we can train them to dance, however!)
"speaking and understanding" must be taken together. Otherwise, one might say that animals are human beings because they have some level of understanding, or even some level of "speaking" since they express themselves and utter seemingly expressive sounds.
Anyway, the point is: there is no notion of "being human" in the common sense. A human being is not necessarily "human" the way you understand it.

The human state is described in SN 56.47 & elsewhere:

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

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

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

But i don't see this any characters in todays humans
Perhaps you should, it would be better if you did, see compassion towards others in other people?
There's a (non-Buddhist) saying that might be relevant: "The only way to have a friend is to be one."
Anyway, I wanted to quote from the Punna sutta:

"Lord, there is a country called Sunaparanta. I am going to live there."
"Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they insult and ridicule you, what will you think?"
"If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with their hands.' That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One Well-gone."
...
"Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see fit."

Is only self awareness enough to be a human being?
I think that from a Buddhist point of view, the good thing about being human is the ability to understand Dhamma.
There's also a koan called Joshu's dog:

Has a dog Buddha-nature?
This is the most serious question of all.
If you say yes or no,
You lose your own Buddha-nature.

I think that Buddhism teaches that "self" awareness isn't beneficial.


text:
Do transformation bodies appear before a buddha reaches enlightenment?
Do transformation bodies appear before a buddha reaches enlightenment?
So that the many bodies of Shakyamuni that the fan Wang ching (Sutra of Brahmas net) claims Vairocana manifests may have appeared before our Gautama Buddha?
If the Buddha bodies do not all manifest at the same time then can two transformation bodies of the same Buddha appear in what will be the same Buddha field, at different times?
I'm interested because I want to understand the lotus sutra and e.g. its claims about the Buddha's eternal life.

i've forgotten the word for what precedes a pure land, if anyone can help me with that

if i understand your concern correctly, are you asking about 佛剎 (Fú shā)? that is the "structure" (lands, beings, things) where a Buddha abided?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to stop reverberations running in mind? And why they are in the first place?
Like, there is song which I don't want, constantly reverberating in my mind. I've two questions.

Why it I reverberating in first place?
How to get rid of it?

Not an answer from texts, but from my own practice: what I noticed is that certain songs start playing in my head when my "subconscious" mind (which is pretty conscious these days, but usually sits in the background) wants to communicate some concern or sentiment to the rest of "me". So it starts playing some song with a certain message in its lyrics. I swear I'm not making this up, noticed many times. And most of the time the message is pretty obvious and is related to some suppressed concern that bothers me.
In order to stop it playing, I just have to stop ignoring it and acknowledge receiving the message. Think about the issue. Then the song stops.

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


text:
How to function properly in society after getting enlightenment?
I am near. May be few hours or days. Right now it is getting a little harder to behave properly according to the society. I just don't talk much because I don't have much to say.
I'm not able to engage with people. All I do is keep sitting in silence in bliss, sometimes solving mathematics or playing chess or listening music.

Did you consider seeking support from a professional?

@tenjin What kind of professional?

It is not that this is a broad question, it is an ill-defined poll question that reads (to me) as mocking. What does "function" mean? Presuming a social standard, "proper" is subject to the definition of "society" which is entirely unclear in the subject or body of the question.  Unless this question is refined, I posit that an expert or uplifting answer is unachievable.

@Wermske May be the question can be put in better way. I don't know. But I don't intend to mock. I'm not sure I can refine it. It is just a direct simple question.

It is an inquiry that is premised upon assumptions that are not clear or simple at all.  What does it mean to function properly? What cultural standard do you hold static for the society of your inquiry?  Potential answers are infinite without consensus because possible proper functions are infinite at any given speculative moment.  Further, since all is impermanent, a definition of "function properly in society" is also impermanent.  What holds true for any circumstantial moment is lost to that moment.  As there are infinite answers, there is no answer -- it is a poll question.

@Wermske I think a "poll question" would ask, "How do you function in society?" -- there everyone is being asked a different question (to the extent that everybody's "way" is different) -- and everyone's answer is equally good (e.g. I'd just need to explain "my" way is, in order to answer the question). So I think this question isn't phrased as a poll. When answering I try to keep this advice in mind: that a good answer may be based on references and/or personal experience.

The topic (i.e. "Enlightenment" and "Society") is broad ... but so is Buddhism. If you're not inclined to answer this question from experience, perhaps you could select what might be an appropriate reference ... I'd kind of guess that somewhere within Buddhist scripture, someone might have said something that might be relevant to this topic.

You are in a Neo state. Don't worry, it is temporary.

Putting aside the doubts whether you're close to Enlightenment or not... Or even if there is such thing as "Enlightenment"... And whether Enlightenment is something that can be attained by "me" at some point, and then retained for ever... And whether someone enlightened could still have questions about what to do and how to behave... In other words, assuming your question is valid,
When you get "enlightened" you lose your reference point. So it may be hard to decide what's good / what's bad anymore. "What do I want? What should I do? Should I do anything at all?" -- nothing seems right or wrong by itself, in some sense it's all invented by people. Nothing is important, nothing is serious, all this stuff that normal people engage seems pointless. Hence the question about "how to behave in society" - did I get this right? I hope so.
There are two parts to an answer my teacher gave me when I asked.
First, regarding your own purpose and meaning of life. From the perspective of the Absolute Truth, you are free. You can literally do anything. If you want to play games, you can play games. If you want to drink yourself to death, you can drink yourself to death. If you want to go to other worlds, you go to other worlds. If you want to teach, you can teach. If you want to do nothing, you can do nothing. There is no reason to sit and worry what's the "best" thing to do, because there is no "best" thing to do, they are all equally pointless in the big scheme of things. In fact, the best thing to do is probably to arbitrarily choose any idea X that you like, and be totally serious about it, as if it was indeed a serious thing you believed in.
However, from the perspective of life here on planet Earth, actions lead to results. What you do and say has effect. And all the people around you still feel pain, they still have their lives. If you stand up and walk out of class, this may look harmless to you, and the teacher's frustration may seem funny and unjustified (in the big scheme of things) - however, by doing that you're setting bad example to other students and you are making the teacher unhappy. So even though everything is free and empty, you just created a little island of chaos and suffering in your immediate locality. See what I mean? So the best way to function in society, is to always, always, always be mindful of the perspective of others. What will they feel? How will this affect them? Will this action lead to peace and harmony for others or will it lead to conflict and negative mindstates for them?
By combining these two principles -- the absolute and the local -- we arrive at the enlightened behavior: combination of spontaneous freedom with no reference point, and tremendous empathy/responsibility for everything you touch in your spontaneous dance.

Good, I will try to develop this skill.

I would argue this is not a special skill you need to work on separately - this combination of the "absolute" and "local" perspectives is part of enlightenment itself: full wisdom is seeing that there is really no hard line of separation between "you" and "others", and therefore any suffering in any sentient being is "your" suffering. So when you're fully settled into this universalist perspective you automatically want to stop all suffering in all beings just as you initially wanted to stop the suffering in only one being, back when you thought mistakenly that only a single body was "you".

@Don May be you are right. I do have a tendency to help. But not much because I am not able to feel or engage with other people's suffering. It is hard to choose between words.

"How to function properly in society after enlightenment" may be the same as before.
There's a quote from Zen buddhism (which is explained here) which says,

"Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water".

For the sake of completeness perhaps I should add that some people, enlightened or not, maybe don't "function in society" -- of these people, some are (and some aren't) more or less well supported by society .. even though they aren't functioning.
And/or maybe some people function in a different way ... less selfish, perhaps.

The (deleted) content of your post, about your being in class, implies that you are a young adult. Beware that's an age at which some people experience types or symptoms of mental illnesses, maybe for the first time. I'm not saying that's your experience, but that's maybe something to be aware of -- I say that because that's part of my experience (I don't know about your experience much).
But it seems to me that "enlightenment" shouldn't mean the same thing as "disability" -- a disability (being unable or unwilling to function) isn't necessarily a state of mind I'd want to develop.
Walking out of class is a bit questionable ... I mean, you're questioning it. You didn't give much reason for it, so it sounds like poor impulse control, possibly passive-aggressive, maybe attention-getting ... irrational.
Perhps you, somehow, enjoyed doing that, but I'm not sure it was the best (most enlightened) way to behave.

In case it matters and in case you didn't know, the traditional Buddhist "way" can be described as a Threefold Training, of which ethics (virtue) is maybe the first. I think that includes traditional virtues ... telling the truth, respecting the people who you ought to respect, being harmless at worst and generous at best (though within reason).
Also Buddhist society (societies) might traditionally be classified, as a "lay society" and a "monastic society", which are inter-dependent. Having a "good friend" (or "admirable" friend -- kalyāṇa-mitta) is important too, perhaps all-important.

Good answer. But I don't think it is any kind of mental illness. Some people say it can be bipolar disorder. It is like if I don't want to do something then simply I don't.

A (non-specific) person, lacking of conscience, with a personality manifesting itself in antisocial attitudes is regarded by some societies as a sociopath.

@user13032 I guess that people will agree with you (that it's no mental illness) as long as you're lucid, harmless, and as capable (and, perhaps, as responsible) as usual. If you (or people around you) are considering mental illness, IMO you should beware of trusting your own opinion -- if for example "I am enlightened" were a grandiose delusion, that is a symptom often associated with bipolar disorder (as you just said). Any mental illness is complicated to diagnose ... a professional couldn't do it without talking with you ...

... but I mention it a) because of my own experience and b) because the definition of mental disorder starts with "or impairment of personal functioning" which might be what you're asking about. It's really normal that someone who has a mental illness wouldn't (or cannot) recognise that, and are "non-compliant" (but equally, normal that some people try to control each other when maybe they shouldn't), which is a reason for "professional" advice. Topics including "ego" and "delusion" are among the topics that Buddhism talks about; but ...

... it's difficult to make individual diagnoses (of enlightenment or delusion) over the internet. One thing, you mentioned "solving mathematics". I don't know what that means: if it means repeating a process which you already know (e.g. applying the quadratic formula to an equation) that's one thing; and if it's deriving new proofs, that's another. I think that mathematicians see mathematics too as a bit collaborative, and check each other's work. Maybe a "good friend" is a bit analogous in Buddhism.

Well I don't have any doubt that I am perfectly OK. May be not getting enlightened but I'm am fine.

There is a YouTube video where Ajahn Brahm, abbot of the Bodhinyana Monastery in Western Australia, talked about the time he thought he may have become enlightened. This was in Thailand, when he was still a junior monk.
In this story, he said that after a long period of meditation (some days), he woke up in a state of intense bliss. He thought he may have become enlightened.
Later, he went to get alms. There was food distributed to the monks, including one small pot of delicious food (I think it was pork curry), and another big pot of unappetizing food (I think it was stinky fermented fish stew). Pork curry was a rare special treat, while the stinky fish stew is something ordinary. Both were distributed to a group of monks.
The most senior monk gets to take his food first. He took only the delicious pork curry for himself, and then he poured the remaining contents of the small pot into the big pot and mixed them together, saying, "They are all the same. As monks, we must not be choosy."
Having not eaten for several days, Bhikkhu Brahm was hungry. Seeing the senior monk's actions, he became angry, but did not say anything to him.
Then he thought, "if I became angry, then I'm definitely not enlightened."
Epilogue:
The moral of the story is that the fetters (samyojana) are very deep-rooted and deep-seated, that feelings of bliss may temporarily mask the fetters. They are most probably still there and one would not be enlightened yet. Blissful feelings and jhanas could be easily mistaken for enlightenment.
This message is echoed in the Atthinukhopariyaayo Sutta (or alternative translation).

It is not about the anger. It is about the doubt. I don't pay much attention to bliss.

@user13032 The moral of the story is that the fetters (samyojana) are very deep-rooted and deep-seated, that feelings of bliss may temporarily mask the fetters. They are most probably still there and one would not be enlightened yet. Blissful feelings and jhanas could be easily mistaken for enlightenment.

Emptiness is not enlightenment.
Did the Buddha become a dysfunctional wreck after getting Enlightened? What about the many other bodhisattvas that went beyond Concentration and Insight practices?
If you are becoming dysfunctional it is due to incorrect focus.
However, it is normal to be non-functional during meditation. That is after all the nature of meditation: the journey to who you are is beyond all-that-is.
Hint: Meditation can induce some suffering. There are very specific indicators. I recommend reading the book "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" it is free.

I don't know in what terms you are using this word " dysfunctional". I meant just according to the society (doesn't mean antisocial). For me it is like if I don't want to do something then I simply don't. Even Buddha did what he had to do. The way he walk, the way he talk or the way he look and whatever else. First he thought he can't teach then he come up with something. But I don't know.

I think one common consequence of "walking the path" is that one needs less things from the outside world.
Since you said in your question that you don't talk much, I'll talk about talking.
A common behavior of humans is that they talk. They mostly talk gossip and chit chat. They do it because they need it. Without it, they would get agitated. That's why humans call themselves "social beings".
When one is enlightened, he or she still continues to talk, but stops to gossip and chit chat. Without it, he or she is not agitated, but calm. He or she stops because he or she does not need it anymore and also because other beings don't need it any more as they are already getting it (they get quite enough or even too much gossip and chit chat from others), thus he or she does not engage in gossip and chit chat as this would only make their realization of the truth more difficult.
When one is enlightened, even though he or she does not need gossip and chit chat and he/she stops gossiping and chit chatting, he or she, in rare cases if it is needed for the greater good of him or her or of the other being, can still decide to gossip and chit without any aversion towards it.
Maybe not now, but after enlightenment you will function properly in society. If you don't then maybe there is something other than enlightenment that you'll need to realize before enlightenment.

Good, I understand.

People who progress in the path don't really concern themselves about functioning in a society. You are very far from enlightenment. Trust me! Stop overestimating yourself and find a proper meditation teacher.

How do you know they don't concern? How do you know for me this is a concern? How do you know this is overestimation?                                           And Why do you think meditation will make you realized?

There are 16 stages of insight development and none of them has anything to do with being concerned about functioning in a society. If it's not a concern, you wouldn't be asking the question. Meditation(insight) is how enlightenment is reached according to Buddhism.


text:
How does upaya (skillful means) feature in Tibetan Buddhism?
How does upaya (skillful means) feature in Tibetan Buddhism?
I'm just intrigued, because the texts I've spent longer trying to 'get' seem to be more inspired by the lotus sutra.

We say that contaminated virtue perpetuates samsara. The intention mental factor in the retinue of contaminated virtue is a contaminated mental karma that gives rise to suffering in the aspect of pleasant feelings (suffering of change). An example of contaminated virtue is the virtuous intention to give - generosity - in the continuum of an ordinary being. An example of uncontaminated virtue, however, is the mind of generosity conjoined with a wisdom of emptiness.
Here, when generosity is conjoined with both the wisdom of emptiness and bodhicitta, it is a skillful means because it is a uncontaminated virtue in the continuum of a being that never forsakes the welfare of others. So, every virtue in the continuum of an arya bodhisattva is a skillful means, since it is conjoined with both wisdom and bodhicitta.
In the Ornament of Clear Realization, Maitreya/Asanga say:

The mind generation [i.e. bodhicitta] possessing skillful means, as
  the subject, is like a virtuous spiritual friend because by way of the
  four immeasurables, the method for not rejecting sentient beings, it
  never forsakes the welfare of sentient beings.

In his Commentary on Seventy Topics and Ornament for Clear Realizations by Geshe Jampa Gyatso:

“Skillful means” refers to the fact that a bodhisattva with this mind
  generation is able to transform every single virtue into a cause for
  enlightenment. A virtuous spiritual friend is one who guides sentient
  beings on the spiritual path; in particular, one who is fully
  qualified is able to guide his disciples appropriately. “Not rejecting
  sentient beings” refers to not rejecting even one sentient being which
  if done would create negative karma and break both the bodhisattva and
  tantra vows.

Tenzin's was a very Gelugpa answer. Correct and itself an example of upaya but hard to see the forest behind the trees. In Nyingma/Kagyu tradition we are not as sophisticated and a lot more straightforward. Maybe because Eastern Tibet is far from the capital?
See my answer to this question. This is a typical example of skillful means in TB, leading from imitative and conceptual to actual experiential realization. Because the stress is always on real life realization, we don't create nearly as elaborate narrative forms as Gelugpas.
Leaving aside empowerments, yidam practice and the six yogas of Naropa, the favorite subjects of discourse in ETB are emptiness, suchness, and the nature of mind. In contrast to that, my teachers always pushed beyond discourse and into real life practice, ensuring good karma through non-attachment to concepts, ideals, and expectations, restoring basic sanity by cutting through bullshit, and leaving it up to personal intuition to connect the dots and attain real-life mastery.
In addition to all of that, Nyingma ngakpas have an entirely unique set of means collectively known as drupton nyönpa or drubnyon that uses strong language and nonconventional behavior to break through student's ego fixation, something I feel I have personal predilection for, but which obviously cannot be practiced in the format of this site.


text:
Can anyone explain how 'stimulus / response' appears in Chinese or Japanese Buddhism?

Can anyone explain how 'stimulus / response' appears in Chinese or Japanese Buddhism?
What does it mean?

I can recall barely nothing about it, but I do know that it features in Zhiyi's work, Chin Fa-hua-hsüan-i at least. I'm especially interested in how the terms, which I believe are paired, may have a universal meaning.

This is an extremely broad question, I will limit my response to Ch'an/Zen Buddhism.
Starting in the earliest schools of Ch'an in Sung China, we find the practice of a stimulus/response ritual the Japanese call sassho. It usually (but not necessarily) takes the form of a question-answer dialog between master and student and is used to both invoke and verify insight/realization. Some of these dialogs have become (in)famous and were compiled into Kung'An/Koan collections still used today.
The basic philosophy behind sassho is to verify whether the answer to a teacher's question is free-flowing or (pre)conceived. In the latter case, the answer would be rejected and the student would be requested to meditate further on the question.

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


text:
When something goes wrong
One hears of religious psychosis, with a 'Buddhist' element. As well as people who convert to or begin to study / practice Buddhism and seeming different, somehow worse; more solitary or unconcerned, etc..
What is going on these sorts of lives, becasuse I don't think "zen sickness" always applies to confusion with the dharma?

Good to add samples, for normal would see wired as wired, as well wired do that toward normal, e.g. wired will trace all aside as the used to as wired, beliving in nicca and owning, personality. Noble Ones are seen as fools by fools, people not into the stream are incapable to trace even best integrity. So most will always have a real problem. And good to know if after truth or after defending something one hold as ones own.

I don't understand the first sentence, which describes what you heard ... especially the 2nd half of it: "folks converting", from what to what? Being "different", from what? "Worse", how or in what way? How or why are you hearing of it? If you can't explain or don't understand what you heard, how could people explain for you "what is going on there"?

@ChrisW are you sure you don't understand? i'm using completely plain language, to describe a phenomena that should make sense to anyone. i think adding further details would be irrelevant; do you just mean that you don't understand because it's too abstract?

Psychiatric hospitals are full of Christs and Buddhas. I'm not sure it's a subject suitable for this stack exchange, though.

Oh so then I shouldn't tell them that I am Buddha and Christ at the same time? :D

There are cases when someone gets obsessed, this is known as the Dharma fever. In my lineage this is not considered too bad. Many folks coming into Buddhism have preexisting aversion to this world. Generally speaking, my Buddhism is Buddhism of love and acceptance - if someone is in a difficult life situation and lost balance, or even never had it because that's how their life turned out, we see that with the maximum warmth and try to make the best out of the situation. In Varjrayana everything is energy, even the energy of confusion, so we try to use all that. I personally hate silent, sarcastic, and passive-aggressive treatment of confusion. If someone is completely off base, they need love and acceptance, not judgment.
The cases when someone gets arrogant and/or righteous are not tolerated well. Ego is the enemy of enlightenment, so spiritual snobbery has to be persecuted.
I've never heard of true madness, but losing a sense of boundaries is standard. This is where the personal presence of teacher and sangha comes in handy. Someone has to stop you when your head starts spinning, slap you on the face, bring back to the ground and give a hug. I miss my last teacher for that.

I agree with your comment. In the end, the Buddha didn't teach self hatred or world hatred. I mean if he would it would be self contradictory because of the hindrances. If one is doing 32 body parts contemplation with a self loathing/disgust attitude then one inevitably experienced aversion. Same should be seen with impermanence. Whatever we practise and focus one, we become (bhavana).

Equal usuaŀly gather together so that they somehow can bear their sickness. Less chances if not approaching doctors, Noble ones. But lets "us" wait, some think it's a natural progress to meet "unearned" or by accidents if just be brave in ones sphere of usual abilities.

ps thanks for understanding the question! i think i'll take a back seat after chrisw's comments. be well etc etc

I think that psychosis is a state of disordered thinking, confusion, delusion (a "mental disorder").
It might seem, superficially, like Buddhism -- some withdrawal from ordinary worldly activities and concerns, for example, an unusual understanding of what's valuable, of who owns what -- sometimes also grandiose delusions, or a wide range of other possible symptoms, for example flattened affect, and so on and so on.
What is going on these sorts of lives
Well, by the definition in your question, you're saying that psychosis is going on.
It might possibly be that Buddhism (a Buddhist environment, values, practioners) is helpful for them and for those around them -- psychotic people behave abnormally, and maybe uncooperatively, and/or are less able than you might want them to be. So your being able to detach a bit from what you expect of people -- your wanting to behave morally, independently (or unilaterally) of whether other people are behaving too -- might help to enable a better relationship than otherwise possible.

The rule of the thumb is that if someone becomes depressed or suicidal or negative or exhibit behavior that is harmful towards others, then they are doing it wrong.
One example of this from the Vesali Sutta are the monks who got too obsessed with the meditation on unattractiveness meant to overcome lust, and committed suicide. The Buddha then advised the remaining monks to switch to the mindfulness of breathing to create positive feelings, if they became negative by practising something else. This is just like driving a car - if you are veering too much to the left, then turn the steering wheel to the right and vice versa. The goal is to reach the destination safely.
The second example of this from the Alagaddupama Sutta are people who learn the teachings of the Buddha but do not truly understand it and do not practice it. Instead, they use it to attack others and defend themselves in debates. This is a philosophical obsession.
A third example from the Acintita Sutta are people who are obsessed with useless metaphysical speculations, which drive them to madness.
However, spending time alone to reflect upon the teachings and meditate, rather than having a good time with the cool folks - that's quite acceptable.
An example of this comes from the Vajjiputta Sutta:

On one occasion a certain monk, a Vajjian princeling, was dwelling
  near Vesali in a forest thicket. And on that occasion an all-night
  festival was being held in Vesali. The monk — lamenting as he heard
  the resounding din of wind music, string music, & gongs coming from
  Vesali, on that occasion recited this verse:

I live in the wilderness
    all alone
    like a log cast away in the forest.
    On a night like this,
    who could there be
    more miserable
    than me?

Then the devata inhabiting the forest thicket, feeling sympathy for
  the monk, desiring his benefit, desiring to bring him to his senses,
  approached him and addressed him with this verse:

As you live in the wilderness all alone
    like a log cast away in the forest,
    many are those who envy you,
    as hell-beings do,
    those headed for heaven.

The monk, chastened by the devata, came to his senses.


text:
Studying in nepal
A friend of mine has decided to move to Nepal,to study there.
In his country there are no Nepali embassy should He contact them online? Links would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

You can post questions about visas etc. on Travel.SE.

The comment isn't an answer, it doesn't try to answer your question: it's telling you that that some elements of your question might also be on-topic on a different Stack Exchange site -- if your question is about visas rather than Buddhism, you might get better answers there -- I think the policy you mention is at the bottom of this help topic, i.e. "When shouldn't I comment? Comments are not recommended for ... Answering a question or providing an alternate solution to an existing answer; instead, post an actual answer."

Although I can see a list of all your comments (including all deleted comments), but I don't know or can't identify what/which of these comments, what post of Dhammadhatu's, you're talking about.

Near Kathmandu there's a place called Boudha.
Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche, one of the most famous lamas in Kagyu lineage, has his teaching center there. Check out http://www.rinpoche.com/boudha18.htm
You can go as a tourist first and then figure out permanent status.

The Kathmandu Valley is a major place of pilgrimage for Buddhists. Around the city of Kathmandu are ancient Buddhist stupas such as the Great Boudhanath Stupa. The area surrounding the stupa which is known as “Boudha” has over sixty Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. There are many teachers and high lamas, either living in Boudha or visiting. Due to this, many students of Buddhism from all over the world come to stay here to receive teachings. Some monasteries provide situations for study in Higher Buddhist Philosophy. Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche’s main monastery known as Thrangu Tashi Choling is located in Boudha close to the Boudha Stupa.
In the hills nearby Boudha, Phullahari Monastery, the seat of HE Jamgon Kongrul Rinpoche is located.
In the area of Swayambunath, is the Swayambunath Stupa also known as “The Monkey Temple”. Located on top of a hill, the whole hill itself is considered to be a self arisen stupa. According to legend, Lord Manjushri cut into the lake that was once the Kathmandu Valley and as the water was set free the hill rose up simultaneously. Thrangu Tara Abbey, Thrangu Rinpoche’s nunnery for Buddhist nuns is in Swayambu. There are many monasteries in the Swayambu area including Benchen Monastery, the home of Tenga Rinpoche and Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche.
Among the many places of pilgrimage is Namo Buddha, one of the most important, where, in a previous life as a prince, the Buddha gave his body to a starving tigress and her cubs. At Namo Buddha, Thrangu Rinpoche has a temple, school for young monks, a college for Higher Buddhist Studies and other projects.

To start with, here are general information on visa. Beware that the specificity depends on your citizenship (basically, what country issued your passport). Just some general points are:

Generally, a tourist visa is US$ 100 for 90 days Visa.
Retreat visa do not exist for all countries. They are not even mentioned on the official website. Last time I wanted to get such a visa, they asked for a motivation letter and proofs that I will do retreat from the center I planned to go in.
You are likely to be able to stay longer if you get a student visa. However (1) The number of study centers that enable you to get such a visa is small, and they are mostly universities. It is likely that if you study in a monastic setting, or a Dharma lay setting, they will not allow this. (2) If you plan to stay for, say, one year, you have to send a bank statement from a local bank in Nepal to the Nepali government , showing that you have a balance of - give or take - $3,000. The amount depends on your citizenship. This rule also applies for India, etc.

For these reason, I concur with Andrei: try on a tourist visa. And I suggest you also give a try to the Himachal Pradesh in India.
In Nepal, if you don't speak Tibetan, I believe you can study in English at the following places. I'm not entirely sure, though.

Rangjung Yeshe Institute. I would assume they might open a door to a student visa because they work in partnership with Kathmandu University.
Rigpa Shedra.
Kopan Monastery. The Basic Program, for instance, but it is not all year long.

In Buddhanath, there are a few Shedra (i.e. "places of teachings") open to Westerners. The question is always: do they teach in English?
In India, there is the Institute of Buddhist Studies and Dialectics.
I am sorry I cannot help you much with this. But do not think that you have to live in one of these countries to be a monk in a Tibetan tradition. There are places in the West.

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


text:
Supposing mahayana nirvana is permanent does it have substance?
Supposing mahayana nirvana is permanent (and I believe it is called this) does it have substance? I'm just asking due to some completely trivial insights: it seems that a quality of my experience of time doesn't change, perhaps even arise or end.
And I'm wondering what that permanent quality is, or might be.

Possible duplicate of Does Nirvana have svabhava in Madhyamaka?

@ruben2020 not limiting it to madhyamaka ?

Nothing that is substantial can be permanent. Only absences (including cessations) are permanent. This is Buddhism 101.
In the Mahayana, Nirvana is the cessation (a permanent absence, never to arise again) of suffering and the causes of suffering.
What does not cease (in the Mahayana) is the continuum of consciousness, which has flowed from beginningless time, and will continue to do so after nirvana; It is a continuum uncontaminated by suffering and it's causes.
The continuum itself is not permanent in that it changes momentarily, just as it does while in Samsara.
Within the scope of the Asanga Mahayana, and the Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and Zen/Chan traditions especially, the continuum of mind is what persists - the base nature of awareness. When we; through choosing to use the mind as both the subject and object of our meditation; become aware of the conceptual narratives that determine our identities, and then strip them away, we are left with just the mirror-like awareness of the mental continuum. It is then that the opportunities of recognising that the narratives of time and being are mere constructs arise.  Within the scope of Nagarjuna's Mahayana (the Madhyamaka) we also use anti-philosophy to guide us to an understanding of the essence-lessness of all phenomena, which we believe to be the definitive meaning of Anatta.  Himalayan traditions use both Asanga and Nagarjuna together to provide both a conceptual and an experiential approach to achieving the path of insight.

I wonder why you call it 'anti-philosophy'. It seems excellent philosophy to me. I would also question your reification of mind. The usual teaching is that stripped of thoughts there is no such thing as mind. Not so much arguing, just raising potential issues.  .

@PeterJ, in Madhyamaka there cannot be any a priori assertions as there are no objective truths for said assertions to be grounded. Both Nagarjuna and Candrakirti acknowledge the resonance of philosophical language, but in the end it is a boat, a necessary boat, but merely a boat.  When you say "usual teaching" I recommend that you qualify your assertion.  Gelug/Sakya/Kargu/Nyingma:,The two qualifiers for 'mind' are that 1: it's clear, and 2: it's knowing. what are thoughts?

Oh yes, definitely only a boat. But Nagarjuna endorses a neutral or nondual metaphysical scheme, This is not anti-philosophy. It's the rejection of all extreme theories for being false. I'd call it the only plausible philosophy. It's truth (and N;s argument) would exlain why nobody has ever found another plausible philosophy. I feel there is much unnecessary confusion on this issue but can't say much here.  . .

This is not the place to have a discussion. But you must do your best to source your assertions, @PeterJ.  Show me where Nagarjuna says "I endorse a neutral or non dual metaphysical scheme". We should agree to disagree before this becomes a slinging match.

No need for a slanging match I hope. Here's my justification at length. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2017/05/aristotle-nagarjuna-and-law-of-non.html

Citing yourself is a bit odd!  Your opinions are certainly not the narrative of Nagarjuna. Kalupahana, while not always on the ball, is basically correct when he says "Nagarjuna demonstrated the futility of [...] metaphysical speculation". He wasn't bound by classical logic, but he used to to the best purpose: To help the bright student on her/his journey to liberation.

Your view is common but in my view it one of the most damaging misunderstandings. I didn't cite myself as an authority. I pointed to where I make a proper argument. I have a number of essays out there saying the same thing and have never received an objection. I believe the case I make is solid and inarguable. if you find an objection, however, I would be genuinely interested to hear it.  .

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

There is nothing that is called as Mahayana Nirvana.
Nirvana, as conceptualised by Mahayana is certainly different from Nirvana as conceptualized by Theravadins. Even within Mahayana, as Konchog above has answered well, it is understood differently by Yogacara school or Madhyamaka school.  But only the conceptualization is different. Nirvana- as cessation of all reaction (out of craving, aversion and ignorance), as a conceptual diffusion (prapanca) is the same for all schools of Buddhism. There are quite a few ways in which one can conceptualize nirvana- but none of them will talk of substance (in the ultimate sense).
There is no substance to begin with- but we think and believe there is- for example, an 'I'. When one realises that there is no substance as such, at the subtlest experiential level- one is said to attain Nirvana.

what do you mean "There is nothing that is called as Mahayana Nirvana": only that it lacks substance?

I mean that the category 'mahayana' nirvana is superfluous. Think of Nirvana as a destination (a common analogy associated with Nirvana). Whether you reach the destination by this route ir that route, doesn't change what the ddestination is called.

i'm not sure that is universally held by all buddhists so maybe include which buddhists agree

Mahayana nirvana is not held by all Buddhists. Theravadin Nirvana is not held by all buddhists. Nirvana is held by all buddhists. That is the point I am making. That is why I said Mahayana Nirvana as a category is superfluous. And a question arising out of a superfluous category, such as who holds what, also renders itself superfluous. Your intial question is about a permanent substance. All Buddhists hold impermanence. All buddhists hold a lack of substance. But of course you may pursue this matter of this or that 'yana' nirvana.


text:
The feeling that one is constantly one step away from enlightenment
The feeling that one is constantly one step away from enlightenment: does it have a Buddhist term for it? Pejorative or otherwise.
So I've heard of beginner's mind, but I doubt it covers it.

My understanding of 'enlightenment' is similar to awakened: beyond ego and self-view. Prior to that is what I call the Neo state: a self but with ego not operating. I am not aware of any 'official' designation for this state, but it is observable and needs a name.

That feeling correlates to different mental states.
For instance, if you believe yourself to be privileged because you (unlike others) are only one step away from enlightenment, then the basic affiliated mind is one of 'pride'.
However, if it stems from your aspiration to enlightenment, and your aspiration itself is rooted in renunciation where you - having recognised the universal pervasion of the three marks of existence - are thereby determined to make use of every moment of your entire being to achieve liberation (and, in the Mahayana, all beings) then that feeling is of great benefit, and is a mark of 'effort'.  The 'three efforts' in Mahayana (not disparate from Right Effort in the eightfold path) are:

Unflagging energy in enlightening activity
Unfailing confidence in enlightening activity
Complete joy in enlightening activity

good answers! you might want to elaborate on 'privileged', i mena it could perhaps help! cheers

There's a topic here about "pride": How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? (though maybe from a different tradition/lineage than Konchog's). Part of the answers there is that "pride" includes comparing yourself, "I am better" and/or "I am worse". Perhaps may be that as well as "privileged" it would also be a mark of "pride" if you believe yourself to be inferior or disadvantaged because you (unlike others) are still always a step away?

I guess I'd assume the feeling being describing is craving (for enlightenment) and personality-belief (I am or I am not enlightened), maybe restlessness and so on; but maybe you're thinking of something else. I think that beginner's mind (I think that's from Zen, a different tradition) is seen as a good thing.

@ChrisW, yes "beginner's mind"(openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions) are essential. But 'one step away' can lead to problems as well as benefits, which is what I (rather poorly) attempted to express.  If we spend our bus journey thinking that we may be about to reach the depot, we may easily lose enthusiasm when we don't arrive as quickly as we hoped. However, it is only by staying on the bus that we can reach the depot - and feeling connected to the depot, feeling 'it's where I am going' - which is implicit in the OP - is not such a bad way to be for a sincere practitioner, right?!


text:
Are Buddhists hypnotists?
Are Buddhists hypnotists?
I'm being a little facetious, but not entirely. Hypnotism is a strange mental phenomena, and I wondered how much interaction, in any tradition, is based in similar mental phenomena, to hypnotism. I have no theory, about how that might involve rebirth, or the annulment of annihilationism (which I cling to a little).

Hypnosis is a state we all go in and out of daily.
Positive and negative mental states all are a form of hypnosis.
Even anger is a form of hypnosis.
Effective positive speech tends to be slow and gradual and hypnotic.
So no need to worry and despair that everything is hypnosis in life... Just focus on the logic and keep your mind clear. At the end of whatever micro-hypnosis you can judge for yourself if what you have learned has logic.
The awesome thing is that Buddhist teachings (and self-awareness/meditation teachings in general) teach to go beyond these influences.
However, one must learn to concentrate (broadly a form of hypnosis itself) before one can be highly successful at this.
Respectively these are the 2nd and 3rd trainings in Buddhism (Concentration & Wisdom aka jhana & vipassana)

The simplest answer to this question, while not being informative would be to say 'Yes'. Buddhism covers many traditions, many cultures, over thousands of years, and some of those traditions have methods of meditation which are strongly related to a self-induced hypnosis.
However modern hypnosis has gone it's own way and it's not fair to say that the one is 'the same' as the other - but merely that there are overlapping areas of interest.
Of course, on the other hand, the answer is a definite 'No'.  The purposes of Buddhism and Hypnotism are completely distinct, and therefore regardless of the similarity of some methods of induction, they are heterogenous.
Within some of the Himalayan traditions, there are powerful methods of inducing particularly rarified states of consciousness which the hypnosis community is not yet found a way to tap into - probably because the training is too severe.  Hypnosis is primarily a profession - so the motive is generally money (or fame, or renown) - which, because they are derived from a worldview that is faulty, cannot act as serviceable motives for deeper training.


text:
Is Buddhism Nihilistic?
I just finished reading Ajahn Brahm's book on Buddhist Meditation called Mindfulness, bliss and beyond. According to him, as per the Buddhist sutras, advancing in meditation you enter into jhanas, which has a component of bliss in it; this was fine. Then you enter immaterial realms, where he says even consciousness is impermanent. Even consciousness is a conditioned phenomena. And you enter realm of neither perception nor non-perception. After this you attain nibbana, blowing out, end of all.
I have long held belief that you are consciousness, the witnessing. Hindus define ultimate attainment as truth, consciousness and bliss. So if even consciousness is not to be there -- and it's just literally nothing -- doesn't it just seem pointless? Your very attainment is pointless. Is it not better to roam this samsara doing good karma and enjoying the benefits? That way you at least live forever through rebirths. From this perspective, doesn't Buddha's teaching look Nilistic?

Related: Why choose to attain Nirvana when we can become Brahmas (or Bodhisattvas)?

You have confused the jhana states to a progression towards enlightenment. This was taught by other teachers before Buddha attained enlightenment and he was not satisfied.
From MN26:

"In this way did Uddaka Ramaputta, my companion in the holy life,
  place me in the position of teacher and pay me great honor. But the
  thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to
  dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to
  Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension
  of neither perception nor non-perception.' So, dissatisfied with that
  Dhamma, I left.

Nibbana is not the next level or realm after the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. After attaining Nibbana, the Buddha could function normally to teach and interact with the people.
However, after his passing away, he is not reborn. However, does this mean that he does not exist after death? Or does he exist? You have assumed that he does not exist after death.
This question was asked in SN44.6:

"When asked if the Tathagata exists after death,
  you say, 'That has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The
  Tathagata exists after death."' When asked if the Tathagata does not
  exist after death... both exists and does not exist after death...
  neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, 'That too has
  not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata neither exists
  nor does not exist after death."' Now, what is the cause, what is the
  reason, why that has not been declared by the Blessed One?"

The question is turned around on the questioner. You can read the full sutta.
You wrote: "I have long held belief that you are consciousness, the witnessing."
This is also covered in the sutta:

"For one who loves consciousness, who is fond of consciousness, who
  cherishes consciousness, who does not know or see, as it actually is
  present, the cessation of consciousness, there occurs the thought,
  'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist
  after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after
  death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after
  death.'

In this instance, one who is fond of consciousness, who does not know or see that consciousness is conditioned and subject to perish, would be concerned with the notion that the Buddha does not exist after death. There are many other criteria in the sutta, like being fond of the other aggregates (body, sensation, perception, mental fabrications), craving for becoming, clinging/ attachment etc.
The Buddha explained that consciousness is not eternal and is in fact, conditioned, in MN38:

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
  dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
  is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
  on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
  burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
  fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
  cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
  simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
  classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
  is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
  it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
  is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
  in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
  ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
  & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
  as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
  the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
  body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.
Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It was a "aha" moment for me when I read that, and realized that the Buddha's analysis of consciousness is more accurate than Advaita's.
The correct view of what happens when one attains Nibbana is found in SN22.85 below. Rather than asking whether the enlightened one ceases to exist or exists, the right view is that suffering has ceased.

“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
  him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
  would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
  form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
  suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
  Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”

Is Nibbana such a sad thing? Dhammapada 203-204 describes it saying, "Nibbana the highest bliss" (nibbanam paramam sukham). All other types of happiness are temporary and subject to passing away.
As for your question "Is it not better to roam this samsara doing good karma and enjoying the benefits? That way you at least live forever through rebirths", we can find an answer below.
In Buddhism, all beings are not naturally progressing towards Nibbana. It is possible to be reborn as a Brahma, then later as a pig as seen in Dhammapada 338-343. So, there is no guarantee of continuous good karma towards good rebirths.

On one occasion, while the Buddha was on an alms-round at Rajagaha, he
  saw a young dirty sow and smiled. When asked by the Venerable Ananda,
  the Buddha replied, "Ananda, this young sow was a hen during the time
  of Kakusandha Buddha. As she was then staying near a refectory in a
  monastery she used to hear the recitation of the sacred text and the
  discourses on the Dhamma. When she died she was reborn as a princess.
  On one occasion, while going to the latrine, the princess noticed the
  maggots and she became mindful of the loathsomeness of the body, etc.
  When she died she was reborn in the Brahma realm as a puthujjana
  brahma but later due to some evil kamma, she was reborn as a sow.
  Ananda! Look, on account of good and evil kamma there is no end of the
  round of existences."

So, is Buddhism nihilistic? I would simply say that it only shows you the path to the end of suffering. It is up to you to take it.

wow....that was a really good answer.thankyou.

If witnessing is you, why do you witness both pleasant and unpleasant experiences? Why can't you limit witnessing to only pleasant experiences? Why does the experience of witnessing arise and cease without your consent? Why is witnessing limited by your senses? Can you witness sights if your eyes go blind or if there is no light? Why do you have to sharpen the mind through studying and practice to understand complex truths? Why can others trick you, fool you? Why can't the mind be aware of the truth at will?
 Witnessing or awareness is not worthy of being considered as a self as it is conditioned and not under one's control.

Hindus define ultimate attainment as truth, consciousness and bliss.
  So if even consciousness is not to be there. And its just literally
  nothing. Doesnt it just seem pointless.

Consciousness and bliss are conditioned. If something is conditioned, it is impermanent. If it is impermanent it comes under the first noble truth of suffering. Whatever bliss you experience in Samsara is impermanent and incapable of fulfillment. Attaining Nibbana in Buddhism is not attaining nothing. It's the attainment of the unconditioned element. It is permanent, peaceful and fulfilling.

You have got it wrong. You say without consciousness there is literally Nothing.
 This is not true.Buddha rejected Consciousness as self. But remember Buddha didn't say he became Nothing after attaining Nirvana. Buddha did not answer the question whether Tathagata ceases to exist after Nirvana or continues to live. Therefore it wrong to believe in annihilation of Self or Continuation of Self after attaining Nirvana.
Following Sutta will help you understand the nature of those who attain Nirvana:

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, is form permanent or
  impermanent?”—“Impermanent, friend.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He
  understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the
  Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard feeling … perception …
  volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as in
  form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from
  form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling? As
  apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in
  volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in
  consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling,
  perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as
  the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one
  who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without
  volitional formations, without consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
  actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
  understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
  taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
  the body and does not exist after death’?”

There are two types of Nibbana explained in the scripture Itivuttaka 44, namely:
(1) Nibbana consciously experienced & perceived in the here-&-now when alive.
(2) Nibbana at the cessation of life.
In Ajahn Brahm's book, the here-&-now consciously experienced Nibbana is found:
(1) On page 214, called 'The Highest Happiness'.
(2) On page 215, called 'The Complete Ending of Sensory Desire, Ill-Will & Delusion'
(3) On page 217, called "the utter emptiness of this whole process called body & mind".
In Ajahn Brahm's book, Nibbana at the termination of life is found:
(1) On page 249, starting: "So what what follows after parinibbana?".
Ajahn Brahm's book contains a number of inferences about Nibbana that are wrong & contrary to the scriptures, namely:
(1) On page 171, called "cessation of all perception".
(2) On page 172, with reference to "DN 11,85".
Even Ajahn Brahm's chief disciple named Ajahn Sujato says DN 11,85 is not Nibbana; at his blog called: Nibbana is not viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t.
In respect to page 171, this is referring to what in the scriptures is formally called the 'cessation of perception & feeling' (saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ) or "Nirodha Samapatti" (i.e., the 9th jhana), which is not Nibbana. Ajahn Brahm has made an error here.

Therefore, it respect to your question, Nibbana is not pointless because Nibbana is the highest happiness, which is most often defined as the here-&-now cessation of greed, hatred & delusion; which includes the utter selflessness ('emptiness'; 'sunnata') that can  create no suffering.
It appears you have not fully understood Ajahn Brahm's book because living without greed, without hatred, without delusion, without selfishness, without suffering & with the highest happiness is not pointless. Instead, Nibbana is the foremost or supreme thing.


text:
Suitability of Meditation Types
I return to this site after a long absence due to various causes.
My current question is whether some meditations are more suited to certain contexts than others, for example:

Would mindfulness of breathing be as easy as other meditations on public transport?
Would mindfulness of sight be more appropriate in such a context?
Is mindfulness of breathing suitable to walking, or is it preferable to practice mindfulness of stepping and so on?

I am mainly asking this because my formal meditation is almost impossible, as I live at home and noises are continuously occurring. I'm specifically talking about television noises, or discussions, which in addition to being loud also distract from my practice. Thus, I search for other situations to meditate in, like transport and walking.

Would mindfulness of breathing be as easy as other meditations on public transport?

Mindfulness with breathing is most suitable for public transport.

Would mindfulness of sight be more appropriate in such a context?

Both should be practised. When there is nothing necessary to look at, practise anapanasati. When there is something necessary to look at, have mindfulness & wisdom at sense contact.

Is mindfulness of breathing suitable to walking, or is it preferable to practice mindfulness of stepping and so on?

Mindfulness with breathing is suitable to formal walking, i.e., when walking back & forth on a defined path or when walking on a clear path/road (with no obstacles to trip on). However, it requires skill to practise it.

I am mainly asking this because my formal meditation is almost impossible, as I live at home and noises are continuously occurring.
  I'm specifically talking about television noises, or discussions,
  which in addition to being loud also distract from my practice.

You should still try to practise anapanasati at home (although it is difficult to do with eyes closed in the presence of others but can be done with eyes open).

May I direct you to the following article on Mahasati Meditation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasati_meditation
"Also known as Dynamic Meditation, Mahasati Meditation is a form of mindfulness meditation. It is a technique developed by Thai Buddhist reformist Luangpor Teean Cittasubho. Mahasati Meditation uses movement of the body to generate self-awareness and is a powerful tool for self-realization."
At the end of the day, only through trial and error and we can then evaluate what works best. Whatever works best is the way to go.

I suggest to attempt to answer the question directly. This is not an evangelical site for advertising our favourite gurus.

Thanks. I was merely hoping to point a suitable direction for the poster to do some more reading. As I myself is in the process of studying Mahasati Meditation, however not so confident in elaborating it just yet. Still, suggestions accepted.


text:
Correct Perspective for Mindfulness
I am wondering whether anyone can give me information on the correct way to practice non-judgmental mindfulness. The way I understand it, different attitudes towards experience can imply:

Attachment: Participating in an experience or indulging in a desire or fantasy through action.  Or, even, clinging to and believing thoroughly a thought or idea, i.e. in a non-relative way.
Aversion: The opposite, which is aversion towards an experience, shunning it, denying it, avoiding it by removing oneself from it. Denying realities and ideas, considering them as entirely wrong or false, or undesirable.
Equanimity: Finally, having equanimity, holding experiences in oneself without acting upon them or avoiding them, and considering the relativity of ideas and emotions, etc.

I believe the third point is mindfulness, but when I practice meditation very little seems to arise. I am caught in the breath. Outside of meditation, even, I often act out of anger without time to think, or fail to experience different emotions and affects.
Is it possible I am meditating wrongly, in a way that inhibits non-judgmental awareness of inner experience, and instead prevents these experiences from arising? I.e should these experiences (lust or anger, emotions, etc) at least arise?

Here are some good resources on how to mindfulness
https://static.sirimangalo.org/howto/HTM.pdf
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Seeing-Through-Rev-0_3.pdf
https://pathpress.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/notes-on-meditation-by-bhikkhu-ninoslav-nyanamoli.pdf

Lust or anger, emotions will definitely arise. Through meditation, you manage them, not to suppress them.
The more you suppress, the more persistent they will be.

If mindfulness is practised, lust & anger will not arise.
Cittanupassana (3rd tetrad of satipatthana) does not refer to the arising of lust & anger from sense experience but refers to a very deep state of non-thinking samadhi when the energies of subtle underlying tendencies come to the surface.
Very few Buddhists have ever reached the level of cittanupassana in meditation. The 'cittanupassana' particularly taught in Western vipassana is not really cittanupassana.

How sure are you on that? Do the 4 tetrads happen chronologically? Meaning: From Body, to feeling, to mind and then to dhammas? Surely, I am able to observe impermanence (dhammas), defilements (which are in Cittanupassana) and vedanas as well, without being in deep concentration. Might to clarify this?

In the Anapanasati Sutta the 4 tetrads happen chronologically. Yes, impermanence of breathing can be observed in the 1st tetrad but this is not as profound as when impermanence itself is the object of meditation in the 4th tetrad. As for observing defilments, this does not occur lucidly in the 1st tetrad but merely vaguely.


text:
Canonical passages mentioning the 13 dhutaṅga practices
I am looking for canonical passages regarding the 13 Dhutanga practices in particular Nesajjika dhutaṅga, the sitter's practice.

I doubt passages will be found in the Sutta Pitaka (discourses and sermons of the Buddha) however they are mentioned in the later Canonical texts, such as the Milinda Pañha and Mahā Niddesa.

And what are these thirteen? Wearing raiment made up of pieces taken from a dust-heap—Wearing three robes, and three robes only—Living on food received by begging—Begging straight on from house to house—Eating only once a day, at one sitting—Eating from one vessel only—Refusing food in excess of the regulations—Dwelling in the woods—Dwelling at the root of a tree-Dwelling in the open air—Dwelling in or near a cemetery—Not altering the mat or bed when it has once been spread out to sleep on—and sleeping in a sitting posture. It is he, O king, who, in former births, has undertaken and practised, followed and carried out, observed, framed his conduct according to, and fulfilled these thirteen vows, who acquires all the results of the life of a recluse, and all its ecstacy of peace and bliss becomes his very own.
Milinda Pañha Book 6 The Voluntary Extra Vows


text:
How is one reborn as a chakravartin?

Chakravartin (Sanskrit cakravartin, Pali cakkavattin) is a Sanskrit
  term used to refer to an ideal universal ruler who rules ethically and
  benevolently over the entire world. Such a ruler's reign is called
  sarvabhauma.

How does one achieve such a venerable state ?

I think that what is taught to children about a "universal monarch" -- together with The Legendary Account of the Four Sights, in the Introduction to the Jâtaka -- is that the prince Siddhattha might have been one (and that his father wanted him to become a ruler), and that he chose not to be:

Seven of these raised two fingers each, and gave a double interpretation, saying, "If a man possessing such marks and characteristics continue in the household life, he becomes a Universal Monarch; if he retire from the world, he becomes a Buddha." And then they set forth all the glory of a Universal Monarch.
But the youngest of them all, a youth whose clan-name was Kondañña, after examining the splendid set of marks and characteristics on the person of the Future Buddha, raised only one finger, and gave but a single interpretation, saying, "There is here naught to make him stay in the household life. He will most undoubtedly become a Buddha, and remove the veil of ignorance and folly from the world." For this Kondañña was one who had made an earnest wish under former Buddhas, and was now in his last existence. Therefore it was that he outstripped the other seven in knowledge, and saw but one future; inasmuch as a person possessed of such marks and characteristics would never stay in the household life, but would undoubtedly become a Buddha. So he raised only one finger, and gave that interpretation.

So at least one of the requirements for that "achievement" is to "stay in the household life".

Wikipedia says,

The first references to a Chakravala Chakravartin appear in monuments from the time of the Maurya Empire (322–185 BCE), dedicated to Chandragupta Maurya and his grandson Ashoka. In Buddhism, the Chakravarti came to be considered the secular counterpart of a Buddha.

I guess that the conceit (of comparing "universal monarch" and "Buddha") might have been consolation and/or flattery for the emperor, or perhaps just good advice for the emperor.
The biographies (including birth, achievements, etc.) of Chandragupta Maurya and of Ashoka are also linked on Wikipedia -- see especially Conquest of Kalinga & Buddhist conversion but also Buddhist kingship.

good answer, thanks, though i assume it doesn't answer how to be "reborn" as a universal monarch, unless we just assume that's the same as for a buddha in the next life

Just double checking, you asked how one is reborn to... right? now how one accomplish such task?
In Sankharupapatti sutta, though it does not say exactly "cakkavattin", Buddha talked about causes for one to become whatever he/she wish: from human world, heavenly worlds, all the way to liberation.  If he poses/accomplishes in

faith (saddhā),
virtue (sīla),
learning (suta),
charity (cāga),
wisdom (paññā).

Interestingly, if you look at 5 qualities above, it is above quality of a stream enterer.

I marked this answer down for equating the ridiculous ideas in MN 120 with stream-entry. MN 120 is an example of a ridiculous & questionable sutta, which illogically describes bhikkhus aspiring for worldly things.

i sense that you have some hostility towards me, may be this is a time to bring kindness into practice ? :-)  now could you be specific.? Have i not shown to you that i have been known to rescind my ideas and answers when I felt they werent so  great after a dicussion?  could you tell me why it is ridiculous because  your information is not enough for me to reflect on it.

at the end of the MN 120, Buddha talked about "does not
reappear anywhere at all".  You don't feel that teaching about births in different worlds and locations over and over all the way to "the end" of all rebirth is not an effective way to teach one to be tired of having to be reborn?

DN 26 states Cakkavatti was achieved as follows:

He had over a thousand sons who were valiant and heroic, crushing the armies of his enemies. After conquering this land girt by sea, he reigned by Dhamma, without rod or sword.

More brief reasons for this 'rebirth' or 'becoming' can be read in AN 3.14.

i've upvoted all these answers. you're right that it does seem quite bloodthirsty etc., though as an ideal it seems highly worthwhile, especially without celestial bodhisattvas

I might be questionable Buddha spoke these things. Possibly King Ashoka commissioned some monks to the write these suttas.

i just think that what you are questionable about should be your own business. cheers

Chakra-vartin ("wheel-turner") is, by definition, a ruler that turns the wheel of Dharma. The wheel of Dharma is a metaphor for tradition of wisdom and virtue, passed from generation to generation. As the wheel keeps going in the established rut, an established tradition keeps getting passed from generation to generation of people.
So the chakra-vartin is an epithet of an ideal ruler that preserves and maintains the tradition of wisdom and virtue as the mainstream principle and paradigm during the time of his rule.
As described in DN26, the way a ruler becomes a chakra-vartin is by

upholding the primacy of law
providing justice and security to all people
protecting the animals
supporting the poor
consulting with the sages on questions of ethics

The key requirement seems to be consulting with the sages vs. ruling according to one's own ideas. In other words, to become a chakravartin one needs to educate oneself on ethics and consistently implement those principles in one's rule.
Generally speaking, over many lifetimes, it is "doing what's skillful" is what culminates as rebirth of a chakravartin.

DN 26 also suggests it's good to be born the son of such a monarch, in order to continue the wheel-turning.

Yup, I guess it's easier to keep the wheel rolling in the same rut than to start it anew. Or as my first teacher said, karma exhibits some serious inertia.


text:
Any living teachers claim to be able to attain vajrasamadhi?
Are there any living teachers who claim to be able to attain vajrasamadhi? Apologies if looking for a guru questions are off-topic here. Is there any way to verify if they have done so, according to the sutras etc.?

vajrasamadhi translates as "adamantine absorption"(http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Vajrasamadhi). as (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrasamadhi-sutra). According to buddhist scholar Buswell, the Vajrasamadhi-sutra is regarded to be an "apocryphal scripture". The problem with Buddhism is that practitioners are not recommended to speak about their different types of samadhi experience in public cause it can lead you to unskilled clinging to such experience. Try visit local Chan/Zen centres and ask sensei about it.


text:
What does it mean by 'All beings have a Buddha nature'?
I have come across this phrase while studying Zen, in a Zen meditation center. It is Dogen's translation of Nirvan Sutra. That all beings by nature are Buddha. As I understand, we become Buddha when be are enlightened. We have to strive through Right Effort to become Buddha, isn't it?
What does this phrase mean to you?

It is not just Dogen's translation. The Nirvana Sutra states that all beings have Buddha Nature. You can also check Mark Blum or Yamamoto's translations.
However, Dogen played with the initial statement. He rephrased "All beings have Buddha Nature" in "All beings are Buddha Nature." I will not explain this point because you did not ask.
The meaning of "All sentient beings have Buddha Nature" is that all sentient beings have the potential to achieve full enlightenment. However, the entity of Buddha Nature is debatable. The following interpretations are traditional:

Buddha Nature as the suchness of the mind of a sentient being. From this viewpoint, a buddha does not possess Buddha Nature because he is not sentient.
Buddha Nature as the resultant dharmakaya. A buddha possesses it, a sentient being does not. You can think of "Buddha Nature" in this context as "What characterizes a Buddha".
Buddha Nature as the mind-basis-of-all (Alaya-Vijnana)
Buddha Nature as a seed in the mind-basis-of-all. From this viewpoint, we would have to water the seed for it to sprout.

When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sutra and Tantra explains traditional presentations of Buddha Nature. It is a must read.
I cannot remember the passage, but Dogen despised the idea that "We are already buddhas but just don't know it". This idea is that of the original enlightenment doctrine. More importantly, In chapter Ten (On the Four Truths),   the Nirvana Sutra itself states:

A person might say: "I have already attained unsurpassed
  Enlightenment! Why? Because I have the Buddha-Nature. Any person
  possessing the Buddha-Nature has assuredly attained unsurpassed
  Enlightenment. Consequently, I attain Enlightenment." Then, one should
  know, such a person infringes the parajika. Why so? There surely is
  the Buddha-Nature. But not yet having practised the best expedient of
  the Way, the person has not yet seen it. Having not yet seen it, there
  can be no attaining of unsurpassed Enlightenment. O good man! On this
  account, the teaching of the Buddha is profound in its meaning and
  difficult to fathom.


text:
Did the Buddha die in absorption?
I thought I'd just ask here: did the Buddha die in absorption / any of the dhaynas?

From a Mahayana viewpoint, (1) a buddha constantly abides in a union of calm abiding and special insight on emptiness and varieties (2) Sakyamuni buddha was a supreme emanation body showing the aspect of dying. (3) a Buddha is not subject to death (hence he showed the aspect of dying).
Here, in a commentary to Maitreya’s Sublime Continuum, it says:

While in meditative equipoise on emptiness with a nonconceptual mind
  the Buddha can also perform deeds in accordance with the needs,
  capacities, interests and merits of each disciple. The buddhas can
  teach each disciple in a specific way while remaining in meditative
  equipoise on emptiness. That is inconceivable for us.

interesting reply, thanks. i've seen, i think,  the buddha called the conqueror or death, but not obvious what that means for us

From the same (Mahayana) text: When there is birth there is death. By eliminating the mental body, that is, by eliminating all forms of birth and death, we are free from arising and that is the perfection of highest bliss.
And
Buddha is continuously in meditative absorption on emptiness up to the end of samsara. This can only be attained once the process of death that is the hindrance has been eliminated.

strange, in that i don't associate that with the mahayana. thanks!

It does not mean that the continuum is severed when you become a buddha. From a Mahayana viewpoint, one's mental continuum is never severed, one never ceases to exist.

so do you mean that the nirmanakaya does not die, only appears to?

You could probably phrase it this ways, yes. We believe that the buddha was already enlightened, that he showed the aspect of being born, showed the aspect of undergoing austerities, showed the aspect of achieving enlightenment and showed the aspect of dying. Nirmanakaya and Sambhogakaya manifest. They are not subject to death and rebirth.

According to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

And the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Rising from the first
  jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he
  entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he entered the
  fourth jhana. And rising out of the fourth jhana, he entered the
  sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  infinite space, he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness.
  Rising from the attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he
  entered the sphere of nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the
  sphere of nothingness, he entered the sphere of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception. And rising out of the
  attainment of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he
  attained to the cessation of perception and feeling.
And the Venerable Ananda spoke to the Venerable Anuruddha, saying: "Venerable Anuruddha, the Blessed One has passed away."
"No, friend Ananda, the Blessed One has not passed away. He has
  entered the state of the cessation of perception and feeling."
Then the Blessed One, rising from the cessation of perception and feeling, entered the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception.
  Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception, he entered the sphere of
  nothingness. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of nothingness,
  he entered the sphere of infinite consciousness. Rising from the
  attainment of the sphere of infinite consciousness, he entered the
  sphere of infinite space. Rising from the attainment of the sphere of
  infinite space, he entered the fourth jhana. Rising from the fourth
  jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third jhana, he
  entered the second jhana. Rising from the second jhana, he entered the
  first jhana.
Rising from the first jhana, he entered the second jhana. Rising from
  the second jhana, he entered the third jhana. Rising from the third
  jhana, he entered the fourth jhana. And, rising from the fourth jhana,
  the Blessed One immediately passed away.

Piya Tan's commentary here states:

Samanantarā. Samyutta Commentary: Here there are 2 kinds of
  samanantarā: immediately after dhyana and immediately after reviewing.
  In the former case, one emerges from the 4th dhyana, descends into the
  life - continuum (bhavanga) and attains parinirvana. In the latter
  case, one emerges from the 4th dhyana, reviews the dhyana-factors
  again, then descends into  the life-continuum and attains parinirvana,
  as in the case of the Buddha. But buddhas, pratyeka buddhas, noble
  disciples, and even ants and termites pass away by way of the noble
  truth that is suffering, with a karmically indeterminate bhavanga
  consciousness (SA 1:224)

Dhyana is jhana. The difference between jhana and bhavanga is explained in  this answer:

Jhana is more than just the giving up of the five senses. Each of the
  jhanas is the result of very strong samadhi, and has specific factors
  that go along with it. For example, the first jhana has five factors:
  rapture, pleasure, initial application of mind, sustained application
  of mind, and oneness of mind. As one goes deeper into the second
  jhana, one leaves behind initial application and sustained application
  of mind, and so on.
Bhavanga is very different than this however. Bhavanga is like a blank
  slate. All it has are the mental factors that are necessary for mind
  to be there and nothing else. It only occurs in the space between
  other kinds of mindstate. None of the jhana factors are present at
  all, and there isn't even any meaningful degree of awareness in it.

So, according to these commentaries, the Buddha did not actually pass away in the fourth jhana. Rather he passed away in bhavanga.

this is what i expected / etc., thanks!

this answer is wrong

@user3293056 It turns out that Dhammadhatu is right, although he did not support his statement with adequate references. I have updated the answer.

thanks @ruben2020 tho i've accepted another answer because it's more interesting to me

No. According to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Now, then, monks, I exhort you: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful." Those were the Tathagata's last words.
Then the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Emerging from that he entered the second jhana. Emerging from that, he entered the third... the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the cessation of perception & feeling.
Then Ven. Ananda said to Ven. Anuruddha, "Ven. Anuruddha,[9] the Blessed One is totally unbound."
"No, friend Ananda. The Blessed One isn't totally unbound. He has entered the cessation of perception & feeling."
Then the Blessed One, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, entered the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the fourth jhana... the third... the second... the first jhana. Emerging from the first jhana he entered the second... the third... the fourth jhana. Emerging from the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound.

This distinction is important. One is supposed to not be able to do while in a jhana state. Also, emerging from a jhana means he migrated to that particular jhana realm (possibly for further cultivation/evolution) at least.

i mean, maybe... i would be disappointed if he did not. would be good to have a pali answer

i provided a pali answer. to pass away in jhana is contrary to enlightenment

no i just mean "in pali" cheers


text:
Is Sakyamuni a "higher power"?
Is Sakyamuni a "higher power"?
I know what I mean, by "higher power" but it may still be opaque, to you. I don't mean a substance, or all powerful personality. But something like that.
So, I mean to ask, is he like the Abrahamic God?

The Dharma is the higher power, not the Buddha Shakyamuni, who is a Nirmanakaya.
Out of the three treasures, Dharma is primary, because it remains operative regardless of appearance or not appearance of Buddha and Sangha.

i believe there's been debates as to whether Shakyamuni was also a bliss body, but i don't suppose it matters. thanks for the reply, i'll accept it in lieu of any others, at least

Yes, to some extent: I think this answer ("Homage to Amida Buddha") is an example of that.

Obviously there are (other) ways in which the Buddha is not "like the Abrahamic God".

I'm not sure that the term Higher Power was used before AA, in the 1930s (except in mathematics).
One of AA's definitions (exphasis mine), from Wikipedia:

In current twelve-step program usage a higher power can be anything at all that the member believes is adequate. Reported examples include their twelve-step group, nature, consciousness, existential freedom, God, science, and Buddha. It is frequently stipulated that as long as a higher power is "greater" than the individual, then the only condition is that it should also be loving and caring.

I think that the Buddha's being a "spiritual friend", in person to his contemporaries, and more generally as an example (an exemplar) or role model, means that he may fit that kind of definition.

Yes. The Buddha is a higher power in Buddhism. He is a type of higher being that is the only one who is truly awake in this world AND is capable of teaching gods and men, guiding them towards the end of suffering.
Also, anyone who "sees" the Buddha, "sees" the Dhamma (his teachings). Anyone who "sees" the Dhamma, "sees" the Buddha. So, the Buddha's Dhamma too carries this higher power, even after he has passed away.
According to the Dona Sutta:

"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a
  deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I
  am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No,
  brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you
  answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being
  are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I
  would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made
  like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not
  destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were
  not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being:
  Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra
  stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for
  future arising.
"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in
  the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water,
  in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having
  overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me,
  brahman, as 'awakened.'
"The fermentations by which I would go
  to a deva-state,
  or become a gandhabba in the sky,
  or go to a yakkha-state & human-state:
  Those have been destroyed by me,
  ruined, their stems removed.
  Like a blue lotus, rising up,
  unsmeared by water,
  unsmeared am I by the world,
  and so, brahman,
I'm awake."

According to the Dhajagga Sutta:

'Such Indeed is the Blessed One, arahant (Consummate One), supremely
  enlightened, endowed with knowledge and virtue, welcome being, knower
  of worlds, the peerless trainer of persons, teacher of gods and men,
  the Buddha, the Blessed One.'

According to the Vakkali Sutta:

"For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the
  Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see
  the Blessed One."
"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."


text:
The dilemma of enlightenment
As a lay Buddhist, I know it is almost impossible for me to attain Enlightenment in this life. So if I keep enlightenment as a goal in mind it creates frustration, as I am not progressing in meditation and, life seems hopeless as Enlightenment is an impossible pursuit. However, if I don't think of enlightenment then I don't have any good motivation to do meditation and keep the precepts.
How should I get out of in this confusion? Life as a Buddhist seems almost unpracticle. Any advise?

It has occured to me that the solution to my dilemma is to not think of enlightenment but go step by step as given in Ajahn Brahms book. So probably now I should just be aiming at present moment awareness. That ways I have reason to meditate and reason not to get frustrated.

Such transient doubts are inevitable. Just step past them, as you said.

The goal in Buddhism is the end of suffering. But why do you want to reach the end of suffering? The reason is to attain the only permanent happiness, which is Nibbana.
So, the mission in Buddhism is really the pursuit of happiness. The Buddha discovered that both over-indulgence and over-asceticism are not conducive to the path to the end of suffering. So, he prescribed the middle way through the Noble Eightfold Path.
If you follow the middle way, you can have long term, medium term and short term goals of happiness.
The long term goal associated with this mission is attaining Nibbana (permanent happiness). It might take multiple births, maybe even aeons to achieve this.
The medium term goal would be to try to achieve: at least stream entry for Theravada and strong cultivation of Bodhicitta for Mahayana. You can also get more info on stream entry in this YouTube video talk.
The short term goal would be to try to achieve and maintain happiness in this life and future lives (which includes avoiding unfortunate rebirths). At the very minimum, you need to keep the five precepts with heedfulness (appamada). Going a little further, you need to practise more of virtue (sila) with heedfulness (appamada).
This short term goal is described in the Ittha Sutta:

Long life, beauty, status, honor, heaven, high birth: To those who
  delight in aspiring for these things in great measure, continuously,
  the wise praise heedfulness in making merit.
The wise person, heedful, acquires a two-fold welfare: welfare in this
  life & welfare in the next. By breaking through to his welfare he's
  called prudent, wise.

For lay followers, there is plenty of advice on achieving the short to medium term goals in the Gihi Sutta (or Discourse to the Householder), Sigalovada Sutta, Dighajanu Sutta and Anana Sutta. The minimum training rules imposed on lay followers are the five precepts.
For those in a hurry to Nibbana, there are the more advanced training paths of anagarika (sort of a pre-monk or pre-nun), novice monk or nun, and fully ordained monk or nun. Please see this answer for details.

I don't agree that "the mission in Buddhism is the pursuit of happiness", but perhaps I misunderstand your intent. I thought that words like 'equanimity', 'dispassion' and "knowledge and vision of things as they are" were more to the point.

Don't focus on suffering as it is the reason for suffering. You can have a goal of reaching that eternal freedom. But, make sure you enjoy the journey without too focusing on the end...

Did you kill your mother or father?
If the answer is no, you cannot say for sure  that it is impossible for you to attain  enlightenment within this life.
So when you are meditating if this worry arises, simply remind yourself worrying... worrying... worrying... or doubting... doubting... doubting... until it goes away. Then get back to your meditation.

So you mean it is possible for me to attain enlightenment in this very life?

It could be if you practice the correct technique with dedication. It will take at least 7 days and at most 7 years.

If you are not practising to end suffering, I'd suggest to quit Buddhism. Its like you hear about a fantastic doctor who is a miracle worker & you are so inspired by the doctor that you decided to visit the doctor, even though you are not even sick. The doctor asks you: "What is your problem?" and you answer: "I don't have any problems but I heard you are a miracle worker". Mass-market Buddhism is the similar. It advertises meditation & enlightenment, similar to advertising I-Phones, even though you might have no self-perceived need for an I-Phone.
The Buddhist teachings are for the prevention & eradication of suffering. If there is no self-perceived suffering in your life, there is no point in practising Buddhism & meditation.

So I have to be suffering to be a Buddhist? In that ways, only depressed and stressful and anxiety-ridden sad people will be following Buddhist teachings. There is no self-perceived suffering in my life. Since I have started following Buddhism all my loathing, self-pity and sadness are gone. Now it is replaced by confusion.

Since you have started following Buddhism all you loathing, self-pity and sadness are gone; then why are you complaining?

I am not complaining...i was confuced about right attitude towards my practise which I guess is cleared by other friends who answered.


text:
Where can I find suttas about the immaterial realm?
I read in Ajahn Brahms book that you pass through 4 immaterial realms after jhanas and before enlightenment. I want to know more about them. Where  can I find the suttas in the Tripitaka?

The immaterial jhana are optional & not required for enlightenment (refer to SN 12.70), which is why immaterial jhana are not included in the noble eightfold path (refer to SN 45.8). The Buddha attained enlightenment by developing the 4th material jhana (refer to MN 19). However, the immaterial jhana are described in many suttas (such as in detail in MN 111) because they are a natural development of concentration or quieting (refer to SN 36.10). I recommend reading MN 111.