text:
Is there any meditation technique to develop the feeling of Gratitude?
It has occurred to me that if I have a sense of gratitude towards life and towards what has already been given to me then it's not possible to develop desires. I don't know why gratitude is not one of the Brahmaviharas. Lot has been said about it by the Buddha.
I was looking for any technique to develop gratitude towards life or in general.
What I was trying was to say, "I am grateful for what has been already given". but it's becoming like a mantra and proving useless. Is there any technique to generate the feeling/emotion of gratitude?
I looked at this question, but the answer I am looking for isn't there.

Would developing 'appreciative joy' (mudita) for what one has or get not equal gratitude? Might be that I mix up things to due language barrier though.

As @Medhiṇī says, as Medhiṇī says.

I was wondering whether going on alms-round was an example (of a meditation to develop gratitude) -- but I'm not sure it is. Maybe that's equanimity, instead, I don't know. And it's maybe not an example of "I am receiving a benefit", but of, "they are acquiring merit", and so mudita perhaps?
Maybe receiving the gift of Dhamma then, instead of food? I see people express gratitude toward their teachers.

Your question isn't just asking about gratitude, it's asking about not developing desires as a result of "what has already been given to me" being satisfying or sufficient.
That reminds me of this story: The Moon Cannot Be Stolen
Maybe that story is too cute, too pat?
It does reminds me of this story, though, which starts with a rich woman's encounter with someone who might take her life: My Path To Becoming A Buddhist -- Emma Slade (YouTube)

One more thing -- perhaps gratitude and generosity are linked? So the practice to develop gratitude is linked to the practice to develop generosity.

There's a Zen story on that that subject: The Giver Should Be Thankful

There's doctrine in the Pali canon (that maybe isn't easy to explain) about its being "an ornament for the mind".

If neither of the above are understandable, maybe this story will be -- it's a non-Buddhist (an ex-Christian), commenting on he and his wife's adopting children. He talks about some people giving him "deeply uncomfortable praise that we’re doing something 'noble'", and concludes,

As to the last, I wish I could identify the author who put it perfectly — adopting my children was an act of mercy, but the recipient of the mercy was me.

Thank you. The Ryoken story answers my question. It is like just looking at the moon you feel like, thathata, not wanting anything more. The moon or things around me at the moment. So my answer really lies in developing the Buddha mind as the Zen people say it.

It has occurred to me that if I have a sense of gratitude towards life and towards what has already been given to me then it's not
  possible to develop desires.

Are you sure? Where do the suttas say gratitude leads to the realisation of anatta & Nibbana?

I don't know why gratitude is not one of the Brahmaviharas. Lot has been said about it by the Buddha.

Brahma-Vihara is more detached than gratitude. Brahma-vihara is a type of liberation (MN 43). Where as gratitude is often mixed with obligation. The Pali word for 'gratitude' is 'katannukatavedi', which means: 'what others do for me; what I must do in return'.

I was looking for any technique to develop gratitude towards life or in general.

Simply reflect upon the benefactors you have in life. Mother, father, friends, teachers, employers, employees, bus drivers, shop keepers, nature, food, environment, etc.
About worldly meritorious right-view, MN 117 says it is right view to believe: "There is mother & father". What this means is there are "benefactors" (towards which gratitude should exist). Ingratitude is a sign of wrong view.

A person of integrity is grateful & thankful.

Without breath, we die. Considering the breath, aware of the breath, (the breath is not mine, I am  not the breath, the breath is not my self), we understand the gratitude of receiving life. In each breath, be aware of this. With each breath, be grateful. Bring this gratitude to MN10.

I write with one intention, with kindness.
Allegory
Gratitude sandwich
(OK for any diet)
You are in your body, alive. (first "slice" of gratitude.)
Go about your day. Be. Do.
At bedtime, hold that day with your second slice of gratitude.
Put "sandwich" under your pillow.
Sleep.
Wake.
Good morning.

Interesting answer but could you tie it to Buddhism? OP is asking for a meditation technique. Be more specific on the method you propose. Thanks.

Seems like an interesting analogy of seven years worth of satipatthana. ;-)

Yes, having a sense of gratitude, seeing the endless loop of debts in this world, is not only the foundation of letting of all five kinds of stinginess but also leads to the ending of desire and liberation.
A person of gratitude, never forgetting that he depended, depends on so many sacrifies, beinging by oneself, voluntary and not at all, can be sure that if meeting that of what if beyond debt, hearing the good Dhamma, origin, cause and way of practice to gain the state of one able to give, is not only able to attain Jhana but also to reach paths and the highest fruit.
A person of ingratitude, what ever trying, is and will be lost and it is because of this one should avoid to associate.
Reflection on the many sacrificesbeyond so little joy is something that should be done by those still rejoicing on sensuality as much as possible, reflecting gain, debt and lose in it.
All Brahmaviharas, especially Mudita, are based on a sense of gratitude, a sense of right view. The path to liberation start with gratitude, is it's only door.
Gratitude, a sense of it, increases all desires to abound what is unskilfull and increases all desires to develope and hold on skilfulness.
Tha meditation of Mudita has gratitude as it's cause, aim and release, embodies the joy of letting go best.
Again, maybe now possible to see, to trace.
Also this lesson might be of support: [En] Karma and Gratitude, Bhante Thanissaro
One may find some additional explainings here, or learn about it by doing, giving into at fist had to understand: Sharing merits - (pattanumodana & pattidana)
Never ever think like a thief because if doing so, one is lost and not easily will find in the near of the Noble Domain, a borderland again.
Three kind of people are there, goodness can hardly till never be payed back again: Bahukārasuttaṃ.
But "gifted" of such, the end of tasks and duties is secured and reached.
So is it that a sign of having entered the Noble Domain is overwhelming gratitude toward the Sublime Tripple Gems, having the Sublime Buddha as it's leader.
Gratitude is the paths beginning and it's very end.
Usual training an technics to get familar to a minset of gratitude:
Note that this giving falls actually into the sphere of Silas/duties for one having gone for refuge and are required to not lose the refuge (e.g. breaking the Refuge)

Abhivadana or : Geating and paying respect, veneration toward people of goodness (guṇa), e.g giver: parents, teacher, clan leader, Brahmans and yogies/recluses (those who bond them to virtue). see: [Q&A] Some talks on duty, debt, respect, gratitude and generosity: joy in
Morning/Evening devotional "rituals" toward Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha. ( Chantingguide)
Giving first or repay goodness received.([Hard to find](AN 2.119: Dullabha Sutta — Hard to Find))
Service/fulfill duties (veyyāvacca, german) for ones "gods" (starting by parents... teacher/admirable friends, the Juwels)
Practicing Mudita (Pattānuppadānaby = transf. & Abbhanumodana=sharing) sharing merits (dedication of ones merits done, giving back joy and play it forward)

More advanced, if duties are done, is to focus total on practice and complete the task. How ever, even on such level (hardly possible when living in an household), gratitude and fullfilment of duties in possible sphere, does not disappear.
Who ever rejects to fulfill his duties in the releations he nourishes on, will quickly waste his/her past merits allowing his/her stand within, or increases a lot of debts/demerits.
Once off of gratitude means to dwell in a outer region. One is wise to do all effort to enter and remain in borderlands and to fall not appart. It's not so that outer lands are total void of gratitude, by it's Mara and bondage that earn it (sensuality, pride, conceit, desire for becoming or desire for destruction)

As i know there is no specific meditation technique to develop Gratitude, but if some one do Brahmavihara Meditation, it will develop himself or herself automatically.


text:
Does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?
In the following excerpt from the book Yoga Sutras by Edwin Bryant, the author is arguing that the fundamental difference between Buddhist and Hindu philosophy is that Buddhists believe that when 'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes'

I think it is wrong. When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the first Jhnana then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or unconscious.
Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 3rd Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there is a human experience so consciousness is there.

So is the author right or  wrong?
What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart
from human brain?
Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with Annatta.. So we have space for Idealism.

Small Edit: I am trying to defend the position of 'monistic idealism' within the framework of Buddhism. Also, check this paper

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

I think it is wrong.

It is is right. What you think is wrong.

When we leave all the objects of consciousness and enter in the
  first Jhnana then we are not conscious of any - 'sense-object' but we
  are conscious nonetheless otherwise it will be like sleeping or
  unconscious.

Your mind has never entered jhana therefore why are you creating a belief system about jhana? Jhana is a sense object; just as Nibbana is a sense object (ayatana; Udana 8.1). The factors of jhanas, such as rapture & happiness, are sense objects.

Also there is a plane of 'infinity of consciousness' which is the 6th Jhnana so we are experiencing something that is infinite, so there
  is a human experience so consciousness is there.

All jhanas are sense objects.

So is the author right or wrong?

The author is right.

What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain?

SN 22.53; SN 12.67 and MN 38 will answer your questions and show that the author is right.

Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings? (IMO even if that exists that does not contradict with
  Annatta.. So we have space for Idealism

There can be no arising of consciousness without sense organs, sense objects & other aggregates. That is why there is no such thing as reincarnation. Refer to SN 22.53; MN 38; and SN 12.67.

"And to whom, worthless man, do you understand me to have taught the Dhamma like that? Haven't I, in many ways, said of dependently
  co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness'? [2] But you, through your own
  poor grasp, not only slander us but also dig yourself up [by the root]
  and produce much demerit for yourself. That will lead to your
  long-term harm & suffering."
Then the Blessed One said to the monks, "What do you think, monks? Is this monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, even warm in this Dhamma &
  Vinaya?"
"How could he be, lord? No, lord."
When this was said, the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, sat silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down, brooding, at a loss
  for words.
Then the Blessed One, seeing that the monk Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, was sitting silent, abashed, his shoulders drooping, his head down,
  brooding, at a loss for words, said to him, "Worthless man, you will
  be recognized for your own pernicious viewpoint. I will cross-question
  the monks on this matter."
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Monks, do you too understand the Dhamma as taught by me in the same way that the monk
  Sāti, the Fisherman's Son, does when, through his own poor grasp [of
  the Dhamma], he not only slanders us but also digs himself up [by the
  root] and produces much demerit for himself?"
"No, lord, for in many ways the Blessed One has said of dependently co-arisen consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is
  no coming-into-play of consciousness.'"
"It's good, monks, that you understand the Dhamma taught by me in this way, for in many ways I have said of dependently co-arisen
  consciousness, 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no
  coming-into-play of consciousness.' But this monk Sāti, the
  Fisherman's Son, through his own poor grasp [of the Dhamma], has not
  only slandered us but has also dug himself up [by the root], producing
  much demerit for himself. That will lead to this worthless man's
  long-term harm & suffering.
MN 38

Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of
  consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from
  fabrications,' that would be impossible
SN 22.53

According to Buddhism does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?
There are different types of consciousness, or different things which are all translated as "consciousness".
I gather from answers and comments to this question that:

There are five sense-consciousness (e.g. eye-consciousness) which arise when there's a sense-object and attention
There's a sixth, analogous to the five, where the mind becomes conscious of thoughts (like the eye becomes conscious of sights)

Later forms of Buddhism posit two further consciousness (see e.g. Eight Consciousnesses).
I suspect that early Buddhism might do something similar but perhaps using different names -- my (poor) understanding is that the function of the (early) sankhara aggregate might be similar to the function of the (later) ālāya vijñāna consciousness.
So is the author right or wrong?
I think he's right that there's no sense-consciousness when there's no sense-object.
Wrong in that there are longer-lived aspects of the mind.
Also I think that the (or a) difference between Buddhism and Hinduism is that consciousness, whether short or long, isn't viewed as "self" or "soul".
What is the Buddhist take about the existence of consciousness apart from human brain?
I don't know, "sentient beings" aren't necessarily human -- they may be animal, ghost, or in a hell or a heaven.
I think that Tibetan Buddhism also posits a Bardo, and existence after death and before the next birth, whereas I think that Theravada assumes that consciousness exists in a body.
Does the Consciousness exist in the universe apart from living beings?
I don't know; that sounds like it might be Hindu "Brahman" -- I don't think it's a feature of the Pali suttas, maybe it's (I don't know) in any of the later doctrines.
Also there's e.g. Brahma (a God), not to be confused with Brahman -- Brahma exists (according to the suttas) -- probably a living being but not a human being, a human body.

'Monistic Idealism' is gaining some ground in mainstream physics, check this article -->https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/consciousness-goes-deeper-than-you-think/  . The Hindu Brahman still has a self, so that position can be easily contested. With the 'universe thing,' I am basically trying to contest the idealist position within the framework of Buddhism.

Sorry, I got the answer but I unaccepted, I think I will take some more point of views.

In the link you provided, Medhini says all five khandas are impermanent, but I think the nature of consciousness is vastly kept unspoken. That which is perceived can be impermanent, that which is perceiving cannot be impermanent as 'quality of change' cannot be ascribed to it.

Do you think there is any point to work in that direction?

I'm a little ignorant of Physics -- I studied Applied Maths, which was not quite the same subject. And, I know nothing of "Monistic Idealism" (your modern doctrine) but I inferred a while ago that monism in general is OK as far as it goes, but is maybe not prescriptive nor falsifiable ... like saying "God", "Tao", "Brahman" are all references to "the One", monad ... but what then? Physicists (Einstein and so on) have been talking about God and consciousness for at least the last 100 years. I don't want to disparage their attainments. The Buddha though was meant to be uniquely capable ...

... able to not only understand "reality" but explain it in a way that's beneficial, understandable, practical. @FriedrickNietzsche

In abihdhamma (chapter 1-5 for mind&mind factor, chapter 6 for matter&nibbāna, chapter 8 for paṭiccasamuppāda&paññatti):
1 moment can separate to 3 sub-moments: arising, standing, and vanishing (upāda, ṭhiti, bhaṅgha).
1 matter moment =  17 mind/mind factor moments.
Paṭiccasamuppāda = cycle system of matter, mind, and mind factor.
Nibbāna = the opposite side of paṭiccasamuppāda.
Paññatti = imagination of mind&mind factors about paṭiccasamuppāda or nibbāna (everything).

So, paññatti has no 3 sub-moments, we can't count it's moment.
I.E. you can imagine "I get wings to fly", but it doesn't mean you really get wings. If the wings never get 3 sub-moments, arising/standing/vanishing, it is just imagination, not truth. However, something is imagination bases on truth, such as bird's wings. Because wings are imagination as well, but they base on the matter, which can get 3 sub-moments. So, bird can fly.

The explanation

Most of jhāna object is paññatti. No one can count paññatti-object's moment, because it never arise/standing/vanish.
Another, some jhāna has mind or perception as object. But that object is the past, which already vanished. Mind can know the present object as the present while it is taking a present moment (still in arising, standing, or vanishing state). but for the past or future object, mind can know it as it is unlimited. Similitude as we can see the present passing through car just the moment it is in our vision. But we can think of that passed/coming car, which being out of vision, unlimited.

By both case above, although the object is not present, the mind still can know it.
If mind have to arise depend on only object, we must know everything even when we are sleeping.

Yes it is normal for puthujjanas to ask

Does the Consciousness vanish when the objects of consciousness are removed?
does an arahant have a Consciousness?
what is the difference between vinnana and citta and mano?
what does it feel like to be an arahant?
what is appatiṭṭhita viññāṇa, ''vinnana  unestablished, not coming to growth, nongenerative''?
what happens to vinnana after nibanna?
what is the condition of vinnana?
does the chain of conditions happen ''moment to moment'', meaning whatever is conditioned dies and lives continuously or is it over several ''lifespans''?
and, since ignorance is claimed to be the condition for shankara, if it is ''whatever is conditioned (especially Consciousness) dies and lives continuously'', moment after moment, , does it mean that ignorance is killed (in order to kill shankaras moment after moment, since shankaras is claimed to be the condition for consciousness and vinnana is killed moment after moment by killing shankaras)? why is ignorance re-generated all the time?

All those question have a unique answer: an exposition by a buddha of a chain of condition, without being vague when it comes to talk about vinnana.
Unfortunately, today there is no such answer. The suttas are a mess when it comes to the source of vinnana. What there is today is a various puthujjanas creating various views about conditions, then sharing their views and claiming it is a good idea to share views.
In SN 35.60 Sabbupādānapariññā Sutta , The condition for say Consciousness of the eye is that there is a form and the eye-faculty. This 3 is called contact.  In other suttas, the usual condition for the generic vinnana is namarupa.
In the famous sutta SN 12.2, it is shankara that is the source of vinnana.
THen later on, the usual question is what does vinnana do after nibbana? For instance there is the famous appatiṭṭhita viññāṇa, which is vinnana after nibbana, which is translated usually as ''vinnana  unestablished''. So that would mean some vinnana that does not stick to the 4 other aggregates.
It is like you look at the sky and you see various aircrafts doing loops. Then you look again and you see no ''aircrafts doing loops'' which means:

there are still aircrafts but they do something else than loops
there are no aircrafts at all in the sky

Well it is the same for vinnana  unestablished: does it mean there is no vinnana, since the buddha keeps talking about cessation of vinnana, but since he also says vinnana is liberated, does it mean there is some vinnana but it does something else than growing?
Again the unique answer is the reply of a buddha after you ask this question.
Fortunately, this lack of clear answer is not a disaster.the lack of answer is:

not relevant  for bad puthujjanas who want to become good puthujjanas
slightly relevant for the good puthujjanas who want to become sotapannas
heavily relevant for the sotapannas who ''want'' to become arahants

What matters for anybody who is not close to nibanna is to focus on the dispassion towards the 5 aggregates, by the method exposed by the buddha, and once those people are near nibanna, they can focus on the source of vinnana and then kill this source.
So let's begin. Now vi-jñāna is jñāna which discriminates.. vinnana is ''knowing discriminatingly'', and it is declined into 6 senses, which means, for instance for sight, the color blue is not a carrot.The 6th sense, create the idea of color blue and idea of color red and other ideas like honor and the idea of color blue is not the idea of honor which is not the idea of a carrot.
THe most famous discrimination is with vedana. There is a discrimination of vedana into pleasant, dis-pleasant and nondispleasant-non pleasant.
The last illustration is that when somebody wants stop dukkha, the usage of mano is restricted to yoniso manasikara, which typically means at the begining, seeing rupa as rupa, and finding the condition for arising of rupa, and finding the condition for the cessation of rupa and finding the way fo the cessation of rupa. Seeing rupa means not confusing rupa with say vedana, vedana is not rupa and rupa is not vedana. THe firt task is to see rupa as rupa and that begins with typically vinnana, later on ñāṇa. Same situation for the other 4 aggregates and that generates the famous various vipassanas.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.57/en/sujato
Again an illustration for ''the arising of a sense'': for there to be sight, there must be a eye (Cakṣus) cakṣurdhātu (like it is written in the heart sutta), plus a visible form rūpadhātu, plus the vinnana for sight cakṣurvijñānadhātu. Dhathu just means elements, typically like a lego brick. you join the three lego bricks: Cakṣus typed as a lego brick, rupa typed as a lego brick and cakṣurvijñāna typed as a lego brick and you get  ''the sight of form''. Instead of brick, a dathu can be seen as a fiber and you twist 3 fibers to make a big rope. The big rope is called phassa (contact). The glue of the contact is desire for something.
As usual the 6th sense mano is special because it gets to ''know the other senses''.
So in terms of dathu, there are 3 dathus x 6 senses = 18 dathus to ''explain'' the 6 senses. the dathus are glued together by some craving.
Vinanna is easily bad because it can sticks to the other 4 aggregates and it grows from there
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.54/en/sujato
and the good vinnana is the vinnana that does not generate shankaras.
Here, liberation is expressed in terms of vinnana, not citta.

“The four grounds of consciousness should be seen as like the earth element.
“Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, pathavīdhātu, evaṃ catasso viññāṇaṭṭhitiyo daṭṭhabbā.
Relishing and greed should be seen as like the water element.
Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, āpodhātu, evaṃ nandirāgo daṭṭhabbo.
Consciousness with its fuel should be seen as like the five kinds of plants propagated from seeds.

THere is also the saṃjñā which is saṃ-jñā and the vedana. THe generic vinnana and the sanna and vedana and the rupa and the saṃskāra are the 5 aggregates. THe nature of the aggregates is ''to arise and cease'' as sariputta says.
''to arise and cease'' means Being conditioned, which means that there is source for each aggregate  and there is a cessation to an aggregate: it turns out that the way of the cessation of an aggregate is the drying of the source of the aggregate. So to kill an aggregate, you kill the source of this aggregate. You never ever kill an aggregate directly by killing the aggregate in question.
the sutta https://suttacentral.net/sn22.56/en/sujato says The source of rupa is food.
Fortunately, the 3 aggregates of sanna, vedana and shankara have a universal condition: contact.
When contact ceases, those 4 aggregates cease. When there is contact, those 4 aggregates blossom.
THe usual way to kill contact is to kill desire, lust, greed because this desire is always towards some aggregate or something stemming from one
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.121/en/sujato
/sn22.60/en/sujato
and the usual way to kill desire, lust, greed is to train to see and to see the 5 aggregates as anicca dukkha anatta
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.55/en/sujato
The source of this desire is ignorance.the way to kill the desire is to kill the ignorance.
For instance, to cultivate the perception of impermanence
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.102/en/sujato
/sn22.59/en/sujato
Now how do you stop vinnana and is there still some objects to be cognized. Or can you kill cognizing of an object, when you kill the object that is cognized?  Well you look at the condition of vinnana and at this point, the exposition becomes a mess.

Consciousness originates from name and form.
Nāmarūpasamudayā viññāṇasamudayo;
When name and form cease, consciousness ceases.
nāmarūpanirodhā viññāṇanirodho.

Usually namarupa is vedana, sanna, shankara. but in  SN 12.2, namarupa is vedana, sanna, cetana, phassa, manasikāra. So which is it? Again the suttas are a mess.
Then the famous sutta SN 12.2 Vibhaṅga Sutta, the condition for vinnana is shankaras. In sutta SN 35.60 Sabbupādānapariññā Sutta , it is the objects and the faculty which generate vinnana. so which is it?
Again, This lack of clear answer is:

not relevant  for bad puthujjanas who want to become good puthujjanas
slightly relevant for the good puthujjanas who want to become sotapannas
heavily relevant for the ariyas close to nibbana who want to become arahants

What matters for anybody who is not close to nibanna is to focus on the dispassion towards the 5 aggregates, by the method exposed by the buddha, and once those people are near nibanna, they can focus on the source of vinnana and then kill this source.

After the extinction of the six sense-spheres of contact, and the fading away of desire, after cessation, after ending, is there any remainder?
After the extinction of the six sense-spheres of contact, and the fading away of desire, after cessation, after ending, is there no remainder?
that is meaningless talk
there is fading away of all meaningless argument and the attaining of nirvāṇa, then this is the teaching of the Buddha

Problem is, it's very true as pointed by you that, 'that' which couldn't be spoken of was left unspoken, but physics and philosophy need verbalization. Like as far as personal practice is concerned I agree with you but we need to stand test of findings of science and modern philosophical positions.

Need or crave? :D

Life is an ongoing stream of one consciousness appearing and disappearing after the next.
Every moment of consciousness exists of two things:
the knowing and the known.
Or consciousness and the object of consciousness. It's a one-on-one relationship, so to speak.
It's not:

'all the objects of consciousness are removed, consciousness vanishes'

Each moment of consciousness has one object.
Mind objects (thoughts, memories, images in the mind and so on) appear together and cease together with the accompanying consciousness. Rupa objects 'live' a bit longer: seven mind moments. It's a bit more complex, but for now this will do.
There can only be one consciousness at a time. So, a consciousness has to disappear after appearing, otherwise a new consciousness could not come up.
As mere mortals we can't see every single consciousness cease, but we can, with training, see an object of a consciousness arise together with its accompanying consciousness and cease with it's accompanying consciousness.
It's interesting when this happens. You can actually see consciousness cease together with thought, or nose consciousness together with smell. And like all sense consciousnesses mind consciousness with its accompanying mind object can also cease, or all five aggregates simultaneously (nirodha). That one will blow your mind.
I'm not really wild about the idea of an object generating consciousness. They come up together, in dependence (there you have a bit of dependent arising). But object is not always the cause, if memory serves.
(Dive into the Abhidhamma for more detail!)
Also: Buddhism holds that the brain and the universe exist in the mind, not the other way around.
The

'infinity of consciousness'

is, I think, also meant the other way around. It's not that we experience something that is infinite. But consciousness itself is infinite.
That's my take on it.
Hope it helps.

Thank you for the answer but I am going to say what you wrote is your interpretation (sorry :( ). There is a physics/philosophical position called 'monistic idealism' which is gaining grounds. check this work -->https://www.bernardokastrup.com/ . I think within the framework of Buddhism it should be possible to explain that. It means consciousness is there as a ground of existance of matter. Why Buddhist texts dont have that view because saying anything about is wrong, like telling a blind man about light. That's why Buddha didn't said anything about it.

@Friedrick Except the part where I share experience. That's not an interpretation. ;)

@FriedrickNietzsche Maybe Ajahn Sumedho holds more credibility: https://essenceofbuddhism.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/the-mind-is-not-in-the-body-the-body-is-in-the-mind/

@Medhini was not questioning your credibility. Sorry if it appeared that ways.

@BodhiWalker No harm done. Maybe credibility is not the correct word anyway.  :)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Are there different types of enlightenment?
I came across this article by Jack Kornfield in which he says that it is better to talk about enlightenments, since there are different versions of it. (So, this is not about different levels of enlightenment, but different enlightenments.)
Of course, I can imagine that Mahayana teaches something different than Theravada or other traditions and vice versa, but this article refers also to different types of enlightenment within Theravada.
Added by request:

enlightenment as a shift in identity;

liberation from greed, hatred and delusion;

devotion and surrender, being carried by the Buddha’s “grace";

When you actually experience consciousness free of identification with changing conditions, liberated from greed and hate, you find it multifaceted, like a mandala or a jewel, a crystal with many sides. Through one facet, the enlightened heart shines as luminous clarity, through another as perfect peace, through another as boundless compassion. Consciousness is timeless, ever-present, completely empty and full of all things. But when a teacher or tradition emphasizes only one of these qualities over the others, it is easy to be confused, as if true enlightenment can be tasted in only one way. Like the particle-and-wave nature of light, enlightenment consciousness is experienced in a myriad of beautiful ways.

He also describes different gates through which one can get enlightened:
The gate of impermanence, suffering, no-self. So far there is no surprise.
He then mentions more gates:

There are many other gates: the gates of compassion, of purity, of surrender, of love. There is also what is called the “gateless gate.”

The way enlightenment expresses is also different according to JK:

This is enlightenment as love.

This is enlightenment as emptiness.

He expresses enlightenment as fullness.

Enlightenment as mindfulness.

The Dalai Lama personifies enlightenment as compassionate blessing.

He expressed enlightenment as wisdom.

(I would suggest to read the article.)
Naturally, I'm a bit puzzled now.
Do suttas also talk about different types?

The are the 3 Bodhis: Sammasambuddha, Pacceka-Buddha, Arahath. Then there is Sopadisesa-nibbana and Anupadisesa-nibbana. But I don't think that's what you are asking about when you say different types.
What you need to keep in mind is that same thing can be described in many different ways. To give an analogy, an elephant can be described as 'heavy' by some, 'tall' by some, 'large' by some, 'gracious' by some, 'noisy' by some etc.
One person can say "spreading the light" to which another might say "dispelling the darkness". But they both refer to the same thing.
On the other hand, different teachers and traditions might label different experiences as enlightenment depending on their understanding or misunderstanding. That does not mean there are many types of enlightenments. Otherwise the Buddha would have listed them down under the Third Noble Truth.

enlightenment as a shift in identity

This is cutting off of identity-view(Sakkayaditti) when one attains Sotapanna. It is also partial liberation from delusion.

liberation from greed, hatred and delusion;

This is when one attains Arahanthship. So it appears that Jack Kornfield might have gotten confused by the descriptions of different stages of enlightenment and different stages of mental purifications.

devotion and surrender, being carried by the Buddha’s “grace";

This is not a description of enlightenment in Theravada Buddhism. But it may just mean that if one devoted oneself to the Buddha and submit to the practice of holly life under him, one will attain enlightenment.

There are many other gates: the gates of compassion, of purity, of
  surrender, of love. There is also what is called the “gateless gate.”

There are only 3 real gates. Others may bring one close to enlightenment, but the meditator still has to attain absolute certainty of either impermanence, suffering or non-self to get to Nibbana. Read here for more details.

This is enlightenment as love.

This maybe referring to attaining the Jhanas through Metta meditation. But there is more work to be done from there to reach enlightenment.

This is enlightenment as emptiness

This maybe talking about ākiñcaññāyatana(infinite nothingness), the 7th Jhana or the 3rd Arupajhana. But it's still not enlightenment.

He expresses enlightenment as fullness.

This maybe talking about the rapture and joy arising in the first jhana or the fruits of Buddhanussati meditation: "When a bhikkhu is devoted to this recollection of the Buddha, he is respectful and deferential towards the Master. He attains fullness of faith, mindfulness, understanding and merit. He has much happiness and gladness." -Visuddhimagga

Enlightenment as mindfulness.

Mindfulness leads to enlightenment and Arahaths are said to be always mindful. But mindfulness itself is not enlightenment.

The Dalai Lama personifies enlightenment as compassionate blessing.

Dalai Lama is not Theravada, but he could just mean that enlightened beings are compassionate and a blessing to the world.

He expressed enlightenment as wisdom.

Wisdom leads to enlightenment. Seeing impermanence, suffering and non-self is wisdom.

I think you and I have similar ideas/interpretation of what being enlightened (aka being an arahant means). New question: Would you say that someone is not an arahant yet so long as dosa still comes up in the mind stream, even though that person does not cling to the dosa but just observes its coming and going in a neutral way?

@Medhiṇī if Dosa comes up he's not even a Anagami, let alone Arahath. Even a person without any attainment who is just practicing Metta meditation can overcome Dosa and not react.

That's what I thought as well, @Sankha Kulathantille.  Yet, that person I'm thinking of, was a highly respected teacher and said to be an arahant. He himself didn't say this, as far as I know; but his students and meditators were saying this of him. However, when asked about anger he - the teacher - said that anger still came up, he just wouldn't grasp it. Why he was still considered to be an arahant is puzzling to me.

If the anger comes up, he is not an Arahant. If he himself didn't claim to be an Arahant, he cannot be held responsible for what people around him say.

"Wanderers of other sects who ask thus may be answered in this way: 'How then, friends, is The Goal one or many?' Answering rightly, the wanderers of other sects would answer thus: 'Friends, The Goal is one, not many.' - MN 11

Although, even in Pali Canon, "the goal" is described as many things:

cessation
liberation
final knowledge
highest bliss
attainment of the deathless

So, as Jack Kornfield said, "the goal" is "multifaceted" as "crystal with many sides". However, because of the language limitations we can only speak about one of these qualities at a time. That said, I would not go as far as to say there are different types of enlightenment.
Instead, according to my teacher, enlightenment manifests differently according to the needs of the situation - and because there are infinitely many different situations, there are infinitely many forms enlightenment takes, but it is still the same enlightenment.

That sounds like as if enlightenment in your tradition (not Theravada, right?) is understood as something different than in Theravada. That's interesting. Do you have a definition of enlightenment for me (to get some context)?

I'd suggest that enlightenment is the same in all cases regardless of whether one has even heard of Buddhism. After all, the Buddha hadn't. It may be sensible to speak of different levels or depths of enlightenment but not different types. All roads lead to Rome.

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


text:
Is insisting on calling “consciousness” a real thing appropriate?
Someone who likes to ask rhetorical questions on the internet once questioned whether it was appropriate to describe “consciousness” as a reification since in one sutta (MN 43) it is said that consciousness and wisdom/enlightenment were conjoined: If consciousness is a Reification, how does a Buddha attain the Truth?
An apparent contradiction arises when looking at another question offered by the same person: Why did the Lord Buddha criticize natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism)?
The OP seems to like the answer to the second question which stated:

“When … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises” of moral nihilism.”

Could it be that this “insisting on consciousness” as an objective real thing leads to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned and others concurred: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26814/13375

Theravada Buddhist answer.

Is insisting on calling “consciousness” a real thing appropriate?

It is not.
Consciousness (Citta) exists only as a taker of objects. If one has to characterize it as anything, it is rather a "knowing, cognizing or processing" of an object and not a real thing.
Here is a quote (my highlights) on the nature of Consciousness from the book "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma", by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

"Consciousness: The first chapter of the Abhidhammattha Sangaha
  is devoted to an examination of citta, consciousness or mind, the first of the four ultimate realities. Consciousness is taken up for study first because the focus of the Buddhist analysis of reality is experience, and consciousness is the principal element in experience, that which constitutes the knowing or awareness of an object.
The Pali word citta is derived from the verbal root citi, to cognize, to know. The commentators define citta in three ways: as agent, as instrument, and as activity. As the agent, citta is that which cognizes an object (arammanam cinteti ti cittam). As the instrument, citta is that by means of which the accompanying mental factors cognize the object (etena cintenti ti cittam). As an activity, citta is itself nothing other than the process of cognizing the object (cintanamattam cittam).
The third definition, in terms of sheer activity, is regarded as the most adequate of the three: that is, citta is fundamentally an activity or process of cognizing or knowing an object. It is not an agent or instrument possessing actual being in itself apart from the activity of cognizing. The definitions in terms of agent and instrument are proposed to refute the wrong view of those who hold that a permanent self or ego is the agent and instrument of cognition".
-- Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, Chapter 1: Compendium of Consciousness, Guide to §3, p. 27.

It appears the Lord Buddha criticized natthikavādaṃ (moral nihilism) because it is doctrine based on grasping (upadana). In other words, the Lord Buddha appeared to not criticize natthikavādaṃ because of disbelief in an afterlife.
In Buddhism, the word "grasping" is "upadana", which means to "take something as one's own". Due to views of "self" or "ego", selfishness arises. Selfishness leads to moral nihilism -- the mind is grasping at dirty animal lust as "me" and "mine" and "I". This dirty grasping at dirty things, leading to harm & trauma of everyone involved, is natthikavādaṃ.
For minds out of touch with reality, some suttas about "grasping" and "selfishness" are as follows:

Now, craving is dependent on feeling, seeking is dependent on craving, acquisition is dependent on seeking, ascertainment is
  dependent on acquisition, desire and passion is dependent on
  ascertainment, attachment is dependent on desire and passion,
  possessiveness is dependent on attachment, stinginess is dependent on
  possessiveness, defensiveness is dependent on stinginess, and because
  of defensiveness, dependent on defensiveness, various evil, unskillful
  phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives;
  conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and
  lies.
DN 15

But viewing consciousness as "cognition" is not "grasping". This is why the Lord Buddha said the reality of consciousness is that is cognises.
The question asked makes no sense because the question seems to irrationally believe the idea of a "thing" is the arising of "self" or "grasping"; such as to view a computer as a "computer" is "grasping".
The Lord Buddha did not to teach to abandon the idea of "things". What the Buddha taught to abandon is described below:

16. "But, monks, there is here a well-instructed noble disciple who has regard for Noble Ones, who knows their teaching and is well
  trained in it; who has regard for men of worth, who knows their
  teaching and is well trained in it: he does not consider corporeality
  in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'; he does not
  consider feeling... perception... mental formations in this way: 'This
  is mine, this I am, this is my self'; and what is seen, heard, sensed,
  and thought; what is encountered, sought, pursued in mind, this also
  he does not consider in this way: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self'; and also this ground for views (holding): 'The universe is the
  Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal,
  immutable, eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition' —
  that (view), too, he does not consider thus: 'This is mine, this I am,
  this is my self.'
MN 22

In conclusion, insisting on consciousness as an objective real thing does not inherently lead to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned. Only insisting that consciousness is "self" or "me" or "my" inherently leads to unethical behavior (moral nihilism) just as the Buddha warned.

Old comments moved to chat.


text:
Sexual thoughts coming with full pace to silent mind
I'm being very mindful and aware nowadays.  My mind is now very much quite and I am able to watch handful of thoughts in day to day life.  The problem is at a particular instant of quite mind, sexual thoughts come with full vigour.  Don't know why.
Is there any particular reason of sexual thoughts to come vigorously to nearly quite mind?

Sexual thoughts arise from a combination of the sensuality element (SN 14.12) & the ignorance element (SN 45.1). Because the mind still ignorantly believes sex can bring happiness & lasting pleasure, the instinctual & habituated sexual impulse (element) & thoughts still arise. In short, they arise due to wrong view.

What is the solution then? I mean sex can give someone pleasure, otherwise we wouldn't it if it's painful.

Medhini Is also correct.  It's both escapism+your reason.  Better if you write about escapism as well.  Will be helpful.

Is there any particular reason of sexual thoughts to come vigorously to nearly quite mind?
Thoughts arise and disappear on their own. If you are plagued by any particular thought, consider that relishing is the root of suffering. Find that delight, look at it and simply understand that "this is not mine, this is not who I am, this is not my self." This simple declaration will loosen your grip on the thoughts and they will disappear. Thoughts and feelings persist because there is relishing. Disavow the relishing and the thoughts and feelings pass like clouds in the sky. Be mindful of your breath as you do this. The breath is very much a part of your life. The thoughts simply come and go.

The reason is simply habituation.
The mind is used to input, any input will do. Whether it's thoughts or sound or images, and whether the thoughts are about sex, drugs, rock-n-roll doesn't really matter.
More interesting is that you consider memories popping up a problem. So, there is wanting there. Maybe wanting the peaceful state to continue? Which it won't since everything is impermanent.
There is more to uncover. Keep watching.

Thing is you already did the first step and thats
recognizing its existence
Its just important to separate from self as the answers told you

Now why you get them so vigorously when your mind has developed mindful awareness you say ?
Mindfulness comes easy for you in some aspects and hard in others which is normal because everyone has beliefs and habituation about things learned since childhood so filtering that through mindful awareness takes time and ardency.
So knowing the reason why is the second step
After that you can more easily divert your attention to something else it doesn't mean avoidance of what you don't like it only means that you can now do what you intend to do with less suffering.
Diverting your attention to something else is the last step

The essence of Buddhism is understanding that we can't control our body, our mind and things happening around us. But people tends to involve those things and thus, our emotion attached to those things and start karma cycle.
For example, when we eat a food, at the same time in our mind happening Greed(on our favorite food), Anger (Bad taste, Don't like), etc. And based on those emotional attachment, we taking out the actions which will become karma and reincarnation cycle.
In Accent of Buddhism is eating also a part of life and that is out of our control and so get rid from attached mind such as Greed and Anger, etc., to stop reincarnation cycle.
So, it is natural that you have those kind of mind such as sexual thoughts. And try to understand as it as just a thought and watch as it is until it lose again, as everything as happening in this universe.


text:
Does the Buddha suggest a change in practice after the unfolding of Sotapanna?
For two years there has been daily meditation. For 10 months there has been the addition of satipathanna practice and present moment awareness. 4 months ago the self was seen as a creation of imagination. There followed two hours of laughter and joy. Later that day there were demon images in the mind. Inwardly smiling they disappeared then the body became electrified and there was a sense of being in the precise moment. One week later occured a formless jhana in the shopping centre. It appears three awakenings or major shifts happened in the space of one week.
It seems like an unknown force is guiding things now. Troublesome thoughts can be dismissed very easily. Suffering has reduced by about 60 percent. There has been strong desire for women and feeling bad towards family members. This is where the sense of self seems strongest.
After the unfolding of Sotapanna which is massively transformational, does the Buddha suggest a change in practice?

No, the practitioner no need changing the practice.
The practitioner has to comprehends 3 characteristics of 5 aggregates, which cycling as the dependent origination, from being ordinary until arahatta-magga. But the teaching literature may be difference. See the description after the below quote.
So, in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sīlavantasutta taught the same meditation for all people, ordinary and all noble one:

On one occasion Ven. Sariputta & Ven. Maha Kotthita were staying near
  Varanasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. Then Ven. Maha Kotthita,
  emerging from seclusion in the late afternoon, went to Ven. Sariputta
  and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an
  exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he
  was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "Sariputta my friend,
  which things should a virtuous monk attend to in an appropriate way?"
"A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate
  way to the five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a
  disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a
  dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Which five? Form as a
  clinging-aggregate, feeling... perception... fabrications...
  consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. A virtuous monk should attend
  in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant,
  stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction,
  alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that
  a virtuous monk, attending in an appropriate way to these five
  clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would realize the fruit
  of stream-entry."
"Then which things should a monk who has attained stream-entry attend
  to in an appropriate way?"
"A monk who has attained stream-entry should attend in an appropriate
  way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a
  disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a
  dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that a monk
  who has attained stream-entry, attending in an appropriate way to
  these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would
  realize the fruit of once-returning."
"Then which things should a monk who has attained once-returning
  attend to in an appropriate way?"
"A monk who has attained once-returning should attend in an
  appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant,
  stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction,
  alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that
  a monk who has attained once-returning, attending in an appropriate
  way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would
  realize the fruit of non-returning."
"Then which things should a monk who has attained non-returning attend
  to in an appropriate way?"
"A monk who has attained non-returning should attend in an appropriate
  way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a
  disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a
  dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. For it is possible that a monk
  who has attained non-returning, attending in an appropriate way to
  these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant... not-self, would
  realize the fruit of arahantship."
"Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?"
"An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five
  clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an
  arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness,
  not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do,
  and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things — when
  developed & pursued — lead both to a pleasant abiding in the
  here-&-now and to mindfulness & alertness."

But the teaching literature may be difference. Each enlightenment depend on each personal understanding-ability because each person has difference own understandable dhamma, i.e. Pañcavaggī were professional of aggregates before he meet buddha, but Dīghanakha were  professional of six sense fields  before he meet buddha, etc.

Dīghanakha enlightened nibbāna as sotāpanna by comprehending 3
characteristics  of the dependent origination (nāma-rūpa) in Sutta.
Ma. Ma. Dīghanakhasutta.
A thousand jaṭila  enlightened nibbāna as arahanta  by comprehending
3 characteristics of the dependent origination (six sense fields, six
contacts, six feeling) in Sutta. Saṃ. Saḷa. Ādittapariyāyasutta.
Koñḍañña-pañcavaggī enlightened nibbāna as sotapanna  by comprehending
3 characteristics of the fourth noble truth in Sutta. Saṃ. Ma.
Dhammacakkappavattanasutta.

All pañcavaggī enlightened nibbāna as arahanta  by comprehending 3
characteristics of five aggregates, which is continuous from the five
clinging-aggregates suffering noble truth of
Dhammacakkappavattanasutta above, in Sutta. Saṃ. Kha.
Anattalakkhaṇasutta.

Thank you. This is very detailed and sheds light on a lot of dynamics for me.

THe path is the same for everybody at whatever stage. The stage of Sotapanna deals with views more than lusts, with the views being Sakkaya Ditthi and the usual obsessions of puthujjanas with rituals and symbolism that puthujjanas create generations after generations.
THe remaining task after getting  rid of Sakkaya Ditthi is to see the dependent origination, and for that you still need to make the citta serene (pasīdati), to get the citta into samadhi and then to find out the sources of each aggregate.
When it comes to the citta, the only thing to do before liberating it, cittaVimutti, is to make it into samadhi.
THere is a famous sutta where 4 samadhis are listed. The most famous samadhi is the jahnas.
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html
Of course, the most important samadhi is the one where mano is used as yoniso manasikara, instead of mano being used as vitakka+vicara+papanca, ie for daydreaming, creating views and intellectualizing like so many puthujjanas love to do and claim there are virtuous for doing so.
This Yoniso manasikāra is what stops a puthujjana becoming further a puthujjana. So as usual, it is to see each 5 aggregate as it is but, and this is the most important point of all the dhamma,  you must see for yourself what is the condition of each aggregate and the cessation of each aggregate.
Indeed, so far, a phuttjana only knows the condition of an aggregate by memory of some sutta, but this does not get anybody to become an ariya, just like reading and memorizing a user manual for a lawnmower does not mow your lawn....
THe samadhi right before that is the most important one since it is the usual one to prevent the development of lusts. https://suttacentral.net/sn36.3/en/bodhi
 This samadhi is the the famous  satisampajanna. This  satisampajanna is the pinnacle of what a few puthujjanas call stupidly ''doing vipassana''. THis practice is about watching the ''thoughts'' as they come and go and watching 2 aggregates, sanna and vedena, but not finding out their condition and their cessation (therefore the practice does not lead to the vipassanas).
satisampajanna has nothing to do with finding out the nature of sankharam of the 5 aggregates. But  satisampajanna is the best basis to do Yoniso manasikāra. With satisampajanna you know easily the arising of a thought, the establishing of a thought and the fall of a thought, before a new thought pops up and replaces it and it starts all over again. Same thing for pleasant vedenas, following a non-pleasnt non-displeasnt vedena which follows another vedena and so on. http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/08/an08-009.html
With good sati, go further and you remember to try to see all the conditions that the buddha talks about.
Once you see for yourself the conditioned nature of the aggregates, you see that they are anicca, which makes you see them as dukkha, which makes you see them as anatta, which makes you dispassionate (nibidda) towards them, which makes the citta liberated. All those insights called  Aniccānupassī,  dukkhānupassī, anattānupassī, Virāgānupassī,  Nirodhānupassī,  Paṭinissaggānupassī follow from ''seeing for yourself'' the dependent origination. Like the buddha said, ''seeing the dependent origination is seeing the dhamma'' and the usual first step to do that is to calm down and get the citta in samadhi.
Theway to kill desire, lust, greed is to train to see and to see the 5 aggregates as anicca dukkha anatta
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.55/en/sujato
The source of this desire is ignorance.the way to kill the desire is to kill the ignorance.
For instance, to cultivate the perception of impermanence
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.102/en/sujato
 /sn22.59/en/sujato
More explicitly for a sotapanna, the recommendation is to live ''heedfully'', which just means again getting the citta into samadhi which creates a good basis for Yoniso manasikāra:

"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified
  confidence in the Dhamma... verified confidence in the Sangha...
  virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken,
  unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished,
  leading to concentration. Not content with those virtues pleasing to
  the noble ones, he exerts himself further in solitude by day or
  seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedfully, joy arises. In one
  who has joy, rapture arises. In one who has rapture, the body becomes
  serene. When the body is serene, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure,
  the mind becomes centered. When the mind is centered, phenomena become
  manifest. When phenomena are manifest, he is reckoned as one who
  dwells heedfully.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html
here is a little sutta with more details for stapipathana
http://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn47-040.html
If you fail to get the citta into samadhi, then you can fall back on giving to contemplative, with he proper ''state of mind'', because a sotapanna knows that calming the citta is crucial and that giving to contemplatives who strive for sense restrains is a good thing: the citta is serene (pasīdati) when giving is done https://suttacentral.net/an7.52/en/thanissaro


text:
Effort in Practice
I noticed recently that for some odd reason, none of my resolutions and efforts have come to fruition. My attempts to diminish junk food, social media, and other such negative behaviours have remained similar, and my attempts to meditate and exercise have lacked success.
Q1. What could be responsible for such a lethargic and demotivated approach to training oneself? Is there a mental factor simply lacking from my practice?
I suspect effort may be a mental concomitant necessary for improvement regardless of the insight I may have otherwise.
Q2. Is effort, as resulting from sitting formal and consistent practice, a prerequisite for growth? Is truly effortless practice a myth?
(I ask question two because I know that some Dzogchen and Mahamudra techniques are described as effortless.)

Although this is not directly related to Buddhism, I’m sure there are parallels.. read The Power of Habit. All your bad habits have a cue, routine and reward. Be mindful when they trigger and work to develop better habits. You didn’t develop those bad habits overnight so reversing them won’t be overnight as well.

Q1. What could be responsible for such a lethargic and demotivated
  approach to training oneself? Is there a mental factor simply lacking
  from my practice?

As NuWin already pointed out: habituation will play a part in this. Another factor could be the misunderstanding of the practice.
Right effort is part of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Restraining arisen unwholesome qualities. (In your case lethargy, laziness etc.)
Letting go or arisen unwholesome qualities.
Developing of wholesome qualities. (Think, f.i., of the seven factors of enlightenment.)
Sustaining arisen wholesome qualities.

So, walking the path is work.

Q2. Is effort, as resulting from sitting formal and consistent practice, a prerequisite for growth? Is truly effortless practice a myth?

Effort is not so much a result as it is something you have to put in. And since it is part of the path it is definitely necessary. Growth can't happen without effort.
Think of it as gardening. You can't just throw some seeds on the ground and that's it. If you want the right plants to grow you will have to keep an eye on how things develop. Get rid of weed, water the plants you want to grow and so on.
You could try to contemplate on death every day to break the habit of laziness. How would you feel at the end of your days having spent them with social media instead of meditating? Guilty? Think of the possibility of being reborn in lower reals. Stuff like that. Maybe you'll find that these reflections or others can motivate you to stick with the practice.
It will become more effortless once it is your new habit. Doesn't mean you won't put in any more energy. But your attitude towards the practice will have changed and it will no longer feel as a chore but more as a natural thing.
Hope this makes sense.

In traditional Buddhism, effort is not only the way to move forward but, almost more importantly, the main source of satisfaction! This satisfaction then serves as the main source of fuel for going forward.
The student defines a goal according to Dharma (or the Buddha / thera / guru does it for the student), the student works hard to attain that goal, the student rejoices in his or her achievement. The goal itself on every level is an increasingly closer approximation of Final Peace: first you pledge to abstain from violence, scandals, stealing, lust, intoxication etc. - and achieve that; then you pledge to abstain from thoughts associated with coarse craving and negativity and achieve that; then you pledge to learn hold your attention on one object for long stretches of time - and achieve that; then you pledge to learn to use your skill of attention control to abstain from subtle craving and negativity - and achieve that; then you pledge to use your attention to generate joy - and achieve that; then you pledge to stop clinging to any conditioned state, including joy - and achieve that; then you review your resulting state, congratulate yourself on the Final Liberation, and declare Victory.
Whereas in "formless" types of Buddhism, that very same path is re-framed in terms of the end result. So instead of setting a goal, working towards it, and congratulating ourselves on intermediate achievements - we directly jump to the non-abiding state, however imperfectly. We just say, hey, our current state is already Enlightenment and this is already Nirvana, so let's just relax in the spontaneous expression of this eternal fact. Then, if doubts about our progress and negative thinking comes up, we don't suddenly change course and jump to the traditional Buddhism with its goal-setting and effort. We don't regret that we are on the effortless path. Instead, we just look at these doubts and negative thinking, seeing them as doubts etc. - and liberate them right there on the spot, either by appealing to Emptiness, or directly. We engage into this practice in connection with various life situations until it becomes our second nature. In the process we go through basically the same stages as on the original path - we just don't think about it in the same terms.
So in essence, it is the same practice. It's just that in one case we frame it as a series of progressive realizations, connected with effort, resulting in satisfaction and a sense of achievement, until our practice gets subtle enough to defact reach non-abiding - and in the other case we're habituating ourselves to the non-abiding from the very beginning, without the intermediate vows, goals etc. and the associate sense of achievement.
In a way, the formless practice is more honest and direct, but it's also a lot more difficult psychologically, since you don't get that hero feeling you get when walking the other path. Instead, you keep losing shape, and if you encounter any obstacles including doubts, you don't apply effort to solve them brute-force, but meet them by further loss of shape.
You should clearly decide for yourself which of these paths you're on. If you are on the first path, then your thoughts about junk food, social media, formal sitting practice etc. are valid. You should clearly define success on each intermediate stage and then apply strong consistent effort to achieve that success, then review it to harness the energy. If you are on the formless path, you should drop all those thoughts about not being good enough and focus on relaxing in the self-existing perfection of your natural state. What's important is that you clearly decide which of these paths you are on.

I am unfamiliar with the disctinction between what you call "traditional" and "formless" buddhism. I realise I have been taping into both techniques. Why is it important to stick to only one path ? I realise this question can be broad, please let me know if I should ask it on its own.

Well the two approaches are kinda opposite, so when they are combined they reduce the potency of each other. The formless approach with its emphasis on emptiness interferes with setting the goals and consistently going towards them and vice versa.

Yes it makes a lot of sense. I was thiking a goal oriented approach could be beneficial in some situations while a formless approach could be ideal in other situations, but in the long run I can see how these two approaches counteract each other.
Would you care to cite some sources where one could find advices to decide which path to take ?

It boils down to personality type. Some people require more structured guidance and others have high capacity for intuitive understanding. The first do not fare well with the formless, while for the second the rigid approach would be inefficient and an overkill.

Firstly, I don't think that reflecting on the fact that one might gets born in a lower realm is really all that helpful. It is grounded in an unempirical belief. Why should it influence my life? If you go with the interpretarion by Ajahn Chah or Ajahn Buddhadasa and take the day-to-day birth then that's fine, but knowing intellectually that one is in a realm does not help one necessarily to escape it.
Secondly, the path, as advised by the Buddha, should be practised gradually with little increments, meaning: Always setting  personal (short-term & long term) goals that are realistic to achieve. Values are important too (the 'why').
Thirdly, there is really no quick fix once a defilement has arisen, but to always be patient and try to re-direct the mind (thought) and body (behaviour; like for example breathing or escaping a situation) in a different direction, since it's compounded and takes time to cool off.
To answer your question briefly: Emotions can be compared with a light bulb; if you stare on the lights for long, there will be black dots all over your eye's retina. One cannot immediately turn the dots off, instead, one has to be patient in order for them to disappear.

Q1. What could be responsible for such a lethargic and demotivated approach to training oneself?

You already know the point because you said that you attempts to diminish junk food, social media, and other such negative behaviours have remained similar.

my attempts to meditate and exercise have lacked success.

Every experience need time to collect. Have you ever gone to the jhāna-meditation school, such as pa-auk? Have you ever observed how the  ่้่้่living jhāna-attainer eat and live?
The jhāna-attainer offers the veggie while meditation.

Q1. What could be responsible for such a lethargic and demotivated approach to training oneself? Is there a mental factor simply lacking from my practice?

You miss the various of meditation. There are more than 40 meditations to switch between each other. If you are bored by one you can try the others, especially āhārepaṭikulasaññā (to revolution the root of problem) and caṅkama (using as makeshift while sleepy).

I suspect effort may be a mental concomitant necessary for improvement regardless of the insight I may have otherwise.

Especially, effort of preparation before meditating, such as food approximating, water, āhārepaṭikulasaññā, etc.

Q2. Is effort, as resulting from sitting formal and consistent practice, a prerequisite for growth? Is truly effortless practice a myth?

The practitoner meditates minds & 38 mind factors, included effort-faculty. The prerequisite (basis) of vipassanā meditation are sīla & 40 concentration-meditation.


text:
Of the two extremes (eternalism vs nihilism) the latter is more harmful. Reference?
A common teaching in Mahayana is that of the two extremes it is better to fall into eternalism rather than nihilism. This advice is given by many Mahayana or Middle Way teachers. I'm looking for Sutra references for this teaching or earliest known exposition of this teaching.
I'm tagging this Mahayana as I know this is a Mahayana teaching, but if anyone could find references in the Pali Canon I would be very happy for you to share it :)
Please don't use the question as a means to argue with the teaching... just looking for references.

I'm not sure what's meant by "eternalism"; but quoting from the Pali canon again, in The Truth of Rebirth: And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice is a passage which says that "mundane right view" (i.e. belief in rebirth) is better or safer than an annihilationst view:

So it is with all of our actions. Given that we have to wager one way or another all the time on how to find happiness, the Buddha stated that it's a safer wager to assume that actions bear results that can affect not only this lifetime but also lifetimes after this than it is to assume the opposite.
In MN 60, for instance, he pointed out that anyone who adheres to the annihilationist view espoused by Ajita Kesakambalin would not be expected to avoid unskillful behavior, whereas those who hold to the opposite — mundane right view — would be expected to avoid unskillful behavior. Then he said of the first group:

"With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is no next world, then — with the breakup of the body, after death — this venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the next world, then this venerable person — with the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans [who assert the existence of the next world], this venerable person is still criticized in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of bad habits & wrong view: one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a bad throw twice: in that he is criticized by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a plane of deprivation, a bad destination, a lower realm, hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly adopted by him covers (only) one side, and leaves behind the possibility of the skillful."
— MN 60

As for the second group — those who hold to mundane right view and act on it — he said this:

"With regard to this, an observant person considers thus: 'If there is the next world, then this venerable person — with the breakup of the body, after death — will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Even if we didn't speak of the next world, and there weren't the true statement of those venerable contemplatives & brahmans, this venerable person is still praised in the here-&-now by the observant as a person of good habits & right view: one who holds to a doctrine of existence.' If there really is a next world, then this venerable person has made a good throw twice, in that he is praised by the observant here-&-now, and in that — with the breakup of the body, after death — he will reappear in a good destination, a heavenly world. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when well grasped & well adopted by him, covers both sides and leaves behind the possibility of the unskillful."
— MN 60

These arguments don't prove the efficacy of action or the truth of rebirth, but they do show that it is a safer, more reasonable, and more honorable policy to assume the truth of these teachings than it would be to assume otherwise. The Buddha didn't press these arguments beyond that point. In other words, he left it to his listeners to decide whether they wanted to recognize that action is an investment that, like all investments, incurs risks. And he left it to them to decide how they wanted to calculate the risks and potentials that action might involve now and into the future. He didn't ask that his listeners all commit themselves to an unquestioning belief in the possibility that their actions might lead to rebirth, but he wasn't interested in teaching anyone who rejected that possibility outright. As we've already noted, he saw that heedfulness lay at the root of all skillful qualities. If a listener couldn't be persuaded to develop an appropriate level of heedfulness around the risks of action, any further teaching would be a waste of time.

SN12.17, DN1, SN12.17, SN22.81 and SN44.10 are the only suttas dealing with both eternalism and annihilationism. Rather than choosing one as better, the middle road is offered.

Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way:
  ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices.
  Choices are a condition for consciousness. …
  That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.
  When ignorance fades away and ceases with nothing left over, choices cease.

They're both mentioned in DN 1 too.

Oh dear. I messed up my search. Apologies. Answer updated with newly found references.

In the Paṭhamakosala Sutta (AN 10.29), there is this:

"This is the best of the convictions of outsiders, that is: ‘I might
  not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be
  mine.’ When someone has such a view, you can expect that they will be
  repulsed by continued existence, and they will not be repulsed by the
  cessation of continued existence."


text:
What are some of the sutra's related to the Twelve Links (Nidanas)?
Jarāmaranam,
Jāti,
Bhava,
Upādāna,
Tanhā,
Vedanā,
Phassa,
Salāyatana,
Nāma-rūpa,
Viññāna,
Sankhārā,
Avidya.
I believe they operate inversely and wanted to see further how this inversion is illustrated in the Pali canon.

The best survey of suttas on Twelve Nidanas that I have seen can be found in "The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A comparative study based on the Sutranga portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama" by Choong Mun-keat.

Thank you. This is very detailed and informative study.

There's an entire samyutta on the Nidanas in the Connected Discourses: https://suttacentral.net/sn12

Great. Thank you. Suttacentral has a nice app too.


text:
For what reason did Dharmakirti argue that absences are conceptual constructions?
For what reason did Dharmakirti argue that absences are conceptual constructions? I wondered if it was because real absences would have svabhava, would be essences, because they do not change in time?
I can't find anything to cite now, but I believe he argued this. I mean everyday absences, such as a cow from a field, rather than anything technical about apoha, which I am not that familiar with.

Can you cite some work by Dharmakirti where he relates this point that you paraphrase? In lieu of that all I can say is why absences are not real or inherent according to Je Tsongkhapa, which follows from Chandrakirti, which follows from Buddhapalita, which follows from Aryadeva, which follows from Nagarjuna, which follows from Shakyamuni. Also, I take it that by abscence you mean Abhava or his theory of Apoha?

sorry that's the best i can do @YesheTenley

Say you walk into a room and look around and think to yourself, "Ah, this room has no elephant in it!"
The absence of an elephant in that very room is an object of knowledge. It can be known by a valid mind that there is - in fact - no elephant in that room. Since the absence is an object of knowledge it can be said to exist. So how does it exist? In order to answer this, back up and look at how it was known.
The absence of an elephant in that room was known merely by conception and inference on the valid basis of failing to perceive any elephant in that room and depending upon the thought which knew it. It is not a real, essential or inherent absence. How can we know this with certainty? Because if the absence of an elephant were real, essential or inherent, then everyone walking into that room would know that absence and think to themselves, "Ah, this room has no elephant in it!" which plainly does not happen. Moreover, it would be impossible for someone to - at any of the three times - walk an elephant into that room. If someone were to walk an elephant into that room, then this would annihilate the absence. But inherent things cannot be annihilated otherwise they would depend upon something else. Moreover, the absence of that elephant - were it inherent - would not depend upon anything at all.
No, the absence of an elephant in that room exists conceptually, dependently, relatively, in an illusory-like way without even a shred of inherent existence at all. In the same way, were someone to walk an elephant into that room, then that elephant would exist conceptually, dependently, relatively, in an illusory-like way without even a shred of inherent existence at all as would the "absence of the absence of an elephant."
This refutes real Abhava along the lines of what Dharmakirti might employ and is in agreement with Madhyamaka's like Nagarjuna. However, Dharmakirti was not a self-identified Madhyamaka per se and had some apparent disagreement with other points of doctrine, but on this point I think they agree.
If you are talking about Apoha, well that is related but different. That is getting into the epistemology of how nominal things are known from real and inherent - but unconceivable - entities. The upshot is that Madhayamaka's like Nagarjuna had apparent disagreement with Dharmakirti on this point in so far as Madhyamaka's like Nagarjuna did not think that anything at all was real or inherent even if inconceivable.
Hope this helps!

nicely worded etc., but i would've liked some quotes from dharmakirti... shame that i couldn't re-find what was being cited that i had just read :)

In the 3rd paragraph, are the words "real, essential or inherent" all three exact synonyms of each other (perhaps all different translations of the same word)?

In this usage, yes. Inherent and essential are nearly always used as synonyms for each other in the Madhyamaka literature on emptiness. However, "real" or "true existence" can sometimes be used as synonyms for the above and sometimes used to mean something closely related, but not synonymous. But again, here they are all used synonymous.

In the 4th paragraph, are you saying that an elephant walked into in the room wouldn't exist there in a way that's real, essential, and/or inherent ... that instead its existence is only illusory; and that the proof of that is that it's possible that someone might not notice it?

Yes, I am saying that an elephant in a room exists in the same manner as the absence of an elephant in a room. Indeed, in the same manner as all things exist: unreal, non-essential, non-inherent, but thoroughly relative, dependent, illusory-like. And there are many proofs of this not just that someone might not notice it. All things exist only nominally by merely being labeled on a valid basis without even the slightest shred of existence beyond this.

According to Tom Tillemans in his article on Dharmakīrti, this particular argument is not of Dharmakīrti’s own invention, but was rather likeley to be inherited from previous writers like Vasubandhu.
Accordingly, “Dharmakīrti has two arguments for the momentariness (kṣaṇikatva) of all that exists”, the first one being commonly known as the vināśitvānumāna:

A key underlying principle of the vināśitvānumāna is that negative facts, such as absences, are not part of the ultimate furniture of the world, but are just fictional conceptual constructions, as they are devoid of causal powers. Equally, a fiction lacking causal powers is not the effect of something else.

It is followed by some of his actual examples:

While it is obviously impossible to deny that hammers smash pots, the absence (abhāva) of the pot, i.e., the non-existent pot, is not an effect, just as other non-existent things (abhāva), like horns of rabbits, are not effects of anything either. Hammers and the like are thus not actually causes of the pot's absence but of it turning into potsherds. That idea is perhaps defensible, in that arguably the mere absence of something—a purely negative fact—might be less real and less efficacious than the presence of other things.

The other argument however, “seems to be largely Dharmakīrti's own invention”:

There is, fortunately, a much better argument for intrinsic momentariness than the problematic vināśitvānumāna. This argument is known as “the inference [of things' momentariness] from the [mere] fact of [them] existing” (sattvānumāna), and seems to be largely Dharmakīrti's own invention, first developed in the second chapter of his Pramāṇaviniścaya. If anything exists and is a specific thing rather than another, it is because of its causal efficacy (arthakriyā), or powers to produce such and such effects.

Both arguments are included in the second chapter of Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇaviniścaya. So I suggest you look into that book. The critical edition of chapter 1 and 2 has been published, but although Amazon says its in English, I think it regards the Sanskrit/Tibetan edition.


text:
Vijñāna and Śūnyatā... How are they seen as different?
Consciousness is often used to describe Śūnyatā by some teachers but in Buddhism consciousness is one of the aggregates.

Where is consciousness used to describe emptiness? What are you basing this assertion on?

Hi. From a strictly Buddhist perspective I'm looking to define the Vijñāna and Śūnyatā as I have come to realise they are not used in the same way.

If you want an explanation of "Consciousness is often used to describe Śūnyatā", then it would be good (maybe necessary) to add some direct quotes/references of teachers saying that.

The way these relate, according to instructions I received, and my limited understanding:
In ontological reality nothing exists by itself; everything is part of some process and relationship; In fact in Mahayana Buddhism we say that delineating these processes and relationships into distinct entities is a function of the mind. Same processes and relationships can be delineated in a multitude of ways, even though most of the time we assume there is only one, or only one right way to delineate them. Entities do not have (are empty of) inherent existence and are delineations made by the mind. We call this situation "Emptiness" (Śūnyatā).
The mind itself exists as (informational) phenomenon emerging from interaction of processes and relationships. So mind itself is not something fixed that has essence - it's fluid and ephemeral. We say, mind itself is empty.
Since "entities" do not exist as anything apart from the mind, and mind itself does not exist apart from the interaction of processes and relationships, we can see that mind and entities are of the same emergent nature. In other words, the latent regularities inherent in the interaction of processes and relationships give rise to mind as reflection and representation, culminating in delineation of entities.
So mind and its delineated entities emerge as virtual aspect of regularities inherent to the ontological reality. Mind and entities are virtual. This virtuality is what we call Emptiness. In this sense we can roughly say that mind is emptiness and emptiness is mind. Or, more precisely, that the nature of mind is emptiness. So in the absolute sense they are inseparable.
However, when we speak in the conventional sense, mind refers to representation, and when we speak about vijnana we specifically mean representation that develops in the case of sentient beings. The capacity for representation is one of the five components making up the subjective realm of the so-called sentient being, along with stimuli, imprints/tendencies, concepts of entities, and feelings. Vijnana is that which emerges from imprints/tendencies in response to stimuli and underlies the process of delineation and evaluation of entities, as well as the feelings that fall out of that. So in conventional use the meaning of "Vijnana" is rather specific.
While Emptiness (Śūnyatā) is a much more broad concept. It refers to the global situation that ontological reality does not have any sort of absolute point of reference, whether local or global, and that whatever virtual stuff that emerges, emerges from relationships and interactions, and that therefore all phenomena, including the ones we deal with in our human realms do not have any sort of inherent solidity.

Thank you. So all objects (including skandhas) give the impression of being lots of seemingly separate things but originate from a process of happenings and at any point in that process they arise, abide and cease. Moreover, this is also the case with consciousness but not with emptiness? (I loved your description of defilements in another question)

More or less correct. Well, emptiness is not something that exists, either inherently or virtually - it's just a way to characterize the virtuality and relativity of emergent phenomena (which is all of them). It's a noun that should have stayed adjective (shunya, not shunyata).

Perhaps "hollowness" would be a better translation than "emptiness". It's always the emptiness of something, not just the emptiness by itself. Emptiness does not exist apart from form that is empty (of svabhava).

@AndreiVolkov  Or 'voidness'. "The voidness of one thing is the voidness of all" (Upanishads)

They are very different terms with very different meanings.
Mind (pali: viññāṇa) is that which knows something. Emptiness (pali: suññatā) is how things exist. We say the mind is empty - ie., that it lacks inherent existence. Madhyamakas say that all things lack inherent existence... ie., that they are empty of inherent existence. The question then becomes what is 'inherent existence' ;)

Thank you. If consciousness is a factor of the five skandhas, how does the emptiness you describe compare to consciousness?

In my answer above 'mind' is synonymous with consciousness. So again, consciousness exists by being empty of inherent existence because that is how all things exist.

@YesheTenley please add Pali terms to your answer for clarity.

@OyaMist done, but notice the OP used sanskrit

I often interchange between Pali and Sanskrit out of ignorance sometimes even within one sentence. It's all very new to me. Thank you for the addition: "mind is synonymous with consciousness". This was a great help.

Is it also true to say that things are (i.e. that everything is) empty, because and/or when it's sensed/perceived/conceptualised? If so is that (at least partly) because all sensations/perceptions/concepts are impermanent?

Things are empty of inherent existence because inherent existence is an impossible mode of existence. It is logically not possible for anything to have inherent existence. It is not like we render things empty by conceptualizing them and if we'd only stop conceptualizing them they'd be real and truly existent. It is not like the act of perceiving them makes them empty. It is not like we when we sense them we suddenly make them empty. They are empty of inherent existence because inherent existence is impossible by very construction like the son of a barren woman.


text:
How does the Buddha address powerful spiritual experiences in monks?
Specifically, loss of time, distance and size. Also advanced forms of empathy and being in two locations at once. I realise this is quite vague but I hesitate at giving details. I'm more concerned with how these are addressed in Buddhism.

Any particular reason this is tagged 'Triratna'? ie., are you looking for answers that come from members of this community?

Not really. Anyone with knowledge of Buddhism may answer. I couldn't find tags related to the question. Perhaps I'm not creative enough.

Are these experiences as a result of, or during, meditation?

ChrisW. They occur outside of meditation.

These kinds of experiences are commonplace but the practice is about transcending experience so in Buddhism they are not considered important. For an ultimate view there will be a loss of time, distance and size since these are not truly real phenomena, while empathy is bound to grow as we more closely approach a state or realisation of unity and shared identity. As for being in two places at once, Buddhism teaches that there are not two places. Extension would be conceptual. Maybe you're being afflicted by intuitions and visions of truth. Lucky you.

Thank you PeterJ. It's been very helpful to obtain knowledge from these experiences. As one example, I see anatta quite a lot in other things. A car going down the road isn't a car but an ephemeral cohesion of earths components travelling over itself. Isn't this what Buddha did with his insights and experiences? Didn't he learn from them and then develop a refined knowing about reality? Aren't they important in that sense?

PeterJ - I did find a sutra in which Sharuputra and another monk conversed about this very thing. I think the experiences are called siddhi. The other monk was able to travel vast distances across the universe and Shariputra bestowed his assertion upon him to realise reality from the confines of his body. I've forgotten what the sutra is called. Perhaps someone here can inform?

Not really sure what type of answer you are looking for (sutra references about supernormal powers??), but I'll just paraphrase what I heard recently from a Theravada monk that seemed like extremely good advice which reportedly came from Ajahn Chah...
The advice was to simply be mindful and beware growing attached to any weird experiences you have while meditating. With the deep concentrations found in meditation you can have all kinds of seemingly supernatural experiences. So what. They are no more real or inherently existing (nor less!) than any thing experienced in waking life. If you have weird or seemingly supernatural experiences in waking life... again, so what. They are no more real (nor less!) than what you might experience in a dream. All things lack inherent existence and are not worthy of grasping. Grasp at them and you will incur suffering for yourself and others. So don't do it! :)
Now, the one thing you said that I think might deserve extra attention is your remark about "advanced forms of empathy." If by "empathy" you mean compassion (the wish for others to be free from suffering), then this is an unalloyed virtue that should be cultivated to perfection. To do so, I'd suggest Shantideva's Guide and loving kindness or bodhicitta meditation.
Hope this helps!

Thank you. From what you say, I see that they can become hindrances then. Whilst they are interesting they come and go. I figure that this is something the Buddha would say about them.

Yes, I think they can become hindrances if you get attached to them or develop arrogance because of them. However, I have not had these experiences so what do I know :) If you don't mind me asking... have you taken Bodhisattva vows? Please feel free to not answer if you don't wish of course!

No, I don't know what the Bodhisattva vows are.

The main vow is to generate the mind of enlightenment for the sole purpose of helping all sentient beings. ie., the supreme and completely perfect altruistic motivation.

I see. If you have a resource for the Bodhisattva vow, I'd be interested in taking a look. Thank you for your answers. :-)

I can't think of any better resource than Shantideva's Guide linked in the above answer ;)

You are very welcome. And along with reading Shantideva's Masterpiece you can follow along as HHDL explains it: https://www.amazon.com/Benefit-All-Beings-Commentary-Bodhisattva-ebook/dp/B01C64RSHK/ref=pd_sbs_351_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01C64RSHK&pd_rd_r=5b3e9384-b77e-11e8-a6e4-7ffe77228f05&pd_rd_w=csvi1&pd_rd_wg=j6crP&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=1646818405999967777&pf_rd_r=HP53KXTHX7R3D18E9CF6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=HP53KXTHX7R3D18E9CF6