text:
Can mind be free from becoming?
Can mind be free from becoming  (Suffering) ?
I should be and I should that.
I am thin and I want to be a body builder.
I am this and I want to that.
Can mind free from becoming?

Of course you can! If you want to be free of something, get rid of the cause of it. The cause of becoming is attachment. The cause of attachment is craving. Work on getting rid of the craving to end all suffering.

Yes. For more information please see an3.66
They understand:
‘Formerly there was greed, which was unskillful. Now there is none, so that’s skillful.
Formerly there was hate, which was unskillful. Now there is none, so that’s skillful.
Formerly there was delusion, which was unskillful. Now there is none, so that’s skillful.’
So they live without wishes in the present life, extinguished, cooled, experiencing bliss, having become holy in themselves.”

I will attack this question from another points of view. There is a real paradox in the idea of the end of becoming. In the process of end of becoming, we are becoming more Buddhist or more serene.
This leads the natural question: Is Buddhism seeing the true ontology or is it making one see a Buddhist ontology?
This topic is rather dense and requires a lot of framework, so I will tell you, from faith, that the 3rd noble truth says there is an end to suffering and thus and end to bhavana (becoming).
If you want to read more, refer to "The Paradox of Becoming" by Thanissaro Bhikku. It is a beautiful read and leads to many insights, if one spends time with it.

I'd say no since it seems to me Mind is what we need to be free of becoming.

Becoming exists when desire exists. Desire for the abandonment of desire is the last desire and there is no more resolve on the synthesis of created phenomena after that abandonment.


text:
Theravada and Mahayana - The Crucial Differences
I struggle with the idea that Buddhism has two warring schools and wonder why they cannot make peace.
What are the issues on which Theravada and Mahayana cannot agree?
Just bullet points would be fine. I'm not inviting an argument about who is right, just asking for the facts. A summary of key doctrinal differences is what I'm after, if this is possible.
Issues such as which scriptures are authentic may be omitted since this is not a doctrinal difference, but differences in the interpretation of those scriptures would have to be included.
Thanks.
EDIT: Thanks for all the answers. They make fascinating reading. The question has been answered well enough for my purposes.

Possibly related -- in this topic I questioned an essay by Ven. Bodhi which described some alleged differences -- the answers in that topic tended to disagree with that description.

What other questions are allowed now?

@Lowbrow If that comment was a question to me, I didn't understand your question? I allowed PeterJ's question (the OP), as being an example of Questions asking for an answer to a controversy

I asked this question too but it wasn't allowed if I remember correctly. No worries though, it must be hard doing your job as we all change over time.

I did like this question's adding, "I'm not inviting an argument about who is right". Some of the site-specific policies defined on Meta were meant to avoid users starting sectarian arguments, by making arguments and some types of comparison off-topic, figure that's my job. I am sorry my "moderator" decisions and/or the way I write seem harsh sometimes, thank you for the "no worries" too!

You've got a sound question, but in a forum occupied by Theravadin/Pali followers. Agent Sankha, Dhammadhatu and Suminda are working for Theravada/Pali - their descriptions of Mahayana are all faulty, whilst Andrei for Tibetan-Buddhism - also, well, faulty. I believed you incline towards a scholastic study of subject with logical reasoning, it's hard here @PeterJ. To decipher the Morse code from all the "secret agents" (hahaa!) I suggest your enforcing the answerers must proclaim what schools they stood with and what Sutra/Sutta they studied, in the beginning of the answers

@Mishu米殊  - It's all fine. The 'morse code' is decipherable, and proving useful. Where people are coming from is usually pretty obvious.

@Mishu米殊 You may not want to, but you could post another answer of your own, if you think the existing answers are incomplete -- an answer which should avoid implying that other schools are wrong or inferior -- an answer which simply lists the differences (i.e. "theravada says this whereas mahayana says that"). Thanks.

i think @ChrisW e.g. that part of the confusion stems from bad scholarship. it is true that mahayana buddhism called its alternatives the "lesser vehicle" -- my religion is better than your religion. and its true that early buddhists would claim that the mahayana wasn't buddhism. ime one does, and should, learn to just take that for granted, rather than get worked up by it. pretending theirs no difference is probably not helpful though, at least if there's a right and wrong answer

@Mishu米殊 i added a blurb, but won't always do -- just put it on my profile instead. i mean, all answers should state what teaching they are basing their answer in

I doubt the schools are warring in fact, I kind of doubt whether they're even really competing. Historically those schools belong to more or less different regions, geographically, don't they? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism#/media/File:Buddhist_sects.png

@ChrisW - They are certainly warring on this website. I chose the word deliberately so as not to belittle the importance of the dispute or underplay the damage it causes. I can see why a different word was suggested but 'competing' is too weak for me. Competition may be healthy, war never.   .

Just like with any other religion, when the author of the teachings is no longer alive to clarify what is authentic and what is not, the followers of the teachings will naturally come up with different interpretations and also mix things up with teachings of other religions or belief systems. Even in the time of the Buddha, Devadatta was able to have his own faction of monks. So Buddhism having different schools today is nothing to be surprised about.
The Mahayana school branches out to truck loads of many other schools like Vajrayana, Zen, Pureland etc. It seems to be a natural consequence of not being shy to change the original teachings of the Buddha.  So these days when you say 'Mahayana', it's hard to get an idea of what you really mean.
But if you want to compare the fundamental practices of Mahayana with Theravada Buddhism, here are some differences:

Mahayana puts emphasis on attaining Buddhahood or becoming enlightened while another Buddha is alive. Theravada puts emphasis on working to become enlightened as soon as possible and actually making use of the Dhamma preached by the Buddha to do so, even when he is not alive anymore. Theravada tradition generally discourages those who aspire to become Buddhas out of ego or due to their lack of understanding of the enormity of the task. However, it does give blessings to handful of people who have proven their worthiness through mastery of the Dhamma at the highest level, if they have that aspiration.
Mahayana seems to give precedence to the quality of compassion. Theravada gives precedence to wisdom. Compassion is practiced as a supportive quality of the mind for the cultivation of wisdom.
It appears that Vipassana meditation, the meditation that leads to enlightenment is mainly practiced in the Theravada school. Comparatively, Mahayana school seem to give precedence to chanting, rights and rituals.
Vegetarianism appears to be a requirement in Mahayana. Theravada Buddhism keeps to the word of the Buddha and leaves it up to the individual and does not view one's food preference as an important factor in attaining enlightenment.
Theravada tradition as a principal tries to understand the teachings of the Buddha without changing them to suit the popular worldview of the time. As a result, it is widely regarded as the school which is closest to the original teachings of the Buddha.

Thanks. This seems to be a fairly typical view of Mahayana so is useful. Whether it is a correct view is not really the point here, it seems to summarise a common view and explains quite a lot. . .

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

I think it's also important to strength the claim of Theravada being closer to the original teachings. There are many sutras chanted and used in Mahayana practice, which are not attributed to the Buddha. This does imply that these teachings are of lesser quality

@user279311 That claim is just an assertion - a Mahayana follower could just as easily assert that the Mahayana scriptures not attributed to the Buddha are more refined through the generations of masters since the Buddha. Such statements contribute nothing, they only feed the flames of "us versus them".

Better move this discussion to chat section if you guys wish to argue any points

Traditionally from Mahayana perspective, the contrast with non-Mahayana is an important part of the teaching, so the differences is something we study in-depth, in order to understand and avoid non-Mahayana mistakes. For each of the following points, there's a traditional elaboration, explaining in detail how and why each side says what it says.
In non-Mahayana, your primary goal is Nirvana for yourself, in Mahayana your primary goal is to help others.
In non-Mahayana, they recognize that self is not real (Anatta), but still consider other phenomena real. In Mahayana, all phenomena are interpretations-imputations.
In non-Mahayana, the practice is focused on removing emotional obscurations. In Mahayana, both emotional and mental obscurations are removed. In Mahayana there is a strong philosophical component designed to remove conceptual obscurations.
In non-Mahayana, Nirvana is ultimate peace. In Mahayana, Nirvana is not-abiding, having understood ultimate equality of Nirvana and Samsara, beyond peace.
In non-Mahayana, the rules and precepts are understood literally and must be followed strictly. In Mahayana, it is the "spirit" (the purpose) of precepts is what's really important, the letter of precepts can be broken when it conflicts with their purpose.
In non-Mahayana, Dharma is understood literally, in Mahayana it is understood as conceptual construct metaphorically describing subtle truths about our lives and our reality. Concepts are mere models, but if look deeper you can "get" what they point at.
Mahayana accepts most pre-Mahayana teachings but insists that they must not be understood superficially. Superficial understanding of pre-Mahayana teachings and rejection of deeper insights is what characterizes non-Mahayana.

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

good answer, and i liked the inclusion of the fourth paragraph. i'm surprised there's been no mention of the atman doctrine here, is it not held by early mahayanists?

Mahayana vs Theravada, crucial differences
Declare--
My position is of Mahayana the Chinese lineage, selected Sutras I studied, all or parts: Agamas (& some Pali Nikayas), Perfect Enlightenment, Avatamsaka, Surangama, Lotus Sutra, Lankavatara, Saṃdhi-nirmocana-sūtra, Mahayana Parinirvana, Amitāyurdhyāna-sūtra, Diamond Sutra, Platform Sutra, Prajna Paramita (by Kumarajiva), Madhyamaka, Mahisasakas Pratimoksa, Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, Bodhidharma Bloodline Sastra, Samayabhedo-paracanacakra-śāstra, Śariputraparipṛcchā... Path of Liberation (the Pali Vimutti-magga is translated from Chinese) and meditation sutras/abhidharmas, etc.
On Theravada knowledge, parts and/or by scanning/skimming: Nikayas (or from Chinese Agamas), Buddhism SE, almost all the entries on Theravada in Wikipedia incl. its Abhidhamma, Dhammawheel, articles by the Bhikkhus such as Thanissaro, Buddhadasa, Brahm, Bodhi, Sujato, Henepola Gunaratana, Ashin Dr. Nandamalabhivamsa, Walpola Rahula, etc.

A. Scriptures
1) Mahayana inherits scriptures (excl. Tantra texts) encompassing the Three Turning of Dharma Wheels expounded by the Buddha himself in his 45 years of teaching, i.e., 1st the Agamas, 2nd the Prajna Paramita Sutras, and 3rd the Tathāgatagarbha Sutras. This saying records in almost all the Vinayas and some Sutras such as:

Three Turnings of the Twelve Sections of Dharma Wheels… attained perfect enlightenment for Buddha-hood — Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, translated by Mishu 米殊

Theravada inherits scriptures of the four Nikayas which almost equivalent to the Agamas, however Sutras of the 2nd and 3rd Wheel Turning are missing.
2) Mahayana records in the Agama that the Sutras collected after the gathering of 500 Arhats in the Seven Leaves Cave were written down on white cloth to keep:

Mahakasyapa then selected 40 realized ones among all, relaying from Ananda to have the four Agamas, 1 Madhyama Āgama, 2 Dīrgha Āgama, 3 Ekottara Āgama, 4 Saṃyukta Āgama… each [was written] on 60 rolls of plain cloth. The Bhiksus said, “use these to write in the four scripts (perhaps the Brahmi, Prakrit, Kharoṣṭhī and Armanic scripts), let these be spreading in the world.” …individually writing the 12 sections of the Buddha Sutras, with the Vinayas and Dharmas ready… meeting Maitreya Buddha… for liberation… — Parinirvana Sutra, Agama, translated by Mishu 米殊

According to this plus several Sutras and Mahayana tradition, the four Agamas were spread immediately to lay the foundation, the 2nd and 3rd Turning mainly the Bodhisattvayana/Mahayana Sutras were reserved for approx. 100 years later, waiting until the new generation of disciples matured and Bodhisattva-teachers born to the world after the Buddha's nirvana.
Theravada says writing was not available 2500 years ago and only transmitted by oral recitation. The four or five Nikayas are all that the Buddha taught, nothing more.
3) Mahayana (of the Chinese lineage) preserves Sutras, Vinayas, Sastras and Abhidharmas from all the Early Eighteen Schools. All the scriptures are served as reference instead of presiding over any particular school.
Theravada inherits Suttas and works from the Vibhajyavāda (meant the separatist, a sect active esp. around 300CE teaching different/ newly interpreted doctrines that contradictory to the Early Eighteen Schools). In addition, Theravada its original name was Tambapaṇṇiya (meant Ceylon School), its scriptures and works are from the Mahāvihāravāsins (monks of a monastery in Sri Lanka) only:

The Mahavihara Theravādins of Sri Lanka are descendants of the Sthavira Vibhajyavādins in South India who used the Pali language... — Vibhajyavāda, Wikipedia

4) Mahayana (of the Chinese lineage) receives the scriptures written in Prakrit, Kharoṣṭhī, Gandhari and various Sanskrit scripts, translated to Chinese by Indian Buddhists worked together with the Chinese.
Theravada keeps the scriptures written in Pali, which according to the Theravadins, was close to or same as the Buddha's mother-tongue. However, according to the Chinese sources, that the "Pali" was Sinhalese:

...會誦集結三藏教典，並以僧伽羅文字將經典寫在貝葉上成書，首次將三藏集結成書面。[9]... 在公元五世紀，覺音尊者到錫蘭大寺學習，將僧伽羅語的五部尼柯耶轉譯為巴利語及作注釋。
...reciting the Tipitaka, and use Sinhalese to write the scriptures on
  leaves, collecting the Tipitaka as the book for the first time... in
  500CE, Buddhaghosa studied in Mahavihara of Ceylon, translated the
  five Sinhalese Nikayas to Pali and wrote the commentaries. —
  Tipitaka, Wikipedia

B. Doctrines
1) Mahayana (excl. Tibetan-Buddhism) teaches the 8 consciousnesses, incl. the Tathāgatagarbha-consciousness (如來藏識) or Alaya-vijnana. As quoted the Ekottara Āgama of Sarvastidava stated:

...此名阿赖耶。谓爱阿赖耶，乐阿赖耶，欣阿赖耶，憙阿赖耶。
...this is called Alaya. Said, loves Alaya, enjoys Alaya, rejoicing
  with Alaya, exhilarating in Alaya

Theravada teaches the 6 consciousnesses. Its consciousness is in an instant arising-ceasing mode. In order to facilitate the gap between the death of consciousness before the arising of the new consciousness its Abhidhamma invented the term Bhavanga, to stitch the two instant moments. It rejects Aalaya-vinnana, though similar sutta found in Pali Anguttara Nikaya (no. 128?):

...众生爱阿赖耶（aalaya-aaraama），乐阿赖耶（aalaya-rata），欣阿赖耶（aalaya-sammudita）
... the sentient loves aalaya, enjoys aalaya,
  rejoicing with aalaya, exhilarating in aalaya

2) Mahayana teaches the intermediate state between death and rebirth. Theravada rejects the intermediate state. However, to answer how can a dead consciousness re-arise again (much like an extinguished fire cannot re-ignite) it puts the Bhavanga to mend the fault.
3) Mahayana teaches the Samyaksaṃbuddha discovered the Dharma that was taught by all previous Buddhas, he also has to receive the "mark" (endorsement or prediction) from previous Buddhas. This designates a world-system can only have one Samyaksaṃbuddha at one time.
Theravada teaches the Sammāsambuddha only required to be self-awaken. It has no difference from a Paccekabuddha in terms of self-awakening except a Paccekabuddha doesn't teach. It is not certain how Theravada ensured multiple Sammāsambuddhas not spontaneously appeared in the world by requiring only self-awakening.
4) Mahayana teaches the Samyaksaṃbuddha with three kayas (bodies), and there are infinite Samyaksaṃbuddhas in the universe with the myriad of world-systems. Theravada teaches only one Sammāsambuddha in the whole world/universe.
5) Mahayana teaches 10 stages of enlightenment. An arhat is equivalent to the 7th stage, who realized Anatman, but still not realized Emptiness. Whilst before the 7th stage are called Bodhisattvas, after the 7th stage called Mahabodhisattvas who mastered the Dharani.
Theravada doesn't have the 10 stages, with arahant as the highest enlightment. It also doesn't have Bodhisattva, only the Buddha before being Buddha was a Bodhisattva.
6) Mahayana teaches great many meditation methods. Though mentioned both in the Agamas/Nikayas, the ānāpānasmṛti, contemplation of foulness/ compassion are different from the Theravada's. Methods are such as White Skeleton, Dharma Door of Hearing, the 25 Doors in Surangama, and 12 meditations in the Perfect Enlightenment... etc. Theravada teaches anapanasati, vipassana and metta-bhavana... etc.
Mahayana scriptures covered all the meditation methods in details the Theravada has few paragraphs on, except the Goenka Vipassana, Mahasi "noting" and abodmen breathing which Mahayana scriptures not covered as that not categorized in the Buddha's teaching.
7) Mahayana the final goal is to attain Buddha-hood, all sentient have the potential to be the Buddha for all have the Tathāgatagarbha. Theravada the final goal is to be an arahant, Buddha-hood is the business for the Buddha only.
8) Mahayana teaches the path to Buddha-hood and one must track the path of a Bodhisattva. The training of a Bodhisattva is to serve all sentient beings, and help them to arrive at liberation. In order to serve, a Bodhisattva must learn and master all worldly skills and resources, this in turn helps to cultivate wisdom. Hence a Bodhisattva doesn't necessary be an ordained Bhiksu but can be in any walk of life.
Theravada the path to liberation is to reach arahantship and then go for nibbana. Hence only being fully ordained can have hope, the laypersons are just worldly followers working for better rebirth.
9) Mahayana accepts Hinayana (arhatship) the beginning stage of the path only, encourages one to reach the graduation that is Buddha-hood and Nirvana.
Theravada takes only the Hinayana goal and graduated as that.
10) Mahayana teaches not eating meat which is an extension of non-killing, following the teacher as the Buddha never ate meat.
Theravada does not teach not to eat meat, but only teaches not to kill by oneself for eating the meat.
11) Mahayana teaches 5 precepts and 6 paramitas. One of the 6 is prajna-paramita (wisdom) therefore Mahayana also engages in metaphysics and philosophical contemplation. However Theravada teaches 5 precepts but not the 6 paramitas therefore often dismisses discussions by citing the poison arrow parable, emphasis is on liberating from suffering.
12) Mahayana teaches the ultimate as Suchness (Tathata), which is a fluid proposition as styled by Nagarjuna's "neither one nor different" (不一不異); it is not nondualism, nor Advaita Vedanta whose founding father Adi Shankara was born in the 8th century, 1000+ years later, making the Buddha copying any ideas from the future is absurd! Theravada teaches that the ultimate is an objective absolute reality, that nibbana is unconditional and nondual - transmundane.

Thank you for the answer. Is this still "a post yet awaiting elaboration"?

Very helpful - Thanks.

I've finished the elaboration @ChrisW. Need to add a lot of references with quotes because this post is against the tide of favorite. Apart from backing with references I run short of ideas to shield from the enraged mass

the only point i'm unclear about is whether theravada says that there are no bodhisattvas? i thought it was a three vehicle system, just that theravada doesn't teach the bodhisattva's vehicle

@user3293056 Bodhisattva is the rehearsal to Buddha-hood. As Theravada said the goal is Arahant, not Buddha-hood, it implies there no place for Bodhisattva. However, it does call Gotama the Bodhisattva before he's the Buddha. It just shows Theravada had conflicting doctrines, many. Example, another conflict I stated in B.3), that if Buddha is only required self-awakening, logically many self-awakened Buddha could appear at the same time. However, it states only one Buddha for the world at one time, also self-contradictory

@sorta_buddhist this question is not about whether these Mahayana followers' perspective on Theravada Buddhism is right or wrong. Even what Mishu said in her last comment is also wrong, but we are not supposed to argue about it.

The main difference is the vehicle. In Mahayana, everyone aspires to be a Buddha. In Theravada, many aspire for just Arahathship than being Buddhas.

It appears Mahayana believes non-conceptuality is the highest thing.

There's a lot of downvoting going on here, even for one sentence answers. Yet this answer seems important and correct. .   .

Buddha taught Dhamma. In Dhamma there exists no divergence. Every discrepancy is poorly understood human work.

either Dhamma or Dharma ;)

Both, Andrei ;)-

Theravada does not deny that there will be future Buddhas: the 'conflict' is whether the Buddha vehicle was instructed -- or just said to exist.
Though it gets a bit -- or less -- convoluted with the Lotus Sutra; it claims that Sakyamuni only taught the Buddha -- or one -- vehicle. The teaching of three vehicles was only a trick, or skillful means, because not everyone is or was ready for the truth.
Some Mahayanists will emphasize different teachings and Sutras.

So, in Mahayana -- unlike Theravada -- the Buddha taught how to reach liberation without a Buddha.
That sounds a bit like a paradox: how others can reach his nirvana. But not as knotted as how there can be happiness without a self.

nb I was asked to show who says "solitary buddhas" can appear with a buddha's teaching. An outline of the fourfold teachings p100 [translated by Daiichi Shobo], in the sectioned titled "Tripitaka Dcotrine":

Next I will explain the Stage of the Pratyekabuddha, or self
  enlightened. On meeting the Buddha when he appeared in the world he
  [the Pratyekabuddha] received the teaching of the Twelvefold
  Conditions of Dependent Origination [pratitya-samutpada]...

Emphasis added.

Through meditating on the twelvefold cponditions of dependent
  origination they realize the principle of the ultimate truth.
  Therefore they are called "those who achieve the realization of
  conditioned". Those who are called "self-enlightened" appear in a world
  where there is no Buddha. Living alone on a solitary summit, they
  meditate on the changing nature of things and realize by themselves
  the non-originnation [of all things]. Accordingly they are called
  "self-enlightened". Although the two names are different, they are
  the sane in regards to practice...

Emphasis added [p102].
So, two types of "Pratyekabuddha" realizing the same "truth" and at the same "stage" -- but one while a Buddha's teaching is still present, and so "called" self enlightened. I believe I have read that this was a Chinese gloss due to the similarity of 'Pratykebuddha' and 'pratitya-samutpada'.
I have seen no mention of the difference outside the 'Tripitaka doctrine'.

Do you mean 'Three Turnings'?

no @PeterJ i mean the three vehicles of buddhahood, arthatship, and solitary enlightenment.

read this if you like @PeterJ it may seem like a small point, but the difference -- between Theravada and Mahayana -- surely does lie in which vehicle or yana is being followed

The article states - "Yana is determined by capacity and propensity of the "precious human body" wrought by merit, not by a specific teaching or lineage..."  This seems correct to me. So for me these are not 'vehicles' but levels of attainnment or degrees of ambition. I haven't come across them as 'three vehicles' but perhaps they may be seen as such.

yeah maybe @PeterJ depends who you ask -- but vehicle is the standard translation

It is vehicle. Or you may like to replace with "means". Like from Heathrow  (samsara/ sentient) going to Oxford Street (nirvana/ buddha), you can take the tube (sravakayana, merely a passenger), the car (bodhisattva-yana, self-driving and carrying passengers), or motorcycle (pratyekabuddha-yana, riding by and with himself)

is this answer ok dyt @Mishu米殊 i believe that that some claim pratyekabuddhas can be enlightened through the buddha's teaching but are nevertheless "solitary buddhas", neither teach the dharma nor really learn from it

The impression I got is that the Theravada view of a pratyekabuddhas is -- they discovered complete enlightenment, by and for themselves (not from another Buddha) -- cannot occur during another Buddha's sasana (e.g. cannot occur now while we're still in the sasana of Gautama Buddha) -- but is not a sama-sam-Buddha though, because, they don't (or can't or won't) teach others.

I don't quite get you ... dyt? You said "some claim pratyekabuddhas can be enlightened through the buddha's teaching" this is incorrect, from Mahayana view. Pratyeka must 1) be self-awakened and not learning from any Buddha; exist only when the 2) Samyaksaṃbuddha's teaching has completely disappeared from the world. Pratyeka and Samyaksam cannot co-exist in the same time frame of the same world-system

i'll post up a reference later / tomorrow @Mishu米殊

No, not two types of "Pratyekabuddha" realizing the same "truth", it's one type but two names, like a phone called mobile also portable. It's possible a would-be Pratyekabuddha did go to the Buddha's lecture in one or many of his past lives, but at the very life he has enlightenment, there must be no Buddha nor the teaching. And the only mean he got enlightened is by contemplating the 12 Nidanas, hence his is called Pratyekabuddha (緣覺佛); because he is self-awakened without a teacher, and doesn't teach, he is also called a Solitary Buddha (獨覺佛)

more or less what i meant @Mishu米殊

The difference between scriptures matters because the basis of scriptural authority matters.  The scripture for the Tradition of the Elders is the Pali Canon and commentaries that make up the Tipitaka.  The scriptures of the Greater Vehicle school include the writings of anonymous authors who, more or less, held what were effectively seances during their meditative states to attempt to communicate with the Buddha and buddhas of distant past eons.  The Lotus Sutra involves Shakyamuni Buddha discussing his bodily death in the past tense, so it is clearly not a historical documents pertaining to the actual Buddha of history.
Mahayana texts are much more flexible in their interpretation, by design.  The Vimalakirti Sutra suggests that a layman can be wiser than the historical Buddha's disciples were in their own lifetimes.  The Lotus Sutra seems to imply that a future Buddha can be a young girl, or a dragon.  The Mahayana school emphasizes "emptiness" and "non-dualism" especially in Zen.  (In Zen, Shakyamuni Buddha is almost never quoted verbatim or cited as an authority.)
Other than source of scripture, I would say that the greatest difference is that Mahayana sects teach a "living" Buddha who sees present-day followers and can answer prayers; whereas a more ancient understanding of "tranquil extinction" precludes that possibility.  The Rathaputta Sutra (and the Pali Canon in general) tells us that nobody, no matter how holy, has a savior or protector from sickness or suffering (so, implicitly, don't ask).  However, the closing chapters of the Vimalakirti Sutra tell us that devout readers will have spirit guides who protect them from exploitation or harm.
As beautiful as both traditions are, it is inevitable that some differences of opinion would arise.  If you introduce new writings as sacred, and change the meanings of key concepts, the more conservative adherents might think that you don't really believe in the faith and founder.  However, in this case, both schools of thought are completely Buddhist; both believe in the Four Noble Truths, their twelve aspects, and the Eight-fold Path.  Both believe in the Three Jewels, the ten good actions, the three poisons, the six perfections, the three marks of existence, and the eight difficulties.  Therefore, neither school of thought is Wrong View.  The only thing that is Wrong View is denying the Law of Karma according to the Buddha's Dharma.

Theravada and Mahayana are not warring factions.
There are only two main differences between them.
The first is that Theravada teaches to achieve arahathood, while Mahayana teaches to cultivate the full perfections to achieve full Buddhahood, and helping others become liberated along the way. In this answer, we see that Mahayana does not really delay liberation.
The second is that Theravada is very orthodox and sticks to the original nearly-verbatim teachings and monastic rules given by Gautama Buddha, while Mahayana has free creative expression to expand on the teachings and employ newer metaphors to express the original teachings of Gautama Buddha in different ways, and also to relax the monastic rules. Please read this question, this answer and this answer.
There is another comparison between the vehicles in this answer.

Well one of the most famous lack of understanding from the 3 main indian philosophers who invented mahayana by speculating on 1 of the abidhammas, is about their fantasy of the buddha nature, especially the claim ''everybody has the potential to be enlightened'' remains false, no matter how much they love to push for the contrary.
it is as if nibanna is raising your arm, those people would fantasize thus '' human has am arm, being enlightened is raising an arm, a human has the potential to raise an arm, therefore a human has the potential to be enlightened''.
The people who claim that ''everybody has the potential to be enlightened''  fail to understand that the potential to be enlightened has nothing to do with only being alive. The potential to be enlightened is about cultivating the right behavior, which  is just  lots of energy to cultivate guarding the senses, cultivate lots of samadhi and lots of wisdom, but that's already too hard for the indian philosophers and they even explicit refuse to do so and clinging to their speculations that they can be good people by not training their minds.
It turns out that Following the path is what builds the potential for the nirodha of delusion, greed and aversion.
here is the points on they already struggle [and that's way before putting the ''intellectual understanding'' into practice, so no chance they will get the practice successful, even for doing meritorious activities.]:

the buddha says that puhutjjanas are not enlightened
the buddha says that puthujjanas have natural underlying tendencies for 7 things
the buddha says that puthujjanas have anuyasas not for nibanna and the things he claims are good, but The obsession of sensual passion, the obsession of resistance, the obsession of views, the obsession of uncertainty, the obsession of conceit, the obsession of passion for becoming, the obsession of ignorance.
the buddha says that puthujjanas do not have natural underlying tendencies for lack of delusion  lack greed, lack of aversion, all the good things he says are good
the buddha says that anybody who cultivates the ''7 factors of enlightenment'' ''do not decline'' (from nibanna), like so
The limb of wisdom that is mindfulness,
the limb of wisdom that is investigation of the Norm,
the limb of wisdom that is energy,
the limb of wisdom that is tranquility,
the limb of wisdom that is concentration,
the limb of wisdom that is equanimity.

These, monks, are the seven conditions
that lead to non-decline.
https://obo.genaud.net/a/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/05_mv/sn05.46.025.wood.pts.htm#p1
ie they ''slide towards nibanna''
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.037.wood.pts.htm#p1
“Mendicants, suppose a tree slants, slopes, and inclines to the east. If it was cut off at the root, where would it fall?”
“Sir, it would fall in the direction that it slants, slopes, and inclines.”
“In the same way, a mendicant who develops and cultivates the noble eightfold path slants, slopes, and inclines to extinguishment.
And how does a mendicant who develops the noble eightfold path slant, slope, and incline to extinguishment? It’s when a mendicant develops right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion, which rely on seclusion, fading away, and cessation, and ripen as letting go. That’s how a mendicant who develops and cultivates the noble eightfold path slants, slopes, and inclines to extinguishment.”
https://suttacentral.net/sn45.152/en/sujato
same thing with the ''four qualities", from which ''a monk is incapable of falling away and is right in the presence of Unbinding'' https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-037.html
Even lay followers have their "Seven points of behavior on which a lay follower may decline or not" https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/07/an07-029.html

the buddha does not say that a human is ''on the verge on the unbinding'' just because this human is alive

So anybody who cultivates the ''7 factors of enlightenment'' has the potential to be enlightened, because ''having the potential to be enlightened'' means only being skilled in those ''7 factors of enlightenment'', ie fighting the bad inclinations that puthujjanas have naturally.
Anybody who does NOT cultivate those ''7 factors of enlightenment'' does NOT have ''the potential to be enlightened'', because ''having the potential to be enlightened'' never ever means ''just being alive'', and is inclined towards bad things.,
Most people you see around you do not have this ''potential to be enlightened''. most people you see around do not even care about that.
Anybody who claims that ''everybody has the potential to be enlightened'' speaks falsely and you will never ever progress on the path  by listening to their creative lies.
That's the most famous wrong view they keep spreading. The next wrong view they love to spread is their obsession with non-duality. Sometimes they get so confused that they have a hard time  fantasizing about the difference about mahayana and advaita. Sometimes the Mahayanists even say they do not see a difference between the two, that's how bad it gets.
With their wrong view comes their wrong practice, with their obsessions about objects
The last fantasy of their doctrine being the fantasy of the ineffability of nibanna. This puts a mysterious veil on their doctrine, allowing their appalling ''crazy wisdom'' and puts their audience in awe. But at the end of the day, they remain only puthujjanas who love to speculate ad nausean to the point of creating super long suttas  which have nothing to do with the dhamma.
However all their wrong views are pretty normal. Daydreamers will always cling to their love for fantasizes and will always try to salvage them.
It did not take long for people to be confused about the dhamma and after few generations after the death of the of the buddha, people already did what they love to do :  speculating about what arahants can do and cannot do. Today they say 18 schools have been created, with people creating subschools, subsubschools, then schisms and sometime even slight mergers.
If all those schools survived, today you would have to read 18 abidhamma pitakas, 18 vinnaya pitakas and 18 sutta pitakas and you would be left just as confused as you are today... It would be horrible.

To summarise, this answer says in its first paragraph that there's a mahayana doctrine about "buddha-nature" that "everybody has the potential" -- after which, there is a long bit intended to contradict that (i.e. explaining why you think that particular invention/speculation/fantasy is wrong), which says that it's not everybody who has the potential, but only those who have the right inclination, which is not most people.

Lastly it identifies, as being typical mahayana confusions: "non-duality"; "distinguishing mahayana from advaita"; something (unspecified) to do with "wrong practice" and "objects"; and the ineffability of nibanna (leading to confusion and, maybe, awe-struck superstition).

I promised not to argue but I really cannot follow the argument here. Nor am I sure why you assume I'm confused. But it's a useful answer that sheds light on the disagreement so thanks.  .  ,

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Who am I? Who am I without past memory?
Who am I? Am I my memory? For example, I am hindu. I am engineer. I am Rajput.
Who am I without past memory? Am I my past memory? I am engineer. I am hindu.

Buddha says we are emptiness. "Indian", "engineer" are mental concepts. Parts of your memory could be damaged in an accident and temporarily or permanently erased. That would affect your knowledge of yourself and other things. You might lose your mental concepts concerning our identity. A similar thing has happened to one of my bosses, due to being overstressed. He had a mental breakdown and completely forgot all his knowledge of engineering.

I think that Theravada Buddhism teaches that there isn't a good answer to this question, that it's not a good question to ask.
See this description of Right View especially where it talks about "a thicket of views".
Also that things you might consider "self" (e.g. body, feelings, etc.) are impermanent -- and also (impermanent) is every put-together thing -- and so it's better not to view those as "self" ("self-views" are unsatisfactory or lead to suffering).
See also How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

It is Not your experience..

Please who are you

Is this not the question we are all asking, the answer to which is enlightenment?

sabbe dhammā anattā

The attachment, aversion, and ignorance is you. This ignorance could be gross (fetters) or subtle (anusaya)

Nice bro but you explain these word

The notion "I" is the ignorance and due to that, we have the grasping. (upadana)https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35497

I am nothing.
Live in this moment .
You are  nothing

Right view: "And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing etc." I think that a statement like "I am nothing" is yet another self-view (like "I am everything", "I am eternal" etc.). I think the Buddha warned that literally any/every self-view (including "I am nothing") is unsatisfactory or leads to suffering.

Nice bro .... you are right

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


text:
Have I invented this statsitic on Theravada enlightenment?
A solitary Buddha occurs in one in a million of the human population: please correct me if that's how often the vehicle occurs -- though I struggle to completely understand the concept of a "solitary" seed or fixed yana. Either way, that one million figure is -- I think -- an expression of how it is more unique than arhatship.
Or, have I invented the statistic in bold? Anyway:

[a]s of 2016 Thailand had 39,883 wats (temples). Three hundred-ten are
  royal wats, the remainder are private (public). There were 298,580
  Buddhist monks, 264,442 of the Maha Nikaya order and 34,138 of the
  Dhammayuttika Nikaya order. There were 59,587 Buddhist novice monks.

Thailand's population is about seventy million, which works out, if you ignore 'turnover', as one in two hundred being monks.
So that, depending on how you understand the numbers in the first paragraph, suggests in monks, no less than one in a thousand are already arhats. Likewise, assuming they don't get stuck on the first step, in which case more still, about one in a hundred are stream winners.
Is that completely wrong?
Does it make sense, do you know, to say that there are e.g. three thousand sages in Thailand? Three hundred saints?
How does it compare with success in the English speaking nations?

I don't fully get what you ask, but to give my 5 cents: 1) A pratyekabuddha cannot exist when a samyaksaṃbuddha is present, nor when his teaching is still available. 2) prat can only get self-awakening without a teacher. 3) many prats can arise in one world-system but sam can only be single. 4) Mahakasyapa was a prat before therefore was able to enter prolonged 9th dhyana waiting for Maitreya, Mahakasyapa was predicted to be a samyaksambuddha hence a prat's enlightenment is not complete and perfect as a sam. 5) As the world becomes more deteriorated, the enlightenment chance is diminishing

This inference of the amount of attainments seems unsubstantiated. Those Thai monks are also split into factions where one will hold that Buddha lives in Nibbana and be in disagreement with others. All the factions can not be considered as equally valid traditions with right views, likely to produce the four types of contemplatives. There seems to be relatively little consensus on matters of doctrine among the Theravadins.
If you look at buddhist forums you should readily see how much disagreement there is and things aren't much better in the monastic circles afaik. From what i've seen there is usually a demand for conformity of views, at least in the small communities whereas the larger communities will tolerate a broader range. If one is ordained in one tradition one may or may not be considered to have a valid ordination by others.
The assumption that 1:1m can be a Buddha, if that is what you expressed, i don't know how you inferred it but we are about 7billion+ nowadays and the general consensus is that there has only been one Buddha in the last 2600 years. Furthermore nobody is expected to attain Buddhahood any time soon. Based on this alone one could assume that it is far more of a rarity than 1:1m.

A solitary Buddha occurs in one in a million of the human population

Ven. Bodhi's note from "In the Budha's Words":

A paccekabuddha is one who, like a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha, attains enlightenment without the guidance of a teacher, but unlike a Buddha is unable to guide others to enlightenment. According to commentarial tradition, paccekabuddhas do not arise while the teaching of a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha exists in the world but only in the periods between the arising of Buddhas.


text:
What is happiness?
Please don't tell book answer
Please don't tell Buddhist explain
Please give answers from your true experience
Buying car is happiness ?
Buying bike is happiness ?
Buying home is happiness?
Achieving government job is happiness?
Happiness is dependent on something?

I think
Happiness is dependent on something.
Today I am sad because I have no six pack and big muscle
I am sad because I have no desire job
I am sad because I have no money
Happiness is suffering

I’m gonna respond to this with detailed breakdown of the subtle nittigritties of this space

I'm new here, but is this on topic? On any other SE site this would be closed as opinion based.

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

Small successes on worldly or spiritual paths towards wellbeing make me happy. Wholesome happiness seems like a good purpose to me.

I guess there aren't many Buddhist monks on this site at the moment, who could tell you from their own experience whether they're happy without a car, home, or job.
I don't have a car. I decided when I was young that a car is more trouble and expense, to buy and to own, than I want.
I do like my bicycle. I fell off it two days ago, and had to go get the little wound cleaned out by a doctor. I was still happy about that, though.
One of the sources or causes of happiness is doing the right thing, a moral or skilful or kind thing -- see this topic and its answers: What is the basis?
"Morality" for a house-holder is complicated -- perhaps more complicated and less satisfactory than it is for a monk, I don't know, the suttas describe the house-holder's life as "dusty and confining"  -- but food, clothing, maybe shelter, medicine are all considered requisites or necessities even for a monk, I think it's probably moral to participate in that as a layperson. You're supposed to be generous too when possible, and material possession (e.g. food) might be necessary for "living the holy life", but are not enough -- so Buddhism teaches e.g. wisdom and so on too.
I could quote references but you asked me not to, so.
Buddhism also warns that craving (desire) is a cause of suffering -- and that delighting in things causes attachment, which again leads to suffering. There's further doctrine about that, like "how is possible to desire enlightenment?". Almost the very first bit of dhamma the Buddha taught was of a "middle way" between the extremes of hedonism (sensual pleasure-seeking) and asceticism -- "middle way" meaning "not one extreme nor the other".
An iPhone, I don't know -- I think of it as "a chore" not "happiness", some people like their phone I guess. My mobile is a cheapest-available "flip phone", which I'm happy to use if I want to make a phone call, I have a computer at home. I buy a new computer every few years, when I have to, for my job -- when my previous/current computer becomes too unusable. Using a computer can be time-consuming, I cut off web sites where I seem to be wasting my time.

Nice bro for your experience

According to the dharma, yes, happiness caused by material gain is a form of suffering.  The iPhone is a perfect example; consider the annoyance and discontent one feels, for example, when the battery wears down, or when one wanders away from the geography of the service coverage.  Consider the greed and dissatisfaction one feels when a new phone version is released on the market; the disappointment and inferiority one feels if one cannot afford to buy.
Consider also the foolishness and time-wasting potential of many uses of smartphones and Internet technology.  There is the potential of addiction to the device, addiction to social media, addiction to gaming, addiction to pornography, things that cause one to forego sleep, neglect ones duties and relationships.  All forms of addiction are an example of what is called "attachment" in Buddhism.  Consider also the cyber bullying, rumor mongering and "cancel culture".  See the scams, the clickbait and extremist propaganda.
Observe the Web's cesspool of buggy websites and apps, themselves evidence of a lack of assiduousness, from developers lacking enlightened wisdom.  Or perhaps the fault lies with companies' insufficient development budgets, or unrealistic delivery dates; this suggests avarice, stinginess, and a lack of right livelihood practiced by owners and managers.  Not every software flaw is evidence of poor character; but if we lived in a perfect world, then those flaws would be fixed.
It may not seem like much; the non-Buddhist may consider that such forms of suffering are trite and insignificant; far outweighed by the delight and usefulness of purchasing and using a smartphone, or other material goods.  This is called "enchantment" in Buddhism.  But more important than the gain or loss of a smartphone, for example, or the delight or suffering caused by having one or not having one, is the opportunity costs.  Even if some product is an unmixed blessing for a person, with no noticeable downsides, one could be blinded to the even better worldly blessings to be had.  Who knows?  One might have become an award-winning scholar, a famous artist or a wealthy entrepreneur, had one spent one's free time and discretionary budget differently.
At a fundamental level, in Buddhism, one does not desire happiness or blessings, generally speaking; not in this world, and not in the hereafter.  One does not desire anything at all, except peace of mind.  When has one attained peace of mind?  It's a tall order.  If one has no fear of aging and death, deceives no one, is willing to give away all one possesses, has no ill will towards anyone at all, including malicious wrong-doers, and believes that everybody else is equally capable of reaching such a state of spiritual maturity, then one has attained it.

Nice Observation

Happiness is pleasant feelings.
Unhappiness is painful feelings.
Early childhood experiences condition us to generate painful feelings and pleasant feelings depending on the situation and act in certain ways (by age 5 humans reach 90% of their adult brain size).
Negative unconscious impulses caused by bad memories that generate painful feelings are one of the main roots of all faults.
The highest happiness I've personally experienced is when concentrating on eliminating negative unconscious impulses, this type of energy goes from my forehead area, above to the top of my head, then if I keep concentrating even above that, then I feel full of energy, confidence, calm, fearless, angerless, sorrowless, a strange type of extreme enjoyment, unshakable.
Growing up I initially thought material things would bring happiness. But then one day I thought in my mind "even after gaining desired material things I would still experience anger, fear, sorrow, and other painful feelings, and I would still eventually die anyway so what's so great about it?".
After experiencing higher states of happiness I started thinking of gaining luxurious material things unneeded for survival as like a waste of time boring just like useless toys.
When people are happy and satisfied they naturally have no cravings but not in the painful way many people seem to think of suppressing a desire.
As long as unconscious impulses generating painful feelings exist the individual will continue to experience pain eventually at some time.

Happiness does not come from the objects that we are attached to. The happiness I get from eatijng a candy bar arises from within me... it does not live in the candy bar. If the happiness did exist in the candy bar, then everyone would become automatically happy when they came into contact with this candy bar. This does not happen, people have apparent preferences, some like the candy bar and experience happiness when they come in contact with it, some are neutral about it, experiencing neither happiness nor suffering, and some experience disgust.
This demonstrates that the individual who experiences happiness already has everything they need inside them to be happy before they come into contact with the candy bar, and so on for all emotional states. Likewise, the suffering that arises out of not being in contact with the candy bar has nothing to do with the candy bar itself, nor does is this suffering dependent on happiness alone. In order for the suffering of unhappiness, one has to be attached to the candy bar in such a way that there is no happiness without it. This is an attitude, it is in the approach to the candy bar or any other object of desire.
Since we have everything needed to be happy inside us before we come into contact with the object of desire, or pleasant experience, then it goes to follow that we ought to be able to train the mind, to train ourselves to experience happiness before, during, and after contact with a pleasant or unpleasant sense object. In other words, we can cultivate a more effective perspective.
TL;DR: The suffering is not happiness itself. It is in the attachment to the object of desire. It is the trick of the mind that sais there is no happiness without the object.

Nice experience bro

In my opinion for the unenlightened human being, the basic life's requisites must be given (shelter, food, water, cleaning, sense of safety etc) in order to start practising a good life. Notice that I am speaking here of practising & not just getting something from the external world.
With all those things you mentioned there are several issues: we get used to them, they may change due to various causes & conditions, we might not derive as much pleasure as we hoped we'll get..
And most importantly: Although they affect the mind, the mind itself isn't trained. Well, in a sense it gets trained to be more dependent upon outside things & distractions.
The less dependent happiness is, usually the better. The happiness of the mind that stems from an ethical life style & from other mental practises will over time internally build up, which leads to an inner stability &, what people might call, well-being. Not to mention that those pleasures have lesser disadvantages then, let's say anger or greed/lust; so they inherently feel better.
Although you didn't want to have a Buddhist response I will still give you one because this is a Buddhist forum. The Dhammapada states:

If by giving up small pleasures great happiness is to be found, the wise should give up small pleasures seeing (the prospect of) great happiness.

Nevertheless, for ordinary people it's not necessary to give up all sensual pleasures, but to find a balance, develop kindness, compassion, equanimity, generosity, & living a meaningful live which includes a life project that is outside of one's own selfish desires, i.e., animal activism, helping other people in need or even ordinary little day-by-day acts of kindness, you get the point.
Mental happiness & "character happiness" is always with you. On the other hand we see a lot of rich, famous & successful people who are depressed & commited suicide.
You might now ask why? Well, because these pleasures often do not target the root problem (the mind) directly, therefore one chases these things again & again, but one is left empty.
You must ask yourself whether these things you mentioned can give you really that much well-being.
Are there people with a big car & six pack who aren't suffering?
Do you know people who have everything the media & our minds promises us make us happy, but still left unhappy?
Well-being should be seen as a skill you develop, & by letting go of unwholesome thoughts & actions, as well as having a correct view of yourself, others & the world.
If you think that you, others, conditions or the world MUST BE IN  CERTAIN WAY, you'll certainly will feel 'extreme' emotions because it stems from rigid demands (must, have to, got tos).
If you however stick to a strong wish, preference, desire to want something, but you're always flexible enough to see that it's not "life-necessary", but only a convenience that enriches your life, then you're still experiencing emotions negative in tone (sadness, annoyance, concern, sorrow, self-compassion instead of condemnation) but they're helping you to think clearly & to assess the situation properly as well as to behave adaptively!
It's like if you're in a relationship and your girlfriend is super clingy & jealous. She might think "I must have a partner in my life which must never have another woman around him, but if I lose him or he is with another woman, it's a catastrophy OR else I am worthless/he is bad/she is bad/the world is bad, which are all over-generalizations, which misses our human fallibility & live's complexity of good, bad & neutral aspects.
Hope I could've helped you.

Nice observe bro

Happiness is acceptance of what is.
Rejection of what is can only cause pain.
For example; If I reject the existence of a wall, and try to walk through it, I will experience pain.
So; To be happy; Accept what is.
You can, however, change what will be.
This is my life experience :)

You are perfectly right ,if happiness is dependent on somethings then to acquire it you must have somethings.Its simple mathematical equation somethings/happiness =resultant happiness.
when there are alot of somethings, happiness is alot when they decrease happiness decreases and suffering is the difference .Buddha discovered that somethings is not a constant and is impermanent, you get then lose you iphone,so he just removed it from the whole equation ,and there you have it,happiness .Going deeper than that he also discovered that the resultant happiness that we think we have because of somethings by itself is also not constant because happiness in itself is infinite & anything divided by infinity large or small, constant or not, is still going towards zero ,your new iphone over long time becomes boring to have and maybe you want the newer version.
On the experiential level this can only happen when one is centered in witnessing all that is happening as happening and not attaching to it so it doesn't become something that happiness depends on.

Happiness is being able to control the six senses so that they will keep you in a less disturbed position i.e neither being sad or happy too much..!

Happiness is acceptance of what is.
You probably already know that but don’t live it.
For me, ironically, happiness has been slowly gaining in the world while diminishing my desire to gain in spirit.
I wanted muscles and a six pack. I started taking steps to get them, always desiring them in my mind.  I got them. Nothing changed.  Literally, nothing.  Ok maybe one or two people noticed, but it’s shocking how little people notice or care.  And internally - my mind with all it’s criticisms was still there and focused on new objects to criticize the minute I got them.
Could say the same story about women, money, etc. all with the same outcome.
In the end, happiness has proven to be accepting the moment; living it, just it with no desire of anything in past or future.  It takes a while to achieve this, and I’m not fully there yet I’ll be honest.  Sitting helps me with this.  I do it about 20 minutes a day now.  But I started with just 5 minutes when I could.  This helps with watching thoughts, feelings, and worldly events as they come and go.  And when you see all that changes, you also see what is constant.  What is constant in life is where true happiness lies.

Bro you are give great  answer .. you are experience right

@BhupendraRajput just keep seeking


text:
Is there a scientific consensus on meditation?
Is there a scientific consensus on meditation? I've seen it said that different parts of the brain are activated during meditation. Is that true for all experienced meditators, all forms of meditation, etc.?
It has to do something, was originally my take on Buddhism -- at the time merely because it has historically thrived: it being pretty obvious that whatever it did was a 'good' thing.

Sorry but I find it unclear what this question is asking: 1) is it really about "Buddhism", or is it about science and non-Buddhist forms of 'meditation', maybe just measuring brain activity or something? 2) The title and first sentence aren't clear -- what does "consensus on meditation" mean -- consensus about what? 3) The third sentence, the detailed question, is that only asking whether "different parts of the brain are activated" and whether that's true for all meditators/meditations? 4) The final paragraph ends with a question mark but I don't know what that question is.

maybe it could be moved to psychology stack, if you find it that unclear etc.. though i would have thought there'd be more interest in it here @ChrisW

Would it be clearer on the psychology stack? Is it only asking about measuring activity? In which case, it's probably asking for references to in-clinic meta-studies, which measure brain activity during one or more forms of meditation, by one or more populations. There's one reference to this kind of thing I know of (there are probably others I don't know) -- http://www.cbc.ca/news2/background/meditation/ -- that's from a while ago though and not a meta-study though it does have a specifically-Buddhist connection.

i don't see what's unclear about it. i'm asking what -- psychological -- science says about meditation. so brain scans, therapeutic potential, structured interviews about it, etc. @ChrisW too broad?

In meditation, you begin to transform into a spontaneous, natural being of love and compassion. Your whole cosmos begins to change. Meditation brings up a great change in a human being. I know this in a small degree from my experience. The only way to know this is to start meditating yourself.

It seems fair to say there is no scientific consensus. It's not easy to see how one could be reached by the methods of the physical sciences. It seems to be agreed that meditation does something, which is something.

If you are still interested, you can check this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/9dx45g/can_we_please_have_a_pinned_thread_with_all_the/e5qcic6/
It's a comment with about 15 benefits of meditation with links to scientific articles that state them as far as I understand.

Ah, just seeing this question now and thought you might find this helpful.

Can we train ourselves to be compassionate? A new study suggests the
  answer is yes. Cultivating compassion and kindness through meditation
  affects brain regions that can make a person more empathetic to other
  peoples’ mental states, say researchers at the University of
  Wisconsin—Madison.
Published March 25 in the Public Library of Science One, the study was
  the first to use functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to
  indicate that positive emotions such as loving-kindness and compassion
  can be learned in the same way as playing a musical instrument or
  being proficient in a sport. The scans revealed that brain circuits
  used to detect emotions and feelings were dramatically changed in
  subjects who had extensive experience practicing compassion
  meditation.

This is the famous study that led to the Tibetan Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard being dubbed, "The happiest man on earth!"


text:
Ideas to Contemplate When Meditation is Difficult
I wrote previously that somehow, my meditation practice suddenly became more difficult, without any cause. So, I wondered what measures could be taken. Since my objective -- for now -- is meditation once per day, any means by which I'd sit and meditate for an allotted time would be useful.
I wondered: what reasons/motives can one contemplate mentally to get that push and sit more easily? For example:

"Once I will sit down, the difficulty will diminish."
"This is part of a path leading eventually to Buddhahood."
"Meditating will help not only myself, but others."

I guess I'm looking for canonical or traditionally given reasons to invoke to motivate oneself to meditate or practice in any form.
Thank you.

We always want things to be less difficult, that's why they are difficult.
I thought,  I need things to be easy now and latter I would ease into being able to handle what is more difficult but then I found that if I faced what is difficult head on with heroic and sustained effort then over time what is uncomfortable becomes way more manageable. This was a fundamental breakthrough idea for me.

Old age, sickness and death are good choices along the lines; 'Today effort should be done; life is uncertain, death is certain. Youth is a fleeting, unreliable and death might overtake you before you finish drawing a breath.'
Reflect on the drawbacks of laziness perhaps like this; 'Laziness is looked down upon by the world, lazy people don't accomplish even mundane tasks let alone the ultimate goal'
Reflect on the danger of not finishing your work, perhaps like this; 'Were i to die without finishing my work, it would be to my detriment, a cause for regret, a cause for birth, aging, sickness, lamentation and death...'
Reflect on the good fortune of being able to practice; 'Truly many would envy me, those beings in hells and those unable to practice this good Dhamma, how truly fortunate am i being blessed with an opportunity window in this very moment"
One can consider the words of the Tathagatha; ~ 'Practice jhana monks, do not be negligent so that you don't regret it later' or ' Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way, the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities.'
Furthermore one can consider that it has been said that;

(386) The sun shines by day. The moon glows at night. The warrior shines in his armor. The brahmin shines in meditative absorption.

or you can consider that there are two modes of practice; 'A painful practice' and 'A pleasant practice'
Considering the drawbacks of the painful and the benefit of the pleasant practice, it is possible that one would resolve on the pleasant development.
There are other things one might want to give attention depending on the particular hindrances you are facing, ie reflecting on unattractiveness & drawbacks will counter infatuation, reflecting on the benefits of wakefulness and the drawbacks of sleeping will rouse energy.


text:
Reorienting Thoughts Towards Virtuous Object
I noticed that if I set an intention to avoid some behaviour, I rarely follow through. I feel perhaps a mere intention based on willpower doesn't have much strength.
Is it more effective to direct one's thoughts to a virtuous object whenever fantasies and cravings, or worries and rumination, occur? Are these cravings/worries causing the problems?
Is just setting an intention mentally sometimes not adequate?

You might want to consult Vitakkasanthana Sutta: The Removal of Distracting Thoughts
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html
It explains how one deals with unwholesome thoughts in several ways and 'Reorienting Thoughts Towards Virtuous Object' is one of those ways.

If I may ask, I wonder what "an object connected with skill" means in that sutta (or Piya Tan's translation, "a sign connected with the wholesome")? Would that mean one of the anussati, or something else?

MN19;The Buddha said this: “Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still unawakened but intent on awakening—I thought: ‘Why don’t I meditate by continually dividing my thoughts into two classes?’ So I assigned sensual, malicious, and cruel thoughts to one class. And I assigned thoughts of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness to the second class.

other than the mn19 explaination, my personal interpretation is that any theme conducive to development is good, including the nupassana and subjects for reflection otherwise listed throughout the Sutta.

Fwiw i think developing this practice is called developing the perception of abandoning;
(5) “And what, Ānanda, is the perception of abandoning? Here, a bhikkhu does not tolerate an arisen sensual thought; he abandons it, dispels it, terminates it, and obliterates it. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill will … an arisen thought of harming … bad unwholesome states whenever they arise; he abandons them, dispels them, terminates them, and obliterates them. This is called the perception of abandoning. (AN10.60)

There are no virtues objects. However, the object of meditation is to bring the mind to a neutral object such as breath hence no unwholesome thoughts arise.


text:
Cravings Arising to Consciousness
I noticed that I usually think in a very abstract manner, without images, just words and ideas. When I try intentionally to think visually, only then does lustful or worry-related images pop up. And, only then can I seemingly redirect my attention from these images.
If a person thinks very abstractly, is it possible that cravings or worries don't arise in consciousness? What is going on here?

Where else would they arise? Isn't the subconscious  the consciousness that one has yet to see clearly?

I believe Tibetan Vajrayana lays more emphasis on visualization as against abstract thinking, as a means towards final liberation. Recommend utube  discourses by Professor Robert Thurman and Lama Govinda's classic 'Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism' for starters. Its likely to be a long haul.

Abstract thinking intself is a form of fast-imagination.
Imagination and Creativity are linked with each other.
The ability to contemplate things that are not actually happening can contribute to mental health problems such as anxiety and delusions.-- see imagination in above link.
When I try intentionally to think visually, only then does lustful or worry-related images pop up
It's with everyone, not something special. Only thing is, person here is able to know that he is the one, who is developing these visualizations.
Conclusion:: If a person has high abstract thinking, he is more prone to cravings, delusions, worriness, if he is not fixated in sīla.
Reason:: He has more access to thinking process, hence without equanimous awareness, he will become more prone to unwholesomeness.

I am not entirely sure about this, but my understanding is that what you are calling abstract thinking is just regular conceptualization as a way of knowing. Training in visualization is necessary to facilitate practice in direct mental perception rather than just conceptualization.
In my experience, cravings and worry arise all the time with conceptualization.

Are you saying that when visualizing, one isn't engaging in mental fabrication?

No, I think most visualizations are pretty poor and involve mental fabrication. But it is a practice for developing that ability to mentally see things directly. I could be very wrong as I have not taken minds and mental factors in awhile.

If a person thinks very abstractly, is it possible that cravings or worries don't arise in consciousness?

No, that’s not very likely seeing as cravings present themselves in a variety of bodily, emotional, as well as behavioral formations. Our way of thinking is by no means the end-all-be-all proof of our attachments.

What is going on here?

There is no cookie cut way that consciousness should act. There are ever so many variations in how consciousness behaves, and what thoughts that may pop up or not. It’s just the way the mind works.


text:
Why our mind always live in habits? Why we are always making new habits? What will happen if habits are not formed?
QN 1: What is connection between thoughts and habits?
QN 2: We (as a lay practitioner) are aware of our few habits like smoking but not all.
Example: Morning tea habit (feeling to have tea). Similarly checking mobile time to time, watching TV, doing prayers and other religious habits.
I was not aware of these habits from many years but now I'm aware of it.
Main QN: Why is our mind always making new habits and gets trapped in habits?

Note: To clarify this question as it has been edited, you can check the original question asked by the user.

OP: QN 1: What is connection between thoughts and habits?

The answer for this is given in MN 19:

“Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon,
  that will become the inclination of his mind. If he frequently
  thinks and ponders upon thoughts of renunciation, he has abandoned the
  thought of sensual desire to cultivate the thought of renunciation,
  and then his mind inclines to thoughts of renunciation. If he
  frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of non-ill will…upon
  thoughts of non-cruelty, he has abandoned the thought of cruelty to
  cultivate the thought of non-cruelty, and then his mind inclines to
  thoughts of non-cruelty.

The inclination of one's mind translates to habits in thoughts and actions.

OP: Main QN: Why is our mind always making new habits and gets trapped in
  habits?

This is because we have the underlying tendencies or obsessions (anusaya) as found in AN 7.11 (or from here):

"Monks, there are these seven obsessions. Which seven?
"(1) The obsession of sensual passion (or sensual desire).
  "(2) The obsession of resistance (repulsion).
  "(3) The obsession of views.
  "(4) The obsession of uncertainty (doubt).
  "(5) The obsession of conceit.
  "(6) The obsession of passion for becoming.
  "(7) The obsession of ignorance.
"These are the seven obsessions."

Forming habits of sensual enjoyment e.g. sex , coffee, desserts etc. is due to the obsession of sensual passion.
Forming habits of self-improvement e.g. reading, fitness etc. is due to the obsession of passion for becoming.
According to this answer, the underlying tendencies or obsessions (anusaya) are a type of defilement (kilesa) or mental impurity that is caused by ignorance (avijja) in dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda).

I think i get what you mean based on the comments.
Thinking can only be about these six;

what has been seen
what has been heard
what has been smelled
what has been tasted
what has been felt
what has been thought about or imagined

Thinking arranges a map of sorts, map is like the general understanding
In reference to this one could say that mind lives in [it's] habits in as far as thinking is directed referencing the map that is made by thinking as it is thus directed. When mind is directed in reference to the map, it becomes a path travelled and it might produce the expected result, if a path is frequently travelled it becomes well explored by intellect and well known.
Intention and attention are also based on that same map of an interpretation of phenomena. Therefore what is seen, heard, smelled, tasted, sensed, imagined & thought about; comes into play by directing according to the map and having come into being is in turn thought about and evaluated, laying foundation future reference.

A habit is basically rebirth. Looking for rebirth, we find SN12.23:

I say that suffering has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Rebirth.’
I say that rebirth has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Continued existence.’
I say that continued existence has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Grasping.’
I say that grasping has a vital condition. And what is it? You should say: ‘Craving.’
I say that craving has a vital condition.
  And what is it? You should say: ‘Feeling.’ … You should say: ‘Contact.’ … You should say: ‘The six sense fields.’ … You should say: ‘Name and form.’ … You should say: ‘Consciousness.’ … You should say: ‘Choices.’ … I say that choices have a vital condition, they don’t lack a vital condition. And what is the vital condition for choices? You should say: ‘Ignorance.’

Notice the phrase "six sense fields."  This includes the five senses as well as thought. Therefore Dependent Origination describes the connection between thought and habit.
The cure is the Noble Eight-Fold Path. Even though we may understand that clinging to our delights causes us suffering, to actually get rid of habitual suffering does require practicing the Path, relinquishing identity view. And identity view is just the craving in habits (MN44):

“Ma’am, they speak of this thing called ‘the origin of identity’. What is the origin of identity that the Buddha spoke of?”
“It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with relishing and greed, taking pleasure in various different realms. That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence. The Buddha said that this is the origin of identity.”

To end suffering, one replaces unskillful habits (e.g., smoking) with skillful habits (e.g., observing precepts).

The mind is not you but it can be trained. It has been trained to repeatedly form unwholesome/unskillful states. Train it in mindfulness, a wholesome state, by getting familiar with what greed, aversion and getting lost in thought are like. Then the mind trained in skillful states will pull itself out of old and into new habbits on its own. Try not to force out of habbits because that is defilement. Instead, learn correct mindfulness in daily life.

The mind creates habits because it is the mind's nature to structure and organize the world around it. The mind wants to be assured of its desires, and that notion of 'assurance' implies that the mind wants the world to be orderly, systematic, and predictable: one can be assured of something that has those qualities. And what is a habit except a set of behaviors that are orderly, systematic, and predictable?
The problem with habits is that habits which are badly formed become tanhā (cravings). We want the world to be orderly, systematic, and predictable in some way that conflicts with the natural (karmic) order of the world; we try to impose our discordant habits on the world, and that creates dukkha (misery) in us and others. So part of the dharma amounts to replacing bad habits with good: i.e., with habits that are not in discord with the natural (karmic) order, and do not de-evolve into tanhā.

One might make a restrained habit of morning tea, not a habit of gluttonous meals, because the former is less likely to fall into carving
One might make the conscious habit of setting aside one's cell phone for defined periods, not fall into the fretful habit of constantly checking for messages
One might make a calm habit of renunciation, rather than give way to the constant urge to satisfy desires

Simple habits make life easier and better; they allow us to satisfy the basic necessities of life with a minimum of fuss and bother. Conscious habits keep us from tanhā; that allows us to change our habits as needed when they fall out of sync with the natural order. What we should avoid is those unconscious, discordant habits that lock us in opposition to the world.


text:
Ultimate Reality

Conditioned reality, the psycho-physical interdependence, only exist
  because we experience it. This is how I interpreted Yuttadhammo's
  videos on Ultimate Reality. Is this a correct interpretation and if
  so, how can I apply this to my meditation practice?

Metta!

What is the Pali word for ultimate reality?

@SarathW Paramattha Sacca is the Pali word for ultimate reality.

It does not appear to be found in the sutta.

Ultimatly things exist as raw experience  moving through the sense doors.
Bhante Yuttadhammo talked a lot over many videos about ultimate reality and other useful teachings from many angles so beginners and maybe intermediate level students could understand. I personally had to listen over and over and over and over again while practicing the meditation over and over and over again.

How do you apply this to meditation practice?

You purposely pay attention to whatever is in awareness coming through the sense doors moment by moment. The smallest mind moment may be something like one thousandth of a second of attention and in that moment there is just one atomic particle of reality to experience that is just what it is or ultimate reality. There are no consepts or conditions at this level. Concepts and conditions would need the mind to take another moment or more to gather a combination of momentary experiences, memories and other  mental functions  to form a consept or condition in the mind. Yeah, consepts would need some memories of previous moments that don't actually exist anymore, this may give you insight as to why consepts don't exist like we feel they exist.

As i understand the expression used by Ven Yuttadhamma means that the six or one of the six sensory expressions are 'ultimate reality' and however these get objectified or 'labeled/conceptualized' by intellect is 'conceptual'.
I don't know if Ven Sir would approve of the meaning thus drawn out to be agreeable but think that as i explained it, it can be quite misleading.
The problem one is bound to run into is dealing with phenomena such as 'contact'. Is that also conceptual? if one answes that it is conceptual then one will have to say that sensory expression itself is conceptual and if one says that contact is ultimate reality one will have to admit that there is no basis for this statement because contact is not a sensory expression and must therefore be excluded per definition.
If concept is per definition going to be that which is mind made then 'manopubbangama' will make everything included.
It isn't totally useless because there are demonstrable classes of abstraction and understanding how abstraction works is very useful but this system of language is mostly used by people studying general semantics. Buddha did not use it for a reason.

...the psycho-physical interdependence, ONLY EXIST because we experience it.

Nama-rupa is experienced due to consciousness (SN 12.10; SN 12.65; SN 12.67). However, nama-rupa can exist when we do not experience it. For example, I do not experience the nama-rupa (minds & bodies) in Alaska or Mongolia however they obviously exist outside of my experience.

Conditioned reality... ONLY EXIST because we experience it.

I have not read this in the Pali suttas. In fact, suttas such as AN 3.136 & SN 12.20 refute this Creationalist belief. I only read this is what Brahma believes, as follows:

The Great Brahma said to the monk, 'I, monk, am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.'
DN 11

How can I apply this to my meditation practice?

What is written in the question is unrelated to meditation practise. Meditation is about developing calmness, peace, good-will, compassion and discerning the causes & cessation of suffering, impermanence & not-self. Meditation is not about believing in Brahma or God that is Ultimate Reality.

I find this an odd answer. If meditation is about acquiring an understanding of the ultimate reality would this not make the question relevant to practice? Perhaps you mean that speculation is not relevant, which I'd agree is inarguable. ,.

Who's talking about God?  How is dhamma not related to meditation practice? You mean what you are saying only applies to non meditation practice? "I do not experience the nama-rupa in Alaska however they obviously exist outside of my experience." Imagine the Buddha answering
"Well come on, you know, it's just obvious". I don't think it is obvious that Alaska exists probably because it is a worldly concept. I respect where your coming from but Idk about this...

This comment is not related to Buddhism. It is mixing up the philosophies.


text:
Idea of the Breath
I heard a few times the notion that in meditation one must focus on the sensations of breathing (which seems to make sense to me) but not the idea of the breath. What would be the 'idea' of the breath? Is there a single thought or mental entity one could focus on? I feel like thoughts change and follow one another quickly, I don't understand how one could try to meditate on the 'idea' of the breath.
What does such an idea refer to?

I've heard similar expression given on difference between samatha and vipassana, whereas the concept is the idea of breath and reality is the sensory perception. I think that was mostly a misuse of both terms. Because samatha is calming or stilling as in the Patisambhiddamagga 'in the first jhana hindrances are stilled, in the second thought and evaluations' and the vipassana can be explained as many things but the practice of observing the arising, persisting and the cessation of thoughts, feelings and perceptions for that is called 'development of concentration leading to alertness & mindfulness (samadhi sutta). Therefore it is imo a misuse of both terms for whatever was called vipassana in the time of the Buddha is probably not what they called the development of concentration leading to mindfulness & alertness. There are much better explainations for these terms afaik.
As to how to resolve this in practice, i would use the training of 'vipassana' for mindfulness & alertness. I would do it while being percepient of the breath, ardent & mindful of thoughts, feelings & perceptions, their arising, persistence and cessation.
As to what do i mean by being 'percepient of the breath' i can answer that if i was training perception of Death i would be thinking and exploring that theme with intellect.
So anapanasati is in practice sort of mindfully exploring phenomena associated with the theme of breathing or the air element (sutta about Pukkusati for air element equated to in & out breaths, can't recall title).
Also one can be mindful of the difference between 'a thought' and classes and categorizations of thought. The classes and categorizations should be directed at the theme of breathing or wholesome perceptions like the body, impermanence, fading, cessation, on the lack of a self, etc etc, so one would think i am breathing.. making long or short breath or just think that 'there is breathing' or otherwise just be aware of sensations, arising, persisting and ceasing, this is what id think about.
If one notices hindrances like perception of attractiveness, lust, anger, restlessness or drowsiness, id advice directing to a different theme to establish perception of daylight or unattractiveness or even go study, recite texts, do walking meditation, look at stars and whatnot depending on what hindrance it is before proceeding.
Eventually i want the unwholesome themes to stop invading and as they get stilled pleasure will arise and one sits quite comfortably, mindful & alert.

Like when I used to focus on the breath at the abdomen in the beginning, I was focusing,  unintentionally and incorrectly, on a picture of an abandon in my head  instead of only focusing on the actual moment by moment sensations of the abdomen as they go by.
It was the idea of breathing. See, I was told to follow the breath by the teacher so all I could do was follow some idea of the breath that I made up.
Really, it was more like a theme because I didn't know what precisely I was looking for but I would sometimes get into profound states of peace but ever since  I realized what I was doing I haven't seen much peace except when I practice metta.
It was very subjective and conseptual until I did it right.

Afaik if you were picturing the abdomen it would be kind of bodypart contemplation, is included in mindfulness of the body. Should develop that i think.

It was the idea of breathing. See, I was told to follow the breath so all I could do was follow some idea of the breath that I made up. It was very subjective and conseptual until I did it right.

Even imagining colors works to tranquilize hindrances, is called kasina training u might know it. Sounds similar to what you did, i know ppl do it with objects like bones. Good for u:)

I personally think the best way to answer is to simply sit with your own breath day after day.  You will see your experience of your own breath change before you!


text:
Permission of parents to be a Monk
I already know this much    https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/35802/17220
Still ,there is a particular case where ,I have no experience/knowledge which is below.
Person with 27 yrs. of age and above. Parents are alive. No responsibility over Person. Person is having exemplary character & is unmarried. Person is unsatisfied by any meditation center , monastery , ashram , yogi etc. ,so want to meditate alone in forest alongside other *religious meditators. Parents are not ready to accept buddha or buddha's teachings for their child cause they think that it(buddhism) is only to destroy householdness. It tears down parents if person flees away to forest or even tries to do so.
Update
Under these circumstances, is permission required ,if yes ,then how to convince parents.
Note:: 'To be a monk' means 'to go forth to be' ::
detached one , beyond all sense of his own name and form. Without any existence of I, my or mine. Not to grieve if his name and form entity were to decay and deteriorate.

FAQ’s about a monk may give inspirations.

Another related discussion: Q&A Permission of your parents in your renunciation

This rule is put in place because joining a monastic order (like any thing else one does in life) is a karmic act, and one should strive not to do harm. The idea that a child might disappear into a monastic order, never accomplishing any of the 'normal' things that parents expect of children — gainful employment, grandchildren, social status or respect, or any of the other hallmarks of worldly 'success' — can be frightening and disturbing to a parent. One is asked to seek parent's permission so that one does not enter monastic life leaving a cloud of fear and resentment in one's wake. It's an act of compassion for parents and the world they live in.

Person is unsatisfied by any meditation center , monastery , ashram , yogi etc. ,so want to meditate alone in forest alongside other *religious meditators.

Then he isn't immediately seeking an ordination as that would usually entail integrating into an existing group for which such an allowance is to be obtained.
I hope the person figures out a good solution ensuring a comfortable & safe abiding; not subjecting themselves to unnecessary hardship and stress.
It is going to be difficult to be a yogi without ordination because going forth in the dispensation of Buddha Gotama without a formal ordination is very uncommon. As it is, it is often asked of one to complete a trial period before being given a formal going forth which is like a meal ticket to an extent.
Imo a yogi without formal association is more likely to be assumed to be an outcast holding wrong views, unable to get along with 'the contemporary masters'. Therefore it will be difficult lest one makes a living recycling stuff or otherwise gets the money.

How about lay people without formal association? Without Name and face? How are they assumed?

@SamanaJohann I don't know about other countries ,but in India/Nepal :: if person is financially poor ,he/she is considered to be lower caste by 'people following caste system' and an idiot by others. If person is powerful or rich , no objections/obligations against/to such person in public will be made. Only 1 in 1lakh would respect such person in India/Nepal.

So is it mostly under Brahmans in India, Europe US and everywhere: But what is really an outcast, Brahman @TempoItan ? Vasala Sutta: Discourse on Outcasts Geatings from an "Outcast"

@SamanaJohann this false behaviour/thinking is of all upper-castes towards such lay person. I know this story of outcast; just gave situation in India. Moreover ,I don't call anyone(even if buddha suggested to brahmin) as an outcast ... I call them more Ignorant than me ...cause... at some point ,I was also more Ignorant than anyone else that's why I have not attained Nibbana till now. Nice talk.÷)

It's good to know right and wrong, good to reflect for oneself and strive for beyond and encourage others toward the Noble Domain, Brahman @TempoItan . Not is it, that a real Brahman should considered equal anyway and sacrifices upwardly is necessary for escape the dusty life in households.

Nepalese consider mother even higher as heaven, Brahma, already. But that's the way of communisms ideals applied in common sociaty, pulling each other down, as a matter of biased opposite.

@SamanaJohann Please , I request not to call me brahman. Because Buddha ,in dhammapada says, brahman is Buddha. I am not buddha ,just an ignorant one and don't consider anybody(including youself) as an outcast. We all are same Untill enlightenment and will be same post enlightenment... because even a small amount of ignorance is responsible to put in endless cycle of suffering.

Brahman is an adressing for a person from good family and stand. The Buddha didn't avoid but used this adressing also for Brahmans and their sons in common societies. No, nobody is equal another, but some have reached the stream, and some finished the task. Only Arahats can therefor be called equal in their qualities, end even they respect the difference between beings. The is no refuge if doing such toward equality but just stagnation.

Equality on basis of ,"Ignorance is still present" without consideration of ,"Next Birth". Within this birth, Untill state of no-ignorance is reached ,we are equal. Post enlightenment , as new birth within remaining age of this birth, they will be same. I haven't met buddha or Arhant ,so can't tell what they respect & what not but as far as ,'I have seen sages' ,they treat everyone as equal--without any respect/disrespect(a worldly concern) towards anyone.

@SamanaJohann  these sages were not enlightened ,this, they themselves accepted so might be I am wrong ,still above is what's present within deeps of my mind about Arhant. Thanks for guidance & appreciation.

I assume that lay people can go forth without ordination and are to that extent Bhikkhus like Ven Pukkusati.

It is possible to find a monestary that will let that slide. Some are more flexable and take the rules as guidelines instead of law to be followed rigidly, not out of laziness but out of wise practicality and out of an attempt at a sense of what the Buddha might do in today's times.
Also relentlessness in your dedication to break into the monkhood is often a help as they like to  know you are serious.

Exactly , it is possible to find a friend that will help in letting this slide. Still ,tears won't stop .what to do now?how to make parents ready?cause there would be no further contact after going for deep meditation.Should one proceed like Gautama & mahaveera jain before enlightenment. If one tries to do so , it tears down parents.

Wow, no furthur contact forever? You know, monks can go see their parents and even their spouse and kids but when in deep training it is obviously frowned upon. Have you been to any 10 day(or more) meditation retreats first? Have you given any thought to becoming an Anagarika?

Nope , remember ,monk - noble word ,so, noble behaviour (1st characterstic :: same behaviour to All). So , no spouse , no child , no parent . One will be called a monk ... please refer Verse 367 , Chapter 25 ,dhammapada .

Noble behavior does not mean  having  extreme views. The Monastic code allows you to visit your parents. Do you believe your mind will never be able to be vigilant and undistracted around your parents? Letting go of your parents doesn't mean you reject them, it means you stop attaching to them.  Love is not attatchment.

I suggest being around noble friends at monestaries for awhile and listening to them before ordaining. Ask them what the process was like for them and if they have any advice. I think most likely they will respect such questions and think you are a wise student. Whatever you are going through they are likely to relate as they were where you are at one time.

What does ,"having extreme views" mean for a Noble one? Noble Behaviour comes first then Noble Word is given to such warrior. In question ,"to be a monk" means  ,"to go forth to be a detached one" .After one becomes a detached-one , Monk is used in front of that  mighty warrior's name.

Problem is ,I couldn't find *Noble Friend .Well ,whatever the case is ... Ok! Thanks for advice.

It tears down parents if person flees away to forest or even tries to do so.
It seems person is having very strong bond/attachment with h-is/er caring parents.
Parents are not ready to accept buddha or buddha's teachings for their child cause they think that it(buddhism) is only to destroy householdness.
That's an obvious reaction from parents who have not been established in dhamma or they are established but worry about person's capability. Even buddha used to question, when his disciple/s want to go to dangerous/full-of-dukkha places to preach like with the case of 'poorna'.
Moral:: You will have to prove in front of them that you are worthy of independent homelessness.
Under these circumstances, is permission required ,if yes ,then how to convince parents.
Surely, there is a way for someone aspiring to be established on Noble 8 fold path, a 'middle path'.
If parents are very caring, person might start by bearing his own responsibility first, slowly-slowly increasing independent-meditation-time, slowly-slowly showing parents about his/her calibur of asceticness and decision making capability.
Wait for the right time, start reducing any communication-gap among relation.
No caring parent wants to harm his/her child or to be a cause for any harm. It's just the worriness about safety that they pretend to act as a barrier. Understanding them from their perspective will enable person to see/feel them as Helpers in person's decision.
If parents are not so caring, then tears might be out of society-fear but such perception requires one to be very hard-hearted.
In this case, person must make his stand in society first. Person should start by bearing his own responsibility first••• same-as-before ••• decision making capability, ultimately leading him/her to win over everyone's ego.
Wait for the right time, start reducing any communication-gap among relation and society.
With right time and right understanding, person will surely be able to take his/her decision of independent-meditation(asceticness).