text:
Why the Buddha abandoned asceticism
It is commonly known that the Buddha decided that asceticism does not lead to enlightenment, but less common is the reason why given. From Ajahn Brahm's book Mindfulness, Bliss, and Beyond, it appears as though the Buddha abandoned asceticism because eating well was necessary to pursue the jhānas and the Middle Way:

once the Bodhisatta realized that jhāna was the way to enlightenment
  (MN 36,31), he immediately recognized that it was impractical to
  attain jhāna with an emaciated body so began eating well.

Where in MN 36 do we find this reasoning? Is there general agreement in Buddhism that this is indeed why the Buddha decided to give up asceticism?

That's interesting because didn't he already master the jhanas?

@Uilium the Buddha may have studied something close to jhana (MN 26,16; MN 36,31; 52,4-7, 64,9-12 with teachers but these didn't lead to his awakening. It was his memory of jhana as a child under the rose-apple tree MN 36 which preceded his entry into jhanas 1-4 and his awakening

When did he find out about the 3 characteristics?

The following findings most directy answer my original question.
An explanation of why the Buddha abandoned asceticism in favor of the Middle Way is given by Bhikku Bodhi in The Noble Eightfold Path -

The other extreme is the practice of self-mortification, the attempt to gain liberation by afflicting the body. This approach may stem from a genuine aspiration for deliverance, but it works within the compass of a wrong assumption that renders the energy expended barren of results. The error is taking the body to be the cause of bondage, when the real source of trouble lies in the mind—the mind obsessed by greed, aversion, and delusion. To rid the mind of these defilements the affliction of the body is not only useless but self-defeating, for it is the impairment of a necessary instrument.
...
Aloof from these two extreme approaches is the Noble Eightfold Path, called the middle way, not in the sense that it effects a compromise between the extremes, but in the sense that it transcends them both by avoiding the errors that each involves. The path avoids the extreme of sense indulgence by its recognition of the futility of desire and its stress on renunciation.
...
But the practice of renunciation does not entail the tormenting of the body. It consists in mental training, and for this the body must be fit, a sturdy support for the inward work. Thus the body is to be looked after well, kept in good health, while the mental faculties are trained to generate the liberating wisdom. That is the middle way, the Noble Eightfold Path, which “gives rise to vision, gives rise to knowledge, and leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna.”

In MN 53 Sekha Sutta The Disciple in Higher Training, the Buddha emphasizes moderation in eating, and there are at least several other suttas in MN where the Buddha repeats the same.

“And how is a noble disciple moderate in eating? Here, reflecting wisely, a noble disciple takes food...only for the endurance and continuance of this body, for ending discomfort, and for assisting the holy life, considering: ‘Thus I shall terminate old feelings without arousing new feelings and I shall be healthy and blameless and shall live in comfort.’ That is how a noble disciple is moderate in eating.
MN 53 Sekha Sutta The Disciple in Higher Training

Ven. Ayya Khema has repeated this last quote in several of her dhamma talks (for example).
Also thanks to ChrisW for his answer.

one might consider asceticism a form of seeking. whereas the Buddha taught surrender to what is.

Maybe MN 26 is more relevant: towards the end of it, the Five ask questions like,

When this was said, the group of five monks replied to me, 'By that practice, that conduct, that performance of austerities you did not attain any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge & vision worthy of a noble one. So how can you now — living luxuriously, straying from your exertion, backsliding into abundance — have attained any superior human states, any distinction in knowledge & vision worthy of a noble one?'

... and afterwards, the end of the sutta is of their being taught the various jhanas.

There may be somewhere where it's stated as a positive, i.e. "eating well was necessary to pursue the jhānas and the Middle Way" -- I think I've read something like that, but I don't remember whether that's a direct quote or an indirect paraphrase.
The only versions I've found at the moment are expressed as a double-negative, not as a positive, i.e. that "utmost austerity is not the way"; for example from this translation of the (non-canonical) Introduction to the Jâtaka,

And the Future Buddha, thinking, "I will carry austerity to the uttermost," tried various plans, such as living on one sesamum seed or on one grain of rice a day, and even ceased taking nourishment altogether, and moreover rebuffed the gods when they came and attempted to infuse nourishment through the pores of his skin. By this lack of nourishment. his body became emaciated to the last degree, and lost its golden color, and became black, and his thirty-two physical characteristics as a great being became obscured. Now, one day, as he was deep in a trance of suppressed breathing, he was attacked by violent pains, and fell senseless to the ground, at one end of his walking-place.
...
Now the six years which the Great Being thus spent in austerities were like time spent in endeavoring to tie the air
  into knots. And coming to the decision, "These austerities are not the way to enlightenment," he went begging through villages and market-towns for ordinary material food, and lived upon it. And his thirty-two physical characteristics as a great being again appeared, and the color of his body became like unto gold.
Then the band of five priests thought, "It is now six years that this man has been performing austerities without being able to attain to omniscience. And how much less can he be expected to do so in future, now that he has again taken to ordinary material food begged from town to town! He has become luxurious, and given up the Struggle. For us to look for any benefit to come from that quarter would be as reasonable as if a man were to imagine he could bathe his head in a dew-drop. We will have nothing more to do with him." With that they took their bowls and robes, and left the Great Being, and going eighteen leagues off, entered Isipatana.

There are suttas which describe or recommend an attitude towards food (I expect there are in the vinaya too), for example from the Bhikkhuni Sutta,

'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes food — not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification — but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, [thinking,] 'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.' Then he eventually abandons food, having relied on food. 'This body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying on food that food is to be abandoned.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

@avatarKorra I think it's typical to not teach doctrine that isn't conducive to enlightenment (e.g. Simsapa Sutta etc.).

Your last quote on attitude towards food continues to be one of the most helpful I've read. It would be nice to find more like it.

@avatarKorra I think the Brahmana Sutta is a bit like it, not specifically about food but about desire (chanda).

Also I think that (people say that) the focus or subject (the object) of meditation (recommended by the Buddha) is "letting go". Food is a bit exceptional/unusual, in that (like clothing, at least minimal clothing), it's considered a necessity ... that can make it difficult (as an object of greed) because (unlike other objects of greed which may be abandoned) you have to live with it.

Though it may not be obvious, my motivation for the OP had to do with abandoning food as a form of craving. Which is why I found the above quote so helpful. It seems certain afflictions related to overconsumption of food could be prevented if more people approached food this way.

And it seems to me that the reason the object of meditation is  'letting go', is because it's understood to be the most succinct instruction for abandoning craving - i.e. the cessation of dukkha,  the Third Noble Truth.

And I'd think it's possible that food can be taken in a way without craving, just as air is taken to breathe. Although the Buddha still had to sleep, rise, and get food, these were probably handled as just a response to the process of being alive, without any concepts of craving. just like breathing.

I don't think it was just like breathing, food has taste and one still has preference over one type of food due to body response, bud response et cetera. With abandoning the body responses as in asceticism one cannot abandon the taste and body's reaction to food. In my opinion such abandonment is unwise. There still has to be mindful consumption with focus on taste, without suppressing it, otherwise it's just unnecessary torturing yourself again. We don't have to go back to square one.

We are, in the end, talking tanha here that is root of unwholesomeness and the cause of dukkha. It is enough what the passage says - severe under eating causes suffering and body agony, while overeating by habits of mindless self indulgence and addiction, other than dissatisfaction - causes suffering and body agony.

here's a precise link to relevant portion of the MN 36
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn36/36-42
the discovery of the middle way is not only manifested in the decision to resume eating and stop tormenting the body because austerities impede entering the jhana, but primarily in my opinion in the actual realization that the pleasure of jhanas is permissible and desirable because it's not sensual, only then came the understanding of incompatibility of severe asceticism with jhanas
this positions the Dhamma halfway between the practices of ascetics who avoided any kind of pleasure, being of the opinion that pleasure in future lives, or even liberation, is secured with suffering in this life (like the jains), and indulgence in low carnal sensuality

Didn't the Bodhisattva master the Jhanas with teachers before his remembering about Jhana states as a child while practicing extreme asceticism? What am I missing here?
The Middle Way is not eating extremely well and it is not eating extremely little. The middle way is in the middle of those two extremes so the Buddha was a mild ascetic or middle way ascetic.

In MN 36:33 (i 247) the Buddha says: "I considered, 'It is not easy to attain that pleasure with a body so excessively emaciated. Suppose I ate some solid food - some boiled rice and porridge.'" (Nanamoli and Bodhi, Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, p. 340). What is especially interesting here is that the Buddha explicitly identifies the practice of the path with the experience of wholesome pleasure, as against the pain of his previous asceticism.


text:
Are philosophers today misunderstanding 'emptiness' because of a new metaphysics?
From an article about Heidegger,

The beginning of this story, as told by Heidegger especially in the Nietzsche lectures, is the end, the completion of philosophy by its dissolution into particular sciences and nihilism—questionlessness of being, a dead end into which the West has run. Heidegger argues that the question of being would still provide a stimulus to the research of Plato and Aristotle, but it was precisely with them that the original experience of being of the early Greeks was covered over... For the later Heidegger, “western philosophy,” in which there occurs forgetfulness of being, is synonymous with “the tradition of metaphysics.” Metaphysics inquires about the being of beings, but in such a way that the question of being as such is disregarded, and being itself is obliterated. The Heideggerian “history of being” can thus be seen as the history of metaphysics, which is the history of being’s oblivion.

Is this itself reason to suspect that philosophers like Plato, by which I mean contemporary thinkers who are paid to publish philosophy (including I suppose self help authors and some aspects of psychology) are bound to misunderstand the concept of emptiness? When the Buddha taught, the history of Being, metaphysics, had not yet, it seems, begun.
Are philosophers and people in general misunderstanding the terminology the Buddha used, perhaps because he lived at a time before 'Being' when there was only 'world' -- etc..

Many people in general misunderstand the terminology the Buddha used, including Buddhists & even translators. If these people misunderstand the terminology then what is to be expected of Western philosophers?
About 'being', the Pali scriptures report the Buddha discussed this word at length. For example, in the core doctrine of Dependent Origination, the notion of 'beings' is central to the meaning of the word 'birth' ('jati').

And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, entering, coming-to-be, coming-forth of the various beings in this or that group of beings based on the appearance ('look'; 'features') of aggregates & appropriation of the sense spheres, that is called birth.

The word 'being' ('satta') refers to an internally generated 'view' of 'self' or 'persons' (see Satta Sutta & Vajira Sutta below).
Although 'beings' in these suttas is described as a mental state or mental view, most Buddhists & people regard 'beings' meta-physically, i.e., as an organism.
Similarly, most people & Buddhists regard the word 'birth' ('jati') meta-physically, rather than the meaning in the Indian languages of 'social & self identity' (see Wiki).
As for 'emptiness' ('sunnata'), it is defined as the absence of "self".
In Pali Buddhism, 'being' & 'emptiness' are opposite things however both can exist in the human experience; 'being' arising from ignorance & emptiness discerned by enlightened clear seeing.
Most crucially, the Buddha was not a philosopher but, instead, a 'Spiritual Doctor'. The Buddha had only one sole concern, namely, the ending or curing of suffering.
For the Buddha, the arising of 'being', i.e., the arising of 'ego' or 'self', is the arising of suffering. For example, a new born child has no idea of 'self' but later develops ideas of 'myself' based on cravings for things (such as food, comfort, love, pleasures, etc). These cravings are sufferings thus the manifestation of 'being' is always from the manifestation of suffering (refer to Vajira Sutta below).

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?"
Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, feeling, perceptions, mental fabrications &/or consciousness, Radha: when one
  is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'
Satta Sutta

~~~

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be [when 'being' comes to be],
  Nothing but suffering ceases [when 'being' ceases].
Vajira Sutta

~~~

And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into
  an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of
  anything pertaining to self.' This is called the emptiness
  mind-release.
Mahavedalla Sutta

~~~

Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty.
And what is empty of
  a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self
  or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness...
  Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
The ear is empty...
The nose is empty...
The tongue is empty...
The body is empty...
The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty
  of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that
  the world is empty."
Suñña Sutta

didn't really answer my question very directly, just seems to repeat a well known fact, that there is an emptiness of self. EDIT may help me think tho, cheers :)

thanks. this is a Buddhist forum therefore some contributors, such as myself, may know very little, possibly nothing, about Western philosophy. In summary, the Buddha taught the arising of 'being', i.e., the arising of 'ego' or 'self', is the arising of suffering. For example, a new born child has no idea of 'self' but later develops ideas of 'myself' based on cravings for things (such as food, comfort, love, pleasures, etc). These cravings are sufferings thus the manifestation of 'being' is always from the manifestation of suffering. Did Heidegger discuss the 'suffering of being'?

there's works contrasting heidegger and buddhism, but mahayana. not being able to read sanskrit, or really begin a sustained practice, i've read  a fair amount of philosophical scholarship on buddhism. also, i studied philosophy at uni. think that these overlaps just confused me...

I did my best to fix my answer for you.

I fixed it more.

good answer, tho it's a shame you aren't familiar with the academic tradition i mention. it's been a while since i read these, but i felt there was a lacuna there, and not merely because their practice was off!

The term 'misunderstanding' does not has the same meaning for a philosopher and a Buddhist. From the Buddhist perspective misunderstanding something means not seeing with one's own mind, not being able to see empirically. As for most philosophers, understanding only requires the ability to understand language and being able of logical analysis. Metaphysics is mostly subject to speculations about what is 'meta' (after, behind) 'physics' (empirically perceivable nature). I'm sure there are exceptions, i.e. Aristotle is said to be a big empiricist, but in Buddhism there's the big difference that words and terminology are useless.
As for misunderstanding the concept of emptiness, in Buddhism concepts don't really exist because you can't experience them (you can only experience thinking itself, you can't experience 1 + 1 = 2 for example), but emptiness is claimed to be a real experience. That being said, Buddhists would rather speak about the emptiness of concepts, claiming that theoretical knowledge won't bring you any insight. This is probably not a satisfying answer for you particular question, but since this is the Buddhist SE I hope it's good enough...
A suitable quote from Ajahn Chah:

If you don’t practice you won’t know. Frankly speaking, you
  won’t know the Dhamma by just reading it or studying it. Or
  if you do know it your knowledge is still defective. For example, this spittoon here. Everybody knows it’s a spittoon but they
  don’t fully know the spittoon. Why don’t they fully know it? If
  I called this spittoon a saucepan, what would you say? Suppose
  that every time I asked for it I said, “Please bring that saucepan
  over here,” that would confuse you. Why so? Because you don’t
  fully know the spittoon. If you did there would be no problem.
  You would simply pick up that object and hand it to me, because
  actually there isn’t any spittoon. Do you understand? It’s a spit-
  toon due to convention. This convention is accepted all over the
  country, so it’s spittoon. But there isn’t any real “spittoon.” If
  somebody wants to call it a saucepan it can be a saucepan. It
  can be whatever you call it. This is called “concept.” If we fully
  know the spittoon, even if somebody calls it a saucepan there’s
  no problem. Whatever others may call it we are unperturbed because we are not blind to its true nature. This is one who knows
  Dhamma

not a bad reply, thanks. a bit too anti conceptual to really accept tho :) actually, i agree with one of the answers which claims that Heidegger is completely off here. to say that the buddha came before X, so wasn't properly thinking like Xs, is fundamentally a misunderstanding

One can hardly say "philosophers today", as philosophy itself is a wide field of activities; it can mean academic philosophy (which is publish-or-perish style of life, plus perhaps thinking "I am special because I do something which is profound and special" -- but that's the same for physicists or biologists) or conceptual reflection of experience. But it matters what experience is reflected, at what level, and what is the reflection supposed to bring.
So I will discuss philosophy as something extra-theoretical.
I happen to disagree with Heidegger in his accusations of metaphysics. Metaphysics (reflection) and being (contemplation) are orthogonal, but it is important that metaphysical reflection is based on contemplation (rather than delusion). There are contemplative geniuses, who are also masters of conceptualization of that experience (think of Nagarjuna, Dogen or Aquinas) all while knowing that it does not replace the experience itself (or being; ironically, it was Aquinas who re-introduced the concept of being (esse) into the western tradition). There are also great contemplatives who don't do conceptualization (for whatever reason) -- think of masters like Joshu, or John of the Cross if you wish, or a big amount of monks who never wrote anything.
There are also people who have little access to being (no contemplation), yet write papers/books about it -- unaware of their own ignorance. And there are people who are out of touch with being, and don't conceptualize.
The concept of emptiness (just like the concept of being) is pointing at something more than the concept itself, and its understanding comes through contemplative practice (which is called vipassana in buddhism). What I can suggest is that you do a vipassana retreat (I mean, 2 weeks or more), it is really worth it for many reasons, and then you will be able to see better if what they write about Wittgenstein & Nagarjuna and so on makes sense. A good question is what is the use of reading those papers anyway :)
(PS: I am a philosophy major and have later experience with vipassana.)

it's not a pun, it's what the term means https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphysics

one can say "philosophy today" very easily, same as 'physics today' 'psychology today', etc.. the 'today' qualification may seem blurred, but "philosophy" has a history, so i don't see why not. it's you that is punning, i think. i get what you mean, but i did say 'like Plato' so am not sure why

I changed the word to "accusation", hope that is clearer; Heidegger had a problem with it which he formulated repeatedly in the course of his life, and I think that it (validly) targets only a specific flavor of metaphysics. As for philosophy today, yes, you can say that, but as soon as you want to talk about something specific, you have to start making distinctions. Can you say that 'psychology today' does (not) understand mindfulness?

doubt i'll get a better answer tho, so i accept what i understand of your claim, that there are obvious overlaps between buddhist philosophy and everyday experience etc..

yeah i think you can say that. i didn't mean to make a universal claim about the literature, even, let alone every philosopher, etc. obviously i was being a little too clever in the question, but it seemed so neat

I don't claim there are necessarily overlaps of buddhist/western philosophy; the basis of contemplation is reality when observed very carefully (I would not say "everyday" experience; vipassana means "seeing clearly/distinctly/truth" or things as they are.). Whether it leads to conceptual similarities is an open question which hardly has a theoretical answer.

whether or not buddhists are observing anything special, i think you need to change your answer if you are not claiming that your term "contemplation" has its analogue in philosophy. i have unaccepted your question as it is not clear enough. i don't want to discuss semantics, i just want a well reasoned or informative reply. i think you are deliberately misunderstanding me if you say you didn't know what i meant by 'philosophy today'. alternatively, if it's unclear, leave a comment

as to the pun thing... he's using the term correctly (no?) and any mixing up of senses is just not doing the work. i've seen people claim that heidegger's philosophy is based on a pun, but not on 'metaphysics' and i'm fairly unsure that this joke about 'nothing' is even meant seriously by his critics. if he's not mixed up, then any punning has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. good luck in your philosophy degree, tho. i too majored in philosophy. what's important is that you keep studying it :)

Oh, sorry about "pun", forget about it, that was my poor command of English. I don't remember ever seeing something humorous in his texts. Late Hggr was appreciative of eastern traditions, so actually the best way to study Hggr is to do vipassana :) Good luck and don't forget the practice :)

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Separating meditation into vipāssana or samatha
Did the Buddha teach a single meditation that includes jhāna and insight, or do the scriptures have him separate meditation into different techniques? In what Buddhist traditions is it necessary to qualify meditation as vipāssana or samatha?

It is said in the scriptures that depending on the type of person, that person falls into the PATH in four different ways. That happens through insight (vipassana) and tranquillity (samatha). If a person listens to true Dhamma, take part in Dhamma discussions, and practise Samatha and Vipassana properly, dispassionateness with understanding definitely take place in him/her. That’s a given. If not so, then the fault is in that person. It is because of doing something which appears as correct thinking, or erroneously thinking that what one does is the correct thing. That is where the mistake is and not in the Suttas or in the Noble Eight-fold Path.
In the Yuganaddha Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya Sutta 4.170), it is said that insight (vipassana) and tranquillity (samatha) is developed in Tandem. In this sutta, Ven. Ananda describes the paths to arahantship by which insight (vipassana) and tranquillity (samatha) work hand-in-hand.
There are people in whom the other three ways may work. These three are:
Samatha followed by vipassana - after which the path is born in him/her;
Vipassana followed by samatha - after which the path is born in him/her; &
The mind stays fixed internally and become one-pointed - after which the path is born in him/her.

so to clarify, the Buddha did not teach meditation by separating it into e.g. "go do vipāssana", but rather the scriptures tell us that vipassana is a quality of mind and an attitude to approaching meditation.

In an earlier post I wrote a bit more on the above point. If you get to read the Dantabhūmi Sutta (MN 125)  it says that the body, or parts of the body, such as out-breath and in-breath resemble the post in the stockade to which the elephant is tied. Kayagati-sati resembles the rope by which the wild elephant is tied to the post. The preparatory work towards samatha and vipassana resembles the preparatory training of the elephant. The work of samatha and vipassana resembles the parade ground or battlefield of the king.

'Samatha' means 'tranquility' while 'jhana' is a certain degree of 'mental collectedness' ('samadhi' - 'concentration'). 'Samadhi' & 'samatha' are not synonyms.
For the most part, the suttas teach samatha (tranquility) & vipassana (insight) are developed in tandem (MN 149).

Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path...for him these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquility & insight.

Both samatha ('pleasant abiding') & vipassana ('focused on arising & falling') are fruits of concentration (AN 4.41).
In the Anapansati Sutta, each of the sixteen lessons (apart from the 1st two) has the words: "He trains himself", which means training ('sikkha') the mind in higher morality, higher concentration & higher wisdom. Therefore, vipassana occurs in the successful practise of each of these 14 lessons (as well as samatha in lessons 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 & 15). For example, to concentrate on the breath will result in the breath calming (which is samatha; lesson 4) but will also result in seeing clearly the breath is impermanent & that the quality of the breath conditions/affects the quality of the body & mind (which is vipassana; lessons 3 & 4).

Wow thanks again !

Are you saying that samatha and vipassana follow chronologically from the development of samadhi?

Yes....  samatha and vipassana follow chronologically from the development of samadhi

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


text:
Does Buddhism claim that our World is an illusion? In other words is it a Matrix? Any proof for this?
I wrote this article: Do people leave in Matrix? Information, entropy, time and cellular-automata.
The article tries to prove that the visible world is an illusion or a "dream".
My question here is, is "the visible world is an illusion or dream" the main topic of Buddhism?
Also, the article includes a proof of the existence of a Higher Conscience. Is that in direct relation with Buddhism (i.e. the topics discussed here on this site)?
Also, if you found any logical flaws in this article then please mention/list them.

The title asks a question, but the body-text does not. The body-text is a copy of this paper which is not a question about Buddhism. So, as currently phrased (i.e. in its current format), this doesn't seem to be a question about Buddhism. Why did you post that paper: are you asking for a critique of it? It seems to me to have so many logical flaws that they cannot all be addressed in this format (and addressing them isn't on-topic for this site).

hello ChrisW, there is an obvious connection with Buddhism. The article tries to prove that the visible world is an illusion or a "dream". Is that the main topic of Buddhism? Also, the proof of Higher Conscience existence is given. Is it a direct relation with the topics discussed here? If you found any logical flaw please mention. I put the article here for discussion and the questions stated in the article Title. I put the article here because i read in Buddhism section of this site - share your research. And, if you have nothing to comment and did not read anything please donot be negative

hello ChrisW, you claim there are logical flaws. i would like to hear at least one. do not be harsh as it is usually in forums. Buddhism section is promoting research, so here it is. If there is a logical flaw, please list it.

IMO the paper did not ask questions and is not about Buddhism, and therefore it wasn't a suitable 'question' for this site. I have edited the question (above) to include the actual questions, which you asked in your comments above. Is this OK with you, shall I reopen the question in this format, are these the questions which you want to ask?

Also the paper doesn't include the words "illusion" or "dream" anywhere; so I don't see why you claim in your question that, The article tries to prove that the visible world is an illusion or a "dream" ... your question might seem to be just about on-topic now, but its connection with the article (and the connection between the article and Buddhism) is tenuous.

Hello ChrisW, thank you that your reformulated it this way. the original article is mine actually. i just used a different name. i guess not everyone uses real name in forums.

Thank you. FYI all Stack Exchange sites including this one are Q+A ("question and answer") sites: they're designed for "Q+A", and not for "discussion". Their format is that each page/topic starts with a question, and other users post answers which reply to or address the question. For that kind of reason it's important that topics start with an specific/explicit question (and are not just a copy of or link to an article to be reviewed/discussed). The body text of the question should explain/define as clearly as possible what your question is; and the title should be a summary of that question.

My standard answer is: "It is a hologram of light with no screen or projector."

"My question here is, is "the visible world is an illusion or dream" the main topic of Buddhism?"
No, it's not the main topic of Buddhism.
From the Pali canon point of view, it's also not a claim of Buddhism that the world is an illusion.
In contrast, the main topics of Buddhism are the nature of suffering, the nature of pleasure, the ultimate freedom of suffering, and the ultimate pleasure (born from the freedom of suffering).
It's visible from the sutras that the Buddha refrained himself from making many ontological statements -- statements about "what is out there" and the nature of "what is out there". And some people seem to believe he refrained from making any ontological statements at all, which may induce the idea that he regarded the world as an illusion.
In general, however, his concerns with the world starts when a stimulus is "perceived" -- when sense data is contacted. The nature or reality of what lies behind what has been sensed is not dwelled on. Thus, generally speaking, the formulations of the World from the Buddha are in terms of the senses.

At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, I will teach you the origin and the passing away of the world. Listen to that and attend closely, I will speak.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as condition, feeling comes to be; with feeling as condition, craving; with craving as condition, clinging; with clinging as condition, existence; with existence as condition, birth; with birth as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. This, bhikkhus, is the origin of the world.
[...]
“And what, bhikkhus, is the passing away of the world? In dependence on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. [...]
-- SN 12.44

When he doesn't ignore "the outside world", it's possible that he could be speaking in conventional terms instead of positing a view, as in "there's a house behind that mountain" (and not as in "that house exists and it's real", in the ontological sense). When he speaks of characteristics of "the house", his focus arguably lies in what is perceived by the senses and his interest is in how these perceptions affect us.
The closer he gets to an ontological view (i.e. when the nature of the "house" is of interest) could still not really be about trying to pinpoint the actual nature of the thing "out there" independent of observer, but about the perception of it, in particular, associated with three characteristics: being subject to change, it's unsatisfactoriness as ultimate protection of all suffering and, upon inspection, showing a lack of ultimate stable essence.
On the other hand, he is known to have "proclaimed the world with it's devas, Mara and Brahma" against those who proclaimed otherwise, which is an assertion about "objective reality". Also, he taught a moral law which distinguish between sentient beings and non sentient beings which seem to imply some ontological distinction. But I think the interest to investigate the non-subjective actual nature of things is generally lacking when such knowledge does not benefit the path to terminate suffering.
Finally, since Buddhism regards mind as a sense (in the same category as taste and sight), then even in a universe where all interactions are confined within ones own mind, Buddhism still applies.

Why is this sutta not an ontological statement? Thanks http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html

@Dhammadhatu I think many syntactically apparent ontological statements (e.g. "all X is Y") in the suttas can be seen either way: it can be seen as actual ontological assertion qualifying the external thing independent of the observer or, for example, it can be seen as a "conventional" assertion about the perception of the external thing (where "is" really is just a shortcut for something longer such as "is perceived as", e.g. "all X is perceived as Y"). I think the latter fits nicely with the rest of the doctrine, and considering how conventional language issues are dealt within the canon

The sutta quoted is obviously not conventional language since it is about Dhamma Law. If the later fit nicely then enlightenment would be subjective or imputed by the observer. The sutta does not state that. The sutta states X = Y independent of any observers; independent of the arising of Buddhas. Conventional language in the Canon refers to worldly idioms such as "I", "you", etc. It does not apply to impermanence, not-self, etc. All language or description is not "convention". Refer to SN 5.10; SN 1.25; MN 98, etc

I don't mean "conventional" as just "sammuti sacca", i mean informal (in contrast to a formal statement in a logical system) therefore imprecise, ambiguous.  One could say "the ball is red" and take this as an ontological assertion declaring "red" to be a property of "ball", however "red" is a phenomenom created by the eye organ and vision system (e.g some people and animals see different colors according to their biology). So "red" is not a property of the ball, it's just perceived as "red", despite the syntactical form being accepted and obviously showing otherwise. Thus i have reservations.

Impermanence, not-self, etc, are not phenomenom created by the eye organ and vision system. Impermanence, not-self, etc, are properties of a ball,

In the Diamond Sutra the Buddhas says
“All conditioned things
are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows
they are like dew or lightning
this is how they are to be viewed"
This is since all phenomena like the world are impermanent and therefore subject to an end like an illusion

Can you recommend (or link to, online) a specific translation of the Diamond Sutra?

Sorry I mostly read it in Chinese but I also read Master Xuan Hua's version in English which was pretty good        http://www.cttbusa.org/vajra/vajrasutra.asp

..is "the visible world is an illusion or dream" the main topic of Buddhism?...includes a proof of the existence of a Higher
Conscience...if you found any logical flaws...please mention/list
them...

In my fleeting personal illusory opinion, there is no obvious connection to Buddhism here at all.
In Buddhism, it is consciousness that is an illusion or dream, i.e., there is no higher consciousness in Buddhism. To quote from the Buddhist (Pali) scriptures:

Now suppose that a magician or magician's apprentice were to display a magic trick at a major intersection, and a man with good eyesight
were to see it, observe it & appropriately examine it. To him —
seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would
appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there
be in a magic trick? In the same way, a monk sees, observes &
appropriately examines any consciousness that is past, future or
present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime;
far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately
examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for
what substance would there be in consciousness?
Phena Sutta

While it is difficult to argue using Buddhism, the quote below does lend support to a theory that the visible world is less an illusion than consciousness. For example, it would take a lot of arrogance or hubris to suggest Mt Everest, which has logically existed for millions of years, is an illusion, yet consciousness, which only lasts a short moment, is not an illusion but something "higher".

It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
what's called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by
night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
arises as one thing and ceases as another.
Assutavā Sutta

My impression is the questioner might find an answer that might suit their tastes on the Hinduism forum: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/ since Hinduism might teach more inherently the external world is an illusion & the Higher or True Self is permanent.

But, hubris is so much fun...

the "fun" is the ego not willing to die 100%... "ego" clinging

Regarding how long something has existed, Robert M. Pirsig (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) said basically: can something have existed before it was known of? Did 2 + 2 = 4 "exist" before anyone cognized it? In what sense? Further, he said: did the fundamental laws of the universe, such as gravity, "exist" before the universe (supposedly) came in to being? This is perhaps the basis for people saying that there is only the present moment -- the moment of perception -- and thus no past or future. Stretching that, it is logical to say that everything is either illusory, or empty.

the pali suttas state consciousness depends on sense organs & sense objects (rather than sense objects depend on consciousness). this is the buddhist view. to believe consciousness is the creator of the universe is believing consciousness is god. this is brahmanism rather than buddhism. AN 3.134 states the laws of nature exist regardless of whether they are known. this is buddhism rather than popular novels

This is not the main topic of Buddhism. Such ideas are called 'speculative views'. I think a good reference would be MN 63.

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me...
"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist', the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.
"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.
"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

Also referred to as "Thicket of Views" and "Vexing Questions".

My question here is, is "the visible world is an illusion or dream" the main topic of Buddhism?
I'm not sure. I think the main topics of Buddhism include, "What is good and not-good for people?", and "Why do we suffer or find things unsatisfactory? What can we do about death and illness and so on?"
I've heard "the world is an illusion" as a (uninformed?) summary or paraphrase of Buddhism, but I don't know where that summary comes from. That's not the message that I get when I read translations of the suttas.
The word I associate with "illusion" is Maya. Wikipedia's article on Maya (illusion) suggests that's not really a feature of Theravada Buddhism; and when it's used within Mahayana it's used in the context of "misunderstanding based on ignorance".
It is apparently a feature of Hinduism and other Indian philosophies. I guess that possibly that's where the impression that "Buddhism teaches that the world is illusion" comes from, i.e. maybe it comes from people being vague about the difference between Buddhism and other eastern philosophies (some views which are, IMO, vague and similar were also maybe popularized as a take on 'physics' e.g. in the 1970s -- see Quantum mysticism).
I won't say that the theory the "the world is an illusion" is useless, but my very limited (or non-existent) understanding of the theory is more-or-less useless to me: because (unlike the more useful scientific 'models') this theory is neither predictive (explaining/predicting what's going to happen), nor prescriptive (explaining/recommending what we should do about that).
It's possible that "illusion" is a poor translation of something which is a topic of Buddhism. One of Buddhism's themes is "ignorance" or avijjā. I think there are various forms of ignorance, especially "seeing impermanent things as permanent" or not properly considering that things are impermanent.
Buddhism distinguishes between so-called right and wrong views. 'Right view' is the right way to view things, wrong view is the wrong way. Right view is the "fore-runner" in the sense that it's because of (or conditioned by) having right or wrong view that we think and do right and wrong things (where "right" is the translation of an adjective Sammā which is e.g. described/defined here).
This summary of right view extracts definitions of 'right view' from various suttas. IMO this passage ...

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 next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view...

... says more-or-less explicitly that disregarding or denying the existence of these things (e.g. regarding them as illusion) is 'wrong'.
To the extent that Buddhism does talk about illusion, I think that illusion consists of placing an improper value on something. If I hate something, if I fear it, or if I crave it, then it's important to me ... perhaps an undue importance, whereas it would be better if I were more equanimous towards it.
There's part of Buddhism teaching that's interested in, I don't know what you call it, 'phenomenology'? Maybe 'phenomenology', I don't know (I was never taught philosophy).
Buddhism is interested in how 'craving' comes to be (because 'craving' is identified as a or the cause of suffering). This Wikipedia article Ayatana is a summary of that: it says that 'craving' arises from 'feeling'; and that 'feeling' arises from 'contact' between three things, i.e. a 'sense-object' (e.g. "something seen"), a 'sense-organ' (e.g. "eye"), and 'sense-consciousness' (e.g. "sense-consciousness of sight").
Maybe it's important to be aware that what/all you crave (or used to crave) comes from senses in this way, and that these sense-impressions are transient or fleeting (impermanent). I think some Buddhist literature describes these fleeing sense-impressions (or moments of consciousness, or more specifically moments of contact between consciousness and senses) as "like foam" or like a soap bubble. Our consciousness of things is, what shall I say, unstable: e.g. it's one thing after another.
Anther kind of "illusion" is that there's a continuous "I". I think that Buddhism does not argue that the world is an illusion, rather that it's the "I" that's an illusion ... or if not an illusion, that "egoism" is "wrong" in the sense that having a sense of I results in a "thicket of views" and no end to suffering.
One of the most famous suttas (Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic) says,

Any kind of (form, feeling, perception, determination, and/or consciousness) whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus:

'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.

Later Buddhist doctrines begin to emphasize that the world is empty (note, not 'illusory' but 'empty'), by which I think they mean, 'empty of self'. It's also emphasized that things don't have an 'independent' existence, i.e. they're caused by things (or they arise when the conditions for their arising are present), and dissolve when those conditions are no longer present.
Taking Dhammadhatu's example of Mount Everest I'd say it arises as a result of (or, 'is conditioned by') tectonic plate movement (and isn't or won't be eternal), and also that perception of it arises from causes (and is also impermanent).
In other words is it a Matrix?
Really? The capital M implies you're referring to the movie. I suppose I recommend this answer.
Any proof for this?
Any proof for what: proof for the world being illusion, or proof for what Buddhism teaches?
I find that part of what Buddhism teaches seems self-evident and/or common-sense, and/or it's a good description of already-observed phenomena (e.g. unhappy when a loved one dies).
It has also plausible theories (e.g. unhappiness may be caused by becoming emotionally attached to or expecting permanent happiness from something impermanent), which are also useful in the sense that they're prescriptive (e.g. to avoid unhappiness, you should avoid unwise attachment), with techniques and practices for doing that.
Also, the article includes a proof of the existence of a Higher Conscience. Is that in direct relation with Buddhism (i.e. the topics discussed here on this site)?
For reference, here is the article "proof of the existence of a Higher Conscience":

Definition: Higher Conscience is a conscience that has always more knowledge (amount of information) than all people have.
Theorem: Higher Conscience exists.
Proof: Assume that Higher Conscience does not exist. Then the number Pi can not exist in Human Conscience (knowledge of all people) since people know, describe and operate only with what they see or sense. But number Pi can be derived only from the fact that someone saw or sensed the circle (“perfect wheel”).

I think this is a fallacious proof: I think it's based on the assumption that the ability to reason about irrational numbers implies that there exists a "higher consciousness" which "knows" an infinite amount of information.
So far as I know that's nothing to do with Buddhism. FYI I think there are Early Indian treaties on mathematical infinities (but not especially Buddhist).
There are some supernormal abilities described in Buddhist literature: see e.g. Ṛddhi and Abhijñā, but I think consensus is that these aren't very important to the practice of Buddhism.
What is important to the practice of Buddhism is to eliminate or abandon mental stains such as greed and conceit.
Also, if you found any logical flaws in this article then please mention/list them.
I think that's off-topic for this site, but in case this helps ...

The paper proves that we leave in Matrix. We show that Matrix was built by the creator. By this we solve the question how everything is built

Just re. a spelling mistake, I think that "leave in Matrix" should be spelled "live in a 'Matrix'".
Anyway, IMO you don't "prove" those things: instead you state that you choose to describe or model the world in that way. However you don't IMO demonstrate that it's a good model. A good model would:

Account for many/all current observations
Make predictions about the future
Ideally make useful/testable predictions, be 'falsifiable'.

Then the number Pi can not exist in Human Conscience (knowledge of all people) since people know, describe and operate only with what they see or sense.

People (mathematicians) define Pi based on (some finite number of) axioms. For example a 'perfect circle' might be defined as 'a line whose points are equidistant from a centre', and that definition doesn't take infinite or 'higher' consciousness.
Mathematicians can also show that Pi is irrational/transcendental, and can't be expressed in finite decimal digits. I don't think they infer that there's an infinite matrix or Matrix which contains these digits.
It's a bit of a jump (too much of a jump) to say, "I can do geometry, therefore an infinite/random/evolving creator-God exists". I think that's mere conceit (attaching undue importance to one's ideas).
Incidentally I think that Buddhism sees ideas as being a kind of sixth sense, similar to the other five: e.g. in the same way that an "an eye perceives sights" you can say that "a mind perceives ideas".

Hence Infinite Monkey who typed EVERYTHING EXISTS

These basis of this argument seems to me to be:

The probability of randomly typing "banana" on a 50-key keyboard is ((1/50)6
Doing so would require infinite monkeys
I am a monkey, who has just typed the word "banana"
Therefore "infinite monkeys" exist

Some logical fallacies with this argument are:

"banana" is not a random word
although "I am a monkey" I don't type randomly

In summary you seem to be arguing that:

I observed something
It happened at random
Therefore every other possibility exists simultaneously

Theorem on Halting Problem

I think you're saying that an infinite problem could be solved with infinite computing resources; but you're using (fallacious) conclusions from previous proofs to assume that infinite computing resources exist.

Edit to add: see also this answer which says that the illusion/dream analogy comes from the Diamond Sutra, and that it's to be understood as emphasizing that phenomena (and/or perceptions of phenomena) are impermanent.

ChrisW, I wanted to receive real comments but got the logically incorrect answer, just endless speculations that are false. I think I made a mistake putting this in this forum.

Example, banana is not random word, yes, but my theorem investigates what is the probability to type or not to type word banana. you missed the point. the same is with the previous theorem. you can not deny the existence of number Pi, and it exists, was derived, in Human mind. if Higher mind never existed you would never get the knowledge about number Pi because you do not see perfect wheel. This is like ontological argument. You can not disprove it. See also the prove of God existence by Kurt Godel.

and I put to Buddhist forum because from my proof that Higher mind exists it follows that our world is an illusion, a dream of Higher mind. I thought sleeping Buddha in Bangkok is a symbol of this. I hope I can remove this whole stuff from here one day.

and just to make it more clear, I repeat a definition - Higher mind is a mind that knows more than all people at any given moment. so, denying such Higher mind you get a contradiction that number Pi is already known to people. because it is only higher mind could teach about its existence.

since no one ever touched or saw a perfect wheel someone has given a knowledge about it. this someone is Higher mind since it knew at that point more than all people together - it knew about the existence of number Pi and its relation to a circle - perfect wheel.

I hope I can remove this whole stuff from here one day. You can remove your name from all this stuff if you want to ... by changing your name, or by deleting your account: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/help/deleting-account


text:
How to deal with pride and vanity from a Buddhist perspective?
In my interactions with other people I am sometimes very full of my self, proud and vanitous and it leaves me with a bad taste afterwards or it even stops me from taking action in a direction I would desire.
Do you know any examples in the Suttas where these conditions of the mind are treated?
I am thinking about the perception of a skeleton as a helpful aid in this matter but maybe there are others.

If you are doing things the correct way in your practise in listening to Dhamma, in participating in Dhamma discussions, in doing Samatha and Vipassana properly, dispassionateness with understanding should develop within you. At times this happens. But if this is not the case - if dispassionateness with understanding does not take place, it is the vanity and pride that surfaces. That’s what happens when doing something which appears as correct thinking or correct action. If vanity and pride arises in you, then you will have to take a step back and go through a process of introspection.
If vanity and pride is what gets developed in placing oneself above others and looking down on others arise in a person, it is due to his not doing things the proper way. That would not happen if you follow this Path with a sense of humility. To deal with this defilement from a Buddhist Perspective, one has to practice five factors that is found in the scriptures. Then you will invariably develop the required antidote in dispassionateness.
In the Asavakkhaya Sutta, the Buddha explains,

“Oh Bhikkhus. There are five activities which if practised, if practised extensively results in the wiping out of defilements”.

These five activities are the same as explained in the Nibbida Sutta. They are Asubha Sanna (perceiving the impurity of the body), Ahare Patikkula Sanna (perceiving the impurity of material food), Sabba Loke Anabhirata Sanna (not taking delight in worlds), Sabba Sankharesu Anicca Sanna (impermanence of all aggregates), of Marana Sati (to be mindful of death).

The premise of this topic is that conceit is one of the last fetters to be abandoned (so I guess you may just have to live with it: be aware of it, occasionally, for a while).
There are a couple of articles about it here on Access to Insight.
Not a sutta, but there's a Zen story: The Giver Should Be Thankful
There's also a quote from Bodhidharma:

The Anthology of the Patriarchal Hall says that in 527, Bodhidharma visited Emperor Wu of Liang, a fervent patron of Buddhism:

Emperor Wu: "How much karmic merit have I earned for ordaining Buddhist monks, building monasteries, having sutras copied, and commissioning Buddha images?"
Bodhidharma: "None. Good deeds done with worldly intent bring good karma, but no merit."

The Buddha taught not all beings could realise his Dhamma because attachment to self is a very strong instinct. Possibly you can ask yourself is Buddhism actually suitable for you? If you realise Buddhism may not be suitable for you, this might help end pride & vanity.
For example, in Christianity, they say the words: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you. Only say the words so I can be healed". This is said to end pride & vanity, which are one of the seven deadly sins.

Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the
  scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.  But this
  generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys
  attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by
  attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent
  co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the
  resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all
  acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.
  And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me,
  that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'
Just then these verses, unspoken in the past, unheard before, occurred to me:
'Enough now with teaching     what    only with difficulty    I reached. This
  Dhamma is not easily realized by those overcome with aversion &
  passion.
What is abstruse, subtle,    deep,   hard to see, going against the flow — those delighting in passion, cloaked in the mass of darkness,     won't
  see.'
MN 26


text:
Attachment to practice itself
Is it wholesome to set expectations for one's own practice (e.g. to have a mind free of all Five Hindrances, or to have all Seven Factors of Awakening present)?
To firmly commit to the path of enlightenment, against all worldly distractions,  how can this be done without setting goals or expectations?
If there are conditions for the presence/absence of the Five Hindrances, Seven Factors of Awakening to arise and to pass, are these not impermanent? If one clings to the impermanent, does this not lead to dukkha?

This is for you and the person who will be writing the answer. Remember goals are simply a, "finger pointing towards the moon". Goals aren't wrong but don't concentrate on the finger. Focus on what the finger is pointing at.

Desire is not a hindrance.. attachment/addiction to objects of desire is. And this is, in fact, the proper translation of Tanha. (Craving isn't a bad one either, as long as it is in the sense of a habitual craving).
The translation made that "Suffering arises from desire" has caused more difficulty than has helped, in my view. The modern translation has been, for some time, "Suffering arises from attachment".
This is because it is not possible to rid yourself of desire. Ever. You are human. You will always desire things. What you CAN rid yourself of is attachment to those desires.
To answer your question, renunciation of everything except The Path, and thus being subject to attachment TO The Path, is considered easier than the alternative, and is thus thought to be a more expedient way to reach enlightenment by some schools.

That translation is much clearer to me. So desire by itself is not a hindrance, and might even be necessary to arouse the awakening factor of energy.

Just So. And I would say "desire is necessary", as per The Dalai Lama who said ( to paraphrase ) 'without desire, there would be no path'

Also, it seems to me that desire serves the purpose of a "raft" which one abandons upon reaching the "other shore", when the goal (awakening) is reached.

That is a very good desire to have, @avatar Korra. Such desires are often helpful in the path. That kind of conceit can be a good thing. Setting expectations for one's own practice and desiring to do well, in thinking that “Other people can do this, why can’t I?” helps.  Those are actually useful tools in the path. But it is important to remember well to keep it to self, and let your actions speak. This is the most important advice that a noble friend can give you in this regard (Please do not ask me as to why it is so. It is up to you to take this advice or leave it. How this truism plays out in your life is a mystery. So you will have to be mindful of your actions, and its results, and learn from it.) Then you will one day get to see that only such people who heed this advice are likely to pursue this demanding path of practice all the way through to the end.

but if there are conditions for the presence/absence of the Five Hindrances, Seven Factors of Awakening to arise and to pass, are these not impermanent? If one clings to the impermanent, does this not lead to dukkha?

Buddha showed us that this mind is like a monkey who jumps from one tree branch to another, holding one tree branch and jumps onto another branch in a forest. Your mind will cling onto one thought to another. It never ends. So do try to observe your mind. Do you not see that it is better to cling to impermanence than anything else? Whether it is 'Dukkha' or not, you are always clinging on to something. You let go of one only to cling onto another. So it will do a world of good if you 'cling' onto impermanence. Let it be 'Dukkha'. Don't worry about it. Trust me. It will do you good.

I remember reading a sutra where someone asked the Buddha something similar to this and he replied (in a paraphrased way)
"Did you desire to come here before arriving here?" Buddha
"Yes" Someone
"Now you are here do you still desire or are attached with coming here" Buddha
"No" That Guy
"It is the same with Nirvana/Practice, when you are there you can let it go"
There is nothing wrong with it Master Zhi Yi classifies desire for practice/achievement as one of the helpful qualities to Cultivation/Meditation

That sounds like the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15).

@ChrisW now I think I see what you meant

I remember a sutta, It is normal for an oldest son of a king with legitimate blood line 7 generations up, to have expectation to the throne. same with monks, if he has all the Seven Factors of Awakening, it is normal for him to expect Nirvana.


text:
What are the attitudes of the schools to the experience of physical pain during sitting meditation?
Both the Theravada and the Zen traditions appear to regard pain, even extreme physical pain, as a necessary part of sitting, whereas Ngakpa Chogyam in Journey into Vastness, speaking for the Dzogchen point of view, seems to imply that pain is an indication that one is not sitting properly and that there are ways of sitting that do not produce pain.
The only references to pain in the context of meditation in the Pali Canon appear to refer to the Buddha's six-year period of self-mortification, which he repudiated (correct me with a specific reference if I am mistaken). Therefore, I am interested in the attitude of different Buddhist schools to pain in the context of sitting and meditation. Is it a sign of poor sitting practice or is it part of the experience, perhaps even something important that should be cultivated (e.g., ancient shamans used pain to induce altered states of consciousness, an example being the famous Sun Dance in which in which practitioners hung themselves by the pectoral muscles from a post for several days).
What do the different Buddhist schools and traditions say about this?

I think it is important to emphasize what Alex is wanting. That is, "I am interested in the attitude of different Buddhist schools to pain in the context of sitting and meditation." Not our personal opinion on pain, but rather, a compare and contrast in regards to Buddhist schools and their views on pain.

My experience with Soto Zen is that, a first mention of pain during sitting is regarded as normal and one should "just keep doing it". Generally, there's also a culture within Soto Zen taking pride on painful things -- like hard blows of keisaku, or sleeping on hard wood -- but I suspect this is more related to novices then advanced practitioners.
At the same time, using a different posture or a chair was always welcomed -- despite the toughness attitude, meditation itself was more important than posture, specially if it's becoming an obstacle. My experience with Tibetan and Theravada is similar on this: there's a preference for a stable and "portable" position like lotus. But being in unbearable pain when meditating in a posture is not seeing as positive to the practice.
Also, westerns are notorious for having difficulties sitting cross legged and many monasteries of different schools offer cushions and chairs.
From the suttas, I think the attitude towards pain in the training depends on a few things:

whether the physical discomfort is optional (e.g. dwelling temperature, body position, hunger/thirst, etc) as opposed to medical condition.
whether the pain is present right now.
whether the hindrance of aversion is present.

There are some specific points to draw.
Training samatha, for example, is notoriously difficult under physical pain. Here's a section of a sutta that is indicative of the problem of physical discomfort to develop samadhi:

But with excessive thinking and pondering I might tire my body, and when the body is tired, the mind becomes strained, and when the mind is strained, it is far from concentration. So I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it. Why is that? So my mind should not be strained.
-- Dvedhāvitakka Sutta [Bodhi trans.], MN 19

I think understanding how pain is dealt with in general in the suttas might illuminate how one should approach it during sitting (or non-sitting) meditation.
The general teaching that I think most schools share towards pain is to be mindful of the pain being experienced. Here's an associated sutta section:

“There are, bhikkhus, tangible objects cognizable by the body that are agreeable and those that are disagreeable. One should train so that these do not persist obsessing one’s mind even when they are repeatedly experienced. When the mind is not obsessed, tireless energy is aroused, unmuddled mindfulness is set up, the body becomes tranquil and untroubled, the mind becomes concentrated and one-pointed”
-- SN 35.134

A more detailed technique is described in the sathipatana sutta in the contemplation of feeling section:

"And how, O bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating feeling in feelings?
"Here, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu when experiencing a pleasant feeling, understands: 'I experience a pleasant feeling'; when experiencing a painful feeling, he understands: 'I experience a painful feeling'; when experiencing a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling, he understands: 'I experience a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling'; when experiencing a pleasant worldly feeling, he understands: 'I experience a pleasant worldly feeling'; when experiencing a pleasant spiritual feeling, he understands: 'I experience a pleasant spiritual feeling'; when experiencing a painful worldly feeling, he understands: 'I experience a painful worldly feeling'; when experiencing a painful spiritual feeling, he understands: 'I experience a painful spiritual feeling'; when experiencing a neither-pleasant-nor-painful worldly feeling, he understands: 'I experience a neither-pleasant-nor-painful worldly feeling'; when experiencing a neither-pleasant-nor-painful spiritual feeling, he understands: 'I experience a neither-pleasant-nor-painful spiritual feeling.'
"Thus he lives contemplating feelings in feelings internally, or he lives contemplating feeling in feelings externally, or he lives contemplating feeling in feelings internally and externally. He lives contemplating origination-things in feelings, or he lives contemplating dissolution-things in feelings, or he lives contemplating origination-and-dissolution-things in feelings. Or his mindfulness is established with the thought: 'Feeling exists,' to the extent necessary just for knowledge and remembrance and he lives independent and clings to naught in the world.
"Thus, indeed, O bhikkhus, a bhikkhu lives contemplating feeling in feelings."
-- Satipatthana Sutta, MN 10 (Soma Thera Trans.)

Moreover, presence of pain is an opportunity to develop equanimity:

"Now how, Ananda, in the discipline of a noble one is there the unexcelled development of the faculties?
"[...] when touching a tactile sensation with the body, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He discerns that 'This agreeable thing has arisen in me, this disagreeable thing... this agreeable & disagreeable thing has arisen in me. And that is compounded, gross, dependently co-arisen. But this is peaceful, this is exquisite, i.e., equanimity.' With that, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. Just as a strong man might easily extend his flexed arm or flex his extended arm, that is how quickly, how rapidly, how easily, no matter what it refers to, the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing ceases, and equanimity takes its stance. In the discipline of a noble one, this is called the unexcelled development of the faculties with regard to tactile sensations cognizable by the body.
"And how is one a person in training, someone following the way?
There is the case where, when touching a tactile sensation with the body, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. He feels horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with the arisen agreeable thing... disagreeable thing... agreeable & disagreeable thing.
"And how is one a noble one with developed faculties?
There is the case where, when touching a tactile sensation with the body, there arises in a monk what is agreeable, what is disagreeable, what is agreeable & disagreeable. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome. If he wants, he remains percipient of loathsomeness in the presence of what is not loathsome & what is. If he wants, he remains percipient of unloathsomeness in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not. If he wants — in the presence of what is loathsome & what is not — cutting himself off from both, he remains equanimous, alert, & mindful.
-- Indriya-bhavana Sutta, MN 152 (Thanissaro Trans.)

Endurance is an important part of the practice as well (Soto Zen is particularly emphatic on this one):

“Bhikkhus, in three cases ardor should be exercised. What three? (1) Ardor should be exercised for the non-arising of unarisen bad unwholesome qualities. (2) Ardor should be exercised for the arising of unarisen wholesome qualities. (3) Ardor should be exercised for enduring arisen bodily feelings that are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, harrowing, disagreeable, sapping one’s vitality. In these three cases ardor should be exercised.
-- AN 3.49

Finally, here's how the Buddha is described reacting to bodily pain:

Now on that occasion the Blessed One’s foot had been cut by a stone splinter. Severe pains assailed the Blessed One—bodily feelings that were painful, racking, sharp, piercing, harrowing, disagreeable. But the Blessed One endured them, mindful and clearly comprehending, without becoming distressed.
-- SN 1.38

Complementary, the presence of aversion is one of the 5 hindrances that generally obstruct one's practice:

“Bhikkhus, there are these five hindrances. What five? The hindrance of sensual desire, the hindrance of ill will [aversion], the hindrance of sloth and torpor, the hindrance of restlessness and remorse, the hindrance of doubt. These are the five hindrances. This Noble Eightfold Path is to be developed for direct knowledge of these five hindrances, for the full understanding of them, for their utter destruction, for their abandoning.”
SN 45.177

Thank you for the MN 19 quotation. I think that quotation really sums up the whole matter.

Pain is obviously related to physical posture; obviously related to the mobility of an individual's body & joints. Therefore, some individuals without any samadhi (meditative development) can sit for long periods while other individuals (who might have better samadhi) cannot sit as long without experiencing pain.
For example, in the West, are often found slender naturally flexible women leading hatha yoga classes, who display no evidence of spiritual development (e.g., they are emotionally unbalanced, addicted to cigarettes, etc).
Imo, the above shows there is no relevance or correlation between physical posture/pain and meditative development. If it was otherwise, a naturally physically flexible person would either be advantaged or disadvantaged compared to another person.
When samadhi (concentration) is genuinely developed (absorption into breathing, jhana, etc), awareness of pain disappears from consciousness, even though the legs themselves may become very stiff & very painful. A samadhi practitioner may sit for a few hours without consciously experiencing pain then, after emerging from samadhi, will struggle to stand up & walk.
This is why I am not aware of any instructions in the Pali teachings about meditation & physical pain. In fact, the very essence of the Middle-Way is the development of jhana (with rapture, happiness & equanimity) which is contrary to those Theravada schools (Goenka; Mahasi, etc) that teach meditation on pain.
Since the ultimate purpose of Buddhist meditation is to develop a bliss (samatha) that liberates an individual from reliance on sensuality & then insight (vipassana) that liberates a individual from attachment, self-view & suffering, it is obvious meditation on pain is not directly relevant to the Buddhist path.
When I was young, I practised meditation very intensively and developed some capacity to be non-attached. Then at a later time, my body suffered an injury & a lengthy rehabilitation that was very painful at times. I required no additional training in non-attachment to deal with my injury & rehabilitation. The non-attachment developed in my painless meditation, when I was younger, was more than sufficient.
It may sound like a paradox but non-attachment & dispassion towards rapture (piti) is said by some to be much more effective at dealing with pain that direct meditation on pain itself. This is probably why the Buddha encouraged the development of non-attachment & egolessness (rather than meditation on pain itself).

How did your non-attachment help with the pain? Was there less pain because of your understanding or your meditation practice or something else?

Non-attachment did not change physical pain. It just stops suffering (psychological turmoil) about pain. When Buddha was old, the scriptures report he experienced physical pain but did not suffer over the pain. Regards.

Theravada Buddhist Answer. Vipassana instructions following the tradition of the late Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.
The body is conditioned and therefore "dukkha". There will arise pain sooner or later in one form or the other. That is its nature.
Pain is just pain. There is nothing inherently bad about it. It's simply an experience.
In the Sallatha Sutta (SN 36.6) the Buddha compared pain and our reaction to the pain as being shot by 2 arrows.
The first arrow is the pain we cannot avoid, e.g. physical pain from doing sitting meditation. The second arrow is our aversion (attachment) to the pain. This arrow we can avoid by being mindful and taking the pain as an object of meditation.
In Vipassana meditation pain should be observed with mindfulness in the present moment. If aversion to the pain arises, then the aversion should be taken as an object.
This allows us to see the object clearly and thereby change the reactionary behavior of the untrained mind into a behavior based on impartiality and acceptance of what is ocurring at the sense doors.

As addition for the Mahasi approach (which I heard at retreats in that lineage): while pain is inevitable, if it persists off-cushion, it might be a medical condition which should be taken care of appropriately.

To give a more practical take on this, I would answer "It depends on who you ask".
There have been a number of realized masters that have said The Full Lotus position or nothing.
There are others who have said that posture is important, but how you achieve it is meaningless.
And yet others who say that Lotus Position sitting is silly, outmoded, and should be updated for the modern world.
What it really comes down to is that the lotus position, full, half, or any variation of it, is actually a fertility symbol, as well as a way (not THE way) to achieve some balance between attentiveness and a wandering mind.
If you think about it, the buddha in full lotus resembles a phallus. This is probably intentional. It goes back into the mists of time through Hinduism, and is a symbol of focus and asceticism.
Which is why some teachers criticize the use of that posture today. But as I said, others believe the pain is important, as it gives us more to be concerned about, thus making our sitting even better.

I don't know much about the teachings but what I have experienced is at a time our mind can do one task only. we don't feel pain unless our conscious is aware of the pain or is on other thing. I would suggest while meditating, take it easy, follow your breath or any mantra and when we feel pain, let don't push it more. It is all about practice. keep practicing, it will be very easy.


text:
Where can I get Buddha's teachings of the Dharma practice?
I've tried several Buddhist traditions (Zen, Diamond Way) and none of it really worked for me. So now I intend to give it another try, but in a way, which is tailored to my personality. This time I want to do it

on my own (working with teachers or mentors did more harm than good for me, both in spiritual and in professional spheres) and
without things that I don't need, especially without the idea that the purpose of Buddhist practice is to achieve enlightenment (the reason for me to practice is to reduce my suffering in this life; I don't care about enlightenment or rebirths or Karma) and without communicating with other people (again, experience shows that this doesn't help me at all).

Is there a way to obtain Buddha's description of the practice in English, German or Russian? If yes, where?
Note that I'm not interested in later interpretations of his words. I want to learn what he himself said about how to practice (what exercises, rituals etc. he recommend, i. e. something you can do). I'm also not interested in philosophical stuff.
I want to

take his original texts (those parts, which most likely come from Siddhartha Gautama himself, not later additions),
devise a set of "procedures" (e. g. meditations of different kinds, exercises) and metrics,
regularly estimate the quality of my practice (the better my practice, the less suffering there is in my life), and
modify my practice (the procedures and intensity of doing them) so that the quality increases with time.

I cannot measure the amount of suffering directly, but I can estimate it. For example, the happier I am, the harder and more effectively I work (my experience is that I can't be really sad or euphoric, when I'm immersed in certain kinds of work). The latter two parameters (amount of productive work per week, number of tasks of comparable size completed per week) can be measured using timetracking and project management software. Both of them are estimates of the amount of suffering in my life.

The Buddha did not speak English, German or Russian therefore it is difficult to find translated instruction that is not subject to 'interpretation' (since there is not one well-known translator that has translated the instructions 100% accurately).
If you want to know exactly what the Buddha taught, you must use logic & intelligence ('wise reflection': 'yoniso manasikara') to discern his teachings.
For example, in his 1st sermon on the Four Noble Truths (note: linked translation is not 100% accurate), the Buddha taught:
(1) suffering is to be comprehended;
(2) the origin of suffering, namely, craving leading to self-becoming, is to be abandoned.
(3) the cessation of suffering, namely, the cessation of craving, is to be realised.
(4) the path to the cessation of suffering, namely, the noble eightfold path, is to be developed.
Therefore, what is 'suffering' (which the Buddha summarised as egoistic 'attachment/grasping' to the five aggregates) is something that must be comprehendible. It follows common ideas such as 'life is suffering' or 'the five aggregates (body, feeling, perception, mental forming & consciousness) are suffering' is not something comprehendible therefore do not form part of the instruction. The instruction is to comprehend that egoistic attachment/grasping ('upadana') is suffering.
The clearest & most obvious instruction that represents a radical change in behavior is that of 'craving is to be abandoned'. In other words, the noble eightfold path, including the meditation components, is obviously not to be developed using craving. Practising forms of meditation, such as watching breathing, with craving, is obviously contrary to the instructions. This is why many meditation instructions state the mindfulness & concentration developed is based in giving up craving & letting go of attachment (i.e., 'relinquishment').
As for the other components of noble eightfold path, such as the 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th, they are very straightforward.

...without things that I don't need, especially without the idea that the purpose of Buddhist practice is to achieve enlightenment...

If we walk the path to the higher goal, the lower goals will be fulfilled along the way.

...the reason for me to practice is to reduce my suffering in this life...

Sooner or later, we'll realize that the only way to reduce our suffering in this life, is to help reduce the suffering of others. To have the strength to do it, we'll need very strong motivations.

For example, the happier I am, the harder and more effectively I work...

There is nothing wrong in using the teachings to achieve mundane goals. However, this achievements are only temporary, and if we are not able to see this, they will only lead to more suffering.

Our ultimate purpose is using the practices to liberate ourselves of all relative conditionings, not only to improve them.
Tenzing Wangyal Rinpoche

If we walk the path to the higher goal, the lower goals will be fulfilled along the way. - This is may be true, but not for all people. There's plenty of very spiritual people, who fail to achieve what you call "lower goals", such as keeping themselves sane or maintain good-enough relationships with their relevant people (parents, children, spouses). In reality, the ability to achieve such "lower goals" is the ultimate test for one's spirituality.

Sooner or later, we'll realize that the only way to reduce our suffering in this life, is to help reduce the suffering of others. - My ability to help others is directly to my well-being, which includes productivity. Hence, there is no way to reduce suffering (my own and that of other people) without increaseing effectiveness of me as a person.

@FranzDrollig Indeed, one cannot save a drowning man if oneself is drowning too. But, as our suffering diminishes, our awareness of the suffering of others increases. We need a very strong motivation to cope with this fact and to act accordingly, and productivity and success are not. As I said, there is nothing wrong with trying to achieve mundane goals, but if we're not careful, this achievements will become the very source of our suffering. Unless we aim for a higher goal, sooner or later we'll hit a wall of kausīdya.

You probably know this already but the name of the texts that preserve the teachings of the Buddha are called suttas (or sutras). Generally speaking, they are the closest records of what the buddha might have taught.
Other than these texts, the teachings of the Buddha survive through transmission from master to disciples across millennia spread through many branches.
These are likely the only sources of the teachings and both present problems of trust and authenticity (This does not mean current teachers are not to be trusted, nor that texts are not to be trusted, only that one needs to be at least aware of the problems one may encounter).
On the suttas, they are voluminous and were written down at different periods -- some of them arguably composed at different periods as well. One particular collection is often considered to be the earliest part (and, to many, the most authentic): these are the four nikayas/agamas (Dīgha, Majjhima, Samyutta, Anguttara) plus the Vinaya. Translations of these collections to many languages are available online. They are also available in physical books in english (see here, here, here and here).
These collections had translations preserved by many schools across many countries through centuries without much exchanges with each other, in particular, Tibet, Sri Lanka and China. The oldest texts are preserved in Sanskrit, Pali, and Classical Chinese, respectively. None of these are believed to be the language the Buddha spoke (some speculate that Pali might be a language close to their tongue).
A fifth book, Khuddaka Nikaya, is a miscellaneous collection and seem to have more divergences across recensions, mixing what seems to be older and newer compositions. Some schools also developed a third basket: the Abbidhamma, whose origin is not clear (some believe it was a project initiated by the Buddha to systematize the teachings, some believe it was developed by the schools as they attempted to solve conflicts between them or to clarify ambiguous passages, etc).
Two important take aways from the four Nikayas:

all schools recognize these collections as preserving the Buddha's teachings;
comparative analysis of the existing recensions show a remarkable consistency in content for texts of these collections.

Naturally, the buddhist schools grew apart and dispersed geographically. In doing so, they developed their own literature on top of what they already had: meditation manuals, philosophical treatises, commentaries, but also, some of them developed new sutras (that is, texts narrating the Buddha's dialogues and teachings). These new sutras have a distinct style and emphasis, and are usually recognized as Mahayana sutras. Some  regard them as superior in their teachings than early texts, some regard them as equivalent in meaning to the content of the nikayas and some do not regard them as authentic (the fact that they were composed much later is mostly accepted by scholars -- some buddhists have another explanations for their origin). Exemples of Mahayana sutras are Lotus, Diamond and Prajna Paramita.
Personally, as someone who studies alone, I find the nikayas to be the best bet to get to the closest of what might have been the Buddha's words -- my own opinion, of course. The closest, not the actual words verbatim, because it seems he never wrote from his own wrist, and you know, oral transmissions, translations and editions have a way of introducing errors.
On that note, two scholar monks, Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali have done an interesting work defending the authenticity of the nikayas: The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts (pdf here).
Also, the Theravada, considered the oldest surviving branch of buddhism is the most known tradition to preserve, study and practice according to the nikayas & vinaya. Moreover, scholars of early buddhism (in contrast to late/Mahayana buddhism) focus on the nikayas. In contrast, many Mahayana schools, although recognizing the nikayas as authentic, generally are not known for studying them.
Finally, for the most part, the reading of the nikayas is not really obscure (as one might expect after reading texts from other religions); I think they are very readable. Of course, when they get deep they are remarkably deep. And sometimes confusing -- after all it's arguably a 2500 year old text. However, there's plenty of books (commentaries, manuals, etc) that help clarify specific sutras or concepts. And for everything else, there are forums and Q&A like this to help.

The nowadays Vipassana (Mahasi Saydaw & his many direct or indirect descendants) reference Satipatthana Sutta. However, quoting an excellent Theravada reinvents vipassana blogpost:

If you read the Satipatthana Sutta, the most-used one, and if you know
  how to meditate, you can say “yeah, parts of that are a pretty good
  description of what we do.” (Other parts are nothing like what people
  do now. I think that’s important, as I’ll explain in a later post.) If
  you had no idea what meditation was, the Sutta would not seem like
  much of a guide.

Your prospect of getting straightforwardly useful meditation instruction from the text itself is bleak, unless you want to repeat what people like Mahasi Sayadaw did (and they spent lifetime studying and refining the technique). (I am sorry you had bad luck with your previous teachers.)
It is even more the case for devising progress metrics. Theoretically, there are 3 trainings in buddhism (sila, samadhi, panna) which are to a significant extent orthogonal. There are some traditional metrics (8 jhanas (pre-buddhist AFAIK), 16 insight stages (later commentarial), 4 paths (Buddha original)) but there is often little agreement on what they actually are, including among people who devoted significant time to studying them (see e.g. Shankman's The experience of Samadhi; or online discussions in communities like dharmaoverground.org; see also what unnamed Pa Auk monks say about Mahasi's sotapatti certificates -- there is a great deal of rivalrly and "we are right, you're wrong" attitude) let alone some codified assessment procedures. You've seen some of that, I guess.
"Progress" is not a monotonic (not to say constant) function, more happy now does not necessarily mean better off long-term. The goal of Buddhist practice (as I understand it) is freedom from suffering, some say "freedom in the midst of suffering" -- implying it is not absence of suffering but rather a different way of relating to it.
One of the universal characteristics (3C is Buddha), anatta, means uncontrollability, and it is also a characteristics of your practice. If your task is to have your practice under control, odds are that you will suffer because the practice simply does not care about what you want :)
Do a long Vipassana retreat; walk the path from where you are right now, before you dream about what your ideal path is.
(PS If you want to read original texts, you have to get over words like "enlightenment", they are really there.)