text:
Is there any benefit in abstaining from listening songs?
All the songs which I have been listening since childhood are constantly popping up in my mind even the songs which I listened in the childhood.
Shall I now stop listening any song altogether providing I want to uncondition my mind completely? Are there benefits to stop listening them?
Also what shall I do when these old songs pope up again in the mind?
Note: If it's helpful to answer let me inform you that I have been practicing mindfulness along with anapansatti.

It's very important to know WHY you want to stop listening to music. If it is just by blindly following precepts, the motivation won't take you that far. However, if you realise that sense-restraint is a crucial part of the Dhamma, and was not coincidentally taught by the Buddha, you will realize its importance. The more you restrain yourself from "unskillful mental states", the more success you'll have in your meditation, since by default then your mind will have a lesser degree of hindrances. This being so, the less results you experienced up until now (especially due to wrong friendship,a crucial part of right view), the less trust you will have in the Buddha.
As you probably know, meditation alone cannot rid all hindrances. Because of this, the Buddha divided the path into Sila, Samadhi and Pañña. Whatever you do within & outside your meditation session is really what you cultivate (bhavana). And wherever your mind frequently dwells the most that will be your inclination. The Buddha spoke thus:

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

MN 19

If you stop listening to songs, eventualy the odds of fragments of song poping in the mind would shrink, but is that realy what you are looking for ?
A better way to approach this would be to let go of the aversion you feel toward having songs beeing replayed in your mind.
When it occurs, do as you do with any other distraction or thought. Watch is appear and disappear by itself, watch for any sensation or thought that may arise because of it.
Even if you decide not to listen to music anymore, you will be exposed to it against your will from time to time, so you can't really count on "dropping the listening habit" strategy alone.
Please also consider that one can listen to music in order to feel sensual pleasure, which is unskillful, but also to engage with a particular art form which won't prevent your spiritual growth at all. See this question Buddhist view on Art and being an Artist.
Music can increase one's motivation in his spiritual developement, by giving access to particular emotions one would have never felt otherwise.
Just a few examples on the top of my head :
If you are on a bad day, listening to a particular song could uplift your mind and give you the motivation to sit and meditate.
If you have trouble feeling goodwill towards other human beeings, try listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony. Also 5th symfony can easely be interpreted by the story of a person who gradually overcomes his bad kamma. 6th symphony is about joy associated with nature. And so on.
As with any other actions, you should contemplate the effects of listening to music. With time you will build up discernement, and avoid situations when listening to music is unskillful.
Be good to yourself and don't beat yourself over it unnecessarily. When you see clearly the drawbacks of music, things will resolve quite naturally.

Yes, listening to music is called entertainment or sense gratification.
You need to understand the purpose of listening to music. Is it helping to grow spiritually?
Music will create emotions in mind, leading to suffering.
There are no cheats or listening to music once in a while.
You have to be serious for practicing dhamma.
Ancient Buddhist monks also practiced, avoiding to watch beautiful or colourful things for controlling mind.
Reading books is called intellectual entertainment.
Dhamma is for disciplined candidate.
Discipline will liberate your mind.
There has to be a fire of discipline to grow spiritually.

Only a personal experience, but for the substantial period that music was not a part of this life a few things happened. The mind was more clear and focused. Meditation came easier and deeper. There was one less distraction and attachment to deal with.
It is my practice that not listening to music is in strict accordance with the precepts. With this being said, it was only a challenge at the beginning stage and includes the position you describe.
All the best to you friend.

Thank you. I almost stopped (not forcibly) to listen music. Sometimes, listening only non material.  But will stop that also. :)

Is there any reason to keep on nourishing of what is just of short pleasure, does not lead to liberation?
Is there any reason to nourish something being an obstacle on the path? Having told by the wise and particularly seen for oneself?
By not nourishing, not giving note, not giving into, withdraw, cutting of any feed, relations break apart, good as well as bad.
Now think how dhamma, suttas, good reminders would pup up in the head, if starting to seek for relation to it? So it's good to seek for relation where they repeat, enjoy and remember each other of what is worthy to nourish, remember and store, to face the unconditioned possible for yourself and be not without good entertaining /lifelihood for the mind.

Going forth (i.e., becoming a monk)

They avoid dancing, singing, music, and seeing shows --MN27

For a lay person this may sound like quite the burden. However, it's not. Music is by its nature compelling. Wanting to listen to music is wanting to be caught up in it, to be emotionally tied and bound. Even professional musicians understand this and need to develop a necessary measure of restraint, distance and awareness to advance their skills. Similarly, listeners naturally develop a certain distance when listening mindfully. "Oh this song wants me to feel seduced by romance". Etc.
Note that the sutta uses "avoid". As in "avoid stepping in bear traps with bare feet." There is no sin or virtue here. I also avoid firecrackers because they can cause injury. Music isn't bad or good. In fact, one can actually listen to music mindfully to understand where hidden delights are bubbling. Then one can go meditate on those delights and relinquish them if possessive about them.

You can listen to music while learning dharma thus:
Sound - ear - interpretation - feeling - craving or aversion.
How so can one learn from this?
The source of wanting or averting is in the feeling (vedana) and since nothing can be sustained to our liking, then it is all impersonal or not-self. From a more direct perspective, it is impermanent, suffering and therefore not who you 'think' you are. The same is true of all the other senses.
You could really go some here by seeing how this process fits into the 12 nidanas.

"Nidanas" are co-dependent events or phenomena, which act as links on a chain, conditioning and depending on each other. When certain conditions are present, they give rise to subsequent conditions, which in turn give rise to other conditions. Wikipedia

Additionally, in the Assutavā Sutta the Buddha said...

When this exists, that comes to be. With the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be. With the cessation of this, that ceases.

The answer to your question is yes there is benefit from not listening but also there is an opportunity to learn from your physiology when listening.

Correcting earlier... “Could you figuratively use a feather of awareness to the music compared, e.g., a hammer, that is, a lighter note.”
If everything passes - in time - then if one were to let it it pass, (feather) compared to paying it so much attention (hammer) maybe the mental activity could be noted of the object (thoughts, music, etc.) but not necessarily sustained, maintained, retained.

I don't understand what this answer says.

Me neither. Could you be more specific?


text:
Satipathanna Sutta and contemplating mind externally?
More specifically, Buddha informs the Kurus thus:
"Contemplating mind internally. Contemplating mind externally. Contemplating mind both internally and externally"
How is one to contemplate the mind externally?
Additionally, in chapter 1 of the Shurangama sutra, the Buddha skillfully guides Ananda into locating his own mind by searching not just within the body but outside of the body. This throws Ananda and the other monks into mental and emotional upheaval (quite fascinating actually).
So, from the perspective of satipathanna sutta, is one to contemplate mind beyond the boundaries of the body?

The first part of this questions is a duplicate of How should satipatthana be understood in regard to external/internal minds? which has some answers.

It's possible that the second part of this question (about the Shurangama sutra) might be unrelated to the first, and better asked as a separate question (if indeed it's a question at all).

Thank you ChrisW. I should put more effort into searching before asking a question. Did you use my question as a search term?

Indeed, my search for https://www.google.fr/search?q=Satipathanna+Sutta+and+contemplating+mind+externally%3F found https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=1122 and then https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/10372/how-should-satipatthana-be-understood-in-regard-to-external-internal-minds

Abhidhamma Vibhaṅga Khandhavibhaṅga:

Therein what is internal consciousness? That consciousness which, for this or that being, is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped (by craving and false view), (i.e.) eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness. This is called internal consciousness.
Therein what is external consciousness? That consciousness which, for this or that other being, for other persons is personal, self-referable, one’s own, individual and is grasped, (i.e.) eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness. This is called external consciousness.

This is it. Simple and concise. It resonates perfectly. Thank you.

Contemplating mind means contemplating defilements (rather than thoughts) and the absence of defilements.
For example, when contemplating externally, the mind views that there are no people or no beings or no selves. All that exists is physical forms animated by mental defilements; such as the mental defilement (urge) to eat and the mental defilement to have sex and reproduce.
Thus contemplating mind externally is contemplating the greed, lust, anger, violence, psychopathy, delusion, ignorance, etc, in external forms and seeing how these defilements are elements of nature rather than selves or self-generated.
For example, in what is ordinarily called a “sexy woman”, one contemplates how there is physical matter with a physical womb saturated with various chemicals and hormones which give rise to various mental defilements that animates that form to move, act and behave in the way it does.
When contemplation of mind is done properly, external life forms will be veiwed as programmed robots.

Thank you but your answer still points to an internal contemplation of mind. To eat and to have sex are biological mechanisms. I appreciate that they are bound to the functions of mind but they are still internal contemplations. However, the arising of external phenomena seemingly influences mind. Could it be the contemplation of how external phenomena shapes the weather of mind?

My answer refers to external minds. Thanks

Thanks. I see that you've added further. ;-)

DD, does this mean to view all beings as 5 aggregates? Or is this contemplation only possible during deep meditation.

It can be started analytically; similar to meditation on the parts of the body. You sit on the bus & analyse the so-called "people" in terms of aggregates. For example, an unhappy looking "person" as "a mind with sorry". A person is dressed with make up to attract attention and you analyse "A mind with lust or craving". A person looks angry or unfriendly: "A mind with hatred". Then there also is consciousness. I emphasize the physical body in my post because it provide a grounding to the meditation. Most mentality such as desire to eat, to work, look sexy, etc, arises because of the body.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Must one move through the various jhanas to realise nibbana?
Some of these jhanas are incredibly powerful but they have an opposite, that being emotional and mental upheaval and the dark nights.
Essentially, I realise that there are valuable insights to learn from both their extremes but I find that delusion can arise as part of the mental upheaval (I thought I was in love with my teacher) now that I'm out of the delusion it seems so silly.
Buddha had mentioned in a few suttas (I can't remember their names) that jhanas are the way to nibana but was this within the context of who he was giving the teaching to?
As an example, the satipathanna sutta was taught to the kuru people because they already possessed a deep wisdom and an advanced ability to learn quickly thus, the teaching he gave was conducive to their ability to attain higher levels of realisation very quickly.

Both Theravada and (Tibetan) Mahayana textual sources state that jhanas are not a hard requirement, but insight is.
That said, live teachers in both traditions clearly say that "insight" refers not as much to dry intellectual understanding as to practical real-life mastery of mind based on the first-hand insight into its key mechanisms.
In my understanding, jhanas ARE the stages of that mastery - especially if you interpret them broadly as stages of mastery of Emotional Intelligence - as opposed to concrete states. In this interpretation, nirvana/nibbana is a state of 100% inner harmony without any conflict between "is" and "should" whatsoever. While jhanas are progressive approximations of that state from coarse to finer, to finest, to transcendental.
The coarse stages entail coarser positive mindstates and coarser techniques of generating them - and the finer stages entail finer positive mindstates and finer techniques of generating them. If you look at it this way, you will see that jhanas are the very nature of the gradual path and are therefore required for anyone but the most talented practitioners who can skip to pure suchness right away.

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

Jhanas are not emotional, not a mental upheaval and not dark nights. The Pali suttas describe jhana as "seclusion", "composure", "happy" and "equanimous".
"Dark Night" happens in a transitional phase prior to establishing the path and much prior to jhana.
To realise final Nibbana as an Arahant, yes, the four rupa jhana must be moved though.
To "taste" the freedom of Nibbana, as a stream-enterer, jhana is not required however the "Dark Night" of "ego-death" must be experienced.

The aftereffects of big jhanas (hours and days) can leave one navigating through emotional and mental upheaval along with dark nights.

What is in the comment is not jhana. Thanks

in Jhanna Sutta, you dont need to move thru 4 jhanna.  Budda went down each Jhanna with

"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding

And Buddha repeated above all the way with other jhannas ONE by ONE.
Interesting fact, quite differently for those in dimension of neither perception nor non-perception & the attainment of the cessation.  You have to attain that stage and emerge from in back and forth to gain insight. I remember from one sutta Buddha said he could only teach those with perception, and not a twisted one, such as those with severe mental illness.
The idea that all 4 Jhanna has to be achieved to end the mental fermentations is taught by later teachers.  I guarantee you, you will not find sutta saying so.  However, one may twist the sutta to match his idea.

Buddha counts four jhanas but others count 6 or above. The mind has this propensity towards linear progression which can be an issue. In the Rahogata Sutta Buddha describes moving through all four jhanas to realise the fruit. How does this compare to your answer? I may have an incorrect interpretation of the Rahogata Sutta. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.011.than.html

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


text:
Harmlessness to non-sentient nature and can consciousness (pure awareness) exist?
Buddhism teaches us to practice harmlessness. Would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature? Can consciousness, particularly the pure awareness aspect, reside in such parts of nature (e.g. non-animals), or why not?

From the (non-dual!) Mahayana perspective, "mind" and "matter", "sentience" and "non-sentience" are definitely not two separate things, they are different aspects of the same.
For example, in his work called Bendowa Japanese Zen-master Dogen points out that:

In Buddhist philosophy, the body and mind are essentially one, and the essence
  and form are non-dual. So, don't separate the mind from the body. Why do
  you say that the body perishes while the mind is eternal? This is against the
  right law.

In addition to this, Dogen states in Shinjin-Gakudo:

All the worlds in the ten directions are the true human body itself.

and in Yuibutsu-yobutsu:

The whole world is one's own 'dharma-kaya'.

He also says:

Those [said to be] without the “mind” must also be sentient beings; this is because “all sentient beings” are the “mind.” Therefore, all that possess the “mind” are the sentient beings, and the sentient beings all have the Buddha-nature. Grass，trees, land ... are all “mind.” Since they are the “mind,” they are sentient beings；since they are all sentient beings, they have the Buddha-nature.

And then in Bussho:

When people hear the word “Buddha-nature” many scholars misunderstand it as akin to the atman of the heretics. It is because they do not meet the true person, nor do they see the real nature of their own selves, and furthermore it is because they do not encounter an authentic teacher. They unknowingly identify the function of human mind with the consciousness of the Buddha-nature.

While the Vietnamese Zen-master Thich Nhat Hanh says:

“If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. So we can say that the cloud and the paper inter-are. “Interbeing” is a word that is not in the dictionary yet, but if we combine the prefix “inter-” with the verb “to be,” we have a new verb, inter-be. The cloud and the sheet of paper "inter-are".
If we look into this sheet of paper even more deeply, we can see the sunshine in it. If the sunshine is not there, the forest cannot grow. In fact, nothing can grow. Even we cannot grow without sunshine. And so, we know that the sunshine is also in this sheet of paper. The paper and the sunshine inter-are. And if we continue to look, we can see the logger who cut the tree and brought it to the mill to be transformed into paper. And we see the wheat. We know the logger cannot exist without his daily bread, and therefore the wheat that became his bread is also in this sheet of paper. And the logger’s father and mother are in it too. When we look in this way, we see that without all of these things, this sheet of paper cannot exist.
Looking even more deeply, we can see we are in it too. This is not difficult to see, because when we look at a sheet of paper, the sheet of paper is part of our perception. Your mind is in here and mine is also. So we can say that everything is in here with this sheet of paper. You cannot point out one thing that is not here-time, space, the earth, the rain, the minerals in the soil, the sunshine, the cloud, the river, the heat. Everything co-exists with this sheet of paper. That is why I think the word inter-be should be in the dictionary. “To be” is to inter-be. You cannot just be by yourself alone. You have to inter-be with every other thing. This sheet of paper is, because everything else is.
Suppose we try to return one of the elements to its source. Suppose we return the sunshine to the sun. Do you think that this sheet of paper will be possible? No, without sunshine nothing can be. And if we return the logger to his mother, then we have no sheet of paper either. The fact is that this sheet of paper is made up only of “non-paper elements.” And if we return these non-paper elements to their sources, then there can be no paper at all. Without “non-paper elements,” like mind, logger, sunshine and so on, there will be no paper. As thin as this sheet of paper is, it contains everything in the universe in it.”

So now, given this information, what do you think, would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature?

thank you. Now I feel less silly for cultivating metta as a general attitude towards all things.

Maybe yes, or, "yes in some (or most) forms of Buddhism". Look at this answer for example:

A Bhiksu/Bhikkhu chopped down certain village sacred tree for building his little hut, the tree Deva's kid just playing around that tree accidentally being chopped off his finger. The tree Deva, devastated, went straight to complain to the Buddha... You see, here this Bhiksu is definitely unable to see, if, for example, he didn't get accomplishment in Dhyana/Jhana. Else he wouldn't chop off the Deva kid's finger, nor it's for the kid to make himself visible in normal circumstance; the Deva didn't file complaint to him directly since he wasn't able to see him.

I'm not sure whether that meets your definition: I think that there the deva is sentient (and has an immaterial body), the tree not considered "sentient" (iirc perhaps it's called three-factored), and the tree is somehow the deva's home.
I think this type of belief is known to the West as Animism ... and some people posit that Buddhist doctrine was admixed into indigenous (non-Buddhist) beliefs, such that forms (e.g. national forms, like Thai) include elements of both.
I think devas and so on are a feature of all traditional forms of Buddhism -- I'm only unsure of whether they're associated with "nature".
As for "Would it be considered harmless to go around destroying non-'sentient' parts of nature?", you might like to read this (or other writings related to such a topic):
“Thou shall not cut these trees” --
They are ordained now --
The story of Tree ordination in Sri Lanka
That's written by someone associated with "the Friends of the Earth" (which I think is an international organization of environmental activists, who are not necessarily Buddhist, so maybe biased somewhat and not a reliable editor of Buddhist doctrine).
As for what's "harmless" it would be an idea to check the Vinaya. I think that breaking (or killing) a living plant is not "allowable" to a monk, is a fault requiring confession -- "taking what's not given" might be an issue too.

I found that what I quoted above is a paraphrase of the story associated with Dhp 222 -- which may also be the origin story for the Vinaya rule against Bhikkhus cutting plants:

Once, a bhikkhu from Alavi wanted to build a monastery for himself and so he began to cut down a tree. The deva dwelling in that tree (rukkha devata) tried to stop him, saying that she and her infant son had nowhere to go. Failing to stop the bhikkhu she put her son on a branch, hoping that it would stop him from felling the tree. By then, the bhikkhu was already swinging his axe and he could not stop it in time and unintentionally cut off an arm of the child. Seeing her child being harmed in this way, the mother flew in a rage and was about to kill the bhikkhu. As she raised her hands to strike the bhikkhu, she suddenly checked herself and thought, "If I were to kill a bhikkhu, I would be killing one who observes the moral precepts (sila); in that case, I would surely suffer in niraya. Other guardian devas of the trees would be following my example and other bhikkhus would also be killed. But this bhikkhu has a master; I must go and see his master." So she went weeping to the Buddha and related all that had happened.
To her the Buddha said,

"O rukkha devata! You have done well to control yourself."

Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows:

Verse 222: He who restrains his rising anger as a skilful charioteer checks a speeding chariot, — him I call a true charioteer; other charioteers only hold the reins.

At the end of the discourse the deva attained Sotapatti Fruition, and for her dwelling place she was offered a tree near the Perfumed Chamber of the Buddha. After this incident, the Buddha forbade bhikkhus to cut vegetation, such as grass, plants, shrubs and trees.


text:
What leisure activities did the Buddha partake in?
I find this guy fascinating but during that time I can only think that he may have played eye-spy on the banks of the river Ganges or flicked pomegranate seeds at the bodhi tree. I'm probably way off here though with my silliness.
In all seriousness, what was leisure to him?

I recommend a few words:

divāvihāra -- for example the page-long description of that here which starts ...

an expression which ... I consider to correspond to the “day’s abiding”, divāvihāra, mentioned in MN 35 at MN I 229, 23, instead of intending a “heavenly abiding”.

It's used in many suttas to indicate what monks do (or at least, where or when or for what purpose they go somewhere) in the afternoon.
That footnote also mentions some activities like "the divine eye" -- which is mentioned in suttas sometimes, in the context of the Buddha seeing that someone somewhere might benefit from his help -- I'm not sure what the best example of that is, Ud 3.3 was the first I find ("Then, encompassing with his awareness the awareness of the monks staying on the bank...").
also, sukhavihāra (dwelling pleasantly)
suññatāvihāra -- e.g. from MN 121

‘Ānanda, these days I usually practice the meditation on emptiness.’
‘suññatāvihārenāhaṃ, ānanda, etarahi bahulaṃ viharāmī’ti.

Ditto in MN 151, which also calls that
Mahāpurisavihāra ("the meditation of a great man.")
Eventually, in DN 16:

Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, [19] that his body is more comfortable.

Meditation. Sometimes Buddha meditated just for the sake of it even after enlightenment.

This answer might overlap with ChrisW's, but I just want to quote some examples from the suttas.
The first activity is "day's abiding", which seems to be sitting down and resting or relaxing.
From Udana 6.1:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
  Vesālī at the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest. Then, early in the
  morning, he adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes —
  went into Vesālī for alms. Then, having gone for alms in Vesālī, after
  the meal, returning from his alms round, he addressed Ven. Ānanda,
  "Get a sitting cloth, Ānanda. We will go to the Pāvāla shrine for the
  day's abiding."
Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Ānanda
  followed along behind the Blessed One, carrying the sitting cloth.
  Then the Blessed One went to the Pāvāla shrine and, on arrival, sat
  down on the seat laid out.
Seated, the Blessed One addressed Ven. Ānanda, "Vesālī is refreshing,
  Ānanda. Refreshing, too, are the Udena shrine, the Gotamaka shrine,
  the Sattamba shrine, the ManySon shrine, the Sāranda shrine, the
  Pāvāla shrine.

The second activity is simply meditation, specifically, absorption meditation in one of the jhana states. This is also called "imperturbable concentration".
From Udana 3.3:

Now, at that time the Blessed One was sitting in imperturbable
  concentration [either in the fourth jhāna, the dimension of the
  infinitude of space, or the dimension of the infinitude of
  consciousness]. The thought occurred to the monks, "Now, in which
  mental dwelling is the Blessed One now residing?" Then they realized,
  "He is residing in the imperturbable dwelling." So they all sat in
  imperturbable concentration.
Then Ven. Ānanda — when the night was far advanced, at the end of the
  first watch — got up from his seat, arranged his robe over one
  shoulder, stood facing the Blessed One, paying homage with his hands
  placed palm-to-palm over his heart, and said to him, "The night, lord,
  is far advanced. The first watch has ended. The visiting monks have
  been sitting here a long time. May the Blessed One greet them." When
  this was said, the Blessed One remained silent.
Then a second time, when the night was far advanced, at the end of the
  middle watch, Ven. Ānanda got up from his seat, arranged his robe over
  one shoulder, stood facing the Blessed One, paying homage to him with
  his hands placed palm-to-palm over his heart, and said to him, "The
  night, lord, is far advanced. The middle watch has ended. The visiting
  monks have been sitting here a long time. May the Blessed One greet
  them." When this was said, the Blessed One remained silent.
Then a third time, when the night was far advanced, at the end of the
  last watch, as dawn was approaching and the face of the night was
  beaming, Ven. Ānanda got up from his seat, arranged his robe over one
  shoulder, stood facing the Blessed One, paying homage to him with his
  hands placed palm-to-palm over his heart, and said to him, "The night,
  lord, is far advanced. The last watch has ended. Dawn is approaching
  and the face of the night is beaming. The visiting monks have been
  sitting here a long time. May the Blessed One greet them."
Then the Blessed One, emerging from his imperturbable concentration,
  said to Ven. Ānanda, "Ānanda, if you had known, not even that much
  would have occurred to you (to say). I, along with all 500 of these
  monks, have been sitting in imperturbable concentration."


text:
Satipathanna sutta in audio English (long version)
Can anyone direct me to the full audio version of the satipathanna sutta?
NOTE: I'm not looking for a guide or a talk just the plain sutta spoken clearly in English.

I you don't find one perhaps you can record one yourself easily.

I guess this is what you are looking for

Thank you. I've been memorising this one for awhile now. I can't always read so I like to listen during those times. However, I'm aware that mahasatipatthana seems to be more detailed than satipatthana. The former is what I meant when referring to the long version. I'm I right in thinking that mahasatipatthana is more detailed than satipatthana?

As far as I know both are the same, but I could be wrong.


text:
Three Questions about Sexual Desire
I am wondering a few questions in regard to sexual desire and Buddhism.

Is fantasizing a form of craving and thus worse than sexual activity without it? What are the mental processes involved?
How much does a single orgasm, for example, affect the spiritual path? Basically what is the magnitude of the effect?
Is it possible that some individuals cannot eradicate lust and should merely diminish it?

Is fantasizing a form of craving and thus worse than sexual activity
  without it? What are the mental processes involved?

Fantasising creates further sexual energy that adds to the momentum of the whole process. Mental visualisations and thus sensory pleasure being the 'wanting' component.

How much does a single orgasm, for example, affect the spiritual path?
  Basically what is the magnitude of the effect?

An orgasm doesn't effect the path in the slightest. How you have come to achieve the orgasm does. This can be a bit of a grey area for some. Sexual encounters are still possible for a practicing Buddhist but sometimes it's helpful to refrain from sex for a time in order to learn about how your physiology is guided towards the wanting of sex.

Is it possible that some individuals cannot eradicate lust and should
  merely diminish it?

If you practice ardently, diminishment will be the first occurrence. It's not helpful to want to eradicate a natural biological process. It will create frustration (dukkha) but it may be a great learning curve if you're well versed in the arisings of your own suffering. Essentially, just work towards learning how it shows itself in your body and actions.

1.-2. Yes, fantasizing is a form of craving and can be worse than mere sexual activity. It simply depends on the reason of why it is done. Such as wanting to release the build up of pressure caused by the accumulation of certain fluids within the prostate gland. The difference being "aversion" instead of "lust".
Fantasizing can be very consuming, addictive, and will incline the mind in a much more forceful manner than the occasional aversion of wanting to get rid of the tactile sensation. Ideally, both should be abandoned.
How much a simple orgasm will affect the path, will depend on the magnitude of craving and clinging, or delight in such things.

Yes it's quite possible. If suffering and the path leading to the cessation of suffering is not understood, and not practiced accordingly.

The path is neither indulging nor rejecting, neither passion nor aversion. Unfortunately, it is not an easy path. It is quite simple but it deals with the ultimate, mere intellectualization cannot get us very far. All which is wholesome and  unwholesome must be known and seen directly, with insight. We cannot obtain peace by forcefully suppressing and rejecting.
You can advance at a slower pace, smoothly, or you can go all the way. The choice is yours.
But, for how long will the right conditions for practice remain? The path of Dhamma leads to the complete cessation of all suffering. So great is this reward, it cannot be compared to anything else.

First Question

Fantasizing a form of craving will make more and more sexual desire which eventually you cannot getaway. After fantasizing mind will ask to feel sound by ears,seeing by eyes,smell by nose,taste by tongue, touch by body. Actually fantasizing is not worse than activity.

Second Question

So far i haven't seen any Suttra for explain that matter, but i think that habit is huge barrier for spiritual path, whether we believe or not it's kind of a addiction.

Third Question

Lust will remain until the attain Nirvana, yet only what we can do is just bury it.
Hope this helps.


text:
Difference Between Belief and Valuing
Just as in Buddhism one's views and self are questions of importance for well being, I noticed my difficulties relating to spirituality relate precisely to those two topics.
On the one hand, I don't hold the belief in the intrinsic existence of the self and of views in general.
On the other hand, in writings I produce there arises  views and self-related imagery which betray an attachment to those two things. In my fiction, there's great and visible conceit, a kind of obvious self-valuing. In the theoretical texts I write, the valuing of certain views is obvious. In both cases, it seems more a question of attached valuing than truly holding definitely those things as true.
Why am I valuing these (created views and self) with cherishing and esteeming, but still feel (perhaps out of some delusion) that they are not intrinsically real? What are the mental factors involved?

It's a mental conflict many practitioners face every day. I humbly submit how I perceived the cause and effect behind it:
1) You learn (i.e. intellectually) that Buddhism teaches the self is an illusion. However, you haven't realized (in both senses of the word) this yet.
2) Your self (Western psychology would say your ego) doesn't like this idea. Nor does your id. They perceive it as death. (In Zen for example attaining Buddha-hood is called "Great Death"). "If the self is an illusion, I don't actually matter/exist"
3) Ego and id will manifest more vigorously and alluring as you practice more, fighting against their "impending doom". They will cling to anything that affirms your individuality or negates your knowledge of the illusionary nature of self. To a certain extent, you could even consider it an instinctive survival mechanism.

Well, these things are emotional in nature, of course. It's not that we attach to things because of clear understanding, we hold things dear because of what they mean to us in terms of our feelings.
And our feelings are nothing but highly generalized value axioms, created by primary (first, strong) experiences.
So the usual course of meditation (as well as of analytical psychology a-la Freud) is to trace our biases back their roots in these primary experiences, so they can be de-reified, re-evaluated, re-interpreted, and finally dismissed in peace.
At the end of the day it all comes back to our feelings of pain and conflict vs. comfort and harmony. Things that stir conflict between something we settled on and something else - cause pain. Having no conflict is harmony. It's all very basic. No need to overthink, just look at it directly and you will see.
At least that's how it seems to this confused guy :)


text:
Fame in Buddhism
What is craving for fame in Buddhism?
I am aware that fame pertains to the eight worldly concerns and is detrimental. However I wonder: what is fame-seeking in Buddhism?
I ask this because when I was younger I would fantasize greatly about fame, especially in link to a great theoretical realization. I still feel that way sometimes.
I perceive fame in this case as attachment to a view mixed with self-valuing, but I mostly wonder if one should abandon this and how? How can one acquire equanimity towards this aspiration?

I think the first step is to acknowledge that you pursue fame, and that most other people do so as well. You're not alone. It is a human tendency to seek wealth, fame and attention. However, you have to realise that even when you have these things, there are still real life examples that show you that people who have a lot are not necessarily much happier. A lot of people kill themselves despite being famous and wealthy. How come?
You also have to realise that other people and your current status viewed by other people are impermanent and not completely in your control. You can certainly influence others to behave in a different way, but there is no absolute guarantee that you will succeed. You need to have these or similar thoughts ready at hand when you encounter a thought or event that drags you into the fame path, else you will follow your old patterns of thinking and behaving. Initilially when you do this, your emotions will largely bias your thinking and your subsequent behaving; so you have to accept that your mind will be distorted for a while. Here you have to employ patience and the wisdom that it takes some time to cool off thoughts and emotions (insight into mind & impermanence). Of course not only can you remind yourself to think differently, you can also question your old habits in their truthfulness and usefulness. Whilst doing that, you should also try to behave differently; according to your desired goal. So if you want to diminish "fame-thinking" you have to focus on its positives and negatives but put more importance on the disadvantages (don't kid yourself saying that there are only negatives in fame, for if that be the case, no one would ever pursue it).
You should also pay attention to fame/attention seeking behaviours and try to delay the response, change it, or simply leave the situation. Do so in a sensible manner and do not overwhelm yourself unnecessarily with strong emotions since it takes time to undo old habits of thinkind behaving.
All the best

Your question seems to fit with AN8.6:

AN8.6:2.1: An uneducated ordinary person encounters gain and loss, fame and disgrace, praise and blame, and pleasure and pain.
AN8.6:2.2: And so does an educated noble disciple.
AN8.6:2.3: What, then, is the difference between an ordinary uneducated person and an educated noble disciple?”
AN8.6:2.4: “Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. He is our guide and our refuge. Sir, may the Buddha himself please clarify the meaning of this. The mendicants will listen and remember it.”

The Buddha answers with this:

AN8.6:5.1: An educated noble disciple encounters gain.
AN8.6:5.2: They reflect:
AN8.6:5.3: ‘I’ve encountered this gain.
AN8.6:5.4: It’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable.’ They truly understand it.
AN8.6:5.5: They encounter loss …
AN8.6:5.6: fame …
AN8.6:5.7: disgrace …
AN8.6:5.8: praise …
AN8.6:5.9: blame …
AN8.6:5.10: pleasure …
AN8.6:5.11: pain.
AN8.6:5.12: They reflect:
AN8.6:5.13: ‘I’ve encountered this pain.
AN8.6:5.14: It’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable.’ They truly understand it.
AN8.6:6.1: So gain and loss, fame and disgrace, praise and blame, and pleasure and pain don’t occupy their mind.

So chasing gain and fame is like trying to capture happiness with duct tape. We end up having to slap on more and more duct tape and eventually just end up with a suffering big mass of useless duct tape. Fireflies are pleasant and impermanent. So are gain and fame. Don't duct tape the fireflies. The best way to enjoy fireflies is to have our eyes open and be present to see them. In that present seeing a notion of self is superfluous. Without the conceit "I am", we simply have:

SN35.95:10.1: “In that case, when it comes to things that are to be seen, heard, thought, and known: in the seen will be merely the seen; in the heard will be merely the heard; in the thought will be merely the thought; in the known will be merely the known.

In other words, there may be fame here. But there certainly is no need for "I am famous". And whatever fame there is here will not be there later. Because there was no fame before, there will be no fame after.

I remember Chinul on this

Chinul relates in his earliest work, En- couragement to Practice,
composed in 1190: . One day I made a pact with more than ten fellow
meditators which said: "After the close of this convocation we will
renounce fame and profit and re- main in seclusion in the mountain
forests. We will form a community designed to foster constant training
in samiidhi and prajflii. Through worship of the Buddha, recitation of
sQtras, and even through common work, we will each discharge the
duties to which we are assigned and nourish the self-nature in all
situations. We vow to pass our whole lives free of entanglements and
to follow the higher pur- suits of accomplished and true men. Would
this not be wonderful?" All those present who heard these words agreed
with what was said, and vowed, "On another day we will consummate this
agreement, live in seclusion in the for- est, arid be bound together
as a community which should be named for samiidhi

The index here defines it as as one of the eight "winds"

palp'ung )\j!\ The four pairs of opposites which constantly buffet the
mundane world: gain and loss; fame and disrepute; praise and blame;
happiness and suffering.

It is also called rank, name, etc.. I think I remember him saying that he thought it was like excrement, but that may be a misremembered. Any, Chinul gained some posthumous fame at least, even though he and his community aren't still around to see it.
Samadhi prajna I suppose is one way to "renounce" its pursuit. More generally: does it really matter, either if there are endless rounds of rebirth, or if the happiness ('success') of samadhi prajna is simply much greater. We may well agree with Chinul, even when thinking about subtle forms of "fame", be that earnt, posthumous, aesthetically pleasing...


text:
Danger of Body Scan Meditation
Once, one of my teachers, a Buddhist practitioner, advised against body scan meditation saying that it can cause psychosis and the surfacing of problematic contents. I have subscribed to this advice so far.
Is this really true? What are the dangers associated with body scan meditation?

Your teacher maybe refering to the insight that can occur during meditation but I'd like to widen this to include any Buddhist meditation methods or variations thereof. Also, the unearthing of deep-seated unconscious material can produce unpleasant mind and behaviour altering states.
The Buddha's teachings can be quite potent for some and respect must be given to the process of unfolding insight.
There is a sutta that describes the power contained in the teachings and it's probably the most extreme example. (Vesali Sutta, SN 54.9.) The Buddha had given the monks a practice before going away for two weeks. When he came back some of the monks had taken a knife to themselves and ended their lives. They had fallen into the extremes of the disgust of their own bodies.
It's wise therefore to have a healthy mind and body so that one can hold the fascinating experiences and insights that may arise.

The Sutta referred to in another answer about a mass suicide of monks is the Vesali Sutta, SN 54.9. Clearly this should be a comment and not a new answer, however I don't have enough reputation to comment.

Thank you. I've updated to reflect more accurately.

If I hold and/or grasp as permanent a meditative experience -- even a body scan -- I may get lost in any number of illusions.
Doing a body scan, completing and finishing, moving on with the day -- no problem.
Aln


text:
What did the Buddha mean by "the stage beyond study" in the Shurangama Sutta?
The Buddha mentioned, "The stage beyond study", in chapter 5 of the Shurangama Sutta.
What did the Buddha mean by this?

It's actually taken quite out of context so I'll try the add further information.

Is the version/translation of the sutta, which you're using, online?

I think you're referring to where it says, "stage beyond learning", in this translation -- Then the World Honored One told all those in the assembly who were great Bodhisattvas and great Arhats, their outflows extinguished – “All of you Bodhisattvas and Arhats who are born from within my dharma and have attained the stage beyond learning, I now ask you: When you first brought forth your resolve and became enlightened to the eighteen realms, which one of these brought perfect penetration? Through which expedient did you enter samadhi?

Yes, that's it.

Probably the word ASekkha. From Ven. Buddhadatta's Pali-English dictionary:

asekkha : one who does not require any further training. (m.) an Arahant.


text:
Mindfulness and Pushing Away Emotions
With objectless mindfulness, if I am in a bad mood the mood perseveres. I just observe the bad mood but it doesn't easily stop.
However, if I applied concentration on an object such as the breath, the mood immediately dissipates and even sometimes vanishes.
Does strong concentration repress emotions, or does it process them in a healthy way? In other words, does focusing on the breath still permit the emotions to be experienced naturally despite an absence of thought or feeling?

With objectless mindfulness, if I am in a bad mood the mood
  perseveres. I just observe the bad mood but it doesn't easily stop.

This may be because the attention you're giving to the bad mood is the wrong kind of attention. There may be a clue in you wanting for the bad mood to easily stop. Observe with no anticipation for anything.

However, if I applied concentration on an object such as the breath,
  the mood immediately dissipates and even sometimes vanishes.

The dissipation of the mood by shifting focus may be a further clue to the mental proliferation that you could be adding to the 'watching' of this bad mood.

Does strong concentration repress emotions, or does it process them in
  a healthy way? In other words, does focusing on the breath still
  permit the emotions to be experienced naturally despite an absence of
  thought or feeling?

It doesn't need to be strong concentration. One just needs to simply switch focus to something else. The something else can become a further problem like an escape though. Notice breath, movement, objects, light gradients... There are many wonderful harmless things to remove us from mental anguish. This is, indeed, healthy and not a repression technique.

There is nothing unhealthy about annihilating unwholesome emotions.

As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction
  of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation & does not lead
  to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with sensuality
  had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it out of
  existence.
MN 19

Well you do not say what experience is this ''objectless mindfulness'', which is an odd phrasing, because, beyond the bad word that is mindfulness, there is always an object of concentration or contemplation.
And the whole point of contemplation is either to know  or track the kaya, the mano and the citta as well as to calm the kaya, the mano and the citta:

it is easy to track the kaya, mano, citta, for any puthujjana who has sati and is good at tranquilising the kaya, mano and citta
it is easy to calm the kaya, mano and citta,  for any puthujjana who has sati and is good at tracking the kaya, mano, citta, thought, sanna, vedana (in one word, that's call sati samprajanya which is the method to stop the spreading of infatuation and hate towards whatever is loved and hated by puthujjanas)
in other word, you cannot be good at tranquilizing the kaya, mano and citta without tracking the mano, kaya and citta and you cannot be good at tracking the kaya, mano and citta, without being good at tranquilizing the kaya, mano and citta (which is done by seeing how nice it is to be calm and how awful it is to be agitated).

Fortunately, you claim to calm your mood with the breath, so that's good. Do not forget that after you become tranquil with the breath, you need to
contemplate the impermanence of typically the 5 aggregates
SInce you like to contemplate things other than the breath, there are plenty of topics to contemplate here
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.piya.html
When you want to get the citta into samadhi, you have 4 famous samadhis here. the 2 samadhis with the clearest directions and clear exposition of results are:

And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision? There is the case where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved on the perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him] is the same as night, night is the same as day. By means of an awareness open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision.
And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness? There is the case where feelings are known to the monk as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Perceptions are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. Thoughts are known to him as they arise, known as they persist, known as they subside. This is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to mindfulness & alertness.

www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html
If the last one is what you call ''objectless mindfulness'', then call it properly by calling it what it is : training for sati samprajanya instead of inventing new words that nobody knows what they mean.

This was a very intriguing answer. However, a disconcerted nature was present when reading your last paragraph. Many learners don't possess some of the Pali and Sanskrit vocabulary. Might one enquire further about 'objectless mindfulness' so that one is able to approach and deliver a more friendly ending. :-)

@Suchness See also e.g., Sati-Sampajañña (Mindfulness), and, Unclarity on Sati-Sampajañña. If you have any specific follow-up question you're welcome to ask (in another comment or as a new question).

If your mind is in a negative mood it takes time to cool thoughts off. You have to acknowledge that you are having these feelings & thoughts, and then try to NOT engage in them further. Simply let them be. If you re-engage in them, the underlying distorted belief system(s) that are the responsible for the thoughts and feelings will otherwise re-activate.
Of course, it needs personal determination to "let be" certain thoughts because we can tell ourselves that we must engage in them, otherwise things in the world get worse.
It isn't easy to let them be; that's why you should focus on the very sensation in your body that is arising. Don't focus on thoughts because they are too rapid and lure you into more thought engaging, resulting in thought, and consequently mood proliferation.
While you are dealing with thoughts and feelings in a cognitive way (curiously observing them and employing patience towards them since they need to cool off, see above), you better also use something behaviourally, that is, seek a better place or distract yourself for a while. Naturally, distraction is not the most elegant solution there is, however sometimes, it is helpful, especially when your mind became completely emotional and distorted and can't think rationally anymore.
That being said, be gentle with yourself. Once the mind is distorted, it needs a little time to cool the mood off, since the emotions are compounded and conditioned. If you don't engage in thoughts, observe the arisen feeling curiously, employ patience with the knowledge: 'Mind is distorted and will take some time to cool off', then you have good chances to overcome (albeit not easily) your mood.


text:
Is there any reason of restlessness in the afternoon?
I have been practicing mindfulness and watching thoughts.   I usually feel rapture, calm and desireless all the day but not in afternoon after lunch.  In afternoon, I even forget all stability including mindfulness & various desires creeps in the mind. Situations become extraordinarily better after 4-4:30PM.
Is there any particular reason of afternoon (2-4) instability? What can I do to let that not happen?

Is this question inviting physiological (medical) explanations and suggested counter-measures?

Restless drowsiness is common after eating. AN7.61 discusses remedies at length, including:

But if by doing this you don’t shake off your drowsiness, then—percipient of what lies in front & behind—set a distance to meditate walking back & forth, your senses inwardly immersed, your mind not straying outwards. It’s possible that by doing this you will shake off your drowsiness.

I think that is not about your mindfulness, it just the habit. We used to that way of life cycle for infinite long time. Just because we are practicing meditation for few hours of day about month or year, that habit cannot break instantly. Just forget about those thoughts. It's actually good, cause you know that your mind is not controlled by your self. And your still focus on mind that's how your know,

forget all stability including mindfulness & various desires creeps in the mind

be patient and practice meditation whenever you can

It could just be subconscious stress. Your suppressed negative emotions have nowhere to go so they materialize themselves in this way. Maybe you should try a physical way of venting stress like running.

Our hormone levels changes during different times of the day. Mostly after having the lunch, the blood flows tend to direct to food digestion & hormone levels do drop during the day time. This could majorly influence in not being able to concentrate.
Better go through the time table of Buddha's life to find a better way to live in mindfulness without feeling instable.
May the nobel triple gem bless you in your path.


text:
Are there universal experiences associated with seeing through individual aggregates?
To further refine the question: the falling away of saññā (perception), for instance, may leave behind a sense of wholeness, awe and wonder as there is no longer the conditioned interpretation of the world; there is no longer a tree, a cloud or a person in the sense of their words. All divisions thus cease to be and the tree, cloud and person (everything) are seen in their glorious enigmatic depth and wonder. Forms cannot merely be confined to single words - so I've learned!
In another instance, the absence of rūpa (forms) could produce a sense of emptiness or spaciousness where one is intensely conscious of the space around forms but also sees that this same space pervades the very nature of forms themselves. Note: I'm not referring to 'emptiness' in the fullest sense of the Buddhist interpretation but more just generally.
I believe the trick is to see through all aggregates to make the ultimate realisation.

I voted to close this because it does not appear to be a question but instead appears to be some kind of evangelistic preaching about Hindu, Christian, Islamic & New Age mystical states of monotheism and the beauty of God's or Brahma's creation. Thanks

I guess that "universal" means "all people" -- and that "universal experiences" means, "what everyone experiences" -- not "all religions". It could also be "experience of the universe", with some emphasis on 'unity' (something to do with non-duality or non-self perhaps).

@Dhammadhatu - The Buddha had described instances relating to the experience of a sense of emptiness in the Cula-suññata Sutta. He attended to those senses correctly and encouraged monks to do the same. Being curious by way of questioning is one way to attend correctly. Thank you for you input.

MN 121 certainly refers to "oneness" but never refers to "awe & wonder". Also, it does not refer to the ending of perception but rather to changing and refinement of perceptions.

The falling away of saññā (perception), for instance, does not leave behind a sense of wholeness because the falling away of saññā (perception) results in the state of unconsciousness. In Buddhism, this is called "saññāvedayitanirodha".
What has fallen away in the experience of "wholeness" referred to above is "thinking" (sankhara) and "themes" (nimitta) rather than "perception". In other words, the sense of "wholeness" is also a "theme" born from "perception". MN 18 says:

With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives. What one perceives, one thinks about.
MN 18

As for the state of "awe & wonder", this is a delusion or beguilement in Buddhism. In Buddhism, when right seeing occurs of the five aggregates, the result is "disenchantment & dispassion" rather than "awe & wonder"; as follows:

Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released.
SN 22.59

When all divisions thus cease to be, in Hinduism, this is called "Advaita" or the "One God".

I was referring to the absence of single aggregates as opposed to all of them at once. I wouldn't need to ask questions if the latter had occured. ;-)

saññāvedayitanirodha is an arupa jhana state associated with cessation of perception and of feeling.

I have never read before that it is an arupa Jhana. Please quote Sutta. ThNks

This dictionary says it's "sometimes considered as the 9th jhana". I guess AN 9.61 supports that (saying "going totally beyond the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters and remains in the cessation of perception and feeling") -- or more famously so does DN 16. If those definitions aren't explicit I suppose it's mentioned in the Abhidhamma and Visuddhimagga too.

Anyway I wondered whether  @Suchness meant something other than that -- e.g. "not grasping signs" or, I don't know what. But "leaving behind the sense" seems to me to imply "feeling".

I was commenting that it was not PERCEPTION that was absent. If PERCEPTION was absent then you would not be able to describe the experience you have described

Its not arupa jhana.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

@ChrisW - Any which way it is looked upon, there still remains delusion in me. Aside from the intellectual technicalities, this is key. Dhammadhatu kindly pointed this out. Whilst these experiences are very nice, they bring dukkha because they arise, abide and disperse. I'm more interested in a permanent shift in consciousness if this is at all possible.

I'm not really sure if I understand your question correctly, but I'll give it a try.
My answer is based on personal experience, thus not necessarily useful for others.
Which is already one of my answers: no. I wouldn't say that there are universal experiences associated with 'seeing through' the aggregates (whatever that may mean). It is possible that different persons will have the same experience, but it's not automatically always the case. Another thing I've noticed f.i., is that with different methods, objects and so on, the way the different stages of insights are experienced can differ. So, I would say it really depends on so many conditions that it's not logical to assume that there is such a thing as a universal experience.
Then the falling away of perception.
Well, there are different sorts of perception. I've known partial nirodha's (falling away of one of the sense perceptions), full blown nirodha (full black out and arising again), no longer recognising myself in the mirror (which also falls under the heading of perception), having no perception of a body, breath, heartbeat and so on.
So, what kind of perception are we talking about?
In my case, the absence of rupa didn't come with a 'sense of emptiness or spaciousness', as you put it. This is what I mean with having the same thing happening and still experiencing it in a different way.
I'm not sure I'm making sense. Maybe it's not even an answer to your question, since I'm not sure I understood you correctly.
Still, hope it helps.

in a sutta about planes of conciousness.  it seems that some beings with unified in perception. Im not sure if it means same perception or shared perception.

Ānanda, there are seven planes of consciousness and two dimensions. What seven? There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and diverse in perception, such as human beings, some gods, and some beings in the underworld. This is the first plane of consciousness. There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn in Brahmā’s Group through the first absorption. .."

DN15

@ChrisW, i cant comment on ur comment in the other answer, please double check on "saññāvedayitanirodha is an arupa jhana."  I am pretty sure that I read a sutta saying saññāvedayitanirodha isnt a bhava.  All jhanna is a sunna  but there is no sanna in cessation.  It falls into a category of tying to define Nirvana when trying to define cessation.

Perhaps you could discuss that or post comments in this chat room if you wanted to.


text:
Type of Meditation and Mood
I was wondering what meditation type is most conducive to improvement of mood or even mood stability in Buddhism? I noticed that most of my problematic behaviours and attitudes depend on low mood.

Please tell us a bit more about "low". MN10 discusses many hindrances such as dullness and drowsiness, restlessness and remorse, doubt, ill will. All these could be considered "low" by different people.

According to my teacher, mood instability comes from not having a stable frame of reference as far as one's values. Meaning, when one has a stable system of coordinates in one's head, according to which everything is evaluated, one's values are stable and one can optimize one's actions within that frame of reference. However, when one does not have that, then for such person it is typical to waver between different coordinate systems of other people. As a result, one's values keep fluctuating. Today, according to this system, everything is great - and tomorrow, according to another system - you are a loser.
The traditional medicine from that is to work on internalizing the Dharma until it becomes one's stable frame of reference. This starts with taking Refuge as the commitment to never hold any other system of values higher than Buddha-Dharma. As a result one's values and one's assessment of one's situations stabilizes and the mood swings diminish and disappear.
The next step is to work on going beyond a single frame of reference and to become capable of switching frames of reference without getting stuck mentally or emotionally. This ultimate level of this is cultivation of spontaneity, or being oneself. This basically means that one becomes one's own system of coordinates, one always trusts one's own judgement and therefore is immune to any and all mood fluctuations.
In terms of meditation, I would recommend analytical meditation on the first three Noble Truths.

You could take a satipatthana approach by noticing the shifting mind states throughout the day. If one does this with such diligence and discipline you will eventually notice that all the shifting mind states cannot possibly make up you as a person. This brings forth knowledge of...

impermanence: they're always changing.
suffering: wanting or not wanting
leading to the partial or the full realisation of not-self.

You will have to 'know' many times by patiently observing your own mind states.
One will also gain insight into the four noble truths along the way by seeing how you are creating your own suffering. Once you see this, you're on the path.


text:
What's the karmic cause for shyness?
What did we do in our previous lives to become a shy person in this life?

The topic of shyness was discussed a bit on DhammaWheel: Shyness

There are different types of shynesses.

shyness towards doing evil: This is a result of understanding that evil deeds are undignified and demeaning. It's an aspect of wisdom.
stage shyness or shyness to talk to people: This is a result of inferiority complex. It's caused by ignorance and aversion.

possible good if using 'vaṇṇa maccharia', "status stinginess" (for the sample match) or even generally maccharia for the secound (to match all cases). Overall maybe good to come back on not-knowing, avija, of what is good for longtime happiness and therefore fear. (just some food for thoughts and should not cause reactions of wrong shyness)

Stinginess has nothing to do with shyness

So speaking without knowing, investigation and care to tell not things which pattern the road upwardly... (no problem at all, throw the food away if not able to feed on it)

Sorry! Your comments are not coherent within the context of the question

Since it is said by the wise, that a person of integrity, one having developed virtue, Sīla, is able to approach what ever kind of gathering, upright and without fear, and fear has a cause which is not free from faults, it seems to be proper to conclude from it, that lack of virtue is a cause of shyness at first place.
It's also proper if saying that a person of much debts is someone seeks out for hidding and acts shy, which meets the first approach at it's root as well: e.g. a poor (in merits, using kammic measures) person or a just very greedy and stingy person (macchariya), who is up to a lot of gain but not willing to "pay the price" for certain gain.
Shyness, like pointed out here already, is not a general bad thing, but only to be shy in doing what is skilfull and proper to do.
At least shyness to act proper and skillfully and lack of shyness in avoiding to act improper un unskilfuly is a matter of avija, not-knowing of what is proper and skillful either in a certain sociaty to last comfortable in it, or for long-term happiness beyond.
To avoid not knowing, to change to knowing, one has to approach those who know and as it is said by the wise, being not very bright is, acting foolish, to say nothing about stupidity, is caused by not approaching and asking those who know, wise (Brahmans and Contemplatives). So to change such, gaining Nissaya (good condition, foundation), visit as much as possible:

brahman or contemplative, an ask: 'What is skillful, venerable sir? What is unskillful? What is blameworthy? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, having been done by me, will be for my long-term harm & suffering? Or what, having been done by me, will be for my long-term welfare & happiness?'

Also useful: The Karma of Questions: Essays on the Buddhist Path, and Questions of Skill
To learn and get used to right and wrong shyness, association with people of integrity is very importand as to avoid places where people are not shy to transgress even basics without fear that such actions fall back to them.
It's not possible to learn and addopt virtue and generosity, the main pillows to gain merits, a good stand and freedom from fear, it dwelling in areas where people are used to train each other ignorance and kinds of equanimity to let go of what ever shyness that might come between their situation and desires.
As the highest blessings counts as starter: "Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate with the wise, and to honor those worthy of honor — this is the highest blessing." and ends with "unshakeable peace".
As adviced by the wise, people not free from aversion, should be observed from distance, to get not possible hurt.

According to my teacher, the karmic cause of shyness is envy.

Shyness is Coward; prompted.
Some shyness mind is new karma; some is karma's resultant.
The past prompted karma give prompted resultant. And prompted resultant support new prompted karma.
In abhidhamma, minds and mental factor of sasaṅkhārika (prompted) mind is coward. However, there are two main causes of shyness: kamma cause (missaka-pakatūpanissaya-nānakkhaṇikakamma-paccaya), and habit cause (suddha-pakatūpanissaya-paccaya).

Kamma cause is 4 prompted attachment minds, 1 prompted rudeness minds, and 4 prompted beautiful wholesome minds, which cause of rebirth. Prompted resultant of
it is the rebirth 4  prompted beautiful resultant minds.
Habit cause is the remote&vanished 4 prompted attachment minds, 1 prompted rudeness minds, and 12 prompted beautiful wholesome minds, which is not Kamma cause.
Prompted resultant of it is 4 prompted attachment minds, 1 prompted rudeness minds, 4 prompted beautiful wholesome mimds 4
prompted beautiful kiriya minds.

Reference
What is sasaṅkhārika (prompted)? (src)

Sankhārika-
This is purely a technical term used in a specific sense in the
  Abhidhamma. It is formed of 'sam', well and Ö 'kar', to do, to
  prepare, to accomplish. Literally, it means accomplishing, preparing,
  arranging.
Like dhamma, sankhāra also is a multi-significant term. Its precise
  meaning is to be understood according to the context.
When used as one of the five 'aggregates' (pañcakkhandha), it refers
  to all the mental states, except vedanā and saññā. In the
  paticca-samuppāda it is applied to all moral and immoral activities,
  good and bad thoughts. When sankhāra is used to signify that which is
  subject to change, sorrow, etc., it is invariably applied to all
  conditioned things.
In this particular instance the term is used with 'sa' = co-; and a =
  un, Sa-sankhārika (lit., with effort) is that which is prompted,
  instigated, or induced by oneself or by another. 'Asankhārika' (lit.,
  without effort) is that which is thus unaffected, but done
  spontaneously.
If, for instance, one does an act, induced by another, or after much
  deliberation or premeditation on one's part, then it is sa-sankhārika.
  If, on the contrary, one does it instantly without any external or
  internal inducement, or any premeditation, then it is asankhārika.

How can the practitioner comprehends shyness?
the practitioner must comprehends below mind, it's mental factors, and the matters born of those mind&mental factors to comprehend karma of shyness:
4 prompted attachment minds (src)

Attachment mind, prompted, accompanied by pleasure, connected with
  wrong view,
Attachment mind, prompted, accompanied by pleasure, disconnected
  with wrong view
Attachment mind, prompted, accompanied by indifference, connected
  with wrong view
Attachment mind, prompted, accompanied by indifference,
  disconnected with wrong view

Mental factors:  Twenty-two factors enter into combination - namely, thirteen aññasamānas, and 3 greed mental factors, 2 boring mental factors, and 4 ignorant mental factors (13 + 3 + 2 + 4 = 22)
1 prompted rudeness minds (src)

Rudeness mind, prompted, accompanied by displeasure, connected
  with ill-will

Mental factors:  Twenty-two factors enter into combination - namely, twelve aññasamānas, and 4 angry mental factors, 2 boring mental factors, and 4 ignorant mental factors (12 + 4 + 2 + 4 = 22)
12 prompted beautiful minds (src)

Beautiful consciousness, prompted, accompanied by pleasure, associated
  with knowledge. x3 (wholesome, resultant, kiriyā)
Beautiful consciousness, prompted, accompanied by pleasure,
  dissociated with knowledge, x3
Beautiful consciousness, prompted, accompanied by indifference,
  associated with knowledge,x3
Beautiful consciousness, prompted, accompanied by indifference,
  dissociated with knowledge.x3

Mental factors:  thirty-six factors enter into combination - namely, thirteen aññasamānas, and twenty-five beautiful mental factors (13 + 25 = 38)

@ChrisW I have modified it. Is it readable for now?


text:
What should a 11-17 years old Buddhist do?
Can a 11-17 years old meditate and become arahant?
Is Buddhism only for adults?

Yes. Go for it. The game is for all ages.

It all depends on the individual's effort and potential, and how much Dhamma they've been cultivating since countless previous lives. Sorta like child prodigies who can become accomplished medical doctors, mathematicians, or musicians in their teens.

Some (I presume most) Buddhists are taught to start their practice when they are children.
Who was the youngest Arahat? discusses references in the suttas to young (e.g. 7-year-old) Arahants.
The Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta (MN 61) are instructions which the Buddha gave to his son, Rahula, when he was 7:

Don't lie
Look at ("reflect on") what you do, what you say, what you think -- before, during, and afterwards -- to know whether it leads to affliction or not.
This type of reflection is the one way to "purify" the three kinds of actions (bodily, verbal, and mental)

According to the canon, Rahula too became an arahant (not immediately -- by about age 20).

No, wisdom and needed merits are not a matter of age. And a young tree can be bend easy, while an old is hard to change.
As a child, being provided by all needed to live on (all totally voluntary by others = much debts and required gratitude for it), one can easy life a holy life and attain Sainthood, if in good guidance of what is good and listen to it.
Seeking out for good monks (keeping the original rules, do not act as lay-people servants and live with lay people), associate with them, render service, listen and if having possibility seeking for being allowed to go forth by oneself: e.g. ordain.
If one is female, a girl, one should not go alone without one's parents, or other male protectors (allowed by father and mother) and approach monk/monks alone. Also should not join even groups of mixed gender and always look out for female groups, tend to mother and possible seek out for nuns our female practicing groups, if very trustful male attendant can be not found or listen to the Dhamma on more public occasions and events to be protected by the group.
In no ways a young person should accumulate debts or waste his merits/wealth for useless things. The sooner meeting and associating with noble people and with deed love listen and follow their advice, the more secure would a young persons path to highest gainings be.
If not accessible, such real friends yet, focus on right view, fulfill all duties toward parents, teacher, elders, stick firm to the basic precepts and practice generosity. Giving the causes, all effects come by its own: patience is all that is required.
They should in no way lie without dependency and walk around thinking "I can get it somewhere else..." and act very strong bond to their "father", "mother" not violating there duties (which of cause does not include to act against the basic precepts).
Depending on parents and owing a lot of debt toward them, they should ask them whether the are allowing to associate with someone else and depend (also if particular) to them. This includes also asking parents if they allow to join a internet community. (it's totally improper how exchange and "against good moral", for example, acts careless in giving those under protection ways to act outward their relation. A child is not what is called "vested with legal capacity" and certain disclaimer do not protect especially a legal person of "full legal capacity".).
So possible start to ask your parents if they agree that you came here! And follow what they advice.
Seeing a young man acting according his known rituals, the Buddha explained him the detail meaning and gave him the lay-mans rules: The Layperson's Code of Discipline.
At the end here maybe a short story about "The lucky young monk" and the Arahat Novice Ven. Tissa.

Buddhism is for everyone! You can also become an arahant at any age.
Nirvana is present in every moment. Every moment is an opportunity to observe Nirvana. Every moment is an opportunity to become enlightened!
Starting as young as you are is wonderful! You are setting yourself up well to reach enlightenment this lifetime! You should be very proud of yourself!

Sure they can only if they followed the perfect path, and for my understanding step away from present society will massively helpful for that goal. And Buddhism is not only for adults, it's for all HUMAN BEING.

"it's for all HUMAN BEING." who said so?

@SamanaJohann, what you mean ? is it only for specific group of people or something else ?

My person asked of who says the told at first place, to revoke the gain of certain care and not ease stating things. Yes, the teaching of the Buddha is only for a certain group, BUT benefits all beings when carried out as told, goes not against the benefits and wishes of all others.

"the teaching of the Buddha is only for a certain group" then who are they ?

The Buddha, so possible his him equal disciples in some regards, is unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed and "well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves" (following the advices, tamed). Or, as often stated "for those with little dust in the eyes".

whatever you say :-)

Foolish reaction afterasking and to think it would be a personal idea...

@PL_Pathum - Well handled, A lesson to us all.

@PeterJ what you mean ? am i being fooled here :-)

@PL_Pathum - It seemed a wise move to walk away in the circumstances rather than defend your view ( and mine) that Buddhism is for everyone.

@PeterJ no i dont it's not my view, :-)

@PL_Pathum - Ah. My apologies. It seems we disagree.

To give a direct answer to the question, "No". Buddhism is not only for adults. Buddha has preached that a child who is able to make a crow fly away is in the suitable age to be a monk. and there are evidence in the scripts about arahat bikkhus who attained arahat at the age of 7.

No Buddhism isn't only for adults.
If Buddhism were only for adults then there weren't be zens.
Here you can see there are zens and so lay children can also practice Buddhism.
I'm single yet but I want my kids follow Buddhism I'll teach them Dhamma.
At little age it'd be nice to cultivate their mind so they'll be best practitioners when they will became an adult.
It's best to shape their mind.
It'd be really best thing to teach them Dhamma.

I've heard from a Bhante, that at the age of 7 only does the brain fully develops as to understand the true phenomena of the universe. So anyone of 7 years of age and above the age of 7 can become an Arahat.
Notable examples include, Arahat Rahula Thero, Arahat Seevali Thero and Arahat Sopaka
Only in certain special cases at the time of the Buddha have there been Arahats younger than 7 years of age.

Children, believe it or not, are smarter than adults.  It is easier for a child to learn a second or third language than it is for an adult.  (Which incidentally is a commendable endeavor worthy of a Buddhist practitioner or scholar of any age.)  Children can memorize memorable sutras, either in English or in the original, just as well as adults, or better; they can maintain yogic postures just as well as adults, or better.  The right question isn't necessarily, what Buddhist practices are suitable for children, but rather, what is a SMART, reasonable goal for a human being to hope to attain in his or her lifetime.  What goal would be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound?
Is it reasonable to say, "I hope to become a Bodhisattva/an arahant in this current human lifetime?"  Or, "I hope my child or this gifted student in my middle school class becomes a Bodhisattva/an arahant in his or her lifetime?"  Put another way, if a talented guru or motivational speaker, someone clearly more intelligent and accomplished than yourself, claimed to have attained Buddhahood in his lifetime, would you immediately leave everything behind to follow that guru?
Or would that instead be a dangerous red flag?
Whatever is a realistic goal for yourself, as an adult following the Buddhist path, would likewise be a realistic goal for your child, being your flesh and blood.  Whether that goal is to be a "stream entrant", or simply to pay respects and give ear to a teacher.  Or simply to better apply one aspect of the Eightfold Path: maybe, Right Livelihood, Right Speech, or Right Effort.  Or one of the Six Perfections: charitable giving, conscientiousness, graciousness....
Teach the child whatever your goal is, but the child must choose his or her own goal.  Children should preferably be exposed to a wide range of Buddhist doctrines and "book learning" so that after they mature and become more self-critical, they can apply Buddhist wisdom to grow their greatest strengths, but also to attack their greatest weaknesses.


text:
What is the meaning behind this chant?
Who are the eight [types of] individuals that the chant refers to, and what is the meaning of the chant?
Apparently, it is the Wat Phra Ratana Mahathat Monks at evening service before the great bronze Chinnaret Buddha, Phitsanulok Thailand.
Source: Freesound
The translation came from the YouTube comments section but I cannot locate it any longer. Here is the link to a looped version...
Buddhist Chanting

Of good conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
  Of upright conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
  Of wise conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
  Of proper conduct is the Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One.
This Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One, namely these Four Pairs of persons, the eight [types of] individuals,
  is worthy of gifts,
  worthy of hospitality,
  worthy of offerings,
  worthy of reverential salutation,
  and is an incomparable field of merit for the World.

Supatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Ujupatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Ñāyapatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Sāmīcipatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho
Yadidam cattāri purisa yugāni
  Attha purisa puggalā
  Esa Bhagavato sāvakasangho
  Āhuneyyo
  Pāhuneyyo
  Dakkhineyyo
  Añjalīkaranīyo
  Anuttaram Puññak khettam lokassāti

If liking the source (like maybe wished by the giver of it) of the Parita it might be even included there as explaining.

@ChrisW - Thanks for the excellent edit. ;-)

I use two spaces at the end of a line, to force a line-break for verse; and mostly avoid using bold and italic.

when thinking that if a moderator helps in violating the tos here and there..., well go on and take... may you all of you here give the right causes to attain liberation and freedom from any missery with ease.

@SamanaJohann The same appears on many sites, I don't know exactly where this was quoted from. I assume the Pali isn't copyright at all, can't be copyrighted; I don't know about the translation, that might be copyleft (given to the public domain). Suchness, I think that  Samana Johann is suggesting that you ought to reference the source from which you quote something. That's usually good policy -- it may be a convenience to people reading, a politeness to the source/author, and an aspect of the "fair use" doctrine.

Please see amendments in the question. ;-)

It's taken from (or quoted in) MN 7 (but it's one of the Pali Formulae -- buddha-vacana.org says, of this one, "45 occurrences", so I suppose this occurs in 45 suttas; also, that it's a component of the Sekha Paṭipadā).
It's one of the Anussati -- specifically Saṅghānussati. Sati is "mindfulness" -- and anu is "after (behind)", "for (towards an aim)", "according to (in conformity with)", also "each/every/one-by-one" -- so, combined, "remember" or "recollect" or "call to mind".
AN 3.70 says (of all the Anussati) that, "as they recollect ... their mind becomes clear, joy arises, and mental corruptions are given up".
Commentary says that this is referring to the "ariya sangha" (the noble sangha), i.e. all enlightened ones. The "8 [types of] individuals" refer to the "four stages of enlightenment" (sotāpanna etc.) or as it says "the four pairs of persons" -- both ordained and/or lay.

Supatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho

The Blessed One's community of disciples who have practised well/thoroughly

Ujupatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho

The Blessed One's community of disciples who have practised directly/without messing around/without dreaming about reincarnation/without trolling internet forums obsessively attempting to teach morality to worldlings/with total abandonment of selfing

Ñāyapatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho

Practised insightfully

Sāmīcipatipanno Bhagavato sāvakasangho

Practised correctly

This Order of the Disciples of the Blessed One, namely these Four Pairs of persons, the eight [types of] individuals,

Eight individuals practising for or have realised the four levels of enlightenment, namely, stream-entry, once-returner, non-returner and arahant

is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, and is an incomparable field of
  merit for the World.

The above means to not give to or place faith in idiotic monks (duppaññā eḷamūgā) but only revere and place faith in monks who have realised emptiness (sunnata).

buddha-vacana.org translates uju·paṭipanno as "straightforwardly", with uju as "right, direct, straightforward, honest, upright".

its means directly; like the "hearers" in the suttas, who entered the stream immediately upon hearing the teaching. It means not flip flopping to this & that practise,guru, school , etc.

For the meaning of saṅghānussati in advance, see Part II—Concentration (Samádhi) CH. VII SIX RECOLLECTIONS Recollection of the Saṅgha page 215.
We should be used with the tree refuges according to Sutta. Ma. U. Sevitabbāsevitabbasuttaṃ:

It was said, "Sāriputta, I say, persons are also twofold those that should be used and not used" On account of what was it said by the Blessed One? Venerable sir, when using certain persons demerit increases and merit decreases, such persons should not be used, when using certain persons demerit decreases and merit increases, such persons should be used. It was said, "Sāriputta, persons too are twofold, those that should be used and not used. " It was said on account of this.

Why? Sutta. Khu. Jā.(1) Vīsatinipātajātakaṃ Sattigumbajātakaṃ:

“To whomsoever, good or bad, a man shall honour pay, Vicious or
  virtuous, that man holds him beneath his sway.
“Like as the comrade one admires, like as the chosen friend, Such will
  become the man who keeps beside him, in the end.
“Friendship makes like, and touch by touch infects, you’ll find it
  true: Poison the arrow, and ere long the quiver’s poisoned too.
“The wise eschews bad company, for fear of staining touch: Wrap rotten fish in grass, you’ll find the grass stinks just as much. And they who keep fool’s company themselves will soon be such.
“Sweet frankincense wrap in a leaf, the leaf will smell as sweet. So
  they themselves will soon grow wise, that sit at wise men’s feet.
“By this similitude the wise should his own profit know, Let him
  eschew bad company and with the righteous go: Heaven waits the
  righteous, but the bad are doomed to hell below.”


text:
What does celestial mean in 'celestial bodhisattva'
What does celestial mean in 'celestial bodhisattva'. I'm aware of the definition of the term "celestial", but wondered if it meant that the bodhisattva was not born on earth, so that e.g. tantric masters are not celestial beings.

In Tibetan Buddhism they recognize a class of beings that we can call "latent informational energy entities". In modern language they can be explained as long-term memes or archetypes inhabiting the sphere of knowledge and capable of producing activity through that sphere.
This includes spirits, guardians, dakinis, and celestial bodhisattvas.
They are not organisms in our sense of the word, but they are acting entities in an abstract sense, having a certain identity, relationships with the world of people, and even something like attitude or perspective, that allows them to respond or react to human acts.
You could say that this is a kind of animism towards religious archetypes, and you would be right, except that our own system of political parties, corporations etc. is in essence based on the same principles.
So yeah, celestial Bodhisattvas are characters, like Batman or Spiderman, that have a certain role and function in human society. As opposed to normal Bodhisattvas who are actual people.


text:
The Cula-suññata Sutta - Pali Canon and emptiness
I've closed the question. No need to answer
It's a sore and sensitive subject, emptiness.
The Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness.
What else is there in the Pali canon that has a direct mentioning of these types of emptiness?
My teacher had mentioned that Mahayana goes into emptiness with quite some depth. (There's something really wrong with that sentence!)
Can you provide any Mahayana teachings that can help me unpack the types of emptiness mentioned in the Cula-suññata?

I've realised that I'm trying to bite a tomato seed with this one. I'll just try to figure this out for myself such has been the process thus far.

If you really want to experience what the Mahayana school teaches about emptiness, just sit down on the cushion and see for yourself.  It's much easier than chasing footnotes!

@ 000 - I had figured that this would be so. How can one put this into a concept which is roughly what I was seeking. I would only fall back into mental abstractions. I'll have to figure this out for myself. ;-)

A nice summary of Pali Canon's view on emptiness can be found in a book "The Concept of Emptiness in Pali Literature" available on Samana Johan's community site.

@ Andrei - it's an interesting read. ;-)

Further to 000's comment I'd suggest starting with Nagarjuna.