text:
The bliss of nirvana without sensation
Some sensations are neither good nor bad, when I think there is an absence both of pleasure and pain.
But what about nirvana itself? Obviously there is no vedana to it.
Is its "bliss" something like the memory of neutral sensation?
I just wonder if that's what it's like to be without the three poisons of attachment aversion and ignorance.

A basic answer is, Nirvana is zero attachment and zero aversion. Imagine how you'd feel if you had zero attachments and zero aversions, not even a slightest hint. That is Nirvana.
I'm not sure what the orthodox position says about vedana, but from my perspective it should still have vedana. It is just, when pleasant vedana arises, you see it arising, and when it ceases you see it ceasing. When unpleasant vedana arises, you see it arising, and when it ceases you see it ceasing. No attachment and no aversion - therefore no suffering.
Could you say the absence of suffering is bliss? Yeah, kinda - you could qualify it as a very subtle form of bliss, a #0-thickness bliss.
Have you ever had a dream in which you fly so high that there is nothing left but sky on all sides around you? They say, the experience of dharmakaya is like that. Another comparison I heard from teachers is what astronauts feel on the orbit - constant free fall. It is scary at first, because you feel like you're going to crash - but you can get used to it and even be functional.
So I guess that must be the feeling: the absence of suffering due to attachment/aversion, but also the absence of any kind of comfort you normally get from having some kind of reliable ground. Could we call this the bliss of endless free fall?
Another way to describe Nirvana, is as death of ego. Imagine you have lost everything. All hopes, all promises, all meanings - nothing left. Because you lost your valuables and futures, you have nothing to lose. Because you have nothing to lose, you have nothing to fear. Which makes you into a kind of superman, just a very sober superman, because you no longer get intoxicated or carried away by childish illusions. No hope, no fear. That's another way to see it.
Now combine the two images: the endless free-fall with no grasping onto anything  and no suffering, with no ground, no home, no hope and no fear, everything lost and everything gained, very sober and absolutely stable in infinite agility. That's what they say Nirvana feels like.

would you call the 2nd "egoless" quality the lack of ignorance, as opposed to attachment and aversion? i ask cos ignorance creates volition and i wonder if that colours a sense of the neutral in general (perhaps into rebirth)

yes, I think so. Because you have no hopes & no fears (which are both future-looking appropriating narratives), you no longer project your existence forward, so there is no becoming. Be careful with words like "neutral" though. In my understanding, dynamic equanimity (what I called "absolutely stable in infinite agility") is far beyond being simply neutral (sterile, grey, colorless) - at least not in Mahayana understanding.

so agility is an attachment thing? that's interesting. yeah obvs equanimity in any form of practice isn't mere vedanic neutrality, but i think i recall that the former includes the latter? interesting choice of adjectives for it (sterile, grey, colourless) which are for me suggestive of an inference to equanimity. thanks for the good replies

Here agility is an opposite of attachment; active aspect of non-attachment.

Orthodox position there is vedana; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044 & http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books9/Bhikkhu_Bodhi_Culatanhasankhaya_Sutta.htm

Ah nice, so I got it right then ;)

When you have a Sensation couple with Perception what happens is that you react to the Sensation with Clinging or Aversion. In Nirvana your Perception an Sensation momentarily stops when you realise it (pala samapathi) and when you come out your perceptions are for ever changed. Hence you do not react to Sensation the same way as before thus not creating new fabrications. When you are in the attainment of the fruit (pala samapathi) there is no sensation but out of it you have Sensation but doe not react to it the same way as your Perception has changed.
The roller coaster of sensation we create through becoming has lost its fuel when you attain Nirvana. The creation of new fabrications have stopped. The fabrications give Unpleasant, Pleasant and Neutral Sensations when they bear fruit. What ever the sensation it is Unsatisfactory. The bliss in Nivana is you have come out of this and the fire of fabrications which keep burning in Unsatisfactoriness is withering out.
When you are sans of Perception you do not see things through coloured glasses hence there is no distortion of the 3 poisons. This result in that you are not creating any new fabrications, hence free from the Unsatisfactoriness inherent to getting hit by the waves of one sensation after the other.


text:
What happens after the great doubt of koan practice?
I read that koan practice is meant to create doubt.
But what happens when the koan has been passed? Does doubt end, or begin again, or get literally "shattered"?
Does the practitioner experience a moment of hope?

in my limited practice of zazen rather than koan practice, there is felt quality between hope and doubt. i was wondering whether success is dropping them

It is not just any doubt, it is a highly perplexing doubt, a sense that the entire world is pulling your leg.
When the doubt gets shattered there is a return to natural clarity, free of false hope.
But because the koan-induced satori is more often not the complete enlightenment, there is still some lingering seeds of hope in the background, which eventually come back to life and become the new round of longing, aversion, and confusion.
From my personal experience, dropping hope is a good thing - but not dropping the koan type of perplexing doubt. This doubt is like the smell that gets you to the cheese.

i chose your answer for the word "clarity", thank you for helping me conceptualise this stuff etc, :)

Hmmm, not sure if that's a good thing... to help conceptualize Zen...

hm yeah good point. oh well

Andrei's answer is pretty spot on, but I think you need a little background on koan practice to really get the gist of the kind of doubt it's referring to.    Say you are given the Mu koan.  You might sit with that for a couple of months.  During an interview with your teacher, he might ask what mu is or to show it to him.  You might say "it's emptiness".  Ding!  He rings the bell.  Wrong answer.  You go back to sitting.  You go to him again and say something like "thoughts stopping".  Ding!  Back you go.  "No mind?"  Ding!  "Everything is one."  Ding!  "The cypress in the garden."  Ding, ding, ding!
The whole time this is going on, you are getting frustrated.  Your hope is getting crushed.  It seems like everything you say is wrong.  All your theories are dashed.  Even what you take to be subtle observations aren't the answer your teacher is looking for.  Your mind has no refuge.  You have nothing to hold onto.  It's all not this, not this!  That is great doubt.  And it's visceral.  Mumon even likens it to swallowing a hot ball of iron.
But if you practice, you will eventually come tottering into a place where insight is possible.  You might say something to your teacher, something you take to be completely outlandish or that you don't even understand yourself, and he'll pass you on your koan.  On some occasions, you may even get a pretty clear, momentary glimpse of the blue sky through the clouds.  But most of the time, and I don't mean to disappoint, but even after "answering" your koan, you'll walk away feeling just as confused as ever.  The doubt comes slamming back down on your head and back to the cushion you go...just this time with a different koan.
Koans are like holes knocked into a wall with a sledgehammer.  Every one that you answer does a little damage.  Some might even let a little light through.  But over time, if you smack it enough, it will eventually fall over.  Only then is anything really shattered.  It's best not to have hope.  Hope is a temporary refuge.  Better to come at that wall with the full force of your doubt.

yes, a very insightful answer.

The answer goes beyond words ,doubt does not exist anymore or neither does hope or any cause or condition only when we drop off body and mind do we see the true nature of ourselves reallity of oneness that you become everything around you and it becomes you.Mind is only your own idea or concept that there is no mind that there is nothing yet you are everything but you can't explain it in words this can take one moment to see any a lifetime of sitting with mu to get the satori experince in zen .Going beyond dualisim that there is no self that the dharmakaya is you or you are the Buddha realised so is everything else around you

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Is Anatman the most important concept in Buddhism?
Buddhism begins with The Truth of Suffering. That seems like the best point to get someone's attention, and is basically indisputable. The Truth of Impermanence is fairly easy to accept, because we see things change, and everyone dies. But the Truth of Not-Self - no separate, permanent self - is the major departure from Hinduism, and all other religions, as best I know. Realization of this truth amounts to nonduality.
If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching? With the large number of Self-Inquiry groups and websites devoted to nonduality and the many interviews and books about it available, it seems like a more direct path to realization, and more accessible than Buddhism (in its many forms). Is it?
EDIT: I seem to be drawing fire for my phrase "the whole teaching". OK, disregard that but the point is: if you "get" Anatman, doesn't everything else have to fall in to place over time? With that one realization, you can realize everything, and without it, you will never make it all the way. Is that not so?

This is apparently something of a "vexing question." I guess it was pointless.

700 views, ten low-voted answers. There's glory for you!

Did you get an answer that you can use? If not, maybe you could elaborate a bit on your question, so that you can get an answer that will answer your question more in depth.

@Lanka Thank you for asking. I guess no one actually agrees with me. Also, each answer is apparently quite different. I have to go with Deborah Westmoreland when she said, "There are no other people." For put them side by side / The one the other will include / With ease and you beside. And I say that Anatman is deeper than the 3, For hold them, blue to blue / The one the other would absorb / As sponges, buckets do. This is what I find when I look in someone's eyes. It goes beyond wisdom, compassion, or desire. But then, I am a Hetaira Archetype person, so I would say that.

Ok, good. Remember that it dosent matter if anyone agrees with you or not. That is not the point. Practice insight meditation and you will get your answer. As long as one has not gotten insights/experiental knowledge by oneself, its just blind belief, to believe what others say. Go and practice so you can get the insights for yourself.

"Also, each answer is apparently quite different" Aren't they apparently all the same, i.e. all saying, "No, there is no single/one most important concept"? And I think many also say that Anatman is important, but is not the final goal. For example if Anatman says, "there is no permanent 'person'", and if I loved/were attached to someone then the Anatman doctrine might cause me grief (that the subject and object of love aren't permanent) ... i.e. the Anatman doctrine isn't by itself sufficient to be an antidote to grief.

@ChrisW My thought process is perhaps not so organized as those who tend to write on this site, so it helps me to have a single "Organizing Impulse". That is probably why I felt the need to post this question. I am trying to see a beacon in all of this learning so I know which direction to go. For me, permanence is not the point of Anatman - non-separation is. My way of relating to people is like the (probably fake) saying: "See yourself in others. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do?" When I cease to make the distinction, so much opens up. How can I grieve for "no one / everyone"?

A canonical description of Anatta is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta which includes the famous summary, "not mine, not me, not myself". You say that for you the point of Anatman is non-separation; I see the point of it as disassociation, e.g. "this grief is not me, is not mine", and of non-attachment. And yes, "see yourself in others" might be (a related and/or a slightly different but also very important) Buddhist concept too, a basis for harmlessness, loving-kindness, and compassion.

@ChrisW So, as I read that passage, when the "I me mine self" diminishes and stops crowding out everything else, then there is room for everything in being. It is no longer constrained. I don't have to hold on to any of it or be responsible for it, so I am free. Being free, I can extend freedom to others. Any fundamental understanding has to wrap around and encompass its opposite and all points of view, or it is not fundamental. Any fundamental will do. Like a Basis in Geometry, or Keys in music. Everything is included. You can't just do the clearing out part, you must let everything in, also.

selflessness is not a concept.  selflessness is like pointing your finger at the moon.  the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. - big B

@sova OK, the Title uses the word concept, but everywhere else I call it a Realization. Does this suffice? I just wonder what happens if the moon points back... Uh Oh.

@nocomprende selflessness is one of the three marks of existence, or one of the three marks of phenomena exhibiting the characteristic of existing.  It's a mark like white and black stripes on a zebra are a mark.  There is no zebra apart from the stripes.

If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

It's certainly a great step forward on the path, but it is not the whole teaching.
This is the whole teaching.
That was a joke! But seriously, there is no truly objective answer to your question. Anattā is just one slice of one of the many pies of Buddhism. As a "mark of existence" it holds equal importance alongside the other two, dukkhā and aniccā.

If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

What about saṃsāra, kamma, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Middle Way, the Four Immeasurables, dependent origination, emptiness, and The Three Jewels? And a bunch of other stuff?
I too crave simplicity in Buddhism, but the more you look around, the deeper and broader the teachings become. There are 43 volumes in the Pāli Canon. The teachings are vast.

If someone can realize Anatman then is this not basically the whole teaching?

It could be your whole teaching. Buddhism is a highly individualized practice. Our paths may run parallel, or at times criss-cross, or at other times go in entirely different directions: but in the end, we can all reach our own way to the end of suffering, and each way may be truly unique.

Looking at the chart you linked to, if one abandons Identity-View, that marks Stream Entry, and then it is basically a foregone conclusion that one will go all the way to the end. But without abandoning Identity-View, one cannot really begin, other than by calming the mind. Anatman is a "watershed" change in view, yes?

The chart is really just a visual curiosity -- I don't think it's meant to be viewed as an actual learning tool or a real path. If anything, it serves to illustrate how complex and intertwined the various Buddhist concepts can be.

@nocomprende You picked on identity-view, but don't you think you might just as well say that abandoning "doubt" or abandoning "ritual" marks stream entry?

@ChrisW Identity-View is more equal. Think: what separates humans from everything else in the universe? Self-concept. That one thing is responsible for all of the suffering that we cause. Someone I know is fond of saying things like "You are not your own God", or "He realized he is not his own God." Aside from the theism reference, this statement puts us in the proper relationship to existence. It amounts to Anatman (or nonduality), as best I can tell.

Compassion is reality.  Always and forever.

No, anatta is not the key point of Buddhism, and Buddhism is not nondualism.
That would be too easy ;)
Shunyata, the Mahayana extrapolation of anatta principle, is getting closer.
If I had to pick one point to explain it all, I would say TATHATA.

So, if someone had grasped Tathata but not Anatta, you would say they are farther along? I feel like they are two ways of knowing the very same thing...

Yeah I would say so. They are not the same thing.

@Andrei Volkov - It would be great if you could elaborate on Tathātā.

@Motivated You can find it here.

@Motivated maybe that should be a separate question: "what is Tathata?"

Buddhism has many core principles which work as complete paths.  However, like other projects, it helps to use a variety of techniques to cover all bases.
The unifying principle in Buddhism is letting go of clinging to reduce suffering.  Looking at some core Buddhist principles through this lens, you will see that each address clinging in a different -- yet compatible -- way.

Realizing Emptiness undermines our belief in the ultimate existence of the things we cling to.
Realizing No Self undermines our belief in the one who clings and is a specific instance of emptiness.
Realizing Suffering undermines our desire to cling in the first place by noting the dissatisfaction of all we cling to.
Realizing Impermanence undermines our desire to cling in the first place by noting that what we cling to will change (or vanish) and hence hurt us.

So the question here isn't whether any concept -- including Anatman -- is sufficient in itself.  I believe the answer to that question is yes.  Rather the questions are...

Is your realization of any of the concepts complete enough that you
don't need the others?
Are you facing any particular challenges that may make some concepts
particularly beneficial for you?

If I realize "no self" then there is no root to feed further clinging. The other aspects are just hacking at the branches. I agree that Anatman might well be the hardest concept, but it is the core. Once there, there is nowhere to go anymore.

@nocomprende: do you want to ask a follow up question, "what kind of attachments might one still have after grasping anatta"?

@AndreiVolkov I can't see attachments surviving long in that case. Whatever they are, they will run down, so it is not much of an issue.

Every neuroscientist understands Anatta - do you think they don't have attachments?

"No True Anatman would allow one to go on having attachments!" :-)

@AndreiVolkov It's not about understanding, it's about realizing.  Every physicist understands heat, yet none of them understands heat like a person who had his/her hand burned.  That's what Anatman is; not the understanding of no-self, but the experience of it.  Understanding can only take you so far in Buddhism, which is why practice is required -- to cultivate the experience.

Thanks, @R.Barzell - that's what I was hinting at for no comprende. First, to understand or even accept Anatman is not yet to be free from Bhava and/or Conceit. Second, Atman is not all there is to clinging. There could still be mental hangups about how things are or supposed to be. That's why I'm saying, after Anatta there goes Shunyata, first as intellectual understanding and then as true Tathata.

For the love of God, my Question includes the phrase: "If someone can realize Anatman then..." I was asking about realization all along. If then I am not the self that I thought I was, is it much of a stretch to realize Shunyata (basically, nothing is as it appears) or Tathata (still working on suchness as an idea)? Must it take a long time? But how can it start except with seeing not-self?

Nirvana is the central concept of Buddhism, there 37 factors which cover the teachings leading to Nirvana. When you practice this as get to Nirvana you see the 3 marks of existence of which one is anattā

From the definition page: "Nirvāṇa literally means 'blown out', as in a candle. In the Buddhist context, nirvana refers to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished. In Hindu philosophy, it is the union with Brahman, the divine ground of existence, and the experience of blissful egolessness." Wow, sure sounds like non-self to me. I can't see any meaningful distinction here. You could not attain this without Anatman, and Anatman is a sufficient condition as far as I can tell.

Anatman is any way a reality we do not perceive due to ignorance. When ignorance is removed by practice of the path and developing the path you get Nirvana. Realising Nirvana is the central goal and the teaching that direct you to do this. Understanding Anatman is one.

So, is money more important (goal) or being a good businessperson (means)? I can teach someone the means. I can't teach them the goal, that is inherent. Because I said "most important concept" I guess people could differ on whether the means or the goal is "most important". My Bad.

Means is the 37 factors which get you there or teaching leading to liberation.

Practically speaking, I think the most important concept in Buddhism is that through our own efforts, we are all capable of enlightenment.  Teachings of any sort - be they on non-self, suffering, or impermanence - are ultimately meaningless unless we are capable of direct realization ourselves.  Without that possibility, the entirety of Buddhism is just an empty philosophy (no pun intended!).  Believe it or not, the idea that individual agency could result in liberation was quite scandalous at the time of the Buddha (e.g. the Brahamajala Sutta).  Like most examples of genius, it's something we take for granted now.
I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that impermanence and suffering are obvious.  They are just a subtle as anatman and, in fact, cannot be understood in full unless the others two marks of existence are also seen directly.  Ultimately what is most important is our potential to make this realization for ourselves.

Yes, Self-Effort is the Buddhist equivalent of the "Good News". Where now to focus that effort, I wonder? What one idea, if I could overturn it, would cause all the other dominoes to fall? Hmm...

I don't think there is one.  Even the Buddha had to realize suffering, impermanence, and non-self jointly.  And enlightenment rarely happens as abruptly and completely as it did for him.  Most people spend years honing their realizations and perfecting their understanding.  That's true in the suttas and in general practice.

When I speak with people about nonduality or related ideas, everyone accepts that things are "not satisfactory" (a translation of Dukkha), and everyone accepts that things are impermanent. They debate over whether "people" have a permanent essence. But every person who is not nondual resists the idea of Anatman. All of them. Universally. This is the door that is locked for them. Open this door and they are free, even if it takes a while to resolve some things. They will not run back in to the burning barn if they realize non-self.

You sure about that?  ;-)  Seriously though, I think it may be a bit mistaken to assume that removing any one obstacle is going to result in enlightenment.  Delusion is network of deep, interlacing roots.  Pulling out even the largest doesn't necessarily destroy the system.

I think a very important concept in Buddhism is the middle way. From the perspective of practice, it refers to the middle path between indulgence and asceticism. From the perspective of philosophy, it refers to the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism. This theme keeps reappearing everywhere in Buddhism and seems to be unique to it. This is discussed in this answer.
Anatta is the concept where there is no absolute eternal permanent self, that is behind all phenomena. At the same time, there is a self that is not annihilated completely at death. The self is not standalone and emerges out of the interworking between form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness. How the perception of self is formed is covered in dependent origination.
Anicca too has a connection to this middle way. The universe is neither eternal and absolute, nor is it an illusion. It is real, but it is always changing. However, the universe is empty as in devoid of a permanent self.
Another important middle way concept in Buddhism is that the person that is reborn is neither exactly the same nor totally unrelated from the person in the previous life. This is discussed in this answer.
In physics too, similar ideas appear in quantum mechanics, with the wave-particle duality as an example.
In Advaita Vedanta, Atman (the Self) is permanent, standalone and not different from Brahman, the ultimate eternal reality. The Atman is also considered the Eternal Witness, which extends to the idea of Eternal Consciousness, that every being has the same "I" which is the Atman, which is ultimately Brahman. The Self Inquiry method of Sri Ramana Maharshi asks "who am I?" and seeks to lead the spiritual seeker towards Self Realization, that "I" am not this temporary person (the little "I"), but rather the Eternal Consciousness (the big "I"), the Atman, who is Brahman.
This is quite incompatible with Buddhism, because the Buddha refuted not only a permanent self (in this answer), but also the idea of Eternal Consciousness. In this sutta, the Buddha rebuked Sati the monk, for holding the view of Eternal Consciousness (related to Atman), and corrects him by teaching the concept of eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc. According to this, consciousness is not an Eternal Witness, but rather, arises with sensation and perception. According to this sutta, the five aggregates are empty as in, devoid of a self.
Hence Advaita Vedanta is quite different and incompatible with Buddhism. However, according to this question, what is common or similar between the two is the fact that both Nirvana and Brahman are eternal, unborn and undying.

As a mystical person and not really a rational one, I respect the Middle Way. My question was actually an attempt to focus one the core of the teaching: the "middlest" thing in it. I think that the debate over aspects of consciousness etc is not to the point. If we realize that there is no separate, permanent self, everything else opens up. It is the most revolutionary concept possible for human beings.

If or given that Buddhism "begins with The Truth of Suffering", then I'd guess that "cessation" (of suffering, e.g. the Third Noble Truth) might be fairly high on the list of important concepts.

From a Theravada perspective maybe Saṅkhāra is important. Arguments for its being important can be inferred from that Wikipedia article, i.e.:

The Buddha's exclamation about the "housebuilder" when he became enlightened
The Buddha's last words

Anatman might be a special case of Saṅkhāra, i.e. if you understand Saṅkhāra then you understand Anatman (because the conventional "self" is an example of a put-together fabrication).
Understanding Saṅkhāra presumably results in understanding Anicca too.

From a non-Theravada point of view I recommend this answer:

It suggests there isn't a single most important concept (which is important in 'understanding Buddhism'; see also "Buddhism is a highly individualized practice" from newbold's answer; and see also the Buddhist Paths to liberation being plural)
I also like that answer for his description of the Tathagata-Garba.

Alternatively maybe compassion is the most important concept, the 'sine qua non' of Buddhism (i.e. the characteristic without which Buddhism wouldn't exist because the Buddha wouldn't have taught his doctrine), if I'm right in assuming that compassion is what motivates Bodhisattvas.

And of course Bodhi is an important concept, as a goal and as inherent in the name "Buddhism".

The Shankara page refers to "Volitional Formations", which are thoughts that I choose, right? The Housebuilder quote is on that page: Oh housebuilder! You have now been caught! You shall not build a house again. Your rafters have been broken. Your ridgepole demolished. Who would the Housebuilder be, other than the self-concept? If this is what the Buddha exclaimed at the moment of enlightenment, then it was at the event of realizing Anatman. As far as I am concerned, this is complete proof of my assertion. Thank you.

*Volitional Formations* are thoughts that I choose, right? The "formations" include "thoughts", but "things" too are fabricated. And according to this article they are "will" and "conditioned by ignorance" so I guess they're closer to "I want" rather than to "I choose". Per the last paragraph of that article if you have a view of anatta you might still see sankhara "as unstable, conditioned processes rolling on with no one in charge" and eventually (with practice) put an end to them.

Anatta is one of the 3 marks of existence. The others being; anicca and dukkha.
The whole teaching is the "most" important. One cannot just take out a piece of the teaching. It does not work like that.
The Noble Eightfold Path is a complete teaching that needs nothing to be added or removed from it.
Sila, Samadhi, Panna. All groups are needed in order to win Nibbana.

I do mention all 3 Marks in my question. My point was simply: is there a fulcrum concept where if one places the most effort, everything will be accomplished? If one could only state one sentence about The Path, what would it be?

If one could only state one sentence about the Path, my words would be: Practice the technique correctly, practice diligently and with great effort.

The subtlety here is that understanding of this truth is not realization of this truth.  I might have an experience of ego-shattering transcendence and yet, the very (next) moment, act selfishly out of long-worn old habits.  The practice of realization is one of purification and ceasing to establish new roots for future suffering.
In the Zen tradition we often chant/study the Heart sutra, which sums up the fruition of practice as "gate gate paragate parasamgate, bodhi svaha".  Loosely, "gone, gone, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, awake, so be it."  It's not enough to understand anatta, I must go beyond even understanding not-I and find myself realized in living my life.  I have to go beyond going and find a way to be present by ceasing to imagine that I am (not).  Which is all just a fancy way of saying this is a real practice to be lived and not merely a philosophy to be understood.

In my question I do specifically say realizing the truth of Anatman, not just thinking it. I like your "roots" analogy. There used to be a popular commercial from Round-Up Herbicide that said, "No Root, No Weed, No Problem." so, if the idea of a separate self is the root of the issue, eliminating only that resolves all the problems.

Supposing it's the root problem, the real trouble is that knowing the nature of the root isn't the same as pulling it out.  Buddhism, in practice, is like an exercise program.  If you want to run a marathon, you practice running.  If you want to end suffering, you practice cessation via the eight-fold path.  Different Buddhist traditions have their own takes on this and prescribe their own specific practices, but they're all essentially pointed in the same direction.  The key here is that there is no short-cut; there are not-one not-two ways about it.

There are many paths and many ways to make progress. But what would characterize a Realization, for you? Nirvana is described as "blowing out"... of what? What is blown out? If Nirvana is the goal, then what is the means of that event / attainment?

Those are different questions with their own subtleties worth elaborating on.  You might want to pose them as separate questions (though I suspect both have already been answered here a few times before.)  In short, suffering is extinguished and the means is the eight-fold path, which is rooted primarily in ethics, with study being part of the mechanism for clarifying and motivating the ethical reforms.

In order to understand the underlying cause of ignorance, or the human propensity towards false notions of self, anatman is essentially important. In order to fully fathom interdependency, it is essentially important. When the Buddha did not accept, or rejected, the notion of selfhood, the kind of self that was being rejected was characterized by three features: a self that is unitary, that is permanent, that is independent. And so then the question followed, what is the nature of self ? how can we understand the existence and nature of self ?
In one of the sutras, it states that just as the notion of a horse and carriage and chariot arises  on the basis of the collection and aggregation of its parts,  in the same manner, from the collection of various mental and physical elements, the concept of the person or the individual arises. So although in reality self is a phenomenon that is contingent upon the existence and  reality of the physical and mental aggregates, when we perceive our own self, when the concept, the notion of self arises in us,  in our naïve understanding of our nature, it tends to appear to us as if it is somehow self sufficient, as some kind of self governing reality.
This notion of self as a self sufficient substantial reality is false, and not only is it false, but the grasping at this notion of self is then a form of distortion. In this grasping the self is elevated to an independent and self sufficient status.  Also there is a risk when we focus on, when we reference as reality, the continuity of the self (when I was young, when I was middle aged etc), in that if one focuses too much on the continuity of the self there is the danger of holding on to this notion of a permanent self. In the Buddhist vernacular, this distorted perception is referred to as ignorance... [paraphrased/extracted from a 2009 talk by HH The Dalai Lama]

It is said that wisdom (about emptiness) and compassion are the most important concepts in Buddhism. But then agian, how can concepts be the most important thing in Buddhism?
If one focuses too much on the anatta-side, one risks getting into nihilism. So the emptiness/no-self doctrine is important, but if one does not supplement it with compassin, there is no use.

Thank you. I was reading in another question that part of Emptiness is not-self... So of course it all connects up. I think that nihilism and lack of compassion would have to be a form of self point of view still (what I would call a Neo state). A nondual point of view would be that self and other are one thing, so it is as well to help another as oneself - there is no important distinction. For example when Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself" it probably was supposed to be a description of the point of view ("we are one") rather than a commandment ("do this"). Ignorance is deep.

The most important or the final concept in Buddhism is realizing "Four Noble Truths".
All the other concepts are within it. and should not separately consider.
According to the first sermon "Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta", the base point of understanding is realizing "Anichcha".

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks
  delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given,
  there arose to Ven. Kondañña the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye:
  Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.

I did some research and found the following in this document: the Maha-nidana Sutta: The Great Causes Discourse
The Translator's Introduction at the top ends with this paragraph:

In each of these cases, once the sense of attachment and
  identification with name-and-form can be broken, the mutual dependency
  between consciousness and name-and-form is broken as well. This brings
  about total freedom from the limits of "the extent to which there are
  means of designation, expression, and delineation... the extent to
  which the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle
  revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e.,
  name-and-form together with consciousness." This is the release at
  which the Buddha's teachings are aimed.

I read this as saying that breaking the identification with name-and-form is sufficient and is the "release at which the Buddha's teachings are aimed", which is what I have been asserting in my question.
This section is from Assumptions of a Self:

"Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the
  self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that 'My self feels, in that my
  self is subject to feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not
  sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world.
  Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound
  right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life
  fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

It seems to me that the Buddha was saying that if we stop making assumptions about the self and trying to solidify it through definition, but instead simply accept that something goes on there about which we need not concern ourselves, then "There is nothing further for this world" - that the goal is in hand.
From this I draw the conclusion that realizing Anatman is necessary and sufficient for (eventual) liberation. If so, that is the place to apply effort.

That says that name-and-form depend on consciousness: without consciousness there's no name-and-form. So perhaps consciousness (not name-and-form) is a more important concept than name-and-form? And then according to The Twelve Nidanas, consciousness depends on Saṅkhāra (not mentioned in this sutta). So perhaps Saṅkhāra are the most important concept than consciousness (according to Theravada Buddhism).

@ChrisW Wherever you can apply a lever to move your conscious mind (using your conscious mind), is the place to focus on. Pick the easiest place to begin the inquiry. I do not know if most people would find it easier or harder to question consciousness or Sankhara than Identity-view or name-and-form or whatever. The point is, if you break one of the links of the chain that holds up the false belief of a separate, permanent self, the illusion falls. Any link will do. Bart Marshall says of Self Inquiry, "We are trying to maneuver the mind in to a position where it disappears." Not impossible.

I think that "Anatman" means "not a permanent self" ... there is no permanent self e.g. because everything (including all things all sensory experiences and all ideas) is impermanent. Is that (the same as) what you mean by "non-duality"? Also if you want to read more about the Theravada doctrine about self, I recommend the answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

@ChrisW Since Impermanence is already one of the 3 marks of existence, reducing Anatman to no permanent self would be redundant and needless. Nothing is permanent, therefore the self is not permanent by inclusion. I thought that the key point of Anatman is that a separate self does not exist. But as I delve in to the literature... So I cut the Gordian Knot and said, whatever it is, it has to go. We can agree on that much. So what can we accomplish with that in hand? Tell others. This is getting reminiscent of the Arrow Parable. I have never seen so much resistance to a simple idea!

What I mean by nonduality (watching out for Raptor Attack) is that one no longer makes the distinction. it has ceased to matter.

@nocomprende: "Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of clinging. What four? Clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and observances, and clinging to a doctrine of self." (MN 11) -- "Though certain recluses and brahmans claim to propound the full understanding of all kinds of clinging, they do not completely describe the full understanding of all kinds of clinging". I'm not referring to your clinging to the view of no-self. I'm saying, the point of Buddhism is no clinging of any kind. Clinging to self is only one case (albeit an important one).

@nocomprende: It's not just about having the right views. The quote is also about completely removing clinging of all kinds. Having conviction of the right views and fulfilling a few other criteria leads to stream entry. But from stream entry to Nirvana, all clinging and all defilements need to be removed. It's not simply the matter of having the correct opinion or correct views.

@ruben2020 I did say Realize in my question, not just have the correct opinion. As soon as one realizes Anatman, then other sorts of formations and clinging must begin to fall away. The other Realizations don't necessarily have that effect. Anatman points your compass in the right direction, as it were.

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


text:
What word is the closest to qualia
I think I get what qualia means, intuitively at least:

Feelings and experiences vary widely. For example, I run my fingers
  over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger, seem to
  see bright purple, become extremely angry. In each of these cases, I
  am the subject of a mental state with a very distinctive subjective
  character. There is something it is like for me to undergo each state,
  some phenomenology that it has. Philosophers often use the term
  ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively
  accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives.

In Buddhism what is the word for this "introspectively accessible" aspect of "what it is like"?
Is the term just "phenomena" or is there some other more subtle translation, like "awareness"?

I don't think there is any single word that's cleanly equivalent to qualia, but there are some that approach the idea from different angles.

sabhāva-dhamma: Condition of nature; any phenomenon, event, property, or quality as experienced in and of itself.

sabhāva by itself means "own-being" or "own-becoming". It describes the intrinsic nature or essence of living beings.

dhamma: (1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself; (2) mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna. Also, principles of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fit in with the right natural order of things; qualities of mind they should develop so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind in and of itself.

dhamma by itself can describe a kind of mental quality or quality of thought.

mūla: Literally, "root." The fundamental conditions in the mind that determine the moral quality — skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala) — of one's intentional actions (see kamma). The three unskillful roots are lobha (greed), dosa (aversion), and moha (delusion); the skillful roots are their opposites. See kilesa (defilements).

mūla describes the root of our actions; the quality of our intention behind them.
sabhāva-dhamma and dhamma probably come closest, while mūla carries the same concept but applies it very specifically to the mental root of action.

good answer thanks. does the unconditioned have a quale ?

Good follow-up question. The unconditioned, in Buddhism, is the ultimate reality: nibbana, pure mind, the realization of Buddha-nature, etc. I'd like to imagine that this has a quale (perhaps indescribable), though I wonder if I'll ever get to answer with first-hand experience. :-)

The small "d" dharma, the technical term - is the word you're looking for. This is usually translated as "phenomena" or "objects of mind", but the idea is that these are like elementary atoms the subjective experience is made of. Some modern scholars explain Early Buddhism's theory of dharmas with a metaphor of the movie film - each frame being a dharma.
As any abstraction, the theory of experience made of dharmas can only go this far before it starts leaking, but it certainly is a useful approximation. IMO some folks back in the ancient times got carried away with analysis of dharmas-based experience, hence the Abhidharma. Once you expect dharmas to be well-delineated and precisely identified you start pushing the limits of the abstraction.
Although all dharma-s are "introspectively accessible", for convenience they can be classified in groups: what you see, how you feel, what you cognize, what you remember, etc (precise classification does not matter). The purpose of dharma/skandha theory is to switch one's context to phenomenological mode - at which point you can start mastering the practical side of the teaching, beyond mere intellectual understanding.
Just as Daniel Dennett argues that qualia do not really exist, the Prajna-Paramita movement famously proclaims that all dharmas are "empty" of svabhava (discrete existence).

thanks Andrei, i intend to take up zazen someday soon, hopefully before it's too late ;)

I remember this "intellectual understanding" label bothered me for quite a while. I attributed it to what I thought was my teachers' covert anti-intellectualism. But the point is simply to correlate the teaching with your own experience. You don't have to do formal zazen for that, just pay attention to your day-to-day experiences.


text:
What "technically" happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?
I have been chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo (daimoku - Nichiren Daishonin's Buddhism) for about 4.5 years. I also regularly attend Soka Gakkai International (SGI) meetings. I have experienced a lot of benefits from the practice.
But, I have been unable to understand what  technically  happens when we chant. I have read in some of the texts that we create a good karma when we chant or some of the questions here answered that the "act" of chanting leads us to the path of enlightenment.
But, being a Physics student, I am interested in knowing what exactly happens when we chant. For example- when I chant, I generate sound energy. Now that energy would have some temporal variation as the words "Nam" , "Myoho" etc. would have different sounds but the ratio of amplitudes and frequencies would be almost equal for each person.
I would be happy if someone can give a technical explanation of what exactly happens when we chant.

The simple explanation is that you are practicing mindful concentration. The latter threefold division of concentration required in the Noble Eightfold Path. Whether you are doing sitting meditation, chanting sutras, calling the name of the Buddhas or Bodhisattvas, or chanting mantras, or even following the monastic discipline Vinaya as a monk. You can't simply concentrate on anything though, importantly it must be Right Mindfulness that is skillful.

Abandoning the wrong factors of the path "One is mindful to abandon
  wrong view & to enter & remain in right view: This is one's right
  mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right
  resolve: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong speech & to enter & remain in right
  speech: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong action & to enter & remain in right
  action: This is one's right mindfulness...
"One is mindful to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter & remain in
  right livelihood: This is one's right mindfulness..."
— MN 117

Chanting holy names is within this criteria, as with Myoho Renge Kyo -the Sublime Dharma of Lotus Sutra, as they do not promote bad unskillful thoughts and encourage positive reverential emotions. (With the added possibility of divine intervention..) The practice of the Noble Eightfold Path is said to lead to liberation from mental afflictions by the purification of mind, speech and action.
As exactly how the exact mechanics of this works, I can't say for certain, but it does work. Abandoning negative thoughts does wonder for the mind and body. At certain level of concentration you enter what is called the Jhana/Chan/Zen where feelings of bliss and peace arise, and is also a state where you can make many realizations. This is certainly possible through chanting.

Excellent answer, as for the mechanics have a look at this video from Gary Weber where he goes into scientific details about it, including the Default Mode Network and the effect of mindfulness on it: What "no thoughts" means - 3 different kinds of thoughts

On the physics side of things, yes, the vibrations do resonate with a frequency necessary to make the connection.
I am also a NMRK practitioner and the way that I see it:

The gohonzon is a representation of various deities who will help and protect you as the Lotus Sutra professes
opening up your altar and closing it acts as a gateway to summon them into your daily life. This is why we do not keep the altar open always but only open when doing gongyo for the day/evening.
sincerity and a lack of self-sabotage are all that is necessary for the deitys' help to reach us.

Going back to the physics side of things, I would suggest that you also add another mantra to your practice, paricularly one with the "A" vowel in it because there is no "A" vowel in the NMRK mantra.
I have been practicing various mantras in conjunction with NMRK and have not had any conflicts but I would suggest to choose Buddhist mantras such as om mane padme hum or the great zhunti mantra.
Also practicing anapana (samatha) and vipassana meditation both are conducive to better spiritual practice and the NMRK practice is no exception.

Funny you should mention doing samatha as supplement to mantra practice.  Chan teacher Sheng Yen recommended the same, but in reverse.  He recommended daily mantra work to supplement meditation!  https://youtu.be/QO7E48Pg2rQ

Nice. That is the truth but in my NMRK circles many people are very opposed to anything other than NMRK because of laziness or because the sutra states that one needs nothing other than chanting this Lotus sutra for full awakening. Whicb is my many do not believe the validity of the said sutra.

Well, thanks for the answer but this was not particularly what I was looking for. I was looking for a more scientific explanation for the working of daimoku (and gongyo).

It has the same science as all mantras. Various deities swore to Buddha to help those who uphold this mantra etc.

Chanting raises your personal vibration. Chanting vibrates on a high frequency so when you chant consistently, you vibrate on a higher frequency therefore the universe must mirror back to you what you are signaling out because we live in a attraction base vibrational universe.
-Also listen to the teachings of Abraham Hicks she really breaks down vibration, frequency etc.
We live in a field of Vibration
We Physical beings are also vibration
Our dominate thoughts, feelings and action is what the universe is mirroring
We experience High Vibration/Frequency when we are Feeling Good.
(releasing Resistance)
Everything we desire is because we feel our desire will make us feel good
So Chanting and Meditating are perfect examples that help raise the personal vibration. But it has to be done consistently and you must be patient.
The teachings of the Buddhist practice is to live with absolute happiness, meaning Unconditional Happiness.
Happy feelings= high vibration
Everything you want= high vibration
Who we are naturally= high vibration
Living with unconditional Happiness, meaning feeling good no matter what and being positive attracts what you want.
But understand EMOTION/FEELING is truly the important manifestation. The actual manifestation is just the proof of your alignment.
the feeling is the real manifestation,whatever feels good... continue to do it

What is personal vibration? What does than mean in relation to the Buddha's teaching?  What is vibrating?

What is Emotion/Feeling in relation to the Buddha's Teachings. How can you relate High Vibration to Uddhacca-Kukkucca? Restlessness (uddhacca) is agitation or excitement, which drives the mind from thought to thought with speed and frenzy; worry (kukkucca) is remorse over past mistakes and anxiety about their possible undesired consequences.

This term 'personal vibration' and others like it are thrown around a lot. What exactly does it even mean? It sounds like a quote from some new age book.

Yes. It would be exciting to find out the scientific aspect/explanation on the mechanisms of the act of of chanting daimoku. Arnold Toynbee had any explanation?
From personal experience I notice metabolism increase in accordance with using my voice and breathing; thus blood circulation is promoted. On a cellular level (I am a beauty therapist and masseuse and assistant nurse btw) I notice a clearer vibrant skin as a result.
From an energy perspective I feel "charged". I think this energy is what attracts others to us when newly-chanted. But energy is really in constant motion and can just as easily be lost. That's why new energy has to be produced morning/evening. The energy achieved puts us in a higher frequency (a bit like a "kick-in") and that's when we produce new happy thoughts and see solutions. Like consuming quality food! There can be not a single defect in chanting. But watch out for using chanting as an excuse to avoid doing some action needed - "escapism". I have seen and experienced this type of hide-away chanting.
The time spent on chanting according to Mrs Asano in Japan (world leader) if you have short of time to chant, your body/mind is SO smart that it can actually give you same effect in 10 minutes of chant as if you would have had in one hour. Here comes the physical law of Determination/Focus. And time is transformed into energy!
The explanation to this phenomenon is your attitude (you would so much like to chant longer but only have this amount of time etc)! What I must admit, however, is I lack physical motion as moving your body in motion at the same time. As I jog, do yoga, and tennis a lot. It would really be that extra complete thing in our act of chanting... Maybe in the future it will be so?

I'm French and have been practicing 29 years. I apologize for my English writing.
Chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo makes a high vibration, 7.5hz, the same as the earth's. Inside our body all cells will activate emotions and feeling registered in Alaya consciousness. At the same time, our life is connected To the Universe.
Following our desires High mains convictions, the Universe sends the results back like a mirror. So your goal and desire need to be clear and to be useful to our life and kosen rufu.
I got achieved many good results and some of them have been very wonderful.

Evidence of these vibrations and alaya consciousness please. It all sounds a bit new agey.

This is not necessarily an answer, just adding to the questions, as I seek the answer myself.
For a testable hypothesis, we must clearly define what we intend to test for. I tend to find SGI members' explanation of chanting or its powers to be insufficient, superstitious or dissatisfying. To develop a hypothesis on what chanting does, we can source from Nichiren's writings. We could also ask a sample of practitioners what the effects are and perhaps test the 3 most common responses.
I would also be interested in testing "prayer" and determining where chanting ends and prayer begins. We could possibly need an alternate word for prayer in the Buddhist sense, as prayer to a Buddhist is not necessarily equal to prayer for a theist.
Then, we must construct a test. We would test the hypotheses. This is partly where I get hung up and would be interested in actual scientists conducting research.
One thing I think makes testing the realities of chanting difficult is this concept in Buddhism of manifest and latent effects. Say you want to test how fast someone can achieve a goal, by chanting or not chanting. At least if I test this as myself only, there's this problem: If tasked with the same goal, once while chanting and once while not, some things to consider. Either way, the second time would likely be faster, as I would have a previous exposure to the task, although some alteration (like making through a maze with the same distance and number of turns, but different arrangement each time) could reduce the effect of this. Also, there's this chance that the chanting wouldn't manifest in an immediate effect, remaining latent until some other time, possibly during a chant-free test.
So, I have this experiential issue. I really wish I could split my life in two, like a multiverse theory (which I don't really believe in), where one instance of me goes through life chanting and another instance goes through life not chanting. Then, examine each life at the end. Which is preferable?  This isn't going to happen, so we have to test some other way, like having some kind of task performed, measuring the quality, speed with which the task is done. There are almost an infinite number of tests that could be performed.
One other problem I can see in testing is a "spooky action at a distance" concept. Like my desire to split my life, we could try to use perhaps twins who had been separated at birth (let's try to stay ethical?). However, like a split atom showing responses to stimulation of its distant counterpart, my chanting self or the chanting twin could affect the distant/separate counterpart. Can we account for this kind of effect in the test?
I'll outline a few variables that we could test:
- Short term task
- Long term task
- Neuro imaging (before, during, after chanting) [this is one of the more objective angles I'm curious to see actual tests on]
- Chanting "Nam myoho renge kyo"
- Chanting other Buddhist chants/mantras
- Chanting nonsense
- Chanting "negative" words/phrases
- Silently chanting any of the above
- Not chanting at all
- Chanting in front of a gohonzon
- Chanting without a gohonzon
- You could use other "objects of devotion" or focal points as well
- Frequency of chanting (once, twice, 3x daily, or more?)
- Duration of chanting (single daimoku? 15 minutes, 30 minutes, 1hr, 2hr, as long as possible?)
Not seeming a concept of Nichiren Daishonin; apparently originating with Lynda Johnson, is this idea of "making the impossible possible" (by chanting). So, we could test something seemingly impossible, like putting test subjects into a room, between two rooms. The room on the left has a candle. the room on the right has a matchbook. Both the rooms with objects are locked and generally inaccessible to test subjects. The test subject is tasked with lighting the candle in one room and they are made aware of the matches in the other room. I would consider this rather seemingly impossible. Then, how much time is given any subject? It could take months or years to develop the karmic energy required to achieve such an "impossible" feat, solely through the power of chanting.
My personal hypothesis at this time is along these lines. Buddhists are often said to be "practitioners". What exactly are they practicing? I would argue that chanting [anything] has the effect of "distraction". It might also be called "centering". Typically, the place we set to chant is a place of peace and security. Chanting, somewhat unlike meditation, helps "clear the mind" as you generally are focused on the chant, although chanting can become like second nature and we can chant without thinking about it and our minds may wander. But, I think that that is what the chanting "does", after some time we will likely realize that our minds are drifting and you can bring it back the centeredness, focusing again on the chant.
So, what does that translate to, what is being practiced? I think that the chanter practices centeredness or self-distraction morning and night (as recommended by SGI/Nichiren). When you encounter a frustrating situation in your daily life, you can basically stop yourself before reacting, chant in your head or out loud, essentially distracting yourself from the frustration, or simply centering/grounding yourself. It "snaps you back" to your Buddha place, gives you a brief moment to rethink your response, and allows you to approach the frustration from a more rational place.
I theorize that chanting any phrase can achieve this same result. I also theorize the presence of a gohonzon or any other object would not have a noticeable effect on the results (although it could depend slightly on the task at hand and also if objects that cause test subjects anxiety could produce some negative result in the testing as well), but having subjects "focus" on anything will help them to recollect their Buddha place and increase their focus rate.
I'm not exactly sure how to test that.
A few fields of science may be needed to make strong determinations.
- Physics
- Neuroscience
- Psychology
- Anthropology
Here's hoping a few scientists might actually be able to shed some light on the realities of chanting. It's good to see I'm not alone in these thoughts.
Namaste!
Disclaimer: I have had involvement with SGI since 2002.

I have been chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo for 2 years. I do attend meetings (enjoy chanting in a group) for the social aspect. I was told to set a goal and then chant for that goal which I have been doing. To date I can honestly say I have not received benefits. When I reported this to the group initially I was told to keep chanting; so I did. I still have not obtained my goal. When I reported very recently to the group that I still had not obtained my goal, I was asked if I had taken action. Truth be known there is no action I personally can take to fulfill my goal. My thought is that if one can take action to fulfill a goal why in the world would you waste time chanting. Just go and do what you need to do to obtain your goal. I have concluded that it is most likely placebo effect and the benefits would have occurred without chanting. We can make ourselves believe anything!

It's called placebo effect. You believe good things will happen and you focus on it so much that it ends up happening. It's not magic, just the power of belief/faith. On the other hand you could just be noticing the good things and then putting it down to the chanting whereas the good things were going to occur anyway. If it works for you then keep doing it but it's like prayer, what happens when good things don't occur but instead bad things happen? Is it because you're not praying or chanting hard enough?

Hello the Ah wovel is included in NAM (N-Ah-M) soundwise!
No other practice is needed besides the chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. Do not try to fix what is not broken.
And any putting other practice besides chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo is likely to become an obstruction.

By chanting at a nice low note, vibrating the mantra low in your body, it may stimulate your Vagus Nerve, and experience pleasant physical and psychological benefits.

Ihave beeen chanting for a goal over a year now ,hours a day attending meetings and doing activities i sometimes get exhausted hopeing tomorrow will be the day i am tired

This does not attempt to answer the question, which is; "What “technically” happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?". Please address the question.


text:
Investing in Dharma?
In the Diamond Sutra Buddha said:

Subhuti, if a person collected treasures as high as 3,000 of the highest mountains, and gave them all to others, their merit would be less than what would accrue to another person who simply observed and studied this Sutra and, out of kindness, explained it to others. The latter person would accumulate hundreds of times the merit, hundreds of thousands of millions of times the merit. There is no conceivable comparison.

I do not believe in charity because it doesn't cease suffering in a long term and it doesn't solve any fundamental problems in the human world.
So I'd like to follow Buddha's words but of course I'm not skillful enough to do it myself.
What do you think will be the best way to help the Dharma reach more people if you have spare $100 a month?
Or $1,000?
Or $100,000 at once?

If you can spare some money, by all mean please continue to donate to charity. Imagine you were a starving child in some war-torn country, getting a hot meal won't help you attaining enlightenment but it does help relieving a horrible kind of suffering: starvation!
Then one can always start with him/herself. Observing the Five Precepts whole-heartedly itself would generate tremendous amount of merits according to AN 8.39:

..."Now, there are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?
"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. And this is the fourth reward of merit...

Finally, one can share the Dhamma to others if the conditions are appropriate according to MN 58:

...In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them...

That reminds me of this story: Publishing the Sutras

Thank you, I understand it and I'm not living in the first world, so I see poverty quite often and try to donate a little. But the reason why I want to help spreading the Teaching instead of breads is because there are so many people who are doing it already and it's simply not working that well in the world that lacks compassion. I'm not a millionaire, I have a limited resource but imagine if Buddha's words could reach more rich people. Or the people who're opposing refugees from Syria at this very moment.

I recommend looking at GiveWell, an organisation that tries to find out the most effective way of spending money to help others.

Above all, the intention!
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/dana/

Many motives, many fruits
  "Sariputta, there is the case where a person gives a gift seeking his own profit, with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this gift seeking his own profit — with a mind attached [to the reward], seeking to store up for himself, [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death' — on the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
"Then there is the case of a person who gives a gift not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached [to the reward], not seeking to store up for himself, nor [with the thought], 'I'll enjoy this after death.' Instead, he gives a gift with the thought, 'Giving is good.' He gives his gift — food, drink, clothing, a vehicle; a garland, perfume, & ointment; bedding, shelter, & a lamp — to a brahman or a contemplative. What do you think, Sariputta? Might a person give such a gift as this?"
"Yes, lord."
"Having given this gift with the thought, 'Giving is good,' on the break-up of the body, after death, reappears in the company of the Devas of the Thirty-three. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world.
... (excerpt available on source page)
"This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears great fruit and great benefit."
— AN 7.49

From the same page:

A gift of Dhamma conquers all gifts
— Dhp 354

With this basic understanding:

"Even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is given to an unvirtuous person. And the virtuous person has abandoned five factors and is endowed with five.

Think to benefit all sentient beings with your gift, that the benefits may echo out into the cosmos and into all planes of existence.  Set that mind when you give, and lose yourself in the action.

I do not believe in charity because it doesn't cease suffering in a long term.

This is wrong. Even basic charity has the same exact spirit of compassion as the compassion of Buddha turning the wheel of Dharma. In Jataka stories they say that Buddha did a lot of charity in previous lives before he could become Buddha.
The most fundamental form of charity is giving security, refuge, protection from fear to someone scared. Then they can finally stop running, look around, and think about life.
But even with regular charity, it's not just the money or food that you give, it is care! Care can soften even a very hardened heart. You don't even need money to give care! You can give someone abandoned and outcasted that human recognition and respect they long have forgotten.
Giving security and/or care is like ploughing and watering the soil. And then when they ask, how can I be grateful to you for making me feel like a human being worthy of existence in this world: then even one word about Dharma will be like a seed falling into the best soil!
In Tibetan tradition they say: start small, even giving gifts from your right hand to your left hand already sows the good seeds! Not to mention that it improves your own karma: your meditation will go a lot better.
But yes, until your faith grows very strong and you can help without expecting to see any result of your action - it is better to help the human beings directly. That will make you feel good, and when you feel good you have more energy to do more.

Maybe I've chosen wrong words. It's not like I do not care or I think poor people do not deserve it or I want more merit for my actions. It's just an idea that if some percentage of charitable people support the teaching itself – it will be more effective in the long run. Like if there's an earthquake and I don't go out to volunteer but work for more hours and then give earned money to a recovery fund. It will not relieve suffering immediately but it will help much more later because I'm effective at bringing foreign funds to the country and a bad fit for rescue works or first aid. :(

But probably I'm overthinking it. I will start with regular charities but continue to search for ways to support the Dharma.

Sure, I understand - you want to optimize. But the problem is when some grand idea "over there" gets in the way of real goodness "right here". Someone right next to us could use our care, but we stay blind because it is too small comparing to our big idea. Optimizing is good when you already doing something, not when you are choosing between doing and not doing. I talk more about the difference between real help and abstract idea of help here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/12593/43

This is a truly wonderful answer and echoes to me the spirit of a life well lived: Mother Theresa once said "We can do no great deeds, just small deeds with great love."

Atma doubts that one could accumulate much merits by reading and spreading the Diamond Sutra, but in relation to Dhamma, yes: Iti §100
But! Such is not possible for whom how is certain to stingy to give material things and to say "I do not believe in charity because it doesn't cease suffering in a long term and it doesn't solve any fundamental problems in the human world." is fatal wrong. Giving in the meaning of merits means to give and not to do things that it might become as one likes it to have. Grasping for the hole world and even thinking its one own, how could one even make the first step into Dhamma?
Such is the benefit of reading and teaching the Diamond Sutra, a plenty good way to cut one self and others from the path...

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


text:
Are Teachings developed "after the fact"?
This might be a poor question, for which I apologize but I am trying to gain some insight on this idea I have had for a long time... It seems that paths and practices are taught to people with the intent that they have the same results that the teacher did by doing that. But the teacher might have come across the practice by accident, and the teaching is simply their experience, not a principle.
When I read suttas, interviews, articles, different sects' explanations and so on, there is an almost infinite variety of statements and interpretations, and people seem to get lost in words. If a practice was really "true" absolutely, then there could be no difference of explanation or understanding, right? It certainly is not like Physics, where everyone would get the same results of a clear experiment.
If a Teacher was so wise that they came up with the practice before they had used it, that would be a miracle indeed. Is it not the case that all that is taught about spiritual development is basically experiential? Even the Buddha had to learn by doing. We are just following what he said.

I think these are the questions which you're asking: a) Do teachers "come up with" a practice before they use it?
b) Is a practice taught to a student intended to have the same result as when the teacher practiced it?
c) Might a given teacher's practice be simply their own experience, not a generalizable principle?
d) Why (unlike Physics) are there almost infinitely many different ("lost in words") explanations and interpretations in the suttas, and why isn't it a clear experiment where everyone gets the same results?

@ChrisW: Thank you for asking for or attempting to clarify. I think: a) is false, b) is true by definition, c) is what I am asserting, d) is what I am asking about. So, people can speak to c) while commenting on d).

You're welcome. I was trying to clarify what you'e asking, partly because it's a mixture of questions plus assumptions.

Also, did I capture all of your question? I might have failed to understand/summarize the last of your explicit question, i.e. "Is all that is taught basically experiential?" ... You're asking about "experiential" as opposed to what, what else might it be, apart from "experiential"?

@ChrisW: You said, "What might it be, apart from 'experiential'?" Wow. The question just died right there. Silly me. You are amazing.

... It seems that paths and practices are taught to people with the intent that they have the same results that the teacher did by doing that. But the teacher might have come across the practice by accident, and the teaching is simply their experience, not a principle.
When I read suttas, interviews, articles, different sects' explanations and so on, there is an almost infinite variety of statements and interpretations, and people seem to get lost in words. If a practice was really "true" absolutely, then there could be no difference of explanation or understanding, right? It certainly is not like Physics, where everyone would get the same results of a clear experiment.

If you as about a long path, then the land marks different people describe about the path would be different. Thus there are many description of the same road but different land marks. E.g. The middle path is described within these two Suttas abide the different landmarks. Samma,ditthi Sutta, (Ekā,dasaka) Cetanā’karaṇīya Sutta. Also by nature of the practitioner certain landmarks on the road would be of more significance than others. This will result in different descriptions. Also Buddha having the ability to discern what would register in the mind of the practitioner, gave most appropriate "directions and land marks".
Another this there are multiple variations and techniques which give certain spiritual or "out of the world" experiences which the practitioner may mistake to have achived the final goal or mistakenly believe is the path when in fact it does not take you to the final goal. (Somewhat related is Brahma,jala Sutta also as introduction on it which highlights how wrong view arise.) Since you have some uncommon experience you hold that the method and techniques you practised has got you or will get you to the final goal. This give arise to different descriptions and variation and debates about the technique.
Some times these variation can be from people who have gone to the final goal. Some people have had only some imperfections or uncommon imperfections and would have done a practice to remedy that. Having achived the final goal he would teach from his experience which would result in an uncommon description of the method, which might not always work for everyone.

If a Teacher was so wise that they came up with the practice before they had used it, that would be a miracle indeed. Is it not the case that all that is taught about spiritual development is basically experiential? Even the Buddha had to learn by doing. We are just following what he said.

The Buddha as well as many disciples had to do countless lifetimes of experimentation before crossing. So the part descried with what worked out the countless techniques that have been tried and tested.
Even with imperfect techniques which that you to an intermediate station, you need some experience which you describe and when the students practice it and gain some experience they believe. So some experience which can be replicated by a practice is the for runner of teaching a successful meditation technique.


text:
Mindfulness of feelings and emotions
I'm having a certain trouble in meditation being aware of both my feelings and emotions. The feelings, as in vedana, aren't so inaccessible to me but my emotions are particularly hard to discern. I'm wondering whether the practice of mindfulness of vedana will help me discern my emotions more, or whether emotions are a different thing alltogether.

Vedana is pleasant/unpleasant/neutral feelings at the sense doors. Being aware of that is called Vedananupassana.
Emotions (including for example the five hindrances) are covered under Dhammanupassana.
Here is a simple guide book, How to Meditate, you can follow.

It is customary to memorize
  these four categories before proceeding with the
  meditation practice:

Body – the movements and postures of the body;
Feelings – bodily and mental sensations of pain,
  happiness, calm, etc.;
Mind – thoughts that arise in the mind – of the past
  or future, good or bad;
Dhammas – groups of mental and physical
  phenomena that are of specific interest to the
  meditator, including the mental states that cloud
  one's awareness, the six senses by which one
  experiences reality, and many others.

Ex: When sitting for meditation, you might feel pain in your legs. That pain is still Vedana(feeling). You can note it as pain... pain... pain... It becomes emotion, if you start to dislike the pain. If you are wishing the pain to go away, you are already emotional. Simply note it as disliking... disliking...
Similarly, you might feel very calm when meditating. Simply note it as calm... calm... calm... If you start to like that calmness, it is emotion. Note it as liking... liking... liking... This liking becomes clinging and when the calmness goes away, sadness/disappointment arises as a result of clinging. That is again Vedana which you can note as sad... sad... sad...

First of all seek the advice of your teacher as mixing other techniques which might not work well with the techniques you are practicing and your teacher will not be able to guide you regarding complication of what you have mixed into your techniques.

There are multiple clarifications of feeling. Three fold classification:

Pleasant
Unpleasant
Neutral

Sometimes pleasant or up plesent is broken down into further 2. i.e.,

Pleasant bodily feeling
Pleasant mental feeling
Unpleasant bodily feeling
Unpleasant mental feeling
Neutral feeling

See: Vedanā - Attributes on Wikipedia
Emotion pertain you your mental pleasant or unpleasant feeling. Also mental and physical unpleasant feeling influence each other. So if you are mindful of sensations of the body and you do get an emotional disturbance you feel unpleasantness in the body. If you are under physical pain then vise versa is true as well. This is not limited to pain alone but true to pleasant and neutral feelings also. So you if you are mindful of the body you still can feel the mental feelings through the body.
Emotions give rise to thoughts and mental state. If you look at the 121 metal states all states contain Vedana. Also if you look at the metal content which are 52 each of them has Vedana intermingled, i.e., vedana is sabba citta sadharana. (Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma) Also the only way to sense any this is through contact with the sense faculties. (Pratītyasamutpāda) Hence only way to know something that happened in the mind or mental content is through the respective vedana arising from the respective contact of the mindd objects and their content. Verada is the unifying factor for all the 4 Satipatthana.

In every chapter the repetition of certain words indicates the importance of this sampajañña. Ātāpī sampajāno satimā applies to the observation of kāya, vedanā, citta and dhammā: sampajañña has to be present. Similarly samudaya-, vaya-, and samudaya-vaya-dhammānupassī, which apply everywhere in the Sutta, have to be with sampajañña and sensations. For example, in Myanmar there are many pagodas on plateaus, with four staircases, one each from the east, west, north and south. Similarly you might start with kāya, vedanā, citta, or dhammā, but as you enter the gallery they all intermingle in vedanā, and reaching the shrine room it is the same nibbāna. Whichever staircase you start climbing, you come to vedanā and sampajañña: and if you are with sampajañña you are progressing step by step towards the final goal.

(Source: Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - S. N. Goenka)
Also there should be no conceptualisation, imagination, verbalisation, visualisation when doing Vipassana as these are Verbal Fabrication which you are supposed to reduce and calm down. (Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Kāma,bhū Sutta 2, Mahā Vedalla Sutta)
Also Vipassana and Vedana as Understood by a Novice by U Tin Lwin would give a more detailed perspective in some of the concerns you have raised.


text:
What does Buddhism say about creativity and spiritual development?
Does Buddhism say anything about a relationship between greatness in art, music or other creative areas, and spiritual development? For example, consider the well-known great composers: is there anything to say about how they are able to produce astoundingly complex and beautiful works, like symphonies? (Answers from any tradition are fine.)
Addition: I mean being actively creative, not just listening to music. Is being active and creative valued in Buddhism, or is the point to extinguish everything? What is the purpose of life besides trying to scream and run away? (OK, getting a bit frustrated here.) If life arose for any reason, would it not be to enjoy being in all its forms, and all activities? Or is that a Vexing Question?

It appears that Buddhism is generally down on music? (7th Precept - I just read a related Question).

I think Buddhism is generally down on sense pleasure. Music, art, or whatever else engages the senses and distracts from concentrating on what Buddhism considers to be important. But having said that, you're free to do whatever you wish with your life! Enjoy music and dancing if you wish. There's no harm to yourself or others. You may not be following the classically "ideal" path, but in the end it's all a matter of your own choice. You follow the path you wish, the way you wish.

In Asia, the various forms of Buddhism have inspired uncountable number of art objects created over the centuries: statues, monuments, temples, icons etc. Some art forms, particularly Japanese ones, are considered no less than expressions of the Enlightened Mind.
Many Zen Masters were known for their calligraphy, drawing, and/or poetic skills. The now famous music of shakuhachi flute was popularized by the Fuke sect of Buddhistm.
Late Chogyuam Trungpa Rinpoche was known for his endless creativity. Check out his True Perception: The Path of Dharma Art, Timely Rain: Selected Poetry of Chogyam Trungpa, The Art of Calligraphy, and other writings.
Teacher I.L. declared awakening of the enlightened creativity, as a tool for the universal benefit to oneself and others, to be the point of Enlightenment. From other teachers I heard that creativity is one of the hallmarks of Enlightenment, as the mind without defilements uncovers potential for unlimited uninhibited creation.
So in short, most of the time Buddhism welcomes art and creativity, especially the kind that either expresses Enlightened Mind or popularizes Dharma.

I suppose it says that people don't typically become 'enlightened', in the Buddhist sense of the term, by listening to music.
I think that the Pali canon discouraged making happiness dependent on sensual conditions (e.g. "I would be happy if only I were listening to a symphony", or "... a better symphony than this one", or etc.).
I saw a movie once (probably Amadeus) where the composer says, "You lucky people: God loves you, and I'm about to prove that to you." Such "enthusiasm" might be admirable but it seems to me a fabrication (inventing a 'God' and so on to explain sense-input).
On the other hand there are some Arts which are traditionally or culturally associated with some forms of Buddhism: for example Bokuseki. I don't know about that, I guess from my reading that's supposed to demonstrate a lack of defilements/hindrances in the author's mind, and to be a visible (informative) record/remainder feedback/learning tool of something (i.e. of the author) which really happened.
My take on it is the Pali canon was like,

You're supposed to be monks, not spend your time and indulge your desires by sneaking off to listen to music festivals
Arahants and non-returners are above/beyond a craving/thirst for music (i.e. sensual desire)
Lay people who want to be like monks and arahants, who want to sip from the experience which monks should aspire to full-time, ought to put aside their craving for music at least on holy days

I read a non-Puritanical attitude into this answer though, e.g. you wouldn't despise a lay person for liking music,

If someone really has no problems, that's great, they are Enlightened! The historical Buddha (According to Stephen Batchelor's retelling) said as much on his death bed, when he asked if anyone had any questions left, no one did, so he said, well you all must be enlightened then. People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita).

What should naturally creative people do with themselves?

I'm sorry, I don't know doctrine about "creativity", whether natural or otherwise.
The impression I get (from the Pali suttas, summarized in a book titled The Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity: At Home, At Work, in the World) is that what lay people "should" do is behave as good and responsible members of society -- i.e. practice "ethics" or virtue.
The book includes advice (quoting various suttas) on how to handle wealth, marry, be a parent, and so on.
One of the suttas mentions "six directions" i.e. each person's responsibility towards their parents, teachers, spouse and family, friends and colleagues, workers and servants, and "ascetics and Brahmans".
When you make money it recommends re-investing some, saving some, and using only a portion for your needs. It recommends wealth without squeezing others (like a bee collects honey without harming the flowers) -- and so on, the whole book contains instructions like these for lay people.
The canon does warn against an excess of partying, immorality, for example,

And what six ways of squandering wealth are to be avoided? Young man, heedlessness caused by intoxication, roaming the streets at inappropriate times, habitual partying, compulsive gambling, bad companionship, and laziness are the six ways of squandering wealth.

Buddhism also recommends Dāna (generosity or charity: especially giving to monks, spiritual people).

So it appears that you are saying the scriptures say nothing in particular about creative expression, and nothing about how creative expression is affected by spiritual development. My experience has been that when I see creative work, I get a sense of the creator's state of being - happy, sad, disciplined... How do you feel when you look at a Rothko painting? I always felt depressed and repelled. As it happens, he took his own life due to depression. Some works are amazing, and I wonder if that is purely the 10,000 hour rule, or if some of it is the person's nature and development generally?

For example, consider the well-known great composers: is there anything to say about how they are able to produce astoundingly complex and beautiful works, like symphonies? (Answers from any tradition are fine.)

Not that I know of from the sutras. From them, I understand it's generally considered a skill like any other -- which can be highly developed by some. But I understand these are skills that are not particularly encouraged, seen as particularly special, or find a significant place in the buddhist path [when put alongside with the doctrinal concepts and practices].

Does Buddhism say anything about a relationship between greatness in art, music or other creative areas, and spiritual development?

There are links between Buddhism and art. Starting from the sutras, we find verses attributed to monks (possibly arahants). From then on, Buddhism was a theme for many artists through history. But here we are talking about the culture of Buddhism in the context of art, not about it's doctrine it's relationship to art.

Addition: I mean being actively creative, not just listening to music. Is being active and creative valued in Buddhism [?]

It seems to me the above refers more broadly to the faculty of intelligence (which includes creativity) combined with skills, and not necessarily artistic expression or art appreciation. Naturally, these faculties are generally beneficial for any kind of endeavor, including the study, the practice, the teaching and propagation of Buddhism.

... or is the point to extinguish everything?

To extinguish every illusion that impair one's life and creates suffering. Not to extinguish everything.

If life arose for any reason, would it not be to enjoy being in all its forms, and all activities?

Anyone can come up with any formulation to explain to themselves why life arose for them. The truth is, it's a chosen answer, not certainty, not truth. To "enjoy being in all its forms and all activities", then is just one's choice for living their life -- the question of how life should be lived remains unanswered as long as there's the possibility of finding out one was mistaken.
To Buddhism, this is not an incorrect way of life, nor correct. If the Buddha was asked if this was a correct life choice, I understand from the sutras he would just say something like: "are you willing to keep suffering, to be subject to suffering? If not, here's what I invite you to try." -- which is just another way of saying what he has been recorded saying to similar questions: that he simply teaches there's suffering, there's the origin of suffering, there's the cessation of suffering, and there's the path to it's cessation.

There is a famous Philosophical question: "Why are there essents [things that exist] instead of nothing?" The answer I know relates to something one of my teachers told me: "The Void can't know itself." So, the Void gave rise to Experience, which is what is happening now. The Void knows itself through all that is. To me, this is a satisfactory answer, and I do not consider it possible to be mistaken. So in that case, I can say that life exists to enjoy being in all its forms. This means I can enjoy being creative, and that is a perfect and necessary part of all that is, or it would not be.

My point is that high philosophical questions and contemplations such as the ones you presented remain unanswered in the hard sense: they aren't solved from then on. I can't go to my friends and family with the good news and tell them "know that old question about what we should do to our lives? It has been answered, no need to have doubts anymore. Here it is: " and not sound unreasonable. So, it remains an open philosophical question, regardless of people finding peace in any specific provisional answer they like. And, from what I know, Buddhism is silent about this particular question.

OK. I was hoping that somewhere I would find that sort of answer, which I could tell everyone, saving them much time and trouble. I guess it does not exist.

The Buddha of the Pali canon mentions a sensuous deva realm or heavenly realm called the nimmanarati deva, 'deva's delighting in creation'. One may conclude from this that creativity could be a pursuit of a heavenly mind, or a mind fit for the material deva realms. Happy these destinations may be, we are all aware that the Buddha's goal for us was much higher than this. It may prove helpful to remember that there are another 20 realms beyond the material deva realms, each one more blissful and  less material than the previous, and all of which possibly may have left physical creativity behind.
As human beings, the pursuit of creativity seems to lead ones mind to a place of reflection of feeling. Developing this facet of ourselves may have the benefit of leading us further up and into the realms of feeling or the 'sensuous realms' of the sensuous devas. The Buddha instructed those who's spiritual faculties were not yet well developed to aim for these deva realms, through good moral conduct in life, as when they found themselves there they would have better circumstances to practice and go further. However for those who's spiritual faculties were quite developed, he instructed them directly to the end game, which naturally would not entail the faculty of physical creativity.
The Buddha states that one who has developed even the first jhana will upon death secure a place in the Brahma realms, beyond the sensuous realms. Interestingly, the first jhana has feeling as it's principle component, when the first jhana is fully established, one can be said to have surmounted the human capacity for feeling. It feels very nice and afterwards, there is not much want for physical creativity as one's need to understand feeling has been satiated. Furthermore there is little want to listen to or write music as the feeling this brings falls short of what is experienced in the first jhana.
The reason I use the term physical creativity is at this point I am unsure what creative potential one might have in the fine material or immaterial realms, where it seems to simply think something would make it so.