text:
How can we include meditation in our daily activities or day to day life?
Given that if a person is extremely busy & unable to give full time to meditation but wants to penetrate mind to eradicate past live impressions, how can he/she do so?

Hello Seeker and welcome to Buddhism SE. Great question. Is there two questions here, i.e. a question about the integration of meditation into daily life and a question regarding methods on how to eradicate past life impressions?

Yes. Actually, aim is to eradicate past karmas via meditation. :) @Lanka

It simply comes down to two words… sati sampajanna.  Sati is mindfulness.
The Pali word for alertness is sampajañña. It doesn’t mean being choicelessly aware of the present, or comprehending the present. Sampajañña means being aware of what you’re doing in the movements of the body, the movements in the mind. This is why mindfulness and alertness should always be paired.
Our happiness, our lack of happiness, depends on our actions. So that’s where we focus our attention. That’s what we should keep in mind. This is called dhammanussati, keeping the Dhamma in mind. This is why the Buddha has us listen to the Dhamma, read the Dhamma. Whatever thinking that you do, it needs to be through the Dhamma.
When you create a frame of reference here in the present moment, there are lots of things you can tune in to. You can choose the body in and of itself. You can choose feelings, mental states, mental qualities in and of themselves.
Whenever your thoughts go to recollecting your past incarnations, try to get them out of your mind, as they are a-Dhamma. To be consciously forgetful in that way requires an act of mindfulness—in other words, deciding which level you’re going to tune in to while you let everything else go for the time being. Of all the sensory input that comes in at any one particular moment, you make a choice of what you’re going to pay attention to, what memories, what frame of reference you’re going to bring to that particular moment. And it’s an important mental skill to be able to shift your frame of reference as necessary.
Being mindful means being very deliberate and clear about what you bring to whatever you’re doing: what you’re going to remember, what you’re not going to remember, what you’re going to recollect, what you’re going to let go, which things are useful to recollect right now. If you wanted to, you could sit here and spend the whole hour thinking about facts that would make you totally miserable, but what does that accomplish? We’re sitting here to think about things that are useful for the mind, so remember the things that are useful for the mind, that will help it develop. As for the other voices coming in and out of the mind, listen to the ones that are helpful and ignore the ones that are not. You can be selective.
This way, mindfulness becomes a quality we can apply to everything we do. And instead of making us unable to function, it actually heightens our ability to function, because we understand the process that the mind goes through.

Personally, I commute one hour each way on a direct train to work every day.. It's surprising how silent rush hour is often (Friday evening is a slight exception!). It's not secluded in the traditional sense, but if you have some decent earphones to kill ambient sound it gets pretty comfy, and I can get on with concentrating on meditating. It's nice as well because otherwise I'd sit there wasting time mostly!

It is meditation if we can remember the 3 refuge every second, every minute, every hour, or at least every day.

Please read satipattana sutta. It speaks about four forms of mindfulness, which gives you the benefit of Nibbana as well.


text:
Life With Death
How can we earn money while we don't want to live for anything?
P.S.: I'm very wise and smart guy. I have high degrees in academical stuff. And I can say that I had satisfaction most of the emotions related with success. Now I don't have any feeling rather than having my money to survive in life. I don't choose death because of it's darkness. Also I hated humans. Because firstly to live you need to be selfish as an individual. And in fact every human being is selfish. But for having social satisfactions we act differently.

If you hate humans, it's possible you are from different realm to come here at this time - the degrading of humans at this particular time. Usually those come down to here are more intelligent, artistic and elegant, easy to have academic achievement because in that world, human nature are not as based like this time here; intellectual, genuine and morality are basics, v.s. greed, cunning and ill-intent...

The debased human nature here makes those coming down suffocating, their are low, their taste coarse and vulgar, they are not able to see the fineness thus communication with them has to be twisted and distorted to fit their disposition. The possibilities for those coming down are: a) they have unfinished issues to complete - usually termed Karma. b) they in their going the path of enlightenment has to learn everything, incl. those unbearable things. c) similar to above, this is the time to learn loving kindness - to accept the unacceptable, but not being dragged down by the unacceptable.

@Bhumishu米殊 is there any references to your claims in  any Buddhist text? I'd love to read more about this. Thanks.

@NuWin at the moment I've not yet come across a Sutra directly presented this analogy. in Surangama Sutra, it has a small paragraph described how from each different realm those beings reborn as humans their dispositions; further, Great Bhikkhu Xuyun (虛雲和尚) by the time he was around 90-100 yrs old he said he would rather die soon for there would come a time it would be really horrible he rather not to endure it (he meant the Cultural Revolution later happened in China). Xuyun was believed by many the Bodhisattva from Western Pureland related to Mahāsthāmaprāpta (大勢至菩薩)...

@NuWin next, in the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra (維摩詰經) the Buddha of Pureland of Frangrance (香積佛國) instructed the Bodhisattvas when visiting Sahā-lokadhātu (娑婆世界) - earth, had to hide their fragrances emitting naturally from their bodies and not to look down upon the beings (earthlings) for their rather small size and the (less grandeur) appearance of their abode, incl. Buddha Shkayamuni for teaching here he adopted the similar appearance.

@NuWin beings here are from many different dimensions/ realms, by their present dispositions one can trace back where they were from. it's hard for the Western mind to adopt there are beings once were animals, or from hell, or the asuras, or from the hungry ghost for the brain-washing resulted from thousands years of Christian/ Catholic faith - humans are superior god-made.

@NuWin the Buddhist teaching has a fluid understand of all the worlds and huge scope of phenomenas. our only world is just a very small tip of the whole universe, so to speak. the varieties of all livelihoods are not just the result of ethnic, education, parental influences, etc.

You’ve identified self correctly @bubblebobble, as you seem to live within a bubble IMHO. I guess it is time for you to come out of it and start living life with an attitude of gratitude to one and all. Now is the opportune time for making it a habit to express thankfulness and appreciation in all parts of your life, on a regular basis, for both the big and small things alike. Just look around you at the built environment, towards everything and anything that you make use of for your existence. They are all there for your convenience and existence because of someone else’s contribution to society.  Then you will understand the positive side of selfishness. This is what one of my beloved authors had to say on it:

The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no  conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.

If you have the time please read her three novels… Atlas Shrugged,  We the Living, and The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Now I will try to stay within the limits of Dhamma of the Buddha in answering your question “How can we earn money while we don't want to live for anything?” with the hope that it will help you to go further in this Noble Path.  Firstly let us rephrase the question: ”How to live with the least money possible?
Not knowing your temperament, I’m a bit hesitant in writing this. Anyway, here goes…. When Buddha instructed his own son Rahula on the practice of anapanasati meditation, the Blessed One recognized Venerable Rahula’s temperament and what would be most suitable for him.  As temperaments differ, so do the objects of meditation, and Rahula was advised to practice other forms of meditation before Anapanasati. So I am not sure whether you are ready for what I tell you or not.
I see that at present you are not a person without any means of support. You are not a destitute person. But there will come a time to live meagrely, if you are serious about this Dhamma path. It will not be an issue if you become an ordained monk, as then you will be free. The question is if you wish to remain a lay disciple, as then you may not be free from all expenses. All what you can do is to just make it significantly lower.
Before starting on the Dhamma path these are the thing that you may have to do. As you do not want to live for anything, start doing the following: a] stop eating out; b] cut out technology (Netflix, games etc.); c] cut down on processed foods, eat healthy, cook at home; d] Wear the clothes that you have for decades until they fail; e] Stop going out for movies and other shows, a walk in the park will do for an outing; f] do not indulge in any luxuries, get used to frugal living; g] save the little extra money that you have for a rainy day; h] go back 50+ years and compare how people lived then (and mind you they were happier then); j] make Gautama Buddha’s Dhamma your hobby & pastime. The liking to this PATH should far outweigh / exceed liking for all other things.
Such a change in you is not possible if you do not limit yourself to reading only the first 57 books on Dhamma ever written, and while at it put into practice what you learn. This first 57 books on Dhamma is your Teacher. So never question the authenticity of these first 57. Then what is called as gift of principle (patipatti dana) will begin to occur from within own self. It is the gift that functions in the cessation from the attachment to the six sense faculties. This gift is nobler than material gifts of food and drinks.
Then you will inevitably to make a commitment to genuine morality. One who practices the True Dhamma will form his mind into prudentially with moral rationality. The one who is being fixed in morality does untie all the tangles, being restrained from within own self. Such a person can walk into a jungle and live there for months without any harm coming to them from animals. Few westerners who come to SriLanka to practice Dhamma do this. The jungle will provide what is necessary for their survival.
I can go on and on and on with many other pointers, but this is a very good start. Once you are well on the way on this new way of life, ask me what to do next. You will not fail, as I’ve tried it, and it had worked for me. Today I’m financially independent. I keep earning money while I don't want to live for anything. (I started with nothing. 30 years ago, at age 24, when I came to Canada with just $200 in hand). You too will live this truth, if you honestly strive for it. Good luck to you.

Sometimes people ask that answers on this site should be explicitly Buddhist,

Once I formulate an answer to the question proper, I will delete this portion of it. Do give me a couple of days. These two days are going to be hectic for me. I'm trapped in the 'rat race' with family matters and other distractions.

Thank you all good people try to answer!

In Buddhism, 'wisdom' refers to understanding suffering. To quote:

And what is the faculty of discernment (wisdom)? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is discerning, endowed
  with discernment of arising & passing away — noble, penetrating,
  leading to the right ending of stress. He discerns, as it has come to
  be: 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is
  the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the
  cessation of stress.' This is called the faculty of discernment.
Analysis of the Mental Faculties

Often, high degrees in academical stuff create suffering things, such as weapons of war.
If fact, some high degrees in academical stuff have mental illness.
Not one living being has survived in this world without the unselfishness of its parents.
This shows firstly, to live, you need to receive & reciprocate unselfishness as an individual.
Thus Buddhism explains about wrong or deluded view:

And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad
  actions. There is no this world, no other world, no mother, no father,
  no spontaneously arisen beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who,
  faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the other after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is
  wrong view.
MN 117

Thank you all good people try to answer!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can the seeds of desires bowed in the past lives can now be eradicated from the mind completely?
Desires are the seeds which have effects later or sooner. Can we destroy such seeds without experiencing their effect or Karmas?

First of all, a seed of desire, or a seed of anger, etc. are not karmic seeds (or karmic imprints). They do not ripen in the same way at all. A seed of desire will give rise to a mind of desire. Second, desires are not seeds. The seeds are non-associated compositional factors while an instance of desire is a mind.
Yes, the seeds of the afflictions can be abandoned so that they never give rise to an afflicted mind, such as a mind of anger, lust, etc.
There are two types of abandonment:

Partial abandonment, and
Complete abandonment.

Partial abandonment is also called 'non-analytical cessation' since such an abandonment happens when you engage in Samata and the Jhanas. When you reach a concentration of the form realm (such as a mind of calm abiding, etc.) afflictions of the desire realm are abandoned, but the seeds are still there. This is a partial abandonment, since the seeds are not yet abandoned.
The way to abandon the afflictions together with their seeds is by generating wisdom directly realizing emptiness. When the wisdom directly realizing emptiness acts as an antidote, it abandons afflictions together with their seeds, this is called analytical cessation and it is complete abandonment. According to Prasangika, the first moment of a wisdom directly realizing emptiness does not abandon all afflictions altogether (and their seeds), but merely the intellectually acquired afflictions and their seeds. It is only later, when the wisdom is conjoined with an accumulation of merit (or with the six perfections) that this wisdom is strong enough to abandon innate afflictions and their seeds.
Usually, according to so-called Hinayana tenets, the seeds are abandoned by way of generating wisdom directly realizing the sixteen aspects of the four noble truths.
In any case, such a wisdom is a mind of special insight and is thus a union of calm abiding and special insight. Calm abiding must be attained first.

A seed is consciousness, not desires.

Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the
moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance &
fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a middling property.
Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.
Bhava Sutta

Karma can only works with sense gates, no sense gates then Karma has no power.

Another straight up answer:

ariyo (noble) aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo (eight fold path)
kārma-nirodha (extinction of karma) -gāminī (goal) paṭipadā (mode of progress)

Practicing noble eight fold path is a mode of progress to end karma.
This comes from the Nibbedhika Sutta (AN 6.63):

Katamo ca, bhikkhave, kammānaṃ nidāna-sambhavo? Phasso, bhikkhave, kammānaṃ nidāna-sambhavo.
And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.

And:

Katamo ca, bhikkhave, kamma-nirodho? Phassa-nirodho, bhikkhave, kamma-nirodho. Ayameva ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo kamma-nirodha-gāminī paṭipadā, seyyathidaṃ: sammā-diṭṭhi, sammā-saṅkappo, sammā-vācā, sammā-kammanto, sammā-ājīvo, sammā-vāyāmo, sammā-sati, sammā-samādhi.
And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

So karma has Phassa ("detection" or "contact") as its Nidhana Sambhava (which I translate as "stage where karma plays out", or which buddha-vacana.org translates as "cause by which kamma comes into play"). Without stage to play, karma is powerless. Reference "dependent origination" to find out how Phassa or detections end.

karma has Phassa (detection) as Nidhana Sambhava (my translation-stage where karma plays out . without stage to play, karma is powerless.  Ref dependent origination to find out how Phassa or detections end.

I think the second quote might be taken from SN 56.11, except that there it's given as dukkha·nirodha instead of "kārma-nirodha".

yes.  I recognize a pattern that Buddha often used "dukkha" (in this case, pain" interchangeable with vedana and/or karma.  You see the same thing as I do?    Second quote can be found in Nibbedhika Sutta AN 6.63 where Buddha talked about 6 things one should know about karma.  Some sources may spell Kamma instead of Karma .

wow!!!  thanks Chris, those who understand Buddha's teachings and able to articulate them for others are not easy find.  thanks.  Also in some sutta, Buddha compared tanha to sap (vitality) of the seed, Nandi as water (most dictionary translate Nandi as 'joy' but I feel this word means more like 'dwelling, immersed in, get caught in'.  You may have read Buddha explanation of an arahat's mind ' raga appears, remains, and ends.  He knows it well but not dwell in such.. or no Nandi.  Letting go of Nandi is another way to not let a seed sprout.

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


text:
Meditation Without References
I have previously asked questions on this forum, and now I have gained some familiarity with meditation. I am primarily doing breath meditation. When I practice, my thoughts are barely distractions at all. I can easily stay focused, but I cannot narrow my attention to the sensations at the tip of the nose. What occurs in meditation feels like a clear, yet imprecise awareness.
I know from reading on the subject that the sharpness I am looking for comes with gladdening the mind, or applying effort. Yet, neither seem fruitful in my practice. I remain very weakly focused on an imprecise object, more or less the face and nose area.
Similarly, it often happens that while meditating my thoughts dissipate completely, or to a near absence. I keep hearing different types of advice, some people experienced in meditation advising me to not use the breath, some people advising sticking to it.
Given that I am very avoidant towards experience, I am doubtful towards centring my awareness on a single object. I would like to be more alert and aware, as well as awake, in general. Yet, I cannot visualize anything at all, am mostly emotionally barren, and feel unmotivated in general. I remember applying meditations on emptiness quite intensely in earlier years, and now I feel without much suffering, but also without much enthusiasm.
Any thoughts?

I can easily stay focused, but I cannot narrow my attention to the sensations at the tip of the nose.

If you are craving when you manage to get the attention, or being averse when you cannot, you are not doing the meditation right.
Early on, the results are not due to the fact that you were (or weren't) able to keep your attention: they are due to whether you had sustained effort, to keep your attention, by bringing your mind back to the middle of the upper lip of the nose area. This is what Vitarka and Vicara are.

Yet, neither seem fruitful in my practice. I remain very weakly focused on an imprecise object, more or less the face and nose area.

You seem to be craving to be able to do this.
Initially say you mind stick to the chosen object, nevertheless you should continuously try to bring it back. At the start of the breath, see if the breath is on the chosen spot: if not, bring it back, if it is on the breath still redirect it back to the chosen spot as when you would bring it back when the attention had gone away.
When your mind goes away to another object, or just thinking and pondering, there are three sensations which come by: i.e. sensations are pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. Try to see the thing's sensation before bringing your mind back. For example if you get a leg pain, see the pain and some aspect of its impermanence. Then bring back your mind.

Two phrases that weren't clear to me. One was "Initially say you mind stick". The other was "if it is redirect it" which seems to contrast the previous "if not" but I'm not sure that the contrast makes sense: perhaps it should say, if not, bring it back, if it is and redirect it back".

When you you check you mind it is either on the object or not. Regardless of whether it is with the object or not just redirect you mind to the object (Vicara). This is same mental action as if then the mind is away even when it is on the object. Simple formulae: initially apply the mind to the object (Vitakka) - re apply apply the mind to the object (Vicara).

For a change, why not you practice a different kind of meditation?  The maithri bhavana (loving kindness meditation) is the most important. It is not easy for everyone to properly do Anapanasati because many other obstacles different to what you have experienced come up - if not now, then in the time to come. So why not make a change in practicing Asubha Bhavana (Meditation on Loathsomeness) and Dhathu/indriya Bhavana (Analysis of Four Elements).
Please keep in mind that you should not mix one meditation with another. You should get out of one type of meditation to get into another. Always before starting to meditate, spend a minute in being aware of your surrounding. Then always without fail start doing these two steps. First – before start of a meditation, say to self (Vitakka) that you are about to leave ‘normal’ self, and entering into a meditative state.  Next – after each type of meditation - say to self (Vitakka) that you are about to leave ‘the meditative state’ to that of the day to day. As you start going into Jhana/Dyana states this practice will safeguard you.
Anytime when there is wandering thought, the concentration is not there. The appearing of a nimitta is a sign of concentration. When you develop an anapanasati nimitta, and practice it further, then you need a good knowledge of teachings (suttas) for you to overcome obstacles that you face. That is why in an earlier post – last week – I said that there is many a untruth in English Text on Dhamma - On Meditation specially. Nowhere in the Doctrine (Sutta) it is mentioned that one becomes a stream entrant (Sotapanna) thru meditation. It is by listening to dhamma that a disciple of the Buddha gets rid of the first three samyojana. Only then will one come to the proper frame of mind to do Meditation the right way. If not, you fall into all the trappings that come in the way. These trappings are both of this world and that of the other. There are forces of the netherworld that are going to cross your path that only one who is firmly established in the Noble Eightfold Path can overcome. That is why I said that meditation comes only when one is ready to go beyond the stage of Sotapanna to help get rid of / cut through the other 7 samyojana. Also that is the very reason that I said that otherwise going 'nuts' is a possibility and not enlightenment.
As mentioned earlier, the appearing of a nimitta is a sign of concentration. the ‘nimitta’ is your main object of focus. If hatred forms in a mind as a result of a cause, then that is Patigha nimitta (an objective to hate) which is your focus. When this focus is powerful, there is no room for a second different object of focus to get in the way.  One of the other many obstacles that you have not yet faced is that of distractions in the form of colours – bright or subdued- of white, red, yellow, orange, blue, etc. and get trapped in them.  One quality that’s always appropriate in establishing mindfulness is being watchful or alert, while maintaining a detached presence with what is experienced. Without a proper knowledge of dhamma this in not possible. The Pali word for alertness is sampajañña. It doesn’t mean being choicelessly aware of the present, or comprehending the present. Sampajañña means being aware of what you’re doing in the movements of the body, the movements in the mind. This is why mindfulness and alertness should always be paired.

First don't assume too quickly that you thoughts aren't a distraction, the mind is very tricky and the more you will practice the more you will be aware of your lack of awareness, which is a good thing because you will start being conscious of being distracted by deep thoughts processing underneath your immediate attention and driving you off the focus of your breath.
If you have no sensation around the nostrils don't be upset it is normal, just keep your attention there, remain equanimous and most of all don't crave or avoid any sensation you encounter in this area. The sensation can be anything don't look for a specific one and accept it as it comes. If you have unpleasant sensation on the nostrils, then focus on it without avoiding it, if you have pleasant sensation focus on it without being attached to it or craving for having it back when it goes away.
Being conscious of the impermanence and remaining equanimous, meaning that you don't start craving our avoiding the phenomena you experience is absolutely fundamental in your practice. Once you develop this tendency your focus will increase naturally. This is called the Right Concentration : Samma Samadhi.
Keep applying yourself like that and your attention will become sharper and sharper.

It seems different forms of subtle craving are present in your question, which is the hindrance of restlessness & remorse.
The ultimate purpose of Buddhist meditation is to abandon craving.
Abandoning craving can create more equipoise & also clarity.

Could you explain what the hindrances of restlessness & remorse are?

Your mind is jumping around, judging this & judging that. That is restlessness, which is the opposite of equipoise & restfulness. You have described having some calmness but are dissatisfied because there is some dullness & a lack of buoyancy/brightness. Thus your mind is caught up in judging & a lack of contentedness. This is restlessness. If the mind stops judging & wishing, the restlessness will end and the slight mental imbalances may iron themselves out if you let go of craving for things to be different. Regards


text:
Early life of the Buddha's references
Many accounts of the Buddha's life describe Śuddhodana preventing his son from leaving the palace to avoid a prophecy said by Asita. For example, this site says:

Suddhodana was determined to see his son become a king so he prevented him from leaving the palace grounds. But at age 29, despite his father's efforts, Siddhartha ventured beyond the palace several times.

In what sutta (of any canon or tradition) the Asita prophecy and the above events are described? The only sutta I know about Asita is Snp 3.11 but it does not mention the alternative prophecy for his future, and most suttas I know have the Buddha describing the palaces he lived in, but not his father's plans to prevent him from becoming a Buddha.
Also, it's commonly said that, after going outside the palace, he saw a sick, an old, and a dead person. Is this in the pali canon? DN 14 says Vipassi was the one who encountered these people. I only know of suttas such as AN 3.39 where it says that the Bodisatta reflected on sickness, old age and death. Do these stories got conflated?

In what sutta (of any canon or tradition) the Asita prophecy and the above events are described?  ...

.

Asita apparently see the child Bodhisattva either on the very day that he was born, or within
  three days thereafter. The Buddha,vaṁsa Commentary mentions the 5th day as the “head lustration” and
  naming day, when 108 brahmins were invited. If these, 8 of them—beginning with Rāma
  (J 1:56, v270)
  —were versed in reading the 32 marks of the great man. Seven of them raised two fingers, predicting that
  the child would become a wheel-turner if he lived a household life, and become buddha if he renounced
  the world.
The youngest of them, Koṇḍañña, was certain of the child’s future, and raised one finger, proclaiming
  the he would surely become the Buddha. Koṇḍañña later becomes the eldest of the group of 5 monks who
  attended to the Bodhisattva before his awakening. However, Asita is not mentioned amongst these brahmins.

Source: Introduction to Nālaka Sutta by Piya Tan

...  he saw a sick, an old, and a dead person. ...

Even though I was endowed with such fortune, such total refinement, the thought occurred to me: 'When an untaught, run-of-the-mill person, himself subject to aging, not beyond aging, sees another who is aged, he is horrified, humiliated, & disgusted, oblivious to himself that he too is subject to aging, not beyond aging. If I — who am subject to aging, not beyond aging — were to be horrified, humiliated, & disgusted on seeing another person who is aged, that would not be fitting for me.' As I noticed this, the [typical] young person's intoxication with youth entirely dropped away.

Source: Sukhamala Sutta, Four sights

And what is ignoble search? There is the case where a person, being subject himself to birth, seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to birth. Being subject himself to aging... illness... death... sorrow... defilement, he seeks [happiness in] what is likewise subject to illness... death... sorrow... defilement.

Source: Ariyapariyesana Sutta, Four sights

Thank you Suminda. What about his father's desire of him becoming a wheel-turner and making arrangements for that? Do you know any references to that?

If you search though it might be in the  Buddha,vaṁsa and / or Jataka and / or cemeteries.

A good starting point would be to trace footnotes and bibliography of THE BUDDHA AND HIS TEACHINGS by Venerable Nárada Maháthera and Thus We Heard Recollections of the Life of the Buddha. Latter is a novel, historic story, with references as per the authors, with some dramatising and composed elements, as per the introduction. Also SD 49 by Piya Tan / Dharmafarer.

What about his father's desire of him becoming a wheel-turner and making arrangements for that? Do you know any references to that?
There's a version of the prophesy (which doesn't mention Asita by name, nor the king's reaction to it) on page 219 (page 265 of the PDF) of this PDF, one of the Mahabuddhavamsa translations.
The king's attitude can be inferred from page 246 (page 292 of the PDF), the section titled "Measures Taken to see the Prince from seeing the Four Omens"; and on page 262/308 (chapter 3, "Seeing the Four Great Omens") in the section titled, "King Suddodhana increased the strength of the guards".
So these details (also including the Lion's Roar and other miracles) are in the Mahabuddhavamsa (this edition is more than a 1000 pages long), not necessarily in a sutta.
I'm puzzled though: I've examined the author's introduction and table of contents of this PDF and I don't wholly understand what's what. Why are there three chapter ones, for example? Why does page 246/292 have a section titled "The Version of the Commentaries on the Buddhavamsa and the Jataka", what does that mean? How much is "commentary"?
Given the size of it, I suppose it what's described on the first page of text after the table of contents, titled "The Author", page 45 of the PDF, which says,

... he assiduously compiled Maha Buddhavamsa, being the Maynmar exposition on the lives of the Buddhas as related mainly in the Buddhavamsa Pali Text of the Khudakka Nikaya. This compilation, resulting in six volumes in eight books, commenced in 1956 and ended in 1969. The work, being the author's magnum opus, ...

Buddhavamsa is part of the pali canon. Mahabuddhavamsa is a book written by Mingun Sayadaw at the request of Prime Minister U Nu and the Buddha Sasana Council from 1955 to 1960. This is not canonical, through maybe sourced from commentarial and other earlier literary material. I am adding this just for  additional information.

The bit I quoted implies that the Maha Buddhavamsa is "the Maynmar exposition on the lives ... as related mainly in the Buddhavamsa Pali Text of the Khudakka Nikaya ... resulting in six volumes"? Is the canonical text (from the Khudakka Nikaya) much shorter? Does it mostly describe the lives of the 24 Buddhas, or does it describe the life of Gautama Buddha in great detail?

See Tipiṭaka (Roman) > Tipiṭaka (Mūla) > Suttapiṭaka > Khuddakanikāya > Buddhavaṃsapāḷi at http://www.tipitaka.org/romn/ or Buddhavaṃsa @ Sutta Central It is part of Vol 42 (of 54) of the Buddha Jayanthi edition. This volume is one of the smaller volumes also.


text:
According to buddhism, do demons exists?
I have heard a lot about this kind of things called demons, satan, evil spirits from other religion. But is their any mention in buddhism about existance of such creatures or spirits?

According to Buddhism Demons exist. The Four Great Kings in the Cāturmahārājika Heaven keep watch over us of harm from these demons. There are a handful of (few) good demons too who have seen the Dhamma.)  These four Devas are Virūpākṣa (he who sees all), Dhṛtarāṣṭra (he who upholds the realm), Virūḍhaka (he who causes to grow), and Vaiśravaṇa (Kubera) (he who hears everything).  All four Devas serve Śakra, the lord of the devas. All demons have spontaneous birth (opapatika) like the Davas and the Petas (Hungry Ghosts). You may know by now that there are four kinds of birth - namely, egg-born (andaja), womb-born (julabuja), moisture-born (samsedaja), and spontaneous birth (opapatika).
There are four lower planes of existance = Niraya = devoid of happiness. There are four kinds of niraya - namely, woeful state (apaya / hell), the animal kingdom, the plane of Petas (hungry ghosts) and the plane of Asura-demons (Titans). None of these states is eternal. According to their unwholesome / unskillful kamma beings may be born in such woeful states. Departing from those states, they may be born in blissful states according to their past good kamma. In the sense-sphere (kamaloka) the human plane and the six celestial planes are regarded as blissful states. They too are not eternal.
Devil is referred to as MARA, in the scriptures. Mara means killer. He is the personification of the force that kills virtue and also kills existence. His armies are poised to attack all persons; they even tried to overcome the Buddha on the night of his enlightenment. But Mara is a post that is been held by a person.  If you are attached to the six senses, you are in the Mara (Devil)s grasp (a firm hold or grip). He is a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making mundane things alluring, or the negative seem positive.
At the time of Kakusandha Buddha – our Gautama Supreme Buddha’s chief disciple, Ven. Maha Moggallana was the Mara, chief of demons, lord of the lower worlds.  Kakusandha is the fourth of the Seven Buddhas of the last 91 Kalpa (Aeons), and the first of the five Buddhas of the present kalpa. The present day Mara is his sister’s son (nephew). When someone talks about “God’s grace” and “God’s mercy”,  it can more likely be that the blessings are of Mara and his hosts. This is possible. As the great jealous one, Mara has the power to bestow blessings on his hosts and subjects.
Getting back to the subject of Demons, here is a question & answer session that once took place between a King (Milinda) and an Arahant ( Ven. Nâgasena):

'Venerable Nâgasena, are there such things as demons (Yakkhâ) in the world?'
  'Yes, O king.'
  'Do they ever leave that condition' (fall out of that phase of existence)?
  'Yes, they do.'
  'But, if so, why is it that the remains of those dead demons are never found, nor any odour of their corpses smelt? '
  Their remains are found, O king, and an odour does arise from their dead bodies. The remains of bad demons can be seen in the form of worms and beetles and ants and moths and snakes and scorpions and centipedes, and birds and wild beasts.'

There's apparently one 'modern' form of Buddhism which doesn't, which is called Secular Buddhism:

Secular Buddhists interpret the teachings of the Buddha and the Buddhist texts in a rationalist and often evidentialist manner, considering the historical and cultural contexts of the times in which the Buddha lived and the various suttas, sutras and tantras were written.
Within the framework of secular Buddhism, Buddhist doctrine may be stripped of any unspecified combination of various traditional beliefs that could be considered superstitious, or that can't be tested through empirical research, namely: supernatural beings (such as devas, bodhisattvas, nāgas, pretas, Buddhas, etc.), merit and its transference, rebirth, Buddhist cosmology (including the existence of pure lands and hells), etc.

I think that all other, traditional forms of Buddhism "mention" demons.
For what it's worth I've also heard of "evil spirits" and so on, in folktales and children's stories (which are sometimes called "fairy tales") -- I'm not sure whether they come "from other religion", or whether it's better to recognize them as coming from all human cultures and literary traditions.
Some people (and I don't mean to say that these people are "secular Buddhists") explain demons as metaphors, personifications, etc. (see for example this answer); or say that demons were imported from contemporary (Vedic) religion or culture, and that although they're "mentioned" in Buddhist literature they don't have a role in Buddhist doctrine and practice (see e.g. this answer).
I guess this is hard to answer without down-playing or over-playing the importance of "demons".

Yes.
But you find yourself inclined to reject it do not do this either.
If something in the Dhamma does not agree with you do not reject or accept it until you know for sure at the experiential level or experienced great deal of Dhamma to infer the rest might be true also out of faith.


text:
Visualization and visualized meditation
I've come here many times for meditation on the breath. I've come to understand this meditation better, but I encounter problems unrelated to meditation.
I've noticed that my memory is rather bad, and that my thought process relies mostly on verbal means. However, I remember being extremely visual at an early age, scoring quite well on visual aptitude tests, and these days I can sometimes visualize complex things. Yet, I fail to use visualization in every day life because I understand Buddhism discourages mental fabrication. I am thus very focused on exterior reality, either sensing reality or thinking abstractly.
I'm wondering if visualization meditation would help me with memory and conceptualizing. I must also mention that I have a mood disorder, and though I doubt visualizing could affect this, I am still worried of the possibility. Thus, my questions are:

Is intentionally visualizing something very different from fantasies discouraged in Buddhism?
Is visualizing generally different from engaging in visualization in meditation?
Are there any risks involved in visualization practices, in visualization as a general trait of mind?
Would visualizing improve memory, retention, or modelling?
Could visualizing in a free and unrestricted way liberate or affect emotions, undo repression?

I am thankful for any replies.

I'm familiar with visualization meditation, in the context of Tibetan Buddhist meditation.
Those specific meditations were good for my mood as well as a training in concentration. For me it was a very useful start into meditation, though I have stopped doing it for now.
I think it's a mistake to avoid something you're good at, just because you heard that the Buddha is against mental fabrication. I have studied Buddhism quite extensively (though not exhaustively) and I have not heard that one before.
It is a Buddhist truth that thoughts can be misleading, but that should not stop you from thinking. It is merely a useful hint that not all your thoughts are true.
One difference between fantasy and visualization is that in visualization you take control of your mental processes and visualize what YOU want to visualize (or what the instruction is).
Fantasies are basically day-dreams: you let your mind go where it will. Observing those thoughts can also be meditation - but then it becomes mindfulness.
What makes it meditation is that it is deliberate.
So if you are doing visualization meditation - you focus on (in two steps)

making the image clear
concentrating on that image.

If you're doing mindfulness meditation, you will simply note you are fantasizing when you are in fact fantasizing. The noting itself will take you out of the fantasy for a bit, by the way.
There is also Buddhist analytical meditation: it means analyzing a Buddhist truth from all sides. It does go back all the way to the Buddha. And if that is a good thing, then surely ordinary analysis ought to be OK too. It falls under the heading of seeking wisdom.
More about Buddhist meditation: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/thought.htm

Yet, I fail to use visualization in everyday life because I understand Buddhism discourages mental fabrication.

Verbal fabrication are not limited to metal verbalisation or subvebalisation. It includes anything to do with thinking which includes visualisations. Thinking is not only verbal fabrication, also provides nutriment, give rise to volition for karma.
Use of visualisation, verbalisations, sub verbalisations, imagination, conceptualization leads to fabrication, nutriments, pannatti1 (more particularly nama pannatti when using labelling with verbalisation or sub verbalisation and nimitta pannatti2 in Samatha), etc. The meditation exercise is to understand the ultimate realities and the universal laws of nature (dhamma), penetrating beyond concepts. So this (self create verbalisation or sub verbalisation or metal image) cannot be used for Satipaṭṭhāna meditation, if a concept spontaneously arise let it be, and be aware of the sensations / feeling this bring about; this (Verbalisation, visualisation, conceptualisation, thinking and pondering, etc.) also leads to fabrications (more particularly verbal) and nutriment (Āhāra - more particularly Manosañcetanā Āhāro). Samma Ditthi Sutta mentions the end of fabrication and also nutriment is the right way. More on pannatti on this site see this search. A related concept is nirutti, more this see this search.
I.e. this visualisation, results in:

verbal fabrication generally based on unwholesome root of ignorance, since concepts are not ultimate realities, which can lead to undesired future experiences
nutriment to keep existance which can lead to future unwholesome experiences
use of concepts than ultimate realities which has the basis of the unwholesome root of ignorance, where as ignorance is displaced when you meditate with ultimate realities as the object of meditation
concept proliferation, though controlled, is not in touch with ultimate realities, but uses a stream of repetitive concepts objects ("thoughts, thoughts, thoughts, ...", "sounds, sounds, sounds, ...", ..., etc.)

One justification of using the labeling is use of controlled vocabulary which relates or close to the ultimate realities:

4 elements: earth, air, heat, water or equivalent names / labels like motion, highness, etc.
function of 6 sense organs: seeing, smelling, touching, hearing, tasting, thinking
5 aggregates: conscious, perceiving, feeling, etc.

But as iterated before labeling is conceptual and not ultimate realities.
Samatha meditation like Kasina uses nimitta (nimitta pannatti2). This also be avoided and to prefer the framework of the body (4 sathipattana) as the object of meditation. Reason for this is many meditators get attached to the Sukha this bring and it is not possible to see the impermanence of the Nimita, the unsatisfactoriness of the feeling the Nimita bring when it ends and the fact the Ninita is not fully in one's control and also it brings unsatisfactoriness hence should not be identified as me or mine. Generally, a Samantha practitioner will miss identify the Nimita as permanent, satisfactory and controllable (as controlling and manipulating the nimita part of the excecise) which leads to the unwholesome root of ignorance. This is one of the Adinava of the Samatha practice. Jhana should be developed using the 4 Foundations of mindfulness or 4 Brahmavihara.
Also some quotes by Meditation Master S.N.Goenka on this:

Some meditators start with walking, even mentally repeating "walking", "itching", or whatever. There is no paññā: but at least the practice concentrates the mind.

Source: Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - S. N. Goenka

But you are required to observe bare respiration, as it naturally is, without regulating it; no word or imagined form may be added.
...
Similarly visualization—mentally picturing a shape or form—can become a barrier to progress. The technique leads to the dissolving of apparent truth in order to reach ultimate truth. Apparent, integrated truth is always full of illusions, because at this level saññ± operates, perception, which is distorted by past reactions. This conditioned perception differentiates and discriminates, giving rise to preferences and prejudices, to fresh reactions. But by disintegrating apparent reality, one gradually comes to experience the ultimate reality of the mental-physical-structure: nothing but vibrations arising and passing away every moment. At this stage no differentiation is possible, and therefore no preferences or prejudices can arise, no reactions. The technique gradually weakens the conditioned saññ± and hence weakens reactions, leading to the stage in which perception and sensation cease, that is, the experience of nibb±na. But by deliberately giving attention to a shape, form, or vision, one remains at the level of apparent, composed reality and cannot advance beyond it. For this reason, there should be neither visualization nor verbalization.

Source: The Discourse Summaries by S.N.Goenka

1) Is intentionally visualizing something very different from fantasies discouraged in Buddhism?

Thinking, verbalisation, imagination are all verbal fabrications which intern is accompanied by initial and sustained application (Vitakka - Vicara)

2) Is visualizing generally different from engaging in visualization in meditation?

In meditation, say Kasina, you visualise a coloured disk. This is the same as any imagination unless you are aware of its impermanence.
Any imagination if there is a perception that it is permanent, pleasurable and controlled by self then it becomes unwholesome.
You are not fully in control of your image. When practicing in meditation or otherwise, when you bring about a visualisation you get the notion I created this, I control this, this appeared as I wanted it to be. You might think abiding in these meditation states is Sukka or imagination of by liking or some beautiful object of imagination. Also the imagined object may seem real, solid and permanent.
Similarly you lose touch that it is dependently arisen, sustained by nutriment, etc.
Also there is Paramattha Dhammas (Citta, Chethesika, Rupa, Nirvana) and Pannatti (Kala, Nama, etc.) which represent totality dhamma according to the Abhidhamma. Visualisation is Nama Pannatti which is not an ultimate reality.
This leads to future pleasant, unpleasant and neutral experiences.

3) Are there any risks involved in visualization practices, in visualization as a general trait of mind?

What ever that creates a future experience, the experiences fall into 3 categories (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral), but if the experiences were created with the unwholesome roots it will be unpleasant or neutral.
When visualising you cannot be fully in touch with reality hence ignorance is present. Also verbal fabrications are created. In addition, there is thinking and pondering which gives nutriment for future existence. All this created with unwholesome base will result in future experiences. Even Jhanic attainments give result in certain planes of existence. When higher fetters break then desire for such exitance also goes away.

4) Would visualizing improve memory, retention, or modelling?

Yes. I might. Any training now will have a future consequence. Some of the practices (perhaps not all) may lead to a future existence with improved memory and modelling capabilities.
This is also temporary and any future existence ends in unsatisfactoriness.

5) Could visualizing in a free and unrestricted way liberate or affect emotions, undo repression?

Many of the Kammaṭṭhāna has visualisation of imagination as a basis. Practicing them the right way leads to existence in higher planes. These are part of the higher fetters (uddhambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni). Unless you realise this is conditioned, dependently arisen, sustained by nutriment, etc. cannot liberate you.
Vipassana is the best way to deal with emotions: vipassana meditation experience, vipassana meditation testimonial

1

The Atthasalini uses different synonyms for nama pannatti (concepts that are names). It is an interpretation, an expression that renders the meaning of something in language (nirutti). A name is a distinctive sign that shows the meaning of something (vyancana). There are sounds which people utter, letters combined as words which express the meaning of something (abhilapa). These synonyms explain the meaning of nama pannatti, a name or term. A term makes the meaning of something known. The idea or notion that is made known can also be called a concept. Thus, there are, generally speaking, two kinds of pannatti:

That which is made known (pannapiyatta or atthapannatti).
That which makes known (pannapanato), the name or term (sadda pannatti or namapannatti) which makes known the meaning of things. If we remember these two classes of concepts it will be easier to understand what a concept is. There are many kinds of concepts and they can be classified in different ways. One way of classifying them is the following (see Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch. VIII, section 4, on pannattis):

i) concept of continuity: (santana pannatti), corresponding to the continuity of things, such as land, mountain or tree, which concept is based on the rapid succession of the elements.
ii) collective concept: (samuha pannatti), corresponding to modes of construction of materials, to a collection of things, such as a vehicle or a chariot.
iii) conventional concept: (sammutti pannatti), such as person or individual, which is derived from the five khandhas.
iv) local concept: (disa pannatti), a notion or idea derived from the revolving of the moon, such as the directions of east or west.
v) concept of time: (kala pannatti), such as morning, evening.
vi) concept of season: (masa pannatti), notions corresponding to seasons and months. The months are designated by names, such as Vesakha.
vii) concept of space: (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is derived from space that is not contacted by the four Great Elements.
viii) nimitta pannatti: the mental image which is acquired through the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina.
We read in the Abhidhammattha Sangaha:

All such different things, although they do not exist in the ultimate sense,
become objects of thought in the form of shadows of ultimate things.
They are called pannatti
because they are thought of, reckoned, understood, expressed,
and made known on account of, in consideration of,
and with respect to, this or that mode.
This 'pannatti' is so called because it is made known.
As it makes known, it is called 'pannatti'.
It is described as 'name', 'name-made', etc.

Source: Concepts II - Pannatti

Question: When there is seeing through the eyes and we know that it is a pen, it shows that we know the word pen through the mind-door. Is that right?
Sujin: Before we can think of the word pen, we already know a concept. A pannatti is not merely sadda pannatti (a concept of sound) a word or name.
Question: After seeing I remember what was seen. Is the object then already a concept?
Sujin: The Pali term pannatti means: it makes something known (derived from pannapeti).
Question: Must each of the sense-door processes be followed by a mind-door process so that the meaning of things can be known?
Sujin: The five sense objects which are visible object, sound, odour, flavour, and tangible object appear through two door-ways. Thus, visible object appears through the eye-door and then, after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between, it appears through the mind- door. In the same way, sound, odour, flavour, and tangible object appear through the corresponding sense-doors and then through the mind-door.

Source: Concepts II - It makes something known

Question: You said that concepts could be known through the mind-door. Therefore, I am inclined to think that if there is awareness through the mind-door, concepts can be the object of satipatthana.
Sujin: In order to have more understanding of satipatthana we should begin with this very moment. Is there a concept while you hear sound now? Sound is a paramattha dhamma. When citta knows the meaning of the sounds it knows a concept and it knows this through the mind-door. Citta thinks about different words. Sati can follow and be aware of that citta, so that it can be realised as just a type of citta that thinks of words.
Question: Thus, satipatthana can know the reality that is thinking, but it cannot know concepts. As far as I understand, each of the sense-door processes has to be followed by a mind-door process, it cannot be otherwise. When there is seeing there is an eye- door process, and after there have been bhavanga-cittas in between, there is a mind-door process of cittas which experience visible object. Is that right?
Sujin: The víthi-cittas of the mind-door process, which follow víthi-cittas of a sense-door process, have to experience the same rupa. If the javana-cittas of the sense-door process are lobha-mula-cittas (cittas rooted in attachment), the javana-cittas of the first mind-door process after that sense-door process have to be the same types of lobha-mula-citta. The mind-door process follows extremely rapidly upon the sense-door process. With respect to this there is a simile of a bird perching on a branch. As soon as the bird perches on the branch its shadow appears on the ground. Even so, when the object has been experienced through the sense-door and there have been many bhavanga-cittas in between, arising and falling away very rapidly, it is immediately afterwards experienced through the mind-door. Since cittas succeed one another so rapidly one does not know that visible object which is experienced through the eyes is only a paramattha dhamma that can appear because it has impinged on the eyesense.

Source: Concepts II - Can a concept be an object of satipatthana? II
Also see: The Dhamma Theory Philosophical Cornerstone of the Abhidhamma by Y. Karunadasa
2

nimitta pannatti: the mental image which is acquired through the development of samatha, such as the nimitta of a kasina.

I hope there's an alternative to copying the same large block[s] of text into several answers. One way, in a new answer, is to reference and link to the text of a previous answer, for example, "see the description of the pannatti, nimitta pannatti etc. in this answer".

Things seems to be more useful and easy for the reader to keep self contained. I have done this before and noticed one answer refers another which goes on to more than 3 or 4 levels deep. It also becomes unclear which parts expand on the other and is hard to navigate back and forth when the referred part ferest to another. End of the day the user will not understand and will be a waste of my and user time. Also quality of the experience and content will be low. One there a few loner thorough content I plan to do this but periodically having a full / self contained answer.

the result of perception is not always verbal fabrication, sometimes that verbosity is muted, especially when the source is stale (desensitized)...otherwise no end to this yapping...

I can't answer but (in case you don't already know this, and in case it helps you to research further if you want to) there are some forms of Buddhist visualization meditation, from different schools, including kasiṇa and  mandalas.
Another example of a harmless (perhaps even recommended) form of "visualization" might be the wheel of life. Apparently the pictorial representation of it isn't used in Theravada (I don't know why). I think it's an example of a picture being worth a thousand words (i.e. learning the picture and its symbolism is a way to memorize those doctrines).
I think the suttas mention other forms of meditation too, which involve visualization or imagination. Devices in Meditation says,

In kammattana, it is permissible to use certain devices, such as the earth or color kasina, as focal points for the attention. A candle flame, a hole in the wall, or some metal object can also be used, and the method of using them is found in the Pali texts and the Visuddhi-magga. In the texts themselves it is to be noted that the Buddha gave objects of meditation to disciples in accordance with their individual characteristics, and his unerring knowledge of the right technique for each came from his insight into their previous births. Similarly with recursive meditation, a subject would be given which was easily comprehensible to the pupil, or which served to counteract some strong, unwholesome tendency in his nature. Thus, to one attracted by sensual indulgence, the Buddha would recommend meditation on the impurity of the body, or the "cemetery meditation." Here the object is to counterbalance attraction by repulsion, but it is only a "skillful means" to reach the final state, in which attraction and repulsion both cease to exist. In the arahant there is neither liking nor disliking: he regards all things with perfect equanimity, as did Thera Maha Moggallana when he accepted a handful of rice from a leper.

The Visuddhimagga has about 300 pages on various "objects of meditation": including kasinas. They're categorized as Samadhi (Concentration) meditations. Another example is Metta-Bhavana, which can involve your visualizing various types of person (e.g. people who are dear to you).


text:
Barriers to Compassion
I think most would say that anger and prejudice are the main obstacles to compassion, but I'm wondering on the topic of sympathetic joy. If everything is empty, and suffering, and impermanent, how can we be happy for the joys of others which are empty, and ultimately suffering? I feel like being happy for a joy which is in fact suffering is like being glad someone took poison. I would like to develop compassion for other's joys--the real joys that will further their lives--but I find most of the things people are satisfied by detrimental things. Any thoughts?
EDIT: Also, I wonder how, since everything is intrinsically empty, one can truly be happy for events occurring to someone else since they have no absolute effects. This would imply one would have to be happy for the happy emotions others have in themselves rather than what occurs, but once again, but Buddha explained these as suffering, even the most blissful states.

The main topic of the question is "sympathetic joy", isn't it: not "compassion".

May I know what you think about this "everything is empty"?. How would you define "Emptiness". If I agree with how you would see Sunnata (Emptiness) only will I be able to answer your OP.

With practice, you can be content by reflecting on the good karma of others rather than joy or happiness. It is very close, if not the same, to praise. For example, if someone you're showing compassion to is now able to feel happy, then you can think "Now this person has the opportunity to practice dhamma since his problems are lesser. This is good". Maybe you can go further and help the person practice dhamma even for a second. This way, you don't cultivate thoughts that nurture attachment, nor do you appreciate any wrong joy or happiness in the other person you helped (such as thanha).

First of all you are veering dangerously to nihilism (annihilism). Seeing things as empty impermanent, not self and suffering is to allow us to detached ourselves to pleasures (including the pleasures of the bliss of Jhana). It doesn't mean that everything is meaningless or there are no consequences to our actions.
Emptiness in particularly used by Mahayana to mean that things are ultimately dependent originated. Things happen due to causes and conditions. It does not mean that it's all meaningless and does not matter. This is use to break your attachments to things you cling to as permanent. We should definitely not take this to mean that all actions are meaningless. If we do so we would quickly enter a deluded mindset.
Secondly Mutida or sympathetic joy is the antidote to jealousy and judgement. When we see someone who is better off than we are, we have a tendency to become jealous. Especially we have judged that person as being unworthy of happiness. On the other hand, if we feel they are worse off than we are, we might start to develop conceit, or even pity, and we become unable to rejoice in their good fortune. You can be happy for the limited happiness that they may have, whatever it maybe.
I want to further add that there is one powerful use of sympathetic joy, the joy of rejoicing in the merits of others, that is in their goodness. When we see others doing good things or making progress in the path, it is worth rejoicing, and in fact further aid and reinforce your own cultivation. Commonly you will see Buddhists exclaim 'Sadhu!' - meaning good or well said after seeing good deeds.

What is subjected to 3 characteristics:

what is conditioned - Dhammapada Verses 277, 278 and 279
each link of Dependent Arising - (Jāti) Paccaya Sutta
5 argerates - Anatta Lakkhana Sutta, (Khandha) Sīla,vanta Sutta
6 sense bases, their respective objects and experiences - Pubba Sambodha Sutta 1 (Ajjhatta), Pubba Sambodha Sutta 2 (Bahiddha)

Generally you should try to understand the 3 Characteristics based on one of the above frameworks. Also the 3 Characteristics are not the end it self but means to an end, viz., because of impermanence, things are unsatisfactory, what is unsatisfactory should be lung to as me or mine.
The Brahmavihara also is conditioned. Therefore the result of such practice will be subjected to these characteristics, but this practice serves a different purpose. The purpose develop such qualities by breaking barriers on how you classify beings whatever the criteria. It severs a useful and benevolent purpose, hence is it not an empty practice.
Also the Equanimity is one of the Brahmavihara. Even when you wish someone well and it does not materialise be equanimous.

I think the main topic of the question is "sympathetic joy", not "compassion".

Muditā is translated for example here as:

muditā: altruistic or sympathetic joy, consisting of rejoicing at others' success and good fortune.

Wikipedia defines it here  but without first-hand reference to scripture.

In the suttas which describe the four Brahmavaharas it's defined as "devoid of ill-will".

He dwells pervading one direction with a citta imbued with muditā, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth; so above, below, transversely, everywhere and in every respect, he dwells pervading the entire world with a citta imbued with muditā, abundant, extensive, boundless, devoid of hostility, devoid of ill-will.

There's a long definition of the Brahmaviharas in Chapter IX of the Visuddhimagga:

Starting with loving-kindness, even towards a hostile person
Then (about 17 pages later) about developing compassion, even towards a robber about to be executed (but if you feel too hostile for compassion, try loving-kindness as previously described)
Then try to develop gladness (mudita), for which the advice is as follows:

Fourthly, equanimity.

From that I take it that it's a sympathetic joy: if you "feel" compassionate when someone else is sad, sympathetic joy is what you feel when, because, taking your cue from someone else being happy.
Another explanation is that the purpose of the practice is to make you devoid of hostility: devoid of jealousy, for example (e.g. "I'm happy for his success" rather than "I'm envious of his success").
Dhammadhatu's answer might be right as well. For example, some people might feel glad because of good or skillful actions. If you feel their gladness then you too are made glad as a result of good or skillful actions.

The Three Characteristics are teachings or vipassana objects for enlightenment.
The four Brahma Vihara are social attitudes rather than teachings for enlightenment.
Compassion is the wish for others to be free from suffering, including the wish that evil doers be free from the suffering that pushes them to do evil deeds.
Sympathetic joy is rejoicing in or appreciating the good actions of others, such as if a person saves the life of another person. Sympathetic joy is not something practised towards evil doers. Only three Brahma Vihara can be practised towards evil doers.
The noble path has three trainings therefore Brahma Vihara is part of the training in Right Thought & Right Conduct towards others, which is based in conventional reality rather than the ultimate reality of Emptiness.
A Buddha is perfect in both enlightened understanding & conventional behaviour.

The Four Brahma Viharas are supportive teachings for Vipassana but if someone only practices the Brahma Viharas and not at least some mindfulness too they wouldn't be understanding emptiness very deeply. You mean you can't practice sympathetic joy if the joy came from an evil act. There are no evil people just evil actions. He's The Buddha , not The Shoulda. Imo. -metta

The Four Brahma Viharas are unrelated to Vipassana; they are not a "support" for vipassana since they do not have to be practised for vipassana to occur. There are "evil doers". I did not use the word "people" in my post. Also, the Buddha was one of the biggest "shouldas" in history. Please try to make useful comments rather than feel sorry for evil doers (since they go to hell based on their own volition, as the Buddha taught). Thanks

So if I understand correctly, sympathetic joy takes happiness in that people perform virtuous actions, and doesn't take joy in people's mundane happiness which will not contribute to their well being? Also,   since an evil person fails to perform such virtuous actions it is difficult to give them sympathetic joy on the basis that their behaviours are detrimental to them? Also, lastly, if a person takes joy in something detrimental to them, such as drugs or misguided sexuality, then the emotion--despite being positive--is linked with negative acts and so is not linked with sympathetic joy?

This would imply that we cannot give sympathetic joy to the majority of people I find. People do actions beneficial in their opinion, but not actually beneficial for them ultimately, in a deeper sense.

Sympathetic joy is an antidote to envy & jealousy. Thus it means to be happy for the success & good fortune of others (rather than to be envious or begruding). The saying is: "may all beings not be parted from the good fortune they have attained". Regards. As for the drug taker, yes, they may rejoice in the short term but in the long term drugs will harm them therefore, from the viewpoint of Buddhism, there is nothing to celebrate about drugs.

@Dhammadhatu Do you agree that it is best to have compassion for "evil doers"? You make it sound as if you do no evil. Maybe you are  enlightened? Either way I don't see why it's necessary to be so rude. I got thrown off this site for rudeness you know.

@Dhammadhatu Sure, you don't have to use the 4 abodes to support vipassana practice but they most certainly can support Vippasana, especially dry vipassana.

There is no such thing as "dry vipassana". Real vipassana results in the mind letting go, which results in samadhi. Samadhi develops vipassana & vipassana develops samadhi. Regards


text:
Are multiverses real according to Buddhism
i have heard that buddism also says that multiverse exists. So, i want to ask something. Before few weeks, i saw two dreams in which I was totally aware of myself and at that time at those places, i can clearly feel that whatever I was experiencing, they are Real. In other word, if somebody would have come at that time and told me, this is your dream, than i would have laughed to much. In other words, I can still remember all the detail of that place(dream) and time, the detail of my hands etc. How can this be possible? As I've heard that worlds are just state of mind, similarly dream also. So does that makes, the dream world also as a real world, if a person is always their? Can I again feel such experience? That was very cool, I can still remember that. Before sleeping that night, I was thinking about how multiverse is possible, which I think sometime a because these things are very cool, specially from spirtual path. Were those two of the universe(world) among infinite other universe?

It is possible that our “dream world” could be a window to our “mind plane”.   Our past memories of even past lives could live within us in the “näma thalaya” or the “mind plane”. It is not storage in a physical device like a tape. Mind plane is devoid of any material things, it is all “näma“. It can be thought of as in a “different dimension” - this mind plane that we ‘see’ through our “dream world”.
When we dream, we can “hear”, “see” and “do” things but it is all “näma“. When we “play back” memories, it is somewhat like seeing a dream. If we have a strong memory of some event, even from many years ago, we can recall it in our mind instantaneously. We just think about it and we can “see” it plays back with sounds and the background just like it happened. Our minds can connect to the “mind plane” and recall things without a delay. If our brain is the “transmitter” and “receiver” in communications with the mind plane, then as we get old, the “recall power” would get diminished. Meditation may help keep the brain healthy as we grow old.
As per the Teachings the universe is infinite in time and space. Infinite in space means length of the universe, width of the universe or number of solar systems (lokadhātu) in the universe are infinite. In this sense if you use the term “multiverse”, it may not be incorrect. The following is taken from ‘Attakata” Commentaries.

“The portions which consist of one billion solar systems are called “Thri Sahashri Loka Datu” (trisāhasra-mahāsāhasra-lokadhātu or great trichiliocosm, roughly equals to the galaxy in science).
A collection of 1000 solar systems are called “Sahashri Loka Dhatu”(sāhasra-cūḍika-lokadhātu or small chiliocosm). A collection of 1000,000 solar systems are called “Divi Sahashri Loka Dhatu”( dvisāhasra-madhyama-lokadhātu, or medium dichiliocosm).
After solar system being made it will be stable for some time, after that it will be destroying and it will be made again. The time taken to one of this cycle is called “Maha Kalpa(great kalpa)”.
Maha Kalpa is divide in to four equal portions those are time of solar system formation ( Sanwatta Kalpa), time of existence( Sanwatta Sthayi Kalpa), time of destruction(Wiwatta kalpa) and time of emptiness(Wiwatta Sthayi Kalpa). Each one of these time interval is called as an “Asankya Kalpa”. So that one Maha Kalpa is equals to four Asankya Kalpa. One 64th of a Asankya Kalpa is called Antah Kalpa.

beautiful quote to the commentaries, can you also add a reference to those?

31 Planes of existence coming together is one universe. There are infinite similar universes according to the Abhidhamma. This may be similar to multiverse but unlike in Sci Fi there are no duplicates of beings and duplication of events as per my understanding. Generally rebirth is within the universe but there are times beings can be reborn in intergalactic space / hell which are the coldest places every. Such being may end up in other universes. The universe we live in is a lucky place since it is here a Buddha appears. So only the lucky beings inhabit this universe through there are infinite such being in the universe. There are infinite being in each universe. The cycles of creation and destruction in each universe may not be the same as in such universes may not be habitable. Generally I would believe even with psychic powers you may not know the bounds of the universe of see beyond this universe. Perhaps only The Buddha and a few of the great disciples may have managed to do this.

By saying Buddha do you mean siddharth gautam or many Buddha's before Buddha?
Infact Goenka says there have been several Buddhas before siddharth gautam.

There was infinite Buddhas about of which there is a more detail record of the most recent Buddhas. See List of the named Buddhas

There's a follow-up question about this answer, posted here.

According to Buddhist teaching you can experience the following worlds by practicing meditation (Jhana) except States of Deprivation (apaya).
The Thirty-one Planes of Existence

A multiverse isn't a finite concept (since the number of probabilities of splitting a universe is countless). Similarly, some theories state that all state exist but come to realization based on the observer. You can, at the risk of going against what Buddha advices, go ahead and think in ways such as such States come to existence based on the choices we make. Thus it's still Karma, and such States are just realization of choices we make.
This kind of thinking is clearly detrimental for realizing dhamma according to Buddha. Buddha States clearly that the world, multi or single, starts with our six senses and ceases to exist once we are no longer born. Maybe that gives you a hint on how the six senses, accompanied with inputs, produces vingnana, which Buddha calls an illusion (thereby probably making a multiverse an illusion too) and tricks you into contemplating useless subject matter.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html

This is a very good answer.


text:
Brahma Viharas Without Visualizing
I have a fairly straightforward question. When I visualize without aim, or even sometimes with aim, disturbing or aggressive images sometimes arise in consciousness. Can I practice meditations on the brahma viharas without visualizing?

To practice Brahma Viharas you should have at least one living being.
So it is not possible to practice without an object.

The subject of your meditation should be a subject which is a live being or some category or grouping of real living beings (loved ones, same part of the country, humans, some animals, northerners, neighbours,  etc.). You can use any visualization or verbalisations. But when you try to visualise X some other unrelated things happens. In this case do not react with despair and anger. When things are not in your control know that it is not / non self.
Also objective of Brahma Vihara is to:

develop these qualities
break the tendency to classify into favorable, unfavorable and neutral categories and  react to the sensations and feelings due to the perception creating unwholesome roots
break the tendency to classify into superior, inferior and neutral and and to react to them creating sensations and feelings due to the perception creating unwholesome roots

Is this the same for any visualization? Simply be aware that the visualizations  are not part of a permanent self and not reflective of motivation? For example, aggressive urges arise and, without identifying with them, observe them without linking them to actual intentions?

What you visualise is never reality but what you put together in your mental model. In you mental model there will be sence of being permanent entity view of people, but in reality they are changing, aging, etc. Also you have no control over your visualisation.

There is a Zen story that goes something like this, a Zen student ask the master if in the state of no thoughts, are there any sins left. The Master replied: "Sumeru!". Sumeru being the mythical World Mountain at the center of the world, a metaphor for immense afflictions.
The fact is that we have a great deal of suffering buried deep within our mind. And it is during the calm state of meditation that many start to surface. I once watched a documentary "Dhamma Brothers" about these prisoners who underwent an intensive 10 days meditation retreat. One of the things that stood out was that some of these murderers interviewed said they start to relive and become aware their horrible crimes. For them it was like coming out of a haze, and making realizations that they have hurt their victims unjustly.
This is why it is Ethics that is the foundation for a successful meditation practice, because we will be reliving a lot of our karma and negative mental habits. According to traditional Buddhist views, this buried afflictions are so deeply embedded all the way from our past lives.
So the question is what to do when these memories/thoughts/visual imaginations resurface? We should apply the antidote to these poisons in our mind. If we have deep anger and resentment for a person, we need apply compassion and forgiveness towards that person. The feelings of loving kindness and good will are the tool needed to overcome these negative mental states. ("Love" very much in the Christian sense). Repentance likewise is very helpful.

The practice of the brahma vihara meditation is given in the suttas as follows:

[One] dwells pervading one quarter with a mind imbued with [brahma-vihara quality], likewise the second quarter, the third quarter, and the fourth quarter. Thus above, below, across, and everywhere, and to all as to himself, he dwells pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with [brahma-vihara quality], vast, exalted, measureless, without enmity, without ill will.

Where the quality in brackets stands for one of the four immeasurables: mettā, karuṇā, muditā, upekkhā ("loving-kindness", "compassion", "empathetic joy", "equanimity").
If we regard this practice description as complete, we can follow it as is. In this case, it doesn't seem to emphasize specific visualizations. Instead, it seems to instruct us to do an active immersion of the mind in a certain quality, say, spreading it and filling every corner of one's mind with it.
Using mettā as example, one immerses the mind in this quality gradually:

[...] one quarter with a mind imbued with mettā, likewise the second quarter, the third quarter, and the fourth quarter [...]

One makes it pervasive, ubiquitous:

Thus above, below, across, and everywhere [...] vast, exalted, measureless

One directs it and applies it to every being, to the entire world:

[...] to all as to himself, he dwells pervading the entire world with a mind imbued with mettā.

When this practice is undertaken, unwholesome qualities diminish:

[...] without enmity, without ill will.

They diminish because if these are effectively practiced, the mind becomes interested in these qualities; it grabs the interest of the mind once it finds them pleasurable. As result, the mind incorporates them.
They also diminish because of "incompatibility". For example, it's not possible for a mind immersed in compassion to have cruelty taking hold of it. Cruel thoughts appear distant, tasteless, sterile and weak in a mind soaked in compassion.

With the brief practice contextualized, let's talk the specifics:
You said: disturbing or aggressive images sometimes arise in consciousness.
If the aggressive images that arise (e.g. towards another or towards oneself) are born out of anger or are enticing, metta and/or karuna can be ideal primary practices. If the aggressive images are born out of envy,  jealous or discontent sentiments, it might be interesting to focus more on mudita (see AN 6.13 and also DN 34). All these can be complemented and calibrated by upekkhā, which is also one of the recommended practices for dealing with disgust and passion.
On the other hand, if the disturbing thoughts have as origin remorse or, generally, non-virtuous past behaviors, it might be fruitful to focus more on reestablishing the precepts, making amends to past mistakes and strengthening virtuous behavior.
Naturally, all the above are not mutually exclusive, meaning one benefits from doing them all, but certain difficulties might be approached better with a focused/dedicated effort.

Those are perfect appearances, Eggman. Developing, for example metta means to hold on an attitude of goodwill (metta) "like a mother holds on here only son", even so hold on a mindstate of metta. Special perfect, because those phenomenas cause you to fall into aversion. That's a perfect working place. So when such things arise, put more effort into keeping up goodwill and don't tend to aversion if it arises. Itks good when you also observe how mind reacts, phenomenas arising and decay. When you use metta as object for your concentration (thats actually the dhammic purpose of it), also obsere the comming and going of phenomenas. It's good to become aware of such, much better then to dwell dull in the Brahma Vihara realm.

I read once (in a modern, non-Buddhist psychology book) that some people are more visual, some more auditory, some more tactile (or haptic):

Most people are visual so you show them something.
Most of the rest are auditory (by which I mean, prefer to learn by hearing) so you tell them something.
The minority are haptic so they learn by doing something.

I guess it's possible that most people practice Bhavana by visual imagination, but that some people could do it via other forms of imagination. For example is it easier for you to identify people by sound instead of sight?
You're supposed to pervade kindness and so on in various directions -- maybe that means you can use your sense of proprioception.

What I mean is within thought saying, for example: "May X be happy, healthy, safe and live with ease." Repeating this multiple times for example. Or reason about the qualities of the person, etc. Would these be defined as metta?

Yes. This is a meditation involving words ("May X be happy"); and this is a chant not a visualization (I suppose someone might visualize as well as or while chanting, but perhaps you understand words without trying to visualize objects which the words describe).

Visualizing is just one of the way to trigger happy feeling to arise, but not all of us could visualize thing. So, visualizing is not compulsory to practice brahmavihara.
Verbalizing too is one of the way to trigger happy feeling but if you chant "may you be happy" all the time, you won't get deeper in your meditation.
The problem with practicing brahmavihara is that there's only a few teachers who could teach this practice.
Bhante Vimalaramsi from Dhammasukha.org [My Teacher | Highly Recommended] [easy to practice without too much theory] [Free Online Retreat | Guidance]
Pa-Auk Sayadaw from paaukforestmonastery.org [Someone that i Recommend too] [Burmese Tradition, Theorical and Too much Abhidhammic and Commentaries]


text:
why can't the spirtual experience explained from logic
I have heard that when a meditators do a very deep meditation and experiences supernatural phonomenon that experience can't be expressed with words and logic. What does that mean. I remember Albert Einstin said: if a person can't explain something he hasn't understood it, doesn't this thing also apply to the spirtual experience. If the yogi or person who has experience rebirth and multiverse can't explain it properly, and is saying just based on his vision acquired though deep meditation like seeing past lives, future, past, travelling to other infinite universe. Than although they are all actually happening and real wouldn't their be void or incompletness in his/her knowledge of such things? How can we consider them as perfect truth?
And also, if past, future and present are just illusion than why do we feel it? And why can't people expalain scientifically all the supernatural experiece they gain from deep meditation. Are other multiverse made of possible past and possible future? What are similaritys between Schrodingers cat theory and multiverse accordig to spirtual path? Although i know little bit i want to understand more form here. I have heard that conciousness pops up like an electron i.e conciousness is not a continious phenomenon from a buddhist monk(i forgot his name and video), like a subatomic partical which dissaperas and appera in another place, what does this mean?

why can't the spirtual experience explained from logic
I'll try to guess three analogies.
One is that experience can be explained, but that hearing an explanation isn't the same as experiencing. For example if I go outside then I see (and thus I experience) a lot of things there. I could describe those to you but that's not the same as your seeing (experiencing) them yourself.
Secondly, experience has a partly-emotional component or basis. For example, take a baby and separate it from its mother and father, and it starts to cry. You might "explain" to the baby that there's no need to cry and that the world is benevolent, but the baby cannot learn from your explanation, and can only learn from its own experience. Something similar (i.e. you'll find that your explanation is not effective) might happen if you try to explain something to a dumb animal, to somebody with a psychiatric disability, to somebody who is too busy or has too many preconceptions to listen to you.
Thirdly the mind is a sense-organ for perceiving ideas, in the same way that the eye is a sense-organ for perceiving sights. If the eye is cloudy or troubled then you cannot see properly (or cannot see as clearly as somebody else can). Similarly if the mind is cloudy or troubled then you cannot understand as clearly.
And also, if past, future and present are just illusion than why do we feel it?
I think that when non-Buddhists read about Buddhism they may get the impression that Buddhism teaches that "the world is an illusion" or something like that.
Actually I don't see the word "illusion" used much when I read about Buddhism. Instead I read the word "delusion", which means something which I think is related to "ignorance".
So, if it's true that "past, future and present are just illusion", I'm tempted to assume that's an inaccurate translation of a statement such as "we have ignorant, unwise, unskillful knowledge about and attitudes towards past, future and present".
One of Buddhism's attempts to explain "why do we feel" is the theory of the Twelve Nidānas.
What are similaritys between Schrodingers cat theory and multiverse accordig to spirtual path?
In my own mind I would categorize such thinking as papañca -- i.e. trying to think or talk about a "multiverse" reduces one's ability to see reality-as-it-is.
More specifically "Schrodinger's cat" may have some limited applicability as a theory when talking about quantum mechanics, but it's not appropriate when talking about macroscopic objects. Maybe it's like saying "people are conscious, therefore stars and atoms are conscious too", i.e. untrue/useless.
My impression is that the theories of physics says nothing about morality (good and not-good), about subjective experience (suffering and not-suffering), about recommended behaviour (wise and unwise).
I have heard that conciousness pops up like an electron
I think that consciousness is conditioned by sense-impressions. For example if you see a bull charging at you then you're conscious of that; if you hear music then you're conscious of that; if you step on something sharp then you're conscious of that; but these are all moments of consciousness.

(See this answer and this answer for explanation some of the terminology of the non english terms below)
The vocabulary and language is conditioned by common experiences of people. When suddenly a new experience comes about there will be no words or terms (nama pannatti) to describe it or language or medium to explain it (nirutti). You cannot create a vocabulary to communicate this experience to someone who has not experienced it, i.e., it is hard to express its meaning (abhilapa). Hence meditative experiences cannot be put into words, or make know (pannapiyatta or atthapannatti).
Some of the meditative states part of the mind's operations stop. Hence logic breaks down. In the 1st Jhana Thinking and Pondering (vitakka & vicara) stops. When you attain Nirvana so does Perception (sañña). At this stage all metal operations stop. This again is another reason it cannot be described. Since at these levels, conventional logic also breaks down you cannot use this to deduce of infer anything about it.
Also logic and reasoning is concepts (pannatti) or metal models of what we think is out there. This does not represent reality. Since concept and reality do not mix you cannot use concepts to describe accurately what reality is. Since only a few has experienced reality as it is there no vocabulary or language that describes the concepts.
Generally our current model of the universe is based on:

concept of time: (kala pannatti)
spatial dimensions concept: (disa pannatti), sapce: (akasa pannatti)
and generally a lot of theorising, maths and logic which are concepts

These are not ultimate realities themselves, hence cannot not related to meditative experiences, which deal with ultimate realities. They generally do not mix well like oil and water. This does not mean concepts do not exist, but they are not ultimate realities which are free from delusion. Conceptual realities are always with delusion or tainted by ignorance of the 3 characteristics. So a concept which is seam solid is not necessarily with no reality in it, but it does not reality well, which in turn leads to attachment or aversion which being about misery. Dealing with realities which are ultimate, misery does not arise as there is no disparity between reality and what is known or experienced hence will not develop false expectations, when you reach the level you can experience the relevant ultimate realities.
In Buddhism atomic units are explained as Kalapas which can be experienced through meditation. The experience realities might differ from what modern science says.

I think you're misunderstanding 'illusion' with respect to past and future. The only thing which really exists is the here and now (think about it). Past and future don't exist in this way, although it seems to us sometimes that they do, especially when the mind is telling itself stories. Past and future only exist intellectually, not really like the present does.
This doesn't mean that past and future are delusions, just that they're not real like the present. And it's important sometimes for us to be able to think about the past and future in order to live our lives. If you couldn't imagine the future you wouldn't think to put on coat when you left home on a rainy day :)
But Buddhism stresses that they're not real in order to encourage us to live in and relate to what is, here and now, not what was or what might be.

I think of it like a 'spot the difference'. The present is things as you experience them now (first picture). The future (second picture) is not a thing which actually exists, it is an extrapolation (or multiple extrapolations) of what you think will happen, could happen or should happen based on remembered things and the very recent past i.e. what your brain processes as the present. It is a triangulation. It doesn't exist. It is the world (that which is) to come i.e. that which will be. There is no future. It's only your imagination. The delta between the two is for your work to fill in.

...can't be expressed with words and logic

Because words and logic are the "formats" used by the mind, i.e., Name-Form conditioned. (Name-Form {名色} is the 4th in the 12-Nidāna), it cannot express the Ultimate Truth, that rid of Ignorance {無明} - the 1st of the 12-Nidana. Likewise a daughter cannot give birth to her father (in the same life-time).
Albert E is talking about "understood" in the scope of intellectual mind, but the Ultimate is beyond intellect.

...if past, future and present are just illusion than why do we feel it?...

About Illusion
Why a sad novel will make you cry? Even though what you are in contact with merely paper and ink (if you are reading a book). Why you see the wave coming and going, even though the water particles are merely moving up and down, not forth and back; (number of persons holding hands get them up and down will create the same "wave" illusion). Illusion can have real effect, if the mind believes in it. We are seeing many illusions, e.g. our vision is not perfect constructed partly by illusion/imagination, we have blind spot in our vision scientist said that the brain "filled in" the blank, read this in the medical magazine.
You assumed but didn't directly ask if past future present are illusions Yes, time is illusion, so is space. Past and Future definitely can't exist independently on their own, it depends on the Present - when the mind recalled or projected them; the Present doesn't exist as well (!!). I credit Rinpoche Khenpo Tsultrim (慈誠羅珠堪布), he explaint that how a smallest unit of time can never be found, therefore the moment of Present can never be established. What is the smallest unit of time the Present? A second, but it can be divided into half a second, a half second can further be divided half... so on and so forth - infinite. However, if a unit of time can be infinitely divided, then that moment can never be passed thus the next moment can never be born. Infinitely dividable is a mathematically dividable but it is not for our phenomenal world's time. We are tricked by the mind and logic. In our phenomenal world we experience the previous moment and the next moment continuum. However as it can continuously be dividing the smallest unit of the present moment, the present moment cannot be established. If the present moment cannot be established then all the phenomenal world "matters" cannot be established. But we do experience the phenomenal world - Ultimate Truth is beyond the dialect logic and also the Indian Classical four-truth logic.
So, Albert E., no matter how high his IQ scored, can't work on this bit of anomaly :D. So does a yogi or meditator there able to tell you what's going on with him (provided he is authentic and genuine).

What are similaritys between Schrodingers cat theory and multiverse accordig to spirtual path?...

I've not invested much on S.'s Cat and Multiverse and so on I left the rest for those wise-well-learnt.

(P. S. self gibberish: I cannot understand why so many Buddhist students talking so happily about Anatta the so called not-Self/non-Self, as if Columbus discovering the new continent. It's really a horrible truth to learnt when one realizes that a present moment indeed doesn't exist at all so does a Self doesn't have an abode to take shelter... it simply can't be established! :"'C)