text:
Caring is wrong?
Is caring is a bad thing according to Buddhism ? Because as I experience caring leads us to suffering. But caring can come in so many levels such as we do help a person normally as a result of our caring towards that person/ animal. And in a relationship we do caring on very tiny things even by checking the other person has reached home safely etc. But in the big picture finally we get reasons to suffer due to our caring. It seems like we can get rid of most of the sufferings if we do not care.
So is it not appropriate to care ? Otherwise how can we avoid suffering ourselves while caring ?

http://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy is an interesting read about the different types of empathy - affective and cognitive!

interesting blog @llya

@Iresha Rubasinghe, I understand that caring for others is very much a part of you, but the question that you have is how to avoid having to suffer while caring. You seem to have a lot of good traits that an adult would like to see in the present day youth. It is interesting to note that you are somewhat of the same age as my own son, and is in the same field of Software Engineering.  If I am to have a fervent wish for this coming New Year 2017, it is to see in the present day youth, a new breed in the making, who are compassionate, caring, trustworthy and well-disciplined. Young couples who earlier spent time on film halls and botanic garden shrubs, who would begin to observe Sil with their partners. Then start helping with charities, and became respectable citizens as a by-product of this endeavour. Some of the most fortunate amongst them, who have a special calling, because of their past meritorious deeds, to get to shed all their bindings to the mortal world and became Anagaarikas & Monks.
A law of the universe is the more one gives away, the more one gets. You would not believe it, (that's why you asked this question) yet it is a law of cause and effect. Always believe it and act accordingly, but keep in mind that it will only be effective if the giving is done in purity. We can give our time, our caring, our concern for others' well-being. We have the immediate benefit of happiness in our own heart, when we see the joy we have given to someone else. This is about the only satisfaction we can expect in this life which is of a nature that does not disappear quickly, because we can recollect the deed and our own happiness.
Those who are of the selfish kind would never know of this complete satisfaction, contentment and peacefulness. For them life would only be about getting up, eating breakfast, washing, dressing, thinking and planning, cooking, buying things, talking to people, going to work, going to bed, getting up... over and over again. Is that enough for a lifetime?
We are all concerned about how to change our mind from enmity, hurtfulness and unhappiness, to their opposites. It possible to change the mind, but we have to work towards it, it will take time, and only  gradually will we come to this stage over time. The body doesn't change overnight, to become athletic, and neither does the mind change instantly. But if we don't continually train it, it's just going to stay the same it has always been, which is not conductive to a harmonious and peaceful life. This willingness to change our mind should make it possible to live each day meaningfully, which is the difference between just being alive and living. We would do at least one thing each day, which either entails spiritual growth for ourselves or helpfulness and consideration for others, preferably both. If we add one meaningful day to the next, we wind up with a meaningful life.

Thank you so much for the really helpful realistic words ma'am. yes that's true, but still mind expects kind of appreciation from the other party to whom we care/ help. Not exactly an appreciation but the thing is its hurtful when that what we care is getting changed. Yes what we should train is to love and care without any attachment which is really hard in practising...

Ordinary caring can lead to suffering but caring with wisdom does not lead to suffering.
We avoid suffering ourselves while caring by developing wisdom.

is caring is wrong?
It's not wrong to "care for" someone who is sick or dying: even if they (or you) ultimately die.
The monks were instructed to care for each other -- see for example this story from the vinaya.

Monks, you have no mother, you have no father, who might tend to you. If you don't tend to one another, who then will tend to you? Whoever would tend to me, should tend to the sick.

Otherwise how can we avoid suffering ourselves while caring ?
To avoid suffering perhaps it's wise to avoid attachment to a particular outcome, result.
It's a complicated question: "how to avoid suffering ourselves?" is a central question of Buddhism, and so the answer might be as big as the whole of Buddhism.
A good beginning, according to the Theravada doctrine, might be to develop the brahma viharas:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, ...

Misunderstanding leads to suffering! Also if you want to care just for some benefit is misunderstanding as well. Every our action has consequences so to act rightly we need wisdom, we need to be very careful. We have to learn and open our minds. If you want to care you need to know how to do it. You need to know what consequences your action might bring. Don't regret what you've done wrong as long as what you did was done with compassion. As long as you want to help and expect good results of your action you should help/care. But suffering is always present.
Another aspect of caring is transforming ourselves. You should transform your mind and realise how bad is the world that we live. Realising this you should generate even more compassion to others. You can't get rid of suffering of the world, but you can develop 'armour' to protect you from result of suffering (spiritual path, wisdom). You might still suffer in traditional meaning but you can be happy anyway (when you achieve high enough level of spiritual development or wisdom). Just be a good observer of the world, people, emotions (also yours). Remember when things happen I try to figure out the relationship between them. Knowledge with compassion eventually will bring wisdom.
That's what I think about it and believe in it.

I really like @user10547 answer. I'd like to add something. 1 - people have to be aware of cause and effect all the time. We should know, or at least think of it, what consequences would bring what action, and what action could cause what we experience. 2 Ego - most of the time we want what we want, and we don't think about others really. It's not about relationships with others, but the difference between our attitude towards ourselves and other people. 3 - we have to be honest with ourselves, we have to know what we want. If we know we want to help others, then the problem's solved :)

It's wrong to cling, not wrong to care. Isn't there a difference? Wrong in that it will lead to suffering. This is why there is the Brahma Viharas. Loving-kindness, compassion, appreciating the success or wellbeing of others and equanimity, they show us how to care with the way lit by mindful insight. Dissolving away the sense of self so one is truly selflessness and caring for others.
To care for yourself it can be very helpful to care for others. It helps to drop the selfishness. A love for everyone is all that remains when one finds themself aware that there is no boundary to selfless emptiness.

I think that caring is right, good and human.
The only people that do not care are evil people, psicopaths or dead people.
Hate and evil can only be overcome with love and care.
Care is also the basis and precondition of cure. Care is pure friendship.
True care means love with wisdom and without attachment

Is this a Buddhist answer or totally your own opinion?


text:
How to acknowledge emotions and their consequences in day to day life?
Do you have any suggestion on how to view the act of sexual intercourse objectively? For example, when we view a lady, we view her as a composite of flesh, bones, feces, pus, joint oil, etc.
Similarly in which way can we address sex neutrally without labelling it as good or bad? This is because I have learnt to remove my lust for the human flesh, but not for the sexual act. Is there any thought based method using which I can achieve this feat? Similarly while using urge surfing, when a lustful desire comes up I repeat in my mind "pleasure, pleasure" -- similarly how can I combat a desire to have sex through this technique as I am on a period of abstinence?

The Buddhist path has 3 trainings:

sila/morality
samadhi/concentration
panna/wisdom.

To view a lady as a composite of flesh, bones, feces, pus, joint oil, etc, is the practise of panna/wisdom. It is called 'asubha'. There are many 'asubha' videos on Youtube.
Not judging things as 'good' & 'bad' is the practice of samadhi/concentration but not the practice of morality or wisdom. Not judging sex as 'good' or 'bad', i.e., 'theme-less-ness', can also overcome sexual urges.
Morality forms the foundation of the path. It is to know what is good (harmless/beneficial) & what is bad (harmful/unbeneficial). Without morality, there may possibly be a battle against sex because by using asubha or theme-less-ness only it may be difficult to generate empathy & thus metta (loving-kindness) towards women, whose natural purpose in life & often greatest joy is motherhood. Morality includes the precept about refraining from 'sexual misconduct'. The purpose of the precept is to preserve the integrity & nurturing of families. In the modern world, since the era of universal birth-control, there is obviously a correlation between sexual liberalism & difficulties in maintaining the family unit. Thus morality views certain types of sex as 'good' & other types of sex as 'bad'.
A well-rounded practitioner uses all three methods, as described in the Bharadvaja Sutta. The 1st method here is to view women as family members only, i.e., mothers, sisters & daughters; the 2nd method is to see the unattractive nature of the parts of the body; the 3rd method is to abide without any judgments (themes).

so it implies that morality is the spine of these above-prescribed methods?

Morality limits the potential of sex so is a good starting point to narrow one's perceptions of what is possible.

so by engaging in illict sex with polygamous partners,do we invite bad karma and simultaneously deprive a woman of motherhood?

I suppose this just increases lust, which is an obstacle to the path, plus we do not engage in any development of higher virtues. Knowing women is difficult but if we want to develop metta (loving-kindness), we should always think about what women really want. We can ask them ourselves. Do a survey of different women of what they believe will bring them happiness.

I see you have accepted an answer but i feel like to add something because I can personally feel related.

learnt to remove my lust for the human flesh, but not for the sexual act

Do yo mean like you learnt to let go of the ice but still desire its cooling property?
If so, that means you can let go of rupa (form) but stuck at kama sanna (perception of sensual pleasure).  Perception of grossness of body may not help with kama sanna because you are already above Rupa and dealing with something of a higher level.
So many ways to deal with kama sanna such as meditation.  I promise you it will help.
FYI: I recognize a pattern for terms Buddha used for satisfactory in sensual pleasures; kama chanda, kama raga, kama sanna, kama yogi.  Each has specific use and definitely not interchangeable.  For example, when Buddha taught about sensual pleasure in 5 hindrance, or jhanna, he would use kama chanda, or kama sanna.  Howerver, when he talked about higher fetters or an anagami, he would use kama raga or kama yogi.
For those who are interested in the difference between Kama Chanda (English-sensual desire), and kama raga (sensual lust): The Greater Discourse to Mālunkyāputta

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
The odd phenomenon of cycle of emotions
it is a well-observed fact that that the cycle of emotions never cease to exist, but they do follow a defined route which I shall refer to in this question as the SFE route namely:
A sensation-----feeling-------emotions(----represents"gives rise to")say, when I eat a doughnut, the sensation is of eating, feeling of pleasure, and emotion of happiness.
how can I use a similar mindset of this technique to counter lust like emotions which arise and disturb through my meditation practice and sometimes cause me to relapse on my bad track of sexual misconduct.
for eg: when a lustful thought emerges in my mind is suppress it easily by satipathana and mindfulness however when a thought arises related to the act of copulation, it becomes impossible to suppress it as it is very difficult to view the act objectively.(i.e without any biased feelings and from a neutral point of view).this thought then keeps appearing until I finally give into my bad ways of self-pleasuring as I am a novice-in-training and not being accepted due to this reason.
P.S: please forgive me if this answer seems to violate or copy other answers, i am new to the various technicalities of this website and will take time to adjsut.

Once a woman becomes sexually active but does not have a permanent partner, it is difficult for her to stop engaging in sex for seeking a partner. Therefore, women give the 'impression' they want to have sex just like men do, i.e., for a short term pleasure. However, this 'impression' is false & a deception. Yet there is an entertainment (movie) industry devoted to giving the public this wrong impression.
The Buddha taught women want to find a husband, not share a husband with another wife, have children & control/dominate her husband (AN 6.52).
What I am saying is when thoughts arise related to the act of copulation, these thoughts are generally about scenarios that are implicitly harmful. These thoughts are only sexual objectifying women with no respect for a woman's emotions & feelings and no regard for the potential consequences. These thoughts have no real love & no compassion. In summary, they are harmful thoughts about doing harmful things.
The mind can only sustain such thoughts when it wrongly believes the imagined sexual acts are pleasurable to both parties & not harmful. But in reality, the acts are harmful. That is why our world is full of broken-hearted & lost souls, both men & women.
In religion, it is generally taught if you want to have sex with a woman, you should marry her. This is right view. Therefore, when you have sexual thoughts, think about marrying that woman, having children with her, working for her & having her boss you around & nag you, like her slave. If you adjust your thoughts like this, the thoughts about copulation may stop.
The method the Buddha used before his enlightenment is at MN 19.

all was dandy but if you could please just rephrase the 1st paragraph(don't mind a bit,i happen to suffer from brain fog)

I intended to say women generally are really interested in long term relationships rather than short term sex

but they give a fake impression because they too are swayed by the false emotions and pleasures of copulation?

No. For men, it is the physical sensation of copulation. For women, it is mostly the pleasure of companionship & feeling they are attractive. This is where most people are blind to women. Women seek short term sex because they are suffering. They suffer from being alone and suffer from their past failures. They need to feel they are still attractive & still sexually competent (rather than failures). Listen to this video from 3:50 to 4:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQFOrwyFopA&t=2s Although this woman was raped & abused for many years, she still needed affirmation from men.

It can work out that Satipatthana can help one let go of desire. Usually, as you may know, Satipatthana isn't to suppress but to see the truth.
Our sex drives are strong though and if they are too strong for standard Satipatthana then they can be surpressed by other techniques like the naming of the parts of the body, that can have a repulsive affect on sensual desire. An other good technique to turn one off quick is to look at autopsy photos. That is also good for reflecting on death. These little practices really are very supportive of the main Satipatthana practice.

can we develop repulsion towards the act itself?what i mean to say is that i have a certain disdain for the human body, but when i think about the pleasure that might be derived from intercourse (irrespective of whether the body is desirable or not)i fail to reason and therefore, relapse.

We're did you get the disdain for the human body? Sex is a distraction to meditation , a nuisance but these defilments can end up teaching us things you know... not that we should be trying for sex.     At the point were you are forgetting and thinking about the feelings and the formations, if you can grab yourself with a heroic courage from the depths then this knot should loosen greatly but who knows what will happen. We all got unused courage in there, we really fail to see our individual courage.

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


text:
how to eradicate past smaskaras
A monastery nearby my house, where I was about to be ordained and venture into the world of which I have been waiting so long, has now denied me ordination due to my bad habits of reading erotic literature, sensual audios and masturbating -- all of which I want to leave forever. I do go on abstinence streaks, but when something unfortunate happens to me(an incident or mishap that saddens me) I get triggered and relapse.sometimes even the most simplest of natural phenomena such a blossoming flower can be the root of the lapse.other times it's just plain advertisements on t.v which cause the downfall.it has become tedious to avoid triggers, it also leaves no time for meditation and other stuff.
Due to the kind advice of ven. Yuttadhammo bhikkhu I have quit my porn viewing addiction, but  I can't seem get enough of masturbation and other forms of pornography(though the frequency has been significantly reduced)I request the members of this forum to provide some comprehensive techniques and advice  that can be adapted with a practical approach and help me quit all these bad habits forever.
It has ruined my life to such an extent that I longer feel the state of bliss that I used to have during my abstinence streaks(i now recognise they were the best period of my Buddhist training)
P.S: if possible, do explain in detail how to inculcate "sila" in my practice, because @Dhammadhatu mentioned that a proper practitioner has to practice three methods of lust eradication (I have attained mastery over the other two).

I can't tell if your saying you relapsed because of Ven. Yuttadhammo's advice or the opposite of that.

@Uuu I changed the punctuation. Is it clearer now?

@ChrisW Yes that part is clear but what about where the question says  "... but can get enough of ", the context seems to imply that "can" should be "can't", right? Thank you Chris :)

@Uuu I read that as "with advice I have quit my addiction, however I still masturbate and get other forms of pornography".

@Dhammadhatu is not a 'Venerable' (monk)

@Uuu: Sorry for the bad grammar,I've fixed it up today.

Ven.Yuttadhammo bhikkhu has given you proper advice. Being true to monkhood is being rooted and grounded in a Life of celibacy. The benefits of celibacy (sexual abstinence) are obviously not widely understood nor fully appreciated. Even though sex may be a natural, essential part of life, so is being stuck in a physical body along with all its severe restrictions, miseries and complications lifetime after lifetime. Celibacy is a change in the direction of sex and sensuality, not its repression. But this advice is easier said than done.
In becoming a Bhikku with an idea of performing the practice of breathing towards samatha and vipassana (calm and insight) without first attempting kayagata-satipatthana (mindfulness as regards the body), resembles an owner who yokes the still untamed bullock (an adult bovine animal) to the cart or plough without the nose-rope. Such an owner would find oneself unable to drive the bullock at his desire. Because the bullock is wild, and because it has no nose-rope, it will either try to run off the road, or try to break loose by breaking the yoke.
The Buddha, in one of the Suttas pointed out that the realm of sensual pleasures resembles the forest where the wild elephant enjoys himself/herself. The Buddha Sasana, "the teaching of the Buddha",resembles the open field into which the wild elephant is first brought out. The mind resembles the wild elephant. Confidence (saddha) and desire (chanda) in the sasana-dhamma resemble the tame elephant to which the wild elephant is hitched and brought out into the open. Sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue) resembles the stockade. The body, or parts of the body, such as out-breath and in-breath resemble the post in the stockade to which the elephant is tied. Kayagati-sati resembles the rope by which the wild elephant is tied to the post. The preparatory work towards samatha and vipassana resembles the preparatory training of the elephant. The work of samatha and vipassana resembles the parade ground or battlefield of the king.
Firstly what you have to learn to do is the Meditation on loathsomeness (Asuba). There’s a series of meditations called guardian meditations, which are very helpful in using skillful perceptions to get the mind in the right mood, in the right attitude, with the right understanding, as you come into the present moment. You’ll often find, as you’re sitting here meditating on the breath, that the problem is not with the breath. It’s with the mental baggage you’re carrying with you. So you want to open up the bags and throw out all the unnecessary weight. In practicing this, you see that we all have the same garbage inside ourselves. This contemplation is helpful because it’s a guardian. There are so many people out there you could feel lust for, so cultivating this protects you from inappropriate lust. Even if you’re not practicing celibacy, you need a way to guard yourself against that kind of vagrant lust. So instead of weaving all sorts of narratives you’ve developed around beauty, it’s good to teach yourself other narratives, other associations. While at it, you should learn to do what is skillful.

“And what is skillful? Abstaining from taking life is skillful, abstaining from taking what is not given... from sexual misconduct... from lying... from abusive speech... from divisive tale-bearing... abstaining from idle chatter is skillful. Lack of covetousness... lack of ill will... right views are skillful. These things are called skillful.”—MN 9

Also the Buddha said… “Come guard your sense-faculties; be the master of your senses. When you see something with the eye, do not get attracted to it by its appearance, but treat it with self control. So allways be mindful by controlling and guarding your senses the eye, the ear, the nose, the tongue, the body and the mind.

My advise is do the 32 Parts of the Body Meditation (click the link to practice sytematically)or Asubha meditation.This helps counter a lustful mind.You are attracted to bodies because your not seeing the reality of it's unpleasantness.Since you magnified their attractive qualities to the point of masturbating you need to magnified their unattractive qualities to the point of being turned off.You have to train the mind to see skin as skin,sinew as sinew,body hair as body hair,bile as bile,feces as feces,mucus as mucus.See this in every one.When you see a person your sexually attracted to even romatically. See this in them.That they pass gas and excrement,that they smell,that they store urine,that their mouth and stomach is filled with bacteria.when you see a beautiful person picture them in the toilet,vomiting.blowing mucus or having their period or picture them old.See these people through this lens/filter.

the truth is that after practicing asubha,now the lust for bdies have decreased but i still vouch for the sexual act itself?how can i cultivate sila towards all women?

1.Don't place unwise attention.I know it seems like sexual need is "pressing" or it's a "need" that "has" to be fulfilled.It's not.It’s the simple act of placing attention on it that magnifies it.Change your attention or distract yourself,either go out jogging or go for a swim.You'll be surprised when that "need" changes when just a few hours ago it seems so pressing..@littlemonk

2.Contemplate the disadvantages of breaking the sila.Which leads to lower rebirth and unhappiness.Your not breaking the sila by having sex with a consenting partner but if you want to be a monastic my advise is you need to adjust to leading a celibate life. Train yourself to be celibate at least 2 years,no sex.no masturbation,no pornograpghy before ordaining. Thats the good way to prepare for monastic life is for you.Sex is not a need.The body’s perfectly fine without sex.

3.Contemplate having pure sila. It makes you feel whole and confident. You feel good about yourself.

4.Cut off any triggers.Like if you get triggered by tv,try not watching tv.If you get triggered by music try not listening to music.Cut the causes out.This strong sexual desires don’t appear out of nowhere their kept in place by conditions.If you can cut the conditions it will die down.
5.Restrain.Just don’t do it.everytime it comes up don’t act on it.Its like building a muscle.It gets stronger and stronger each time you  say no and don’t do it.And before you know one day the thought won’t even come up.

6.Practice mindfulness of breathing.I would not use metta as an object of meditation when the mind is lustful.atleast not intensively.Mindfulness of breathing s neutral and when developed deeply you will naturally lose interest with lust.

Addiction of a thousand faces is pandemic in the "world". The harmonic of social and political instability and perhaps the sub-harmonics of rapid onset climate disruption and accelerating species extinctions also contribute to explicit and subtle triggering events.
It may be possible to eradicate the behavioral loops of trigger, response, ease, and it may not be - thus the way of the renunciate in a formal and traditional sense may be closed to you, at least for now.
Perfection of behavior is neither a requirement for nor an impediment to full awakening. In fact, gnarly afflictions, can be accelerants for the conditioned mind to burn through its cherished beliefs and adornments thus opening the doors of unafflicted being.
One's primary objective is what's already present, this would be objectless and unafflicted being. Perhaps the life puzzle that's before you is not how to remedy and transcend your local nature so you can enter the monastery, but how to discover nirvana in the midst of your local nature, suffering no loss or permission to enter the gate of yourself?
Warmly, NightSkySanghaGuy


text:
How prevalent are siddhis in buddhism?
Abilities (such as flying through the air, walking through solid obstructions, diving into the ground, walking on water, and so forth) are performed by changing one element, such as earth, into another element, such as air.
How does one expect to achieve them?
I have read some commentaries which claim they are mere illusions on the path to enlightenment and that the true sadhka shouldn't be distracted by them and should aim for higher realms.
Moreover are these claims made in documentaries true?

See http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/12107/has-anyone-seen-any-meditation-master-demonstrating-abhinna-or-supernatural-powe/12127#12127

Below one answerer said: "For example, the famous arahant disciple & jhana master Sariputta did not have siddhis...", wrong, or only convicted in the Pali literature? Śāriputra had Rddhi power, in Agama Sutra recorded he once laid his cotton belt on the floor, Maudgalyāyana ( Moggallāna) was unable to move it.

Siddhi - a paranormal power possessed by a siddha – is a true phenomenon. These are certain by-products of the practice itself. But just as gain, respect and fame can become obstacles to liberation, so, too, can such siddhi. Such phenomena are categorized under the Tenth Army of Mara. A battle faced by meditation masters, this last army is perhaps the most lethal of all. In the Buddha's time there was even a man, Devadatta, who tried to kill the Buddha under its influence.
There was once a layman who told that the Buddha should widely deploy all of his disciples who had psychic powers and ask them to demonstrate miracles to the people. "People will be really impressed," the layman said. "You'll get a lot of followers that way. The Buddha refused. Three times the request was repeated, and three times it was refused. Finally the Buddha said, "Layman, there are three types of psychic powers. One is the power to fly in the air and dive into the earth, and to perform other superhuman feats. The second is the power to read other people's minds. But there is a third psychic power, the power of instruction. This last power is the most important psychic power. The first two psychic powers can be attained and displayed if this interests you. It is not essential, or a hindrance, if you know it for what it is.
True disciples of the Buddha are more interested in developing ‘the Four Irdhi-paada.’ Iddhiya: of attaining completion or perfection; pado: root or basis -the root or basis of attaining completion or perfection. Hence it is called iddhipada. There are four kinds of iddhipada. But this is another subject/answer for another time/question.

Siddhis only occur in people/minds with an underlying disposition for siddhis. For example, the famous arahant disciple & jhana master Sariputta did not have siddhis.
Enemies of the Buddha, such as Mara & Devadatta, had siddhis. Christians & Hindus have siddhis.
Siddhis are a supernormal yet mundane worldly phenomena, unrelated to Buddhist enlightenment (refer to Susīma Sutta &  Kevatta Sutta).
There are enough Buddhists & Christians that have siddhis. If you look or pray for them, you might find them. Or if you practise seriously in monasteries & other serious places, you might meet them. The Attavagga states such people cannot purify your mind.
Generally, people with siddhis control their devotees, who relate to/worship them like gods. In the Kevatta Sutta, it is taught the greatest miracle is that of 'instruction' to Nibbana rather than siddhis.


text:
What does Buddhism add to a Stoic?
Is there any thing that Buddhism can add to a Stoic Pursuit?
Below is a friendly laid-back discourse between a Stoic and a Buddhist, which could be used as a guide to what I’m trying to compare.
Buddhist:  Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are suffering; association with the unbeloved is suffering; separation from the loved is suffering; not getting what is wanted is suffering. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are suffering.
Stoic: Yes, if you attach yourself to what is not given you will sure suffer. These five aggregates you counted must have been something not in your power. Have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you any thing of the kind?
Buddhist: what do you mean, there are only five aggregates there is no I or mine
Stoic: what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?
Buddhist: No
Stoic: In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from hindrance and obstruction?
Buddhist: Yes
Stoic: So, if we let go of the body which is subject to revolution of the whole and withdraw from externals, turns to our will to exercise it and to improve it by labor, so as to make it conformable to nature, elevated, free, unrestrained, unimpeded, faithful, modest, and virtuous will we not achieve tranquility and avoid suffering.
Buddhist:  Well said, training an act of will is a noble did, but until you learn that there is no “I or my-self” you would remain in cycle of rebirth.
Stoic: what do you mean?
Buddhist: But what is that you call my-self or I?
Stoic: Sir, it’s my soul. If you ask me what is a soul I can’t say this or that, but I have just told you an attribute of mine which is not bound by suffering. Will you be kind enough to show me that my act of will is not mine?
Buddhist: If that you call mine is the volitional formation you should know that it has ignorance as conditions and he who assume volition to be the self will surely be afflicted in mind.
Stoic: I do not understand, you seem to me to be talking very obscure, you surly do not mean that the all wise will not act?
Buddhist: No, I’m saying you should not say volition is mine.
Stoic: Why?
Buddhist: Perhaps you will understand if you look at it from another angle. Answer my question, by acting virtuously and by wisdom you are training the will towards the good?
Stoic: Yes
Buddhist: When the will become all virtuous, all wise and attain the good with no trace of ignorance will you claim that all wise will to be yours.
Stoic: Far from it, there is but only one wise. If at all possible to reach of what you speak without quitting the body then the act of will be one with the one.
HE

Stoicism says that if you are suffering it is within your power to change your internal interpretation of the situation. I don't know much about Buddhism, but if most of life is suffering, then there is the opportunity to adjust your perspective in most of your life.

Thank you for your answer. Try to provide some quotes or references to support your posts. Thanks

“Trust me, real joy is a serious thing. Do you think someone can, in the charming expression, blithely dismiss death with an easy disposition? Or swing open the door to poverty, keep pleasures in check, or meditate on the endurance of suffering? The one who is comfortable with turning these thoughts over is truly full of joy, but hardly cheerful. It’s exactly such a joy that I would wish for you to possess, for it will never run dry once you’ve laid claim to its source.”
—SENECA, MORAL LETTERS, 23.4

“This is the true athlete—the person in rigorous training against false impressions. Remain firm, you who suffer, don’t be kidnapped by your impressions! The struggle is great, the task divine—to gain mastery, freedom, happiness, and tranquility.”
—EPICTETUS, DISCOURSES, 2.18.27–28

"On the occasion of every accident (event) that befalls you, remember to turn to yourself and inquire what power you have for turning it to use. If you see a fair man or a fair woman, you will find that the power to resist is temperance (continence). If labor (pain) be presented to you, you will find that it is endurance. If it be abusive words, you will find it to be patience. And if you have been thus formed to the (proper) habit, the appearances will not carry you along with them." - Epictetus, Enchiridion

Stoicism is straight to the point, which is nice, but Buddhism covers a bit more territory.  Also, Stoicism requires less etymology to understand.
There are a few kinds of attachments that cause mental anguish.  Buddhism attempts to end all forms of this, plus increase insight and awareness, and allow one to experience different mental states, like jhanas.
So, for example, if someone insults Jane, an all too often reaction is for her to defend her identity, her values, what she owns, and what she thinks she is.  This creates a lot of unnecessary stress, and this defensiveness can turn into an argument.
Buddhism aims to increase empathy and compassion, decreasing conflict:  By understanding ourselves we understand the world better.  This in turn removes conflict and ill-will, removing unnecessary stress.
Buddhism aims to remove mana, which is a kind of comparison that creates jealousy and hurt.
Eventually Buddhism overlaps with Stoicism, removing quite a bit of attachment.  However, as far as I can tell that's where Stoicism mostly begins and ends.  Buddhism gets to the point where new attachment is not created, so that there is no future suffering.  However, I haven't seen anywhere in Stoicism going this far, only dissolving attachment once the suffering has started.
All in all, Stoicism and Buddhism do overlap, but Stoicism is a bit of a blip on the map.

Well, that dialog reminds me of two stories.

This bit of your dialog:

Stoic: what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is
  false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?
Buddhist: No
Stoic: In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from
  hindrance and obstruction?
Buddhist: Yes

Reminds me of a Zen story called "Nothing Exists".

Nothing Exists

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after
  another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.
Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and
  sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena
  is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no
  mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."
Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked
  Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come
  from?"

Perhaps I'm not supposed to explain it, but the way I read it is that Buddhism (though I'm not sure about Zen Buddhism) identifies various hindrances or fetters, of which maybe "anger" is one. Buddhist teaching (including e.g. the doctrine of "emptiness") is intended to help people escape these fetters.
In this story the student is claiming "attainment", i.e. he's claiming to realize that things are empty, perhaps implicitly claiming that by his realization (of emptiness) he has attained freedom (from fetters).
The teacher's action shows (teaches) that it's not enough to just say that things are empty: the youth's pride and self-protection ("self-love") remain as a seed from which anger can arise.
Similarly in your story you have the Buddhist claim that he's immune to coercion, free from hindrance, etc., which I think begs the question: because part of the purpose of Buddhism is to develop such freedom, and Buddhism doesn't take for granted that people already have that freedom which maybe your Stoic is trying to claim.
Your Stoic is maybe describing an ideal, an ultimate end. The Buddha (Buddhism, Buddhist Dharma) describes the present non-ideal (suffering) situation, and outlines a way towards the end.
The Stoic's claim, as stated, might be a bit naive, too, if you analyze it; for example:

"to desire what you do not wish" might be a paradox (logically impossible), but IMO there are real-life examples of desires that make people unhappy, and of addictions etc.
In the phrase "you are free from hindrance" it presumes that "free from hindrance" and "you" can coexist; whereas perhaps "you" (i.e. a sense of self) is a type of attachment, and maybe "free from hindrance" starts when the sense of "you" stops.

The latter part of your dialog starts with:

Stoic: Sir, it’s my soul.

And ends with:

Buddhist: Perhaps you will understand if you look at it from another angle. Answer my question, by acting virtuously and by wisdom you are training the will towards the good?
Stoic: Yes

Here the topic has been focused on "self" and "my" and "soul" and "one" and so on, rather than on the previous hindrances-versus-freedom dichotomy.
Well on that subject I think that Buddhism has at least two things to say about "self".

One is that a sense of self, or a self-view, or selfishness, is a cause of suffering.
Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22)

"You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory[27] from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

When it (the sense of self) is used towards the good (which your Stoic seems to be suggesting, "by wisdom I train my will towards the good"), I think that Buddhism maybe calls this type of sense-of-self, "conceit".
Conceit is a subject of the answers to this question: How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? which includes for example:

If one is better than someone and he thinks "I am better", or "I am equal" or "I am not as good" it is conceit. If the person is equal and he thinks: "I am better" or "I am equal" or "I am not as good", it is conceit". If the person is not as good and he thinks: "I am better" or "I am equal" or "I am not as good", it is conceit. - it should be 9 permutations rather than levels.. I couldn't find the sutta to link it. I just remembered it.

Conceit is also mentioned in this sutta (AN 4.159):

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.' The thought occurs to him, 'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?' Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

It's a bit long but I think it's saying, "I have a conceit that I think I can be good: that I can be as good as someone else who was good or did well. The conceit itself isn't good, but by relying on it, etc."
IMO there's a similar sutta (SN 51.15) about using desire to abandon desire.

In summary I think these are examples of what Buddhism can "add to" what your Stoic was saying?
I'm not sure why the Stoic introduced "self" into the conversation at all. Buddhism too talks about Wisdom and Intention (e.g. "Right Intention", etc.), but maybe (at least initially) without claiming whether they are or are not mine.
I'm not sure what the purpose of the Stoic's "soul" (or theory of soul) is. I guess its purpose is to identify with eternal/divine virtues, which I more or less ignorantly attribute to piety of the Ancient Greeks (who I imagine saying that Man isn't good but that some men embody some godly virtues).

Hi Chris,
Thank you for taking your time to respond in detail.
I was fully aware that a discussion on act of will lead to Anatta that is why the second section on the discourse flow in to a quest about what the stoic claim to be myself.

On the first section, the stoic is only discussing on one attribute “act of will” noting more. And the stoic claim that the act of will is his own.
If one is attached to his body or any external he could be forced to do what he doesn’t desire, this is not a paradox (logically impossible) as you stated. If a man is attached to pleasure he get from substance abuse then he has shown for what coin he sale his will. Provide him the substance and he will do unwholesome act.

Method of Stoic teaching, especially Epictetus, is characterize with hard talk  and thus it is quick to declare the ideal (i.e) what the act of will is capable, but that doesn't mean that it does not teach as to how to attain this like Buddhism. The main difference is that for a stoic all suffering listed on the first paragraph by the Buddhist are training for the act of will not suffering.

On second part I agree with you that conceit is the answer, but even on the sutta (AN 4.159) you quoted it reads: “…. 'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.'’
I read this to be the same as the stoic pursuit, because the stoic is calling mine only the act-of-will and is laboring to correct it and as it read on the last lines of the discourse the stoic will not dare to call it mine once it reach the goal. Which is the same as been conceited by assuming that he is not as good until the final goal.

Buddhism has a rich resource of written record and educated monastic order safeguarding the teaching and is not to be contrasted with Stoic / Socratic teachings in anyway.
Believe me I’m not trying to contrast these two traditions what I’m trying to get at is what Buddhism can add to the core pursuit of a stoic in this very life. That is why I avoid in the discourse discussing the stoic idea of soul or the Buddhist concept of Karma which aim to link this life with subsequent life.

I said "compel you to desire what you don't want" sounds like a paradox ... "compel you to do what you don't desire" is a different proposition.

I know little about the Stoic tradition. I was literally adding to what you wrote in the question, rather than addressing or trying to find gaps in e.g. Epictetus.

"the stoic will not dare to call it mine" -- that phrase "don't dare" reminds me of hubris (offending god[s], inviting retribution). There might be a Buddhist analog for that in Mara, but I don't think the Buddhist rationale for anatta is exactly that. "the stoic is calling mine only the act-of-will" Doesn't that sound similar to, remind you of, the Buddhist definition of kamma as "Intentional action" and "'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions" etc. (here)?

If you're not trying to contrast the traditions I'm not sure what you are trying to do! I added the [tag:comparative-religion] tag because this is a site about Buddhism, and IMO it's using stoicism (or any other religion/tradition) as a baseline from which to compare, view, or learn more about Buddhism, that makes any question about that tradition (e.g. stoicism) on-topic.

Thank you again...Sorry for responding on the comment line, but the web site doesn’t permit new users to use the chat plat-form the only option left for me was to respond on the comment section or replay to my own question to appear below you answer which would have been even worse.

Nice and generouse answer, Sadhu, and nice discussion afterwards, still visible, Sadhu as well for such sacrifys.

This is poorly made-up conversation to find the loophole of Buddhism teachings especially no self idea (Anatman) but actually it does not prove any strong self (Atta) existence. The answers of Buddhist must be written by non-Buddhist who studied Buddha's teachings superficially and on this particular point "The Act of Will" called Chanda in Buddhism should be "I" and with strong belief that Buddhism cannot deny Chanda is not "I" or "mine".
The person who learned Buddha's teachings properly will reply Stoic questions differently. It could be verbally written like below.

Stoic: Yes, if you attach yourself to what is not given you will sure suffer. These five aggregates you counted must have been something not in your power. Have you nothing which is in your own power, which depends on yourself only and cannot be taken from you, or have you any thing of the kind?

The answer should be -
In Buddha's teachings there are only Sankhara Dhamma are occurring. There is none can be given to possess/control to be taken ownership. There is nothing a single person can possess (can tell this is mine, I am controlling it, I am taking it with me indefinitely, I have power to control/manage how it behaves...).

Stoic: what? Is any man able to make you assent to that which is false or compel you to desire what you do not wish?

The answer should be -
There is nothing can be called as "You" or "I" in here. In this Sankhara world where one person verbally say to another person to understand each other as we called people "Mr. or Mrs./Ms. A", "Mr. or Mrs./Ms. B", A can ask B to do something and vice versa. So called you ask so called me to do something and vice versa. This is the case. There is another case A does something on A's own desire/will/Chanda. This is the second case. Chanda is one of Nama Kaya and it is not permanent/eternal, not able to be possessed. It is one of Nama Kaya originated from Avidya (in plain English Ignorance). Because of this Ignorance a person viewed as Chanda/Will is mine, I did my Chanda to happen, I have Chanda therefore I am,...But in a period of single day, there are many countable obvious Chanda(s) happened and extinguished as well as many delicate Chanda(s) where a very good mindfulness and concentration require to notice them.

Stoic: In the matter of assent and desire then you are free from hindrance and obstruction?

This is something backing up the religions in which people believe there is god/creator/ruler (details below). In Buddha's teachings Avidya/Ignorance lead Citta Sinkhara (I memorize, I suffer) eventually lead to Chanda/Will/Desire. In proper Buddha's teachings we do not say my Chanda/Will/Desire. Laypeople (one who didn't get any attainment to be enlightened) with Atta Samjna(the perception of existence of "Self" which has either eternal or being controllable/possess-able or both) see the mind is "Self" (I think therefore I am/I desire therefore I am). But in Buddha's teachings there is no such entity callable "Self".
The idea of "Act of will"/Will/Free Will is originated from religions of God(s). For the early believers of God, everything is under God's will. But modern people found that is dangerous and outlaw idea. If someone burn other people or bomb a group of people to death/injured and that person says it is God's will then religion of such people does not help very much about the damage in both physical and ethical. So new civilized people invented a things called Free Will or Will of people which is separated from God's will. By doing so God is relieved from inappropriate responsibility of a single person wrong doing as well as ethical and legal constraint can posted and it is publicly and religiously acceptable. It is obvious that Physical Bodies (Rupa Khandha) is Anatta (not Atta) for Westerners (Middle easterners and Mediterraneans of early Buddhism ages) but they do not fully understand other four Khandhas (Vedana, Samjna, Sankhara, Vijnana Khandas) or called soul to one of them. So all four Khandas combined to a word called mind or soul and they thought there is a chance to find a loophole of Anatta (no self, no Atta) of Buddha's teachings because they failed to notice the latches and couplers between two consecutive transitions of state of mind since Citta Khandas very short-lived and very fast. Only the trained person to do Vipasana with strong concentration can see the details transitions of Nama Kaya.
There are many anatman definitions and explanations in Buddhism literature both printed and web but here is concise repetition here.
I see, therefore I am.
No, I see because I have eyes and things to views. When these two contact I have a sequence of thinking, memorizing, examining and judging occurs in my mind. Seeing doesn't prove it is me
I hear, therefore I am.
...As above seeing
I smell, therefore I am
I can taste, therefore I am
I can feel the touch, therefore I am
...all as above seeing
I think, therefore I am
the contact of things memorized and mind makes thinking, judging and examining mentally and all phases are temporary, not controllable, not possess-able and extinguished/depleted eventually. In every steps and phases of transitions of state of mind (or called soul) a properly taught Buddhist cannot find Atta Samjna (the idea of perception of self). That is true, all mental bodies (four Khandas, Vedana/suffer, Samjna/memorize/percept, Sankhara/initiate/encourage/activate, Vijnana/be conscious or called soul to one of four) are Anatta (not to be possessed, have an end, can deplete, can extinguish). Chanda is also Anatta in both wholesome desire/Chanda and unwholesome desire/Chanda.
Buddha said when a person is doing meditation or Vipasana only Samkhara Khanda is observing or insightfully viewing to other Samkhara Khanda. That means we cannot find I or Me or My or Mine even in doing meditation/Vipasana. Verbally we say I meditate, I do Vipasana but it is just for the sake of language and colloquial sayings. There is no such case that you are going to find any sixth Khanda or/and a Khanda that can be called "I", "Mine" or "Self" in Buddha's teaching or outside Buddha's teaching. This also applied to both external and internal from a viewpoint of a person's Khandas. So will/volition/Chanda or whatever Stoic called cannot be "I" or "Mine" because it has originated cause "Ignorance/Avidya" and other supporting factors which are not controllable/possess-able by a person. In conclusion, any Stoic or early/late philosopher cannot prove a single entity (in physical or metal form) that can be self (either can control/possess, persist, eternal, can be created, can be managed).

It’s for sure a poor discourse, but never intended to find loophole in Buddhism rather to understand the act of will as understood by Stoic and Buddhist.
Please note that your second response don’t answer the stoic, the stoic is not asking weather there are many act of will per day he is asking is if there is a free will to assent or dissent & desire or avert in each one of them! If the act of will can not be control in this very-life then there is not reason to teach anyone the Dhamma.

As Chris put it above, perhaps it’s due to conceit underling the Stoic’s idea that they call the “act of will” or volition mine. That can be said one thing a stoic can learn form Buddhist. If you have similar observation it much appreciated.

More or less the same for morality, just takes away Essence from the philosophy.

I don't know Stoicism well enough, but your question seems to wonder how to add something that somehow enhances Stoicism. This is the wrong approach.
Eg: rebirth is a central tenet of Buddhism IMHO, what does Stoicism say about that? Helping other, creating merit and virtue, cultivating the mind are central to Mahayana Buddhism AFAIK, what does Stoicism say about that? I feel that it's like a blip in the Buddhist map, like someone said.

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


text:
What are the guides for lay followers, as to how far they should go to be compassionate?
How far should lay followers go, to help others?
There is no denying that we all have innate desire to ease suffering of others, but when it’s done without right understanding it may lead to a higher suffering to the assisted person. On the other had if it’s done with right understanding and with the aim to assist the others to grow in Dharma then it is fruitful.
As an example, let’s say your friend is grieved for not being able to celebrate New-Year in Paris with his fiancée because he wasn’t able to save up enough money. If you restore in relieving his grievance you could give him money, but this could be adding fuel on fire. A true teacher of the Dharma will correct his view and relieve him from clinging, however, most of us don’t have that kind of ability: we are in a dark, trying to correct our own view, and the virtues we call virtues are but a guess work.
The point that I’m trying to get at is that on some cases the so-called suffering which we trying to prevent on other people could be a wake-up call or a learning curve, and by preventing it we could be hindering the person from realizing the first noble truth.
Sometimes these so called virtues extend even further in the name of compassion and we find ourselves teaching and arguing about Dharma to correct other. There may be many other cases as well. So how should we curb our act not to hurt others and ourselves in the name of virtues?

The most important things is to get Panna yourself as much as you can. You can achieve it by either reading Tripitaka or consulting monks about wholesome and unwholesome acts or both.
Passionate or compassionate about others is generally speaking wholesome act. But it has it own merit as well as harm to helper and helped if improper intention or volition.
To be specific to your question,
Donation is good to donor as long as donor have no attachment to things donated and have Metta to donee that he/she will free from sufferings. That is the very minimum requirements to have mind in donor. (There are many more details about making donation to the best, you can consult in Tripitaka and/or a well taught monks). In this case donor won't worry about how donee will use donated material/money.
For mental or verbal assistance,
Try to make your friend cheerful by encouraging, assisting to understand sufferings are not persisting. Try to do some activities and distracting him/her from thinking negative ideas if you are persuasive enough (you can either read some from Buddha's teachings or other religious teachings and non-religious self-help. The more you read, the more persuasive you are. Words have power).
For helping other people from clinging, you are absolutely right. No one, except Sammasam Buddha is the best because people with different hobby, desire, volition, perception and attitude need different delicate guidance to right path. We can only recommend some right ways to soothe sufferings. You can recommend him/her to do some meditation/Vipasana. Let him/her find what is bothering by himself/herself. How he/she can understand sufferings and how Buddha's Dhamma can guide him/her right way to end sufferings. There is nothing wrong if you are pushing someone to get to know Buddha's Dhamma as long as you put Metta on the people you are pushing. I read in Buddha's past life, he was pulled from hair to bring in front of Buddha and to get to know prior Buddha and Buddha teachings. But in this age of personal freedom, communities and societies don't go details to true intention of pushing someone hard and is not appreciated.

...by preventing it we could be hindering the person from realizing the first noble truth.

It is very difficult to actually prevent another person from suffering. Generally, people are destined to suffering because of their strong wrong views & opinions. Otherwise, they have a positive intuition or wisdom, which allows us to help them.
Buddhism does not believe each person can attain enlightenment therefore we should try our best to prevent suffering because only a small minority of people will realise the 1st noble truth.
For many, suffering leads to a cycle of more suffering, which is why so many people use drugs & alcohol to annihilate their suffering.

Sometimes these so called virtues extend even further in the name of compassion and we find ourselves teaching and arguing about Dharma to
  correct other. There may be many other cases as well. So how should we
  curb our act not to hurt others and ourselves in the name of virtues?

We cannot hurt people with the Dharma teachings. When people are hurt in Dharma discussion or debate, it is because they are using the teachings in the wrong way, i.e., for egoism (as explained in the Alagaddupama Sutta).

Thanks Dhammadhatu for your insightful response.
Do you mean we should be virtuous to all indiscriminately except to those we think are wise enough and ready to accept the hard truth?  In other works we treat those we think unwise as children and only act to easy their suffering? This could be excellent, but it assumes grand capacity of discernment from us.

We try to help those we know we can help. Generally, we cannot help the unwise. They simply will not & cannot listen to us because their ignorance & cravings are strong. These unwise people can include our own family members. That is how difficult it can get, these days, particularly in a world drowning in & wounded by addictions to sex, drugs & money. Often, the most wounded & damaged people are the most difficult to help.


text:
Is it possible for a layman to achieve enlightenment?
Is it possible for a layman to achieve enlightenment by his or her own study without joining the temple and robes? As some of you may know I have studied as a recluse for many yrs and am again considering the possibility of becoming a monk in a temple.
The question is do I need approval from the temple etc to become enlightened or is it possible with doctrines to achieve liberation from suffering on my own experience?

What I know (realised update) there is no permanent self . the I am is only elements . to extinguish my craving is too ID my own desire ie.to b famous / have a nice wife etc the physical/ material world has very little happiness in it ..I can create my own happiness!

From what you wrote here it seems you do not really get the teaching. Enlightenment is not an escape from life, or negation to life, "self"/ "I am" you wrote is not correct understanding in the Buddhist teaching. Therefore if you base on this to make your question, it will not come out with a correct answer.


text:
Does Buddhism view mind phenomena as chemical or as supernatural?
I was once again challenged by my scientific friends: who say that all mind phenomena is just chemical reaction!
My question is, how does Buddhist philosophy view this question? I'm leaning towards my science friends' view, after reading A Manual of the Excellent Man, where the seven aspects of perception on materiality are considered to be the combination of natural elements.
If so how does a chemical overpower another, and is the transcendental self also chemical / elements? Because if it were not, then we could assume spiritual forces were active in creation, etc.!

Consciousness (viññana) and Materiality (rūpa) are related as are magnetism and electricity. Their relationship is reciprocal, each conditioning the other. They are dependently originated, i.e. neither exists independently.

Buddhism calls the physical 'material' ('rupa') and the mental 'immaterial' ('arupa') however it also states mind-&-body ('nama-rupa') are dependent upon eachother (refer to Nalakalapiyo Sutta).
Buddhism states the arising of consciousness without a physical body & sense organs is impossible (Upaya Sutta; Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta; etc).
It is likely mentality arises from the physical, as your scientific friends say, since when brain injury occurs, mental impairment follows.
I like the following quote attributed to (Gnostic) Jesus:

(29) Jesus said, "If the flesh came into being because of spirit (consciousness), it is a wonder. But if spirit (consciousness) came into being because of the body, it is
  a wonder of wonders. Indeed, I am amazed at how this great wealth has
  made its home in this poverty."
Gospel of Thomas

To conclude, the mind or enlightenment does require a chemical basis, which is why edible food is a requisite of the path. Without physical food, the functioning of the mind is impossible.

First of all, "mind" here cannot be directly replaced by one Buddhist terminology. We are trying to get sensible knowledge from two different systems, literally, a goat's respiratory activity with an orange's.

where the seven aspects of perception on materiality are considered to be the combination of natural elements

I haven't read A Manual of the Excellent Man, "natural elements" here I assumed you mean chemicals. If these chemicals are pulled together, without the "man", can they think, i.e., inject these chemicals into a sole brain, or a highly sophisticated robot? Thus mind is definitely not chemical, although chemicals activities may relate to the process of thinking.
Second, Buddhist doesn't view material as "material", like the science way of material formed by atom, atom combined by electron and proton... baron, quark... etc. Material appears because the "Aware" (覺) stagnated (attached), combined by collected "logos" (names) stored in the 8th vijnana. Buddha used a metaphor in Surangama Sutra, that someone who looked at the empty space for long long time and worn out, he started to see "flowers" (sparkles of lights etc.) in the sky. Because of habitual in many many lives, this "material" interacted with us, like it has it's own property. Like someone walking on a path with a hole on it, after many many times, he gets used to the hole as if it's flat, if this hole leveled, he may feel like to walk on a mound in the beginning. The hollow, flatness is not the property (permanent, self-existed) of the hole, neither the mound.
Third, there is nothing "supernatural" in Buddhist teaching. All phenomena is as-is, including sometimes we read in the Sutras describing the abhiññā demonstrated by some arahants. "Supernatural" if we used this term is just because we don't understand how it happened.

Does Buddhism view mind phenomena as chemical or as supernatural?

Thus this is not a correct way to phase the question. I noticed "mind" is used widely in English discussion on Buddhism. This seems a confusing translation that often "mind" being viewed as the ultimate essence. Therefore, we have the term "mindfulness" to be praised and worked hard on. This is not, although I'm also in the process of learning can't be sure if I'm correct, as much as I've understood and learnt.

Does Buddhism view mind phenomena as chemical or as supernatural?

Neither. Buddhism views mind phenomena as relational. Mind is interplay of information - a transient flow of appearances arising from structures and relationships occurring between the ever changing forms (sankharas - transient conditionally existing assemblies of various factors). If you see it as such, mind is the other form of matter organization, it's dynamic side, it's structure and potentiality as it plays out over time. So the mind, strictly speaking does not require chemical basis, but it does always require some kind of media for information to ride upon.


text:
What are the benefits of Dhamma in this very life that could be understood by a beginner?
Please limit the benefits to the here and now, because an ingenious youth hearing the benefit of future rebirths and also hearing hard to grasp concepts of karma might surely say “what’s in it for me now? what do I care what happens in the future?”.  In other words, one who is a beginner and who lack virtues will say “Ooh this karmic concept you teach is like borrowing money from someone I don't know and I don't have to pay right now so why should I care?”
By saying the above I’m not trying to open a discussion about Karma / Self etc… a virtue done because of idea of self as proposed by other religions where you get tormented in the future for action done here is a phony virtue, its like being temperate toward your wife for fear of losing her.

Karma works in this life too. If you are kind to people, you create friends, then friends will take care of you. This is called karma - creating conditions for your future, in this life.
When you are driven by emotions, like obsession or negativity - you become kind of blind, so you create bad conditions for yourself. So seeing your mind and developing ability to stop harmful thoughts is useful for you, in this life.
Stupid people always argue about things, they always see them from one side only. Buddhism teaches you that things have many sides, and when you see it from all sides - you don't argue. This is useful for you, in this life.

"Beginners" should be taught what is honest & true (rather than speculations & superstitions).
For example, the Maha-Mangala Sutta lists the many blessings of the Buddha-Dhamma, without mentioning 're-birth' or 're-incarnation'.
Following the guidance given in the Pali scriptures, beginners can be taught the following dependent upon their needs & aspirations:
(1) The many benefits of morality (non-harming), which include the preservation of psychological 'normalcy', integrity, self-respect, trustworthiness, social relationships & freedom from remorse & regret.
(2) The benefits of giving/generosity, which include happiness, beauty, strength & self-respect.
(3) The dangers of sensuality & extreme behaviours (such as gambling, intoxicants, etc), which include addiction, loss of freedom, breakdown of relationships, loss of wealth, bad health, etc.
(4) The benefits of the Brahmavihara, here.
(5) The benefits of concentration meditation, particularly how it brings a free here-&-now pleasure/happiness that is superior to worldly/sensual happiness.
(6) The benefits of wisdom, in ending sorrow & suffering & guiding life safely.

The Blessed One discoursed to him a graduated sermon, that is to say, he spoke on the subjects of liberality, virtue, the heavens, on the
evil consequences, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures,
and on the advantages of renunciation.
When the Blessed One perceived that the mind of Upāli, the householder, was prepared, pliant, free from obstacles, elevated and
lucid, then he revealed to him that exalted doctrine of the Buddhas,
viz. Suffering, its Cause, its Ceasing and the Path.
Upali Sutta

The immediate benefits of Dharma are many many, depends on how the student gets it. As a personal experience, from someone who almost "despised" when learnt the "world religions, Buddhism" on primary school history lession formed a negative perception, to a particular occasion tasted the authentic favour of the Dharma:

You will understand how the world is formed and why everything exists, literally speaking.
You will realize that confrontation is useless, war will not end war, protest will not bring equality... you will be much wiser in dealing with matters.
You will know that humans are limitless, instead the body and mind is the cell to block our knowing.
We are the master of our destiny. What we sow is what we reap, therefore, we could be in peace with ourselves and what we do and what happen, no one to blame, no unfairness, in fact; in the long test by time.
There is a perfect stage that can be reached by mere human, not by any salvation, by any mercy of a god. This perfectness is all knowing and in bliss.
You will naturally start to treasure and respect all living beings, including plants, insects, animals... because they have the same essence in you, and you somehow involved in creating them, literally speaking.
You will become more intelligent, and with better temperament.
Your appearance will become more lovely, people will become more friendly to you and like to be around you.
You will not be driven by the hectic and noisiness of the now-a-day life pace, for you have found the center/pillar, instead of drifting like a log in the sea.
You will not fear death as if you fear darkness in an bottomless abyss or endless night; but you will fear death because the rotting of the body after death (my current stage, especially seeing the photos of the Sky Burial).

There are many many more...

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


text:
Are there any teachings about how we should censure happiness which arises without right view?
Please note that I’m not referring to momentary happiness from distractive actions, like narcotic or alcohol consumption: I’m referring to excessive happiness that arises, from birth of a child, or success in career, which are not unwholesome in themselves.
Socratic/stoic tradition identifies intense pleasure as a nail that rivets us with the desire of the body, and causes cyclic rebirth again and again. To remain detached, the stoics say we should never give full license to the appearance of happiness, and should not allow our pleasure to go as far as it chooses: instead we should check it, and curb it. For example they say, when kissing your child, to remind yourself that he who you love is mortal and momentary, you should say with a lisping voice, "tomorrow you will die"; and to a friend also, "tomorrow you will go away or I shall, and never shall we see one another again".

The Buddhist tradition arose before the Socratic/stoic tradition and, since Greeks were very interested in Buddhism, it is likely the Socratic/stoic tradition was influenced by the Buddhist tradition. In other words, what is written in the question is essentially Buddhism. The following links are merely a small sample of similar Buddhist teachings:

Kisa Gotami was the wife of a wealthy man of Savatthi. Her story is one of the more famous ones in Buddhism. After losing her only child,
  Kisa Gotami became desperate and asked if anyone can help her. Her
  sorrow was so great that many thought she had already lost her mind.
  An old man told her to meet Buddha. Buddha told her that before he
  could bring the child back to life, she should find white mustard
  seeds from a family where no one had died. She desperately went from
  house to house, but to her disappointment, she could not find a house
  that had not suffered the death of a family member. Finally the
  realization struck her that there is no house free from mortality. She
  returned to the Buddha, who comforted her and preached to her the
  truth. She was awakened and entered the first stage of Arhatship.
  Eventually, she became an Arhat.
Kisa Gotami

210. Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.
211. Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or
  unloved.
Piyavagga

Now at that time a certain householder's dear & beloved little son, his only child, had died. Because of his death, the father had no
  desire to work or to eat. He kept going to the cemetery and crying
  out, "Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you gone,
  my only little child?"
Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said to
  him, "Householder, your faculties are not those of one who is steady
  in his own mind. There is an aberration in your faculties."
"Lord, how could there not be an aberration in my faculties? My dear &
  beloved little son, my only child, has died. Because of his death, I
  have no desire to work or to eat. I keep going to the cemetery and
  crying out, 'Where have you gone, my only little child? Where have you
  gone, my only little child?'
"That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who
  is dear, come springing from one who is dear."
Now at that time a large number of gamblers were playing dice not far from the Blessed One. So the householder went to them and they said:
  "That's the way it is, householder [said the gamblers]. That's the way
  it is. Happiness & joy are born from one who is dear, come springing
  from one who is dear."
So the householder left, thinking, "I agree with the gamblers."
Piyajatika Sutta

Then Sakka, ruler of gods, and the divine King Vessavana had the venerable Maha Moggallana walk all over and explore the Vejayanta
  Palace: "See, good sir Moggallana, this loveliness of the Vejayanta
  Palace! See, good sir Moggallana, this loveliness Vejayanta Palace!"
Then the venerable Maha Moggallana considered thus: "This spirit is living much too negligently. What if I stirred up a sense of urgency
  in him?"
Then the venerable Maha Moggallana performed such a feat of supernormal power that with the point of his toe he made the Vejayanta
  Palace shake and quake and tremble.
When the venerable Maha Moggallana knew that Sakka, ruler of gods, was stirred to a sense of urgency with his hair standing on end, he
  asked him: "Kosiya, how did the Blessed One state to you in brief
  deliverance in the destruction of craving? It would be good if we
  might also get to hear that statement."
Good sir Moggallana, I went to the Blessed One, and after paying homage to him, I stood at one side and said: ‘Venerable sir, how in
  brief is a bhikkhu liberated in the destruction of craving, one who
  has reached the ultimate end, the ultimate goal, one who is foremost
  among gods and humans?’ When this was said, good sir Moggallana, the
  Blessed One told me: ‘Here, ruler of gods, a bhikkhu has heard that
  nothing is worth adhering/attaching to".
Cūḷataṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta

(1) Bhikkhus, when an uninstructed worldling meets with gain, he does not reflect thus: ‘This gain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is. (2) When he meets with loss … (3) … fame … (4) … disrepute
  … (5) … blame … (6) … praise … (7) … pleasure … (8) … pain, he does
  not reflect thus: ‘This pain that I have met is impermanent,
  suffering, and subject to change.’ He does not understand it as it
  really is.
Gain obsesses his mind, and loss obsesses his mind. Fame obsesses his mind, and disrepute obsesses his mind. Blame obsesses his mind, and
  praise obsesses his mind. Pleasure obsesses his mind, and pain
  obsesses his mind. He is attracted to gain and repelled by loss. He is
  attracted to fame and repelled by disrepute. He is attracted to praise
  and repelled by blame. He is attracted to pleasure and repelled by
  pain. Thus involved with attraction and repulsion, he is not freed
  from birth, from old age and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  dejection, and anguish; he is not freed from suffering, I say.
Lokavipatti Sutta

With contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a
  pleasant feeling, if one delights in it, welcomes it and remains
  holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust lies within one.
  When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one sorrows, grieves and
  laments, weeps beating one’s breast and becomes distraught, then the
  underlying tendency to aversion lies within one. When one is touched
  by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, if one does not understand
  as it actually is the origination, the disappearance, the
  gratification, the danger and the escape in regard to that feeling,
  then the underlying tendency to ignorance lies within one. Bhikkhus,
  that one shall here and now make an end of suffering without
  abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling,
  without abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful
  feeling, without extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance in
  regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, without abandoning
  ignorance and arousing true knowledge — this is impossible.
With contact as condition there arises a feeling felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant. When one is touched by a
  pleasant feeling, if one does not delight in it, welcome it, and
  remain holding to it, then the underlying tendency to lust does not
  lie within one. When one is touched by a painful feeling, if one does
  not sorrow, grieve and lament, does not weep beating one’s breast and
  become distraught, then the underlying tendency to aversion does not
  lie within one. When one is touched by a neither-painful-nor-pleasant
  feeling, if one understands as it actually is the origination, the
  disappearance, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in regard
  to that feeling, then the underlying tendency to ignorance does not
  lie within one. Bhikkhus, that one shall here and now make an end of
  suffering by abandoning the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant
  feeling, by abolishing the underlying tendency to aversion towards
  painful feeling, by extirpating the underlying tendency to ignorance
  in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, by abandoning
  ignorance and arousing true knowledge — this is possible.
Chachakka Sutta

The story of Kisa Gotami etc. doesn't seem to me to be an example of censuring oneself when excessively happy.

Possibly however it establishes a easy to understand foundation for the other teachings. The questioner did ask about children.

Instead of (or, perhaps, as well as) censuring "happiness that arises without right view", Buddhism maybe praises "happiness that arises with right view": including for example Sukha and Pīti.
I'm not sure that the "censure" you mention is distinguishable from right view: right view will tell you that, right view is the view that, things are impermanent.
I think that Buddhism warns against "attachment", Upādāna, and to that extent it might be be analogous to the "nail that rivets us with the desire" which you mentioned. According to The Twelve Nidanas, feeling is a prerequisite for craving, which is a prerequisite for attachment.
So far as I know, Buddhism doesn't "censure" by saying e.g. "don't be too happy". It says that "the all" which we experience is the result of contact between things (sense-objects) and our senses (including "ideas" and "mind" as a sixth type of sense-object and sense-organ), and that such contacts are impermanent (and that it would be unfortunate to become attached to them).

Thank you for your response Chris, What I mean by “censure” is nothing but to recall a right-view whenever we feel delight, and my questions is specifically for ethical delight excluding both aesthetical delight we get through our senses as expresses in Potaliya Sutta and delight from non-ethical action that I alluded on my question.


text:
At what stage / step of development do we start to contemplate on non-self?
List below is extracted form Kimattha Sutta noting how skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship.
The question is does skillful virtue require knowledge of non-self or knowledge of non-self is achieved at step 8 when one contemplate on impermanence / conditioned nature of all things including serenity and pleasure one get from virtuous act?

Skillful virtues
freedom from remorse
joy
rapture
serenity
pleasure
concentration
knowledge & vision of things as they actually are
disenchantment
dispassion
knowledge & vision of release
consummation of arahantship

Whatever that is unsatisfactory is not self. Whatever is impermanent is not satisfactory. This is a realisation by direct experience not a form of contemplation. This realisation happens at the stage of "knowledge & vision of things as they actually" which in turn triggers the next stage.

'Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are' is the complete contemplation of not-self (although not-self can be observed in some ways when concentration starts to develop).

An individual who wants to get into the practise Saddhamma in its truest sense needs to be grounded in Sila. Better still is to have sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue), once Saddha (Confidence) is firmly instilled within. The mind never leans towards kusala kamma (wholesome volitional actions) without saddha (faith and confidence. This is true also in the case of effort to achieve sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue), and in the study of the sacred texts.  Sila-visuddhi (purification of virtue) resembles the enclosure  as a defense against outside forces.
One who is established in Sila and comes to Saddha, sees things in their proper perspective. i.e. in the light of Anichcha (Impermanence), Dukka (Suffering), and Anatta (Absence of “I”). This firm basis is a part and parcel of his personality and remains with him all the time.


text:
Did the Buddha said that there is no self there is no soul?
In this article, the writer of the article claims, purports or alleges that Bhikkhu Thanissaro and Bhikkhu Bodhi state that the Buddha NEVER said that there was no self. The Buddha NEVER said that there is no soul.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are  contrary to many response given in this platform, for example response given for one of the most frequently vised question here is described as fatalism and NOT Buddhism.
The question is, is the view presented widely accepted view in Buddhism or is it a new development?

This question was misrepresenting  Bhikkhu Thanissaro and Bhikkhu Bodhi because they did not write the article. I edited to the question to make it clear the views do not  belong to  Bhikkhu Thanissaro and Bhikkhu Bodhi but belong to the author of the article.

Thanks for the correction, I did know that the writes publish the article without the Bhikkhus consent.

In MN 61, the Buddha taught he that tells a deliberate lie, there is no evil he cannot do. Therefore, I would take care with the article.

This seems to have a duplicate here which has answers that may also be helpful.

In Buddhism if you take part by part (organ by organ, aggregate by aggregate, faculty by faculty, the mind or body, the world) there is nothing worth identifying as self or soul. What ever place or part you look there is no self, but also taking the view there is no self is also an extreme. In essence the best way to put this is not self or nonself than no self, as whatever you take is not self.
Any thought or view about a self (including no self) will never be in touch with reality and result craving and aversion ultimately leading to suffering.
Also see: Alagaddupama Sutta

The Pali suttas unambiguously state the entire universe is void of self (SN 35.85).
When the deluded idea of 'self' is born (SN 22.81) in the human mind, according to the Pali suttas, it is not a real 'self' but merely a 'view' (SN 5.10), merely a verbal convention (SN 1.25; MN 98), merely the arising of suffering (SN 5.10; SN 12.15), merely a disease (Ud 3.10) & a cancer (MN 140)  or, in short, neurosis.

This world is burning. Afflicted by contact, it calls disease a 'self.'
This world, overcome by contact, is tormented, It speaks of a disease as the self,
Udana 3.10

Also, it is a mistake to refer to SN 44.10 & insist the Buddha did not take a position on the question of whether or not there is a self. In SN 44.10, the Buddha kept silent because the questioner Vacchagotta was confused & befuddled.

How do your relate your response to Bhikkhu Thanisso description here [link] (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html) he clealry say that the view of no-self should be avoided and the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

Bhikkhu Thanissaro sounds like he is posting his own ideas. I have posted from the suttas. Regards.

This is a very sensitive point for understanding Buddhism imo. The Buddha, through the whole of the Pali Canon, explains in many ways how an Essential 'self' or 'soul' is not evident within perceived experience (Dhammadhatu's post is better for links to this!) - an unchanging constant for 'things' is not evident within what we perceive.
The Buddha also asks, in the Brahmajala Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html), for the follower not to speculate within the 'metaphysical sphere' - speculation beyond that which can be directly experienced.
The combination makes for a delicate point. The Buddha definitively stated that within perceived experience (the 5 skhandas) the Noble Truth of suffering - that each and every construct is impermanent - is imminently evident and true.
However, the Buddha was always careful to warn against speculation, therefore he never explicitly denied the 'self' or 'soul' in whole, if only because that which is beyond experience can neither be experienced nor denied (nibbana doesn't count here - it is to be known by the wise etc).. Experience and evidence (Nagarjuna, science) agree with the Buddha's Noble Truths, beyond that - the thicket of views is all that is left.
(logically then, the answer is a simple yes - because no rational attempt at describing/explaining/analyzing 'that which is beyond experience' is possible!)
Read this for some good insight! https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buddha/#NonSel

As I'm dealing with the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta (which caused the issue with not-Self and volition) and the Chinese version of it in another post I noticed the subtle differences between the words applied in the Sutra. Anatta translated as not-Self/ non-Self in English, another concept is "no Self", they are clearly different in the Chinese version. When I'm attempting to translate the Chinese Sutra to the English I found these words related to the "Self" applied:

有我 = has Self
非有我 = not has Self
無我 = not-Self/ non-Self
是我 = is me
異我 = non-me/ others (異 means different)
非我．非我所 = not-me. not my dwelling (非 means no, antonym of 是 yes)

In the Chinese to English Sutra I translated:

Form has no Self {色非有我}
Because form is not-Self... {以色無我故...}
"Well-learnt venerable disciple can he from this take into that this is me, non-me, any quality (lakṣana) in it?" {多聞聖弟子寧於中見是我．異我．相在不}
  this: form
those all are not-me, not my-dwelling. {彼一切非我．非我所}
  those: the attributes of the forms such as coarse or fine, good or bad...
in these five aggregations realize the not-me, not my-dwelling {於此五受陰見非我．非我所}

It appeared that when said "Form has no Self", ie, I do not dwell in form, there is not a part of me that's "mixed" into form, ie, if one of my limbs chopped off, I'm still I'm, intact, although my body is not intact. "Because form is not-Self", ie, since form is not self-existed, independently existed without a subject (me), the rest of the Sutra goes as: "therefore, suffering... I want to make it the way I like..." The other sentences dealt with the aggregations and emphasized the not-me, non-me, not my-dwelling我所 (means objects I possessed therefore are attributes to me, similar to "not mine", but not exactly).
Therefore, I'm more agreed with the article writer. That many of the issues arise because somehow it's misunderstood that not-Self is no Self, and not-Self is used in place that is no Self, or not-me, or non-me, or not mine. Therefore "I" is not-Self since the five aggregations and everything is not-Self... therefore I can't have any volition.
Anatta in Chinese translated as 無我, if "no Self" is "not has Self" it is 非有我, here Self = 自(己)(我), 我 this character can mean "subjectivity", I, self;  自 this character can mean self, imply self-exist, self-dependent, therefore another Buddhist term Niḥsvabhāva (without-self-nature, without-intrinsic-nature) translated as 無自性.

The question is, is the view presented widely accepted view in Buddhism or is it a new development?

As I have read the article and understood, most of it agreed with what I've learnt, excluded the opinion of the Bhikkhus and about the soul I have no comment. I won't say this author discovered a new view since there is no issue as such in my tradition, ie, learnt all my Dharmas from Chinese Classic Sutras and some Chinese articles. Instead I was stuck when reading questions related to not-Self therefore no volition, or "uncontrollability". This kind of question will never come into my mind. I do observe that there is subtle differentiation in the English translation of this Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta that is contradictory to the Chinese version produced the not-Self therefore "uncontrollability" issue. I'm still working on cross-checking the different versions of Chinese Sutras and the English ones.


text:
What did Santideva, the authour of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, say about the realisabaility of Buddhahood?
What did Santideva, the authour of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, say about the realisabaility of Buddhahood? What assurances did he make?

In general, the following positions are accepted by Mahayana tenets:

We can achieve Buddhahood because we can separate mind from afflictive obscurations and knowledge obscurations since neither is in the nature of the mind.
The way to abandon the two is ultimate bodhicitta: the wisdom directly realizing emptiness in the continuum of a bodhisattva. Since we can (a) cultivate bodhicitta and (b) see things the way they are (empty of inherent existence) then we can abandon the two obscurations and actualize the four kayas. There is the following analogy: wisdom is like an ax while bodhicitta is like a strong arm. Having developed both the ax and the strong arm – wisdom and method – one can cut off the tree, the two obscurations.
The mind is empty of inherent existence, therefore it is not inherently one with afflictions (from which it can be separated).

With regard to this, the fourth chapter of the Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, verses 3 – 4 says:

But how can I ever withdraw From what has been examined by the great
  wisdom Of the buddhas and their children, And has been examined and
  examined by myself?
If, having made such a promise,
  I do not accomplish it through action,
  Then by deceiving all those sentient beings
  What kind of rebirth will I take?

Gyaltsab Je says that Shantideva speaks here of "The reasons why it is inappropriate to discard bodhicitta". In addition, Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen explains that:

We increase the capacity of the mind by investigating and
  understanding. [The mind] has the capacity to develop into anything
  possible. The capacity of the mind is limitless like the mind of a
  buddha.

Apart from these verses, Shantideva does not establish that Buddhahood is feasible. He does not expand on any of the previous (three) arguments. Taking them as a given, he shows how to achieve Buddhahood. He does so in a didactic manner. This might be because he addresses people that are already convinced (i.e. in the Mahayana lineage).  The Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra belongs to the genre of Mind Training (Lo Jong). Lojong texts include instructions aimed at cultivating bodhicitta, the cause of perfect enlightenment. This is because according to Mahayana, (1) bodhicitta is the entry door to the Mahayana path, (2) bodhicitta is the main cause of Buddhahood, and (3) Buddhahood is the ultimate result of the Mahayana path. As Geshe Jamphel Gyaltsen said:

The Mahayana lineage refers to great compassion, the substantial cause
  of bodhicitta. [And] The ultimate benefit [of bodhicitta] is the
  state of complete enlightenment or Buddhahood.

These notions and these arguments are accepted by most Mahayana texts. Therefore, they do not bother establishing that Buddhahood is feasible. However, if you attend teachings on the Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, or on a Lam Rim text, or on Asanga’s Ornament of Clear Realization, you will probably hear about these arguments (that the two obscurations are not in the nature of the mind, they can be abandoned, that bodhicitta is the cause of Buddhahood, that you need the accumulations of method and wisdom, etc.)
If you want to know more about systematic arguments on the feasibility of Buddhahood, I suggest you investigate other texts. For instance, you could study Tathāgatagarbha (Buddha Nature) by reading:

When the Clouds Part: The Uttaratantra and Its Meditative Tradition as a Bridge between Sutra and Tantra. Tsadra Collection.
Great Vehicle Treatise on the Sublime Continuum differentiating the Lineage of the Three Jewels (mahayanottaratantra-ratnagotravibhanga) by Maitreya
Gyaltsap Darma Rinchen's commentary to Maitreya.

As my teacher says “The ninth chapter is on wisdom and it all leads up to the result we search, Buddhahood.” In chapter 9 of the Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, you find systematic refutations of non-Prasangika systems (some Mahayana, some Hinayana, some non-Buddhist). Shantideva explains that one could not achieve even arhatship without realizing emptiness of both persons and phenomena. He dismisses so-called Hinayana tenets such as Vaïbashikas and Sautrantikas. It is as close as you will get to finding explanation of the feasibility of Buddhahood in Shantideva’s Bodhisattvacharyāvatāra, but it does not really answer your question.
Concerning “how to achieve Buddhahood”, Gyaltsab Je’s commentary explains that “Buddhahood will not be accomplished by practicing only method or wisdom." The meaning is indeed: one achieves Buddhahood by way of method (bodhicitta and the six perfections) and wisdom (directly realizing emptiness of all phenomena). That is what Shantideva explains.
In terms of view, it is the wisdom realizing the two emptinesses (as presented by Mahayana tenets, namely Prasangika Madhyamika). In terms of method, it is generating the mind of enlightenment as to enter the Mahayana path, cultivate the six perfections, etc. In terms of views, he explains one can not attain liberation is not possible without realizing emptiness of both person and phenomena. Thus, he says that achieving even individual liberation without having directly realized emptiness of phenomena is not feasible. In terms of method, he explains that a Mahayana path is a “virtuous mind conjoined with renunciation and bodhicitta” and that is the cause of buddhahood.

All in all, positing “Buddhahood is not feasible” would imply that we are unable to generate bodhicitta or that bodhicitta is not the cause of Buddhahood (neither is accepted by Shantideva). Or it would imply that we can not accumulate the two collections or that they do not cause Buddhahood (and neither is accepted by Shantideva). Or it would imply that our minds do not have the capacity to abandon all obscurations (that is not accepted by Shantideva). Or it would imply that the mind exists inherently and therefore it is inherently one with the afflicted side (it is not accepted either).