text:
Any further question? What best to ask on one's last chance?
What would one, certain wise but not free, ask/request if there is just one chance left?

@Medhiṇī thinks the title might be, "What would be the final question of a person that is not free yet?" -- I rolled-back that edit, because I'm not sure that was exactly what the OP (Samana Johann) meant to ask.

@ChrisW To be fair, neither am I. ;)

You have the one final chance to ask one thing. What would it be?
That was Bahiya's problem in Udana 1.10 (quoted below). Bahiya, the advanced ascetic who was not enlightened, sought to understand in a short teaching the gist of the Dhamma that would free him.
This question would be like "What would be the shortest summary of the Buddha's teachings that is enough to liberate me from suffering?"

Then Bāhiya, hurriedly leaving Jeta's Grove and entering Sāvatthī, saw
  the Blessed One going for alms in Sāvatthī — serene & inspiring serene
  confidence, calming, his senses at peace, his mind at peace, having
  attained the utmost tranquility & poise, tamed, guarded, his senses
  restrained, a Great One (nāga). Seeing him, he approached the Blessed
  One and, on reaching him, threw himself down, with his head at the
  Blessed One's feet, and said, "Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One!
  Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term
  welfare & bliss."
When this was said, the Blessed One said to him, "This is not the
  time, Bāhiya. We have entered the town for alms."
A second time, Bāhiya said to the Blessed One, "But it is hard to know
  for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what
  dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One!
  Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term
  welfare & bliss."
A second time, the Blessed One said to him, "This is not the time,
  Bāhiya. We have entered the town for alms."
A third time, Bāhiya said to the Blessed One, "But it is hard to know
  for sure what dangers there may be for the Blessed One's life, or what
  dangers there may be for mine. Teach me the Dhamma, O Blessed One!
  Teach me the Dhamma, O One-Well-Gone, that will be for my long-term
  welfare & bliss."
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the
  seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the
  heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to
  the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train
  yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the
  seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in
  reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the
  cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When
  there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When
  there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the
  two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed
  One, the mind of Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was
  released from effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance. Having
  exhorted Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth with this brief explanation of the
  Dhamma, the Blessed One left.
Now, not long after the Blessed One's departure, Bāhiya was attacked &
  killed by a cow with a young calf. Then the Blessed One, having gone
  for alms in Sāvatthī, after the meal, returning from his alms round
  with a large number of monks, saw that Bāhiya had died. On seeing him,
  he said to the monks, "Take Bāhiya's body, monks, and, placing it on a
  litter and carrying it away, cremate it and build him a memorial. Your
  companion in the holy life has died."
Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, the monks —
  placing Bāhiya's body on a litter, carrying it away, cremating it, and
  building him a memorial — went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having
  bowed down to him, sat to one side. As they were sitting there, they
  said to him, "Bāhiya's body has been cremated, lord, and his memorial
  has been built. What is his destination? What is his future state?"
"Monks, Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth was wise. He practiced the Dhamma in
  accordance with the Dhamma and did not pester me with issues related
  to the Dhamma. Bāhiya of the Bark-cloth, monks, is totally unbound."

MN 37 is shorter. "Nothing whatsoever should be clung to".

I think the canonical answer to that question was silence.

Then the Buddha said to the mendicants:
“Perhaps even a single mendicant has doubt or uncertainty regarding the Buddha, the teaching, the Saṅgha, the path, or the practice. So ask, mendicants! Don’t regret it later, thinking: ‘We were in the Teacher’s presence and we weren’t able to ask the Buddha a question.’” When this was said, the mendicants kept silent. 6.6For a second time, and a third time the Buddha addressed the mendicants:
“Perhaps even a single mendicant has doubt or uncertainty regarding the Buddha, the teaching, the Saṅgha, the path, or the practice. So ask, mendicants! Don’t regret it later, thinking: ‘We were in the Teacher’s presence and we weren’t able to ask the Buddha a question.’” For a third time, the mendicants kept silent. Then the Buddha said to the mendicants:
“Mendicants, perhaps you don’t ask out of respect for the Teacher. So let a friend tell a friend.” When this was said, the mendicants kept silent. Then Venerable Ānanda said to the Buddha:
“It’s incredible, sir, it’s amazing! I am quite confident that there’s not even a single mendicant in this Saṅgha who has doubt or uncertainty regarding the Buddha, the teaching, the Saṅgha, the path, or the practice.” “Ānanda, you speak from faith. But the Realized One knows that there’s not even a single mendicant in this Saṅgha who has doubt or uncertainty regarding the Buddha, the teaching, the Saṅgha, the path, or the practice. Even the last of these five hundred mendicants is a stream-enterer, not liable to be reborn in the underworld, bound for awakening.”
Then the Buddha said to the mendicants:
“Come now, mendicants, I say to you all: ‘Conditions fall apart. Persist with diligence.’” These were the Realized One’s last words.

I once thought to ask:

What advice would you give, what's your best answer, if you weren't constrained by the  question-and-answer format of this site? What question would you like to be asked, what question should I ask, and your answer to that question?

Perhaps that's not a good fit though, a normal type of question, for this site.
It might be good to post in chat  if you were inclined to.
It might be useful to ask, "How best to talk to someone who is dying"?
The only (little) advice I have read on that subject is here (from page 82 of Ven. Thanissaro's commentary on The Buddhist Monastic Code):

Thus, the Commentary notes, a bhikkhu talking to a dying patient should [... focus on ...]  how to inspire the patient with the following thoughts:

“The attainment of the paths and fruitions is not out of the ordinary for a
    virtuous person. So, having formed no attachment for such things as your
    dwelling, and establishing mindfulness in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, or the
    body, you should be heedful in your attention.”

The Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4
  contains a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by
  asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was
  apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his
  thoughts on the best object possible. The suttas also contain advice on how to
  encourage patients facing death. See, for example,
  MN 143,
  SN 36.7, and
  AN 6.16.
  In all of these cases, the advice is aimed [...] at inspiring
  calm and insight.

If the answer could explain how to talk to monks, Buddhist lay-people, and non-Buddhist lay-people, that would be ideal.
Non-Buddhist lay-people especially, perhaps friends and family members, because I meet more of them than I meet Buddhists, and I'm not sure how to translate that quote ...

comfort a dying bhikkhu by
  asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was
  apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his
  thoughts on the best object possible

... into non-Buddhist terminology.
I last asked a similar question: How do you talk to someone whose loved one is dying?


text:
Loving-Kindness for Concentration
In meditation, I seem to have great difficulty with the breath. Having some stability and mindfulness, but very little concentration, vividness and sharpness.
However, loving-kindness works for me in deep ways. Is compassion meditation a kind of concentrative practice? How far could it bring me along the concentrative path?
Also, would interspacing anapanasati and metta (e.g. doing one one day, and the other another day) beneficial, or should one try sticking to one type?

With regards to your first question, yes, loving-kindness meditation aids concentration because, well you focus on an object (or more) while (trying) to suspend every distracting thoughts.
Initially, mindfulness with breathing can be difficult because the breath is too subtle for the "over-active & over-stimulated" mind.
That's why you can use thinking meditations such as loving kindness meditation, reflection on virtue, reflection on Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, reflection on death etc. etc.
Also, loving-kindness elicits positive emotions, which make the mind calmer and brighter. That's the reason why the Buddha praised Sila so much, and it's Sila that leads to joy, tranquility so and so forth which, ultimately, lead to concentration and seeing things as they are (vipassana).
To quote:

Ananda:] "What, O Venerable One, is the reward and blessing of wholesome morality?"
  [The Buddha:] "Freedom from remorse, Ananda."
  "And of freedom from remorse?"
  "Joy, Ananda"
  "And of joy?"
  "Rapture, Ananda"
  "And of rapture?"
  "Tranquillity, Ananda."
  "And of tranquillity?"
  "Happiness, Ananda."
  "And of happiness?"
  "Concentration, Ananda."
  "And of concentration?"
  "Vision and knowledge according to reality."
  "And of the vision and knowledge according to reality?"
  "Turning away and detachment, Ananda."
  "And of turning away and detachment?"
  "The vision and knowledge with regard to Deliverance, Ananda."

~

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
When and how should a layperson declare their achievements?
I have on occasion seen commenters here and elsewhere who declare their achievements, such as being a sotāpanna. These comments are downvoted, so they do not appear to be appreciated.
If comments like these show up on public forums then casual visitors may themselves see that the path can be followed, that people living today have found that the teachings work, and may themselves be inspired to study the Dhamma. That would be a good possible outcome from such comments.
So is it considered wrong to write such declarations publically (at least if one is not a monk) and when would be the appropriate time and place to make declarations of achievements?

...then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!'

"I am a stream-winner!", and as for people like Nyom Alexander, at least you can help them with frog-pills. Be aware that a fully awakened person neither lives nor could live in a household, other than the Noble Beggars.
As for a monk, it's not good to do so (toward laypeople) and if doing such as a deliberated lie it is even a reason to fall out of the community.
It may be good to add that a stream-enterer would seldom be able to teach and lead much and as most are still just a householder, give less inspiration for those having real faith.
But it's a great achievement and a great place for mudita with such or sometimes for much karuna, like in Nyom Alexanders situation, not even knowing the Dhamma yet and believing to be awakened. Thats really much place of huge pity and the reality that beings are heirs of their actions, not really to be helped.
See a Noble Ones answer for more details; and keep such people high and protected without the need that they would need to tell.
(not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for your way out) See? ;-)

There are many reasons one might do it here are examples from the canon;

Now at that time the wanderer Sañjaya was residing in Rajagaha with a
  large company of wanderers — 250 in all. And at that time Sariputta
  and Moggallana were practicing the holy life under Sañjaya. They had
  made this agreement: Whoever attains the Deathless first will inform
  the other.
  ...
  Then Sariputta the wanderer went to Moggallana the wanderer. Moggallana the wanderer saw him coming from afar and, on seeing him, said, "Bright are your faculties, my friend; pure your complexion, and clear. Could it be that you have attained the Deathless?"
"Yes, my friend, I have attained the Deathless. "

or as has already been linked to above;

...then if he wants he may state about himself: 'Hell is ended; animal wombs are ended; the state of the hungry shades is ended; states of deprivation, destitution, the bad bourns are ended! I am a stream-winner, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening!'

Furthermore Vinaya lists exceptional conditions when even monks can blamelessly proclaim attainment to laypeople;

pācittiya 8 "yo pana bhikkhu anupasampannassa uttarimanussadhammaṃ
  āroceyya, bhūtasmiṃ pācittiyaṃ."
Not to announce to a layman a realisation that has been achieved. If a
  bhikkhu announces to a layman or to a sāmaṇera, a realisation
  partaking with a jhāna nature or with a stage of ariyā, and this
  realisation has genuinely been achieved, he commits a pācittiya.
On the other hand, a bhikkhu who makes such a declaration, while
  knowing it to be false, commits the pārājika 4. A bhikkhu must avoid
  making his attainments known, even to other bhikkhus. Apart from four
  exceptions when they can do so, ariyās never unveil their
  realisations:
Under a violent threat. Undergoing an oppressive and virulent lack of
  respect. A t the time of passing away. To reveal it to his preceptor
  or to a fellow bhikkhu who does a similar practice.

There are more examples from commentaries in example in case of Ariyupavadantaraya according to VSM one might inquire about the status of another by asking 'Have you gained a footing in this Dhamma & Discipline to which a bhikkhu answers by informing of the realization of sotapatti fruition, whereafter the other Bhikkhu informs him of reviling a noble person and informing about one's own level of attainment. Or take another case where the daughter's status can be inferred from her speaking of Anathapindika as her younger brother in the Dhamma.
As i see it these type of claims are mostly vain and baseless products of delusioned imagination. However there is nothing inherently wrong with the act itself and one can do so if one feels thus inclined. If one is really attained to the supposed level then it is certainly nothing one should feel a need to conceal or be ashamed of but i see no need to scream from the rooftops nor to randomly bring up either.
In short i think the Vinaya sums it up;
 - if people are excessively disrepectful and abusive
 - under threat of violence
 - at the time of passing away
 - to reveal it to his preceptor or to a fellow bhikkhu who does a similar practice.
For this last one i take it to mean that one can tell people who are doing a similar practice ie a friend who also wants to achieve the highest release, such as in the case of Sariputta and Moggalanna as an example and this can be easily understood to be potentially beneficial as is evident by it leading up to the attainment of Moggalanna.

When and how should a layperson...
I wouldn't say "should" (i.e. are "required" to), of course. But "may" (i.e. are "allowed" to)?
I think that monks "must not" i.e. they're required not to, by the vinaya:

It's a most serious offence to lie about an attainment (i.e. to declare that one has one, knowing that claim to be false)
It's also a lesser offence for a monk to declare any super-mundane attainment to a lay-person, whether that's true or false.

The reason for the latter rule was that lay-people would prefer (perhaps to get more merit) to give to monks with super-mundane attainments, which would disadvantage other monks. This latter rule or reasoning maybe doesn't apply to laypeople.
I think that the former rule results in monks being reluctant to declare an attainment even amongst themselves.
Anyway you might keep that in mind: if the vinaya is good rules for monks then maybe it's good or instructive for lay-people too, and lay-people might want to emulate the good conduct of monks to whatever extent they can, on the other hand the vinaya isn't always and directly applicable, and perhaps it's good and necessary that laypeople do some things which monks are forbidden to.
casual visitors may themselves see that the path can be followed
My personal experience says that's true -- i.e. my seeing "sotāpanna" or something like that, on one of the user profiles on this forum, help to guide me to learn more about the path (the doctrine), for example the "four stages of enlightenment" and the "fetters" -- at a time when I hadn't previously been introduced to the Pali canon.
Or (I can't find a reference now, but someone posted on this site once to say that) one of the effects of repeating "nam myoho renge kyo" is that people who don't know might ask, "what are you saying?" -- so maybe it's like that a bit.
I sympathise with this answer too.
people living today have found that the teachings work
For that to work, the person making the claim maybe needs to be credible.
and may themselves be inspired to study the Dhamma
For that to work, the person making the claim maybe needs to be admirable.
I'm reminded of a joke or story from long ago, I don't remember who it's attributed to (Gandhi, perhaps)

"Have you ever thought of becoming a Christian?"
"Well if you mean 'Christian' like your Christ -- I don't have the courage to. But if you mean 'Christian' like you, I wouldn't want to be."

Anyway the theory, that it may inspire others, isn't very convincing if the exemplar isn't inspirational.
You could even argue the opposite, that a "bad" example might put people off ("No, if that's what being a Buddhist is, I wouldn't want to be like that."). Let's hope that people will find true Dhamma anyway.
So is it considered wrong to write such declarations publically
I'd like to answer instead, about making a declaration privately.
I was told, in private,

Don't let anyone tell you that you're not enlightened.

To me that phrase has several meanings:

If you tell me, "You're not enlightened", then why should I care what you think? You don't know me, I haven't met you, I don't even know if you know what enlightenment is.
There's an English proverb: "Don't let the bastards grind you down", it's a bit like that -- friendly advice.
"Don't let them tell you" doesn't have to mean disputing with them, though -- see SN 7.2.
Some people may try to control you by "putting you down", by saying things like ...
-- "You're poor, but I can make you rich"
-- "You're oppressed and disadvantaged, but I can make you free and powerful"
... or ...
-- "You haven't done enough for me, you need to do more"
Some people might be susceptible to, become victims to, that kind of message.
I suppose that "cults" might form that way.
Or some people get into "abusive" relationships when they needn't.
Anyway, I take the message as advice to not accept that.
If I don't allow you to tell me that I'm not enlightened, part of the reason is, "Don't tell me because I will be the judge of that" -- i.e. that I'm more able than you are to know whether I'm enlightened, I have the experience and knowledge and should trust my judgement rather than yours.
For example if I experience a fetter then perhaps I'll know that experience (and you won't).
So maybe I'm the one, the only one, who should be telling myself, "You're not enlightened."
But the advice said, "Don't let anyone tell you that you're not enlightened", that "anyone" is "me too".
So according to the advice I mustn't let myself tell myself, "You're not enlightened, e.g. for this and that reason."
To "not let" that, I have to change the fact or the view.
So that's good advice -- "don't see yourself as unenlightened, and if you do then don't let yourself remain unenlightened."
Given that "putting oneself in the place of another" is orthodox, I also don't think I should tell anyone else that they're not enlightened.
That doesn't mean I should surrender all judgement -- I might still decide that a lie is a lie, or that a good deed is a good deed.
And actually the Buddha probably did assess the enlightenment of everyone (using the "divine eye").
Even so, if someone "declares their achievement publicly", I'm not sure I should make that any concern of mine. If I must assess it (which I should if I consider the speech as doctrine) then, as quoted here, "Those monks’ speech, monks, is not to be rejoiced over, not to be scorned at."
There's probably Mahayana doctrine too, that people have "buddha-nature", and that the word "enlightenment" is empty.
Perhaps there's some disagreement or misunderstanding among Buddhists of what a word like "stream entry" even means. You might think it's impossible to misunderstand, that there are whole books about the definition. But I think that the suttas tell of people attaining stream-entry just from hearing a dhamma talk -- conversely,

For instance, 'stream-entry' according to some Mahayana is synonymous with the First Bhumi or becoming an Arya being. That is, it is marked by the direct perception of emptiness while in meditative equipoise. I don't believe this is the Theravada account at all.

Given that stream entry is associated with the eradication of identity-view, I'm not sure it's sensible to view it as "their enlightenment" or "their achievements".
Maybe it's sensible to view is as a property of the dhamma -- i.e. that stream-entry is a consequence of the dhamma's being well-expounded, Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo.
I think one of the troubles some people have is thinking that enlightenment is something else i.e., "There's me, here -- and enlightenment is somewhere else, unattainable" (and thus it's kind of a craving, instead of being a wholesome desire). So, "you're not unenlightened" might help get over that.
If you're going to have a teacher maybe they should teach you how to be good and to be better (and less so someone who would teach you that you're bad).
Also a statement like "I'm enlightened (and you're not)" might be understood as a conceit -- and if that's helpful then good ...

Conceit is one of those qualities we all have — and it's a slippery friend. There are times when it's useful, as in that passage where Ananda teaches a nun that we practice to overcome conceit and yet we have to use conceit in the practice. The example he gives is that when you hear of someone who has put an end to suffering, has made it all the way to the goal, you can reflect, "That person is a human being; I'm a human being. That person can do it; so can I." To that extent, you need conceit in the practice. If you believe that you can't do the practice, or if it seems way beyond you, you end up giving up, you set your sights low. And as we all know, you never hit higher than you aim. So to that extent, conceit is helpful.

... otherwise maybe don't fuss about it.

Also I'm not sure its right to call stream-entry an "achievement".
Perhaps it's a process, or the beginning of a process, towards becoming more enlightened.
The suttas talk about enlightenment as an achievement ("there is no more left to be done"), but I believe that means a full or complete enlightenment -- which maybe isn't what you were talking about since you tagged the question stream-entry.

Indeed a great answer. The only reason I would call stream-entry an achievement is because it's an assurance that one will never fall into the 4 lower realms. But, yeah, it's the start of a process that's entirely impersonal, directed at total cessation. "A property of the Dhamma", nice way to put it. Thanks. :)

I have on occasion seen commenters here and elsewhere who declare
  their achievements, such as being a sotāpanna. These comments are
  downvoted, so they do not appear to be appreciated.

The Vinaya forbids monks to make declarations. Obviously, such declarations are considered to be unbeneficial.

If comments like these show up on public forums then casual visitors may themselves see that the path can be followed, that people living
  today have found that the teachings work, and may themselves be
  inspired to study the Dhamma. That would be a good possible outcome
  from such comments.

The above idea is illogical & invalid. The Path is written in the suttas. It is not necessary for anyone to declare the Path works. Since there are many visibly happy monks, obviously the path works. Regardless, the path says craving, attachment & egoism are the causes of suffering. Any clear minded novice can discern this causality of suffering is true; and thus develop trust in the path. All an enlightened person can do is declare the Path works. If they declare enlightenment but a different Path, then this is pointless.

So is it considered wrong to write such declarations publicly (at least if one is not a monk) and when would be the appropriate time and
  place to make declarations of achievements?

There is no appropriate time to make such declarations. They are completely unnecessary and they are made by unenlightened individuals.

Recently I was trying to get some background information about a meditation manual written by a lay person. What they claimed as their "attainment" was not important to me, but rather, what tradition or traditions they were teaching from, how long they have been a part of the sangha within that tradition, who their teacher is (or was) and what material in their book is informed by these things. The information presented was sketchy, and after listening to a few videos I discovered that much of his meditation experience was outside of Buddhism, yet here he was writing a Buddhist Meditation manual. I'll not be purchasing that book.
People love to say they are stream-winners and arahants. Invariably, they all have slightly different views of what that means, so it mostly creates confusion rather than helping in any way.
If anyone wants my opinion about whether the Dharma is true or not, I don't need to tell them it has been proven to me (stream entry). I can simply give my opinion, and they can do with it what they will. Yes the Dharma is for real.

Agreed wholeheartedly. There are lay people who seem to understand what enlightenment is and so on, but have no clue at all. And, to make things worse, are completely ignorant of that fact as well. And then... start misleading other people, proclaiming attainments they don't have, but don't know they don't have. Delusion at the highest level.

One ought not to consider one has achieved anything, without their teachers input, and no respectable teacher would advise proclaiming something.

Dalai Lama says: "Even Lord Buddha himself asked his disciples not to accept his word as the ultimate truth but to investigate them using their intelligence and cognitive ability [...]"
What would claiming any great achievement expecting to be believed achieve, or even, convey? On a common sense basis, such claims may possibly help, but most likely deter; if experienced practioners downvote such answers, what can be expected of those unfamiliar with Buddhism? They will likely be skeptical, and put off.
There could also be an element of conceit, which should be abandonned for arahantship.

Enlightened beings don't care what others thinks about them so many of them easily declare their achievements.(Look to the gurus, teachers etc.) But internet is a different platform. There are lots of psychopathic trolling activity going on in all of the internet platforms-even by the ones who seem good people in the surface level(with tens even hundreds of fake accounts by one person or maybe by few people LOL) so it is better to be skeptical of everyone in the internet.
But If you know the person well through videos, sound records(and in some rare occasions by just their writings) it is different.

I think this is a beautiful question and one that gets at something in the Buddhist community that is not frequently talked about and in some cases, is ignored.
Enlightenment is very often put up on a pedestal as some unreachable goal that only the special and most devout are able to achieve. Because of a lack of believing achieving such a thing is possible, these posts are not taken seriously and are downvoted.
It is also very common that people have unrealistic expectations of what enlightenment is. If someone claims some sort of attainment, and their words do not match what the unenlightened individuals belief of what enlightenment should be, it is almost immediately brushed off as not a "valid" or noteworthy attainment.
If you feel you have real life experience of taking the teachings of the Buddha and bringing about real insights that create liberation in your experience, I highly suggest you share, no matter what the reaction is. Even if it is not received well and is massively downvoted, those on the same path of self inquiry and exploration as you are will benefit from reading your words. Helping each other grow and become truly free is the real purpose of the Sangha. If you post with the intention of benefitting all beings, your post is beauty.
I hope this answer sheds some light into what I have observed in the community.
I also wish to stand apart and share with you my experience, in the hopes it will be helpful to you.
My name is Alexander, and I am an Arahant. Enlightenment occurred for me in March of 2018. I devote myself to you, everyone reading this post, and desire nothing other than your liberation from Samsara. If there is anything, anything at all, I can do to help you move forward in your journey, I will do so. Feel free to contact me at any time, in any way. Regardless of how this post is interpreted, I love you with all my heart, and I pray you share your attainments with the world, so we can all share in the tranquility and peace that is your true existence.

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


text:
A few questions about "becoming"
How is "becoming" (bhava) defined in the context of Dependent Co-arising?
If there is craving, will that craving always result in "becoming"?
Is there something like craving without "becoming"?
Thanks for your time and patience!
EDIT: as I made the mistake of asking more than one question in the same post, I have two different answer (1231546 and Dhammadhatu's) which dissipated my doubts.
Thanks!

How is "becoming" (bhava) defined in the context of Dependent
  Co-arising?

There are three types of "becoming" (bhava) defined in the context of Dependent Co-arising, namely, sensual, form & formless becoming. For example, when it is read on forums: "I have attained jhana", this is an example of "form becoming".
Attachment is the condition for becoming. Attachment includes the view or theory of "self" (attavādupādānaṃ).

If there is craving, will that craving always result in "becoming"?

Craving does not always result in becoming. Note: Craving does not include thinking of "I". Craving is merely an urge, such as the mind drawn towards an attractive object. Merely the mind drawn towards or attracted to an object is craving.
For example, when the energy of lust runs through the physical body causing a sexual organ to become erect or aroused, this "energy" is not thinking or ego. It is an "energy" or "urge".
Or for example, when the mind says: "Don't eat this food" but the body keeps having the urge to reach out & grab that food, that urge is craving.
It is important to separate "craving" from "thinking" & "selfing" ("becoming") in experience. This should not be too difficult. Simply make the resolution to not eat chocolate, pizza or some unhealthy food you habitually crave. Then notice when you see that food how the craving pushes, pulls & torments the mind; even when the mind or 'self' says "No" to those foods.

Is there something like craving without "becoming"?

Craving without becoming exists although is relatively very rare. Any non-Arahant can experience craving without becoming. For example, any hungry stream-enterer knows when they mindfully eat tasty food, non-verbal craving is subtly arising, which they practise to minimize or pacify. A stream-enterer practising diligently in a monastic setting (eating one or at most two meals per day) easily knows the arising of craving without becoming.

Hi DD! So, how can I reconcile this answer with your answer in the last question? As the quote said: Do all forms of suffering are born from clinging to "I" and "mine"? Is there any possible arising of dukkha outside the ones born due to the clinging to self?

Hi Brian. I do not recall ever saying "craving alone" can cause dukkha. Regards

I'm sorry, I don't understand this answer. Where did I ask or state anything about "craving alone"? Thanks!

DD, I remember Buddhadasa saying that the optimal time for wisdom-in-action is at contact. In your post, when nama-rupa already experienced craving, contact has been surpassed and a craving towards the vedanas occured, correct? Your post was well explained, but how is this practised? How can cravings in daily life be prevented? If I make contact with sth., it's a battle between sati-sampajañña and craving. Where I then too slow? If for example, nama-rupa experiences food craving, it can give intentions to cool out these cravings (& the underlying sankharas, that is, 2nd Step) via observation

So for practical purposes it's always best to 'attack' ignorance right at the head, meaning to change one's sañña towards the object in advance in order to deal with it more effectively when presented later?

Too many questions. lol

Yeah, true. May you reply me via E-Mail?

Craving arises if mindfulness fails at contact or feeling. Its just the same process. Watch the craving with non-attachment. Kind regards. But yes, ignorance is the best starting point.

@Dhammadhatu Thanks DD! I gave thought to this for a few hours, and after reading Val's questions, everything made sense to me. Have a wonderful day!

How is "becoming" (bhava) defined in the context of Dependent Co-arising?

it is explained as formation of various existence in the three ranges of existence;

AN 3.76  Bhava Sutta: Becoming (1)
Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, bowed down
  to him and sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the
  Blessed One, "Lord, this word, 'becoming, becoming' — to what extent
  is there becoming?"[1]
"Ananda, if there were no kamma ripening in the sensuality-property,
  would sensuality-becoming be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the
  moisture.[2] The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance
  & fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a lower property.
  Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.
"If there were no kamma ripening in the form-property, would
  form-becoming be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the
  moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance &
  fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a middling property.
  Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future.
"If there were no kamma ripening in the formless-property, would
  formless-becoming be discerned?"
"No, lord."
"Thus kamma is the field, consciousness the seed, and craving the
  moisture. The consciousness of living beings hindered by ignorance &
  fettered by craving is established in/tuned to a refined property.
  Thus there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. This
  is how there is becoming."
  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.076.than.html

If there is craving, will that craving always result in "becoming"?

Yes craving is always for a state with certain conditions or a state without certain conditions, either way craving for something dependent on conditions becoming like this or otherwise, becoming better or worse, good or bad etc.
If one talks about craving for the cessation of craving, such craving can be explained as being dispersive of becoming to the extent that it is for abandoning of craving and therefore becoming but still it is craving for a conditioned state, a state without certain conditions, without craving. There is nothing further after that and craving is at that point uprooted due to complete disenchantment.

Then Ven. Ananda approached the nun and, on arrival, sat down on a
  prepared seat. As he was sitting there, he said to the nun: "This
  body, sister, comes into being through food. And yet it is by relying
  on food that food is to be abandoned.
"This body comes into being through craving. And yet it is by relying
  on craving that craving is to be abandoned.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.159.than.html

Is there something like craving without "becoming"?

i am not sure what you mean.

In one of his Dhamma talk, Ajahn Brahm likens becoming to the conception of a (future) plane of existence wherein a self will arise, thrive, and decay, inhabiting for a while the space of its very own ignorance.

Hi. I think you should include a link to an actual quote from Ajahn Brahm.

Probably heard in a talk about Dependent Arising from the deeper dhammā series by the Buddhist Society of Western Australia.

The whole path, to escape from craving, requires strong craving after becoming, bhava, and knowingly leads beyond on just this path of craving, for a devoted best displayed in right desire and right effort, which is to become blameless first!
As Nyom Chris often quotes here: conceit is very needed and used to overcome conceit (the last fetter).
(Not given to let you rest in exchange, trade ans stack-increasing by a tiny door out, for those desire reasonable for such.)

You may also want to listen to Guy Armstrong excellent 6 parts series titled Patterns of Becoming offered during that retreat.

I think you should quote something relevant from these talks.


text:
Why the aristocrat is best of people?
Many suttas (SN 6.11; SN 21.11; MN 53; AN 11.10; DN 27) contain the following phase:

‘The aristocrat is best of those people ‘khattiyo seṭṭho janetasmiṃ,
who take clan as the standard. ye gottapaṭisārino;
But one accomplished in knowledge and conduct vijjācaraṇasampanno,
is best of gods and humans.’ so seṭṭho devamānuse’ti.

Why is the aristocrat best of those people who take clan as the standard?

Taken in the context of a conversation between the Buddha and a Brahman in the Ambaṭṭhasutta (DN 3), it is quite clear how this verse is supposed to be interpreted.
Given the hierarchy of caste, the Buddha argues, brahmans are indeed inferior to aristocrats (i.e. rulers and nobles). He depicts brahmans as subservient to the aristocratic class, and indicates that the aristocratic class is more exclusive -- an aristocrat could become a brahman, but a brahman could never become an aristocrat.
Thus, this verse should be taken as an argument against brahmanical superiority. Rather -- and this is something repeated in several other places -- a mendicant has worth not on account of their birth, but their sound ethics, great wisdom, and role as a teacher (of dhamma). This is a standard argument against caste hierarchy, which is depicted as illogical given how brahmans are subordinated to the nobility in practice. Instead, the Pali canon places the Buddha and the Buddha alone at the top of a newly configured hierarchy (ostensibly based on ethics and wisdom alone, but sometimes on the basis of Gotama's godlike preeminence among all beings).

what exactly did the Buddha say in DN 3? Please quote the relevant passage. Thank you

I'm not going to quote the entire passage, because it's a significant section of an already long conversation. It does end with the verse you are curious about, though, so my best advice would be to read the whole thing yourself.

One specific point he makes is that, if the aristocrats banished one of their own, he would still receive a seat or water among the Brahmans. (The Buddha asks: api nu so labhetha brāhmaṇesu āsanaṃ vā udakaṃ vā -- and the answer is yes). The reverse would not be true -- so, indeed, aristocrats are the best within the hierarchy of caste

I do not have the reputation yet to comment on ruben's point, but I would add that I disagree. The idea that caste refers to 'varna' and 'jati', whereas 'gotra' means clan, is a recent codification that dates to the 19th century. In the context of the Pali canon, 'gotta' more generally means lineage and the according status of one's lineage. 'Caste' is a suitable translation that does not rely on anachronism.

Sorry to add so many comments, but I had one more thing to add. "Gotta" in this case should be translated as "caste," because it clearly refers to a varna in khattiya (sanskrit: ksatriya). Khattiya is not a clan in the modern sense of a gotra.

@vnu Welcome to this site.

Thank you. DN 3 certain contains the answer to my question. Regards

Interestingly, in AN 5.179, it lists aristocrats before other castes (vaṇṇa or varna):

among aristocrats, brahmins, merchants,
Khattiye brāhmaṇe vesse,
workers, or outcastes and scavengers —
sudde caṇḍālapukkuse.

In the suttas you quoted, it says "the aristocrat is best of those people, who take clan as the standard". The word for "clan" here is gotta or gotra, which is different from caste (which has two types of concepts - vanna or varna, and jāti). The caste system from the Hindu scriptures is varna.
Gotta or gotra is an unbroken male lineage from a common male ancestor. Two persons from the same gotta or gotra cannot get married.
From a caste perspective, Hinduism takes brahmana to be the highest caste, followed by khattiya or kshatriya.
However, from a clan perspective, the suttas take the khattiya or kshatriya i.e. aristocrat, to be the best of people (jana).
Perhaps the reason for this is that kings are always khattiya or kshatriya, and their lineage is always an unbroken male line from the first king of that dynasty. Since a king is the best of people in any country, and his clan (in terms of ancestral lineage) is always aristocrat, so aristocrats are presumably the best of people in a country from the perspective of clans (gotta).

I chose this answer as supreme because it said: "from caste (jāti). Jati = caste. Saddhu

Based in DN 3, the concept of "lineage" in this answer appears correct,

I assume it means, "Among or according to the those who take the clan as standard -- i.e. according to those who judge according to the clan in which a person is born -- the aristocrat is best."
That was a conventional/social belief at the time -- i.e. that there were clans or castes. And according to that maybe the aristocrat was best by definition -- the sutta says Khattiyo, that's presumably "Kshatriyas" mentioned in the Varna (Hinduism) article.
Compare with e.g. the Dhammapada, "It is not by birth that one is a 'Brahmin', a holy man" -- see also DN 4.

Khattiya... since the Buddha wasn't, against many believes and adds, a "Marxist" or "phseudo-liberalist" "only" because he didn't made an end there and made the real "Samana" to the highest of the four able to gather? Other groups (then the four, aristocrats, priests, warrior, samanas) actually have no real (ethical) standards.


text:
Compassion and Motivation
I wondered today whether compassion is an antidote to a kind of lack of motivation, given that it remedies fear in the suttas, and often approach and avoidance are seen as opposite (e.g. fight or flight), and that in psychology compassion is linked with the reward system:

They [the researchers of the study] point out that a heightened sensitivity to suffering causes people to avoid that suffering because it doesn’t feel good; however, because the compassion training also seemed to strengthen the brain’s ability to regulate emotions, people may have been able to sense suffering without feeling overwhelmed by it. Instead, the care for others emphasized by the compassion training may have caused them to see suffering not as a threat to their own well-being but as an opportunity to reap the psychic rewards from achieving an important goal—namely, connecting with someone else and making him feel better.
“When your goal is to help another person, then your reward system will be activated when you’re meeting that goal,” says Weng.
By contrast, the reappraisal group’s goal was to decrease their own negative emotions, making them less inclined to be altruistic when confronted with someone else’s pain. “When you’re focused on decreasing your own negative emotions,” she says, “I think that makes you less focused on other people.”
How to Train the Compassionate Brain

I thus wonder whether compassion is said in the Buddhist tradition to increase motivation in general. I feel the Mahayana,which emphasizes compassion as primary quality with emptiness, appeals to householders historically in part because of this worldly quality of compassion.
Is there any evidence for compassion -- in the suttas or Buddhist tradition -- increasing motivation and energy aside from towards compassionate aims? In other words, does compassion increase drive in general?

Could you perhaps clarify what is referred to as "reward system" and what type of evidence you are asking for? I realize my questions may be tricky, but they could help to give a proper answer.

In context, "reward system" is probably as used in modern psychology/neurology e.g. Wikipedia.

Training your brain like training a dog?

@brother eric Yes, the biological reward systems are shared by - i'm guessing - all animals. In that sense dogs are no less sophisticated  than humans.

I haven't studied clinical psychology.
When I read this comment I discovered it has a doctrine or theory about something it calls "behavioral activation" --

In the case of depression there is ample clinical evidence for behavioral activation as a mean to counter a clinical depressions cognitions, emotions and behavior.

Using Google I found a quick description of "behavioural activation" here: Behavioural Activation: Behavioural Therapy For Depression Treatment
That theory sounds plausible (e.g. worth testing).
Anyway I think that adds insight or background information to the quote in the OP ...

When your goal is to help another person [out of compassion], then your reward system will be activated when you’re meeting that goal

... i.e. at least enough to help understand what Dr. Weng was saying.
And if that ties in (as it seems to here) to being a therapy for depression, that might answer your question about motivation -- because I think that depression is antagonistic to motivation in general.

Secondly, this article ...
Why You Procrastinate (It Has Nothing to Do With Self-Control)
If procrastination isn’t about laziness, then what is it about?
... claims that procrastination is a problem of emotional regulation -- i.e. it's caused by wanting to avoid emotional problems which you associate with the task that you're procrastinating about (and preferring tasks which give a short-term reward).
So perhaps this (quoting from the article cited in the OP), "the compassion training also seemed to strengthen the brain’s ability to regulate emotions", suggests another way in which it might improve "drive" -- i.e. by reducing a "need for procrastination".
I guess a question (perhaps your question, which I'm not sure this answers) is whether it improves all emotional regulation, or only the regulation of emotions associated with the suffering of others (compassion).

Thirdly, this article from a while ago, The Pursuit of Happiness suggests that with meditation (it didn't say what kind -- the sort practised by "the Dalai Lama's lamas, the monks") lets you "train" the mind to be "happier" and remain happy under adverse conditions (including specifically unpleasant external stimuli).
That too fits with the theory of what causes procrastination.

There's a risk that i've misinterpreted Weng, but she seems to operationalize compassion with the mechanisms in our reward system. As far as i know, compassion in a psychobiological sense doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with our reward system per se. The neural/physiological correlates in compassion and drive/reward emotions/behaviors are very different. If i understand her research, it's based on the idea of integrating the two systems of drive/reward behavior on one hand, with compassion goals on the other hand.
Going back to your question compassion is probably not motivating in a general sense, apart from altruistic behavior.


text:
Can the "Senika heresy" be useful?
The Rhetoric of Immediacy: A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism
By Bernard Faure p60 (I've not read this book) links it to linji ("the true man without affairs")
Wiki says

In his later years Dōgen often severely criticized the Senika heresy
  (sennigedo), which is the erroneous view that the mind abides while
  the form perishes. According to this view, there is a bright spiritual
  intelligence contained in our body that is the source of
  self-understanding. When the body dies, the spiritual intelligence
  alone does not perish but abides immutably. This view, Dōgen argues,
  when "hearing of the doctrine of this very mind (itself is buddha),
  takes it to mean that the discriminating knowledge of sentient beings
  is itself the buddha"
Dōgen (c. 1230-50) as cited in Masao Abe, Steven Heine (1992) A Study of Dōgen: His Philosophy and Religion. p. 158
The Senika heresy here mentioned is a Buddhist believe in eternalism of the self.

I'm interested, then, in whether it's only really a heresy in Soto Buddhism, and other traditions might find it useful.
I think it may be a useful fiction, which is why I ask.

Dogen seems to be arguing against the idea that Mind is fundamental or prior to form. It is common to find others arguing the same and proposing that absent thoughts there is no mind as an additional phenomenon. I don't know whether it;s a useful fiction to think otherwise, but it does seem to be a fiction.   .

well i disagree with that Peter

Lots of folk do, I know, but I'm with Plotinus, Ramana Maharshi and Dogen. . . .   . .

ok do you a reference for there being no mind in addition to form? because every buddhist i know of is a dualist about nama-rupa. saying "i'm with dogen" can sound foolish

Ramana Maharshi calls Mind 'the lens in front of the lamp' - which is to say it is reducible. Plotinus says when we think of 'The One' as God or Mind and we 'think of it too meanly'. It is a common teaching in accord with the Mahayana ontology. .

it's madhyamaka misreading [which can be virtuous] coupled with contemporary materialism?

I don't know what materiallsm has to do with this. I presume we all reject this daft idea. As for 'misreading', I doubt those who teach this view rely on what they read. I regard it as the orthodox view of Mind and don't find it contentious. But some do, I know.

The idea that the Buddha is "unaffected by the vicissitudes of bodily existence" [Mystical Realist, Kim] seems to be the root mistake that Dogen is proselytizing against.
What may be key to interpreting it is that all post Madhyamaka Buddhists taught that form, which is what the body is, is mind. Dogen then could be emphasizing that rebirth, in this life and the next, and Buddhahood, makes for some new body by mental causation. Not, then, than mind perishes completely with this body.
I've done very little koan or Rinzai study, but would guess that our original enlightenment, as the body of the Buddha, is emphasized therein: because Soto, compared to "the true man without affairs", is less concerned with 'words' and 'discriminative thought', 'causation'.

What Dōgen calls sennigedo is a view found in several schools of Buddhism, for example in the teachings of Tendai contemporary with Dōgen in Japan. But this is not what Matsuo Basho was expressing in "Mind itself is Buddha", the poem Dōgen used to argue the criticism you expressed in your quote. He quotes this poem in the story of Damei Fachang (Daibai Hojo) in both his Shobogenzo and Eiheikoroku. What he actually argues is:

“The mind that has been authentically transmitted is ‘one mind is all
  dharmas; all dharmas are one mind.’….. We clearly understand that the
  mind refers to the mountains, rivers, and the great earth; the sun,
  the moon and the stars. …. Therefore, ‘mind itself is buddha’ refers
  to all the buddhas who carry out arousing bodhi-mind, practice,
  awakening, and nirvana. Those who have not yet been carrying out
  arousing bodhi-mind, practice, awakening and nirvana are not ‘mind
  itself is buddha.'”

Stated differently, Dōgen argues that until you realize (in both senses of the English word simultaneously, not just intellectually) that "Mind is Buddha", you risk to conceptualize Buddha-nature as eternal & transcendent of causation and death. He is therefore not criticizing Basho, but the concept underlying the interpretation that all factors of experience (hō in Japanese, Dharmas in Sanskrit) are somehow not subject to causation (which implies they are timeless).
The best elaboration on this argument I know is in Heine's Existential and Ontological Dimensions of Time in Heidegger and Dogen Chapter "The Question of Time"

i believe i've read Heine's book, but not sure. thanks for the reply, and any comment on the one i'm about to write would be helpful


text:
Four Satipatthanas
In this Buddhadasa Bhikkhu Dhamma Talk, Ajahn Buddhadasa and Santikaro Bhikkhhu explained at around minute 51:30 - 54:00 that the four Satipatthanas are always investigated.
As far as I understood, the four tetrads are done in a sequence, without choosing. After rapture arises in Kayanupassana, rapture becomes the object of meditation, and the transition from kaya to vedana happens.
May one clarify their statement given in that recording? How is it done in daily life in whatever posture, if the arising of rapture etc. require deep meditation?

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

Did you listen to his explanation? He said we contemplate the tetrad we need to contemplate - to be mindful of what we need to be mindful of. Humans are not robots. He said we do move from lower to higher overall, in the big picture. He said it's already been written, so now we just apply it. Yes it can be done formally, he says, but in this answer he says do it walking, sitting, standing, lying down.

As far as I understood, the four tetrads are done in a sequence, without choosing. After rapture arises in Kayanupassana, rapture
  becomes the object of meditation, and the transition from kaya to
  vedana happens.

The above is how I interpret what was said from from 51:30. What was said was the previous satipatthana supports the next satipatthana. In other words, developing calming the body supports the arising of & profound sensitivity of rapture.

the four Satipatthanas are always investigated.

This statement by Santikaro was vague. It all depends on how profoundly or how shallowly the practise is. In daily life, the satipatthana practise will generally be quite shallow or superficial (unless a person has previously developed samadhi, which they can enter, at will, while sitting on a bus or in a boring office meeting). Once there is a question about "daily life", the answer will not be particularly profound. For example, in daily life, the 1st tetrad will generally not be developed to give rise to rapture of the 2nd tetrad. Reaching rapture is generally has the requirement of formal retreat. In daily life, the framework in MN 10 rather than MN 118 would probably be best followed.

Thanks DD, fine answer as always. Speaking of MN10, what is meant by contemplating externally? Also, the title with 'Mindfulness in all postures' refers here to bare awareness, correct? Because clear comprehension is listed immediately after the postures.

I assume contemplating externally means to contemplate body, feeling, mind & dhamma (truth) in external objects. For example, visualize external objects are breathing, are controlled by citta (mental states), are impermanent, are not-self, etc.

Mindfulness means to remember to have right view in all postures. Clear-comprehension means to thoroughly understand with wisdom with all postures. It does not mean "bare awareness". In fact, it is the opposite of "bare awareness". For example, a small child ignorantly looking non-judgmentally at the ocean with bare awareness and thus not understanding the dangers of the ocean cannot have “sampajana”. I wrote about sampajana, here: https://dhammadhatu.wordpress.com/2018/12/04/dependent-origination-sankhara-part-2/

Since you were listening to Buddhadasa, you can read Buddhasa's views on mindfulness & clear-comphrension (which I agree with & regard as very essential reading), here: https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Natural_Cure_for_Spiritual_Disease2.htm

Thanks, I was only confused about the Body Posture part because it sounded like being aware of actions. You already explained sati sampajanna to me. Anyways, thanks as always DD. Kind regards


text:
Possibility of Unsuitable Technique
Upon (re)-reading this answer, I conjectured perhaps there are techniques unsuitable for some.
It does seem to be the case with the breath for me, in my experience, despite the popularity and near universality of the breath as meditative object. In context, I'm extremely sensitive to what people call experiential avoidance, and focusing on the breathing to the exclusion of all else seems to trigger this. More so, I read here that in some cases of dissociative people the breath may be difficult to focus on.
My question is mainly:
Given these conditions, could even the breath (or any object of meditation) be truly unsuitable for some? Is it possible that other objects would be much more suitable? How would one actually know/discover this?
I'm particularly tempted to conclude compassion (which has a visual and affective component) might be a better alternative. Yet, I'm always brought back to the breath because I keep concluding that its a universal object that should work for everyone. Am I wrong?
Thank you

Besides given already a long buddhist answer I would like to add that whenever you do certain technique to get rid of an unpleasant feeling/thought, then that just reinforces experiential avoidance & the underlying beliefs that underpin the avoidance. If you can, always expose yourself to uncomfortable feelings. Use here the principle of 'challenging, but not overwhelming'. So if you get anxious while breathing but you think you can manage this exposure, then do it to the point it feels doable for you, & then focus on the uncomfortable sensation & observe it curiously and non-judgmentally.

I'm responding because of the dissociative bit, which I recognise very much. In my case the trigger is the wrong type of concentration (laser like focus instead of unwavering composure). You might find this video helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kY4zVThpro
Practising this way could help you avoid dissociation.

I don't think the idea that breath meditation is universally suitable has any explicit basis in the texts. I'm not sure if you are aware or interested, but the Visuddhimagga has an explicit opinion on which types of meditation are suitable for which sort of individual:

As to suitability to temperament: here the exposition should be understood
  according to what is suitable to the temperaments. That is to say: first, the ten
  kinds of foulness and mindfulness occupied with the body are eleven meditation
  subjects suitable for one of greedy temperament. The four divine abidings and
  four colour kasiṇas are eight suitable for one of hating temperament. Mindfulness
  of breathing is the one [recollection as a] meditation subject suitable for one of
  deluded temperament and for one of speculative temperament. The first six
  recollections are suitable for one of faithful temperament. Mindfulness of death,
  the recollection of peace, the defining of the four elements, and the perception of
  repulsiveness in nutriment, are four suitable for one of intelligent temperament.
  The remaining kasiṇas and the immaterial states are suitable for all kinds of
  temperament. And anyone of the kasiṇas should be limited for one of speculative
  temperament and measureless for one of deluded temperament. This is how the
  exposition should be understood here “as to suitability to temperament.”
Path of Purification 3.121

I think it is proper to question the assumption that any meditation practice would be suitable for all individuals, though one might say that sati or "mindfulness" in general is universally applicable.

I also often think that one should stick to one school of thought, to one teaching etc., but often this leads to narrow mindedness and rigidity. Besides, if a given method works for you better than another, why don't use it?
To quote:

“Those who teach a Dhamma for the abandoning of passion, for the abandoning of aversion, for the abandoning of delusion — their Dhamma is well-taught”.
  (Ājīvaka Sutta; AN 3:72)

Firstly, we can see that the Buddha taught in a manner that is conducive both to oneself and to others. There is often the impression that Dhamma is exclusively concerned for other's, but that's not quite correct:

Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do.

There is also the case that some monks during the time of the Buddhs commited suicide because of the asubha bhavana practise. Those monks became disgusted by their own body. This shows you that they weren't ready yet.
Secondly, if we take MN 20 for example we can clearly see that Buddha employed a number of strategies not just one. "If X  doesn't work use Y, and if that doesn't work either, use Z".
And lastly, there is the pali word 'upaya', which translates as 'skilful means'. When the Buddha was asked about certain things or teachings the Buddha often gave 'mundane answers' or remained silent, in order to not cause further confusion. For lay people he often began a talk on morality and on the drawbacks of sensuality. Then, when the mind was rid of the hindrances, he gave higher Dhamma.
Similarly, if Mindfulness of Breathing causes you distress then put it aside for a while and do metta meditation.
To summarise, there is no one size fits all. Different people, different history, different dispositions, different preferences & so on.


text:
Is there really a story in the Pali Canon about a layman running away from home AFTER having attained arahantship?
Today I stumbled upon a thread on Reddit. Deep down in the comments, I saw someone make the following claim:

My personal opinion is probably they [lay arahants] will run away from society and die in a forest, which is what happened in the suttas to a prince who ran away from society when he attained Arahantship in his sleep, and woke up. The Buddha telepathically communicated with him to come to the Sangha, aka The Refuge, it's called a Refuge because it is a refuge for Enlightened people who escape the lay life.

When asked by another user where in the suttas this story was found, he replied that he didn't remember where he read it but that it was probably in the Khuddaka Nikaya. Of course I don't have time now to read the entire Khuddaka Nikaya, so I want to ask if anyone here is familiar with the story. On the one hand it sounds pretty improbable to me (if it were in the Canon, why have I never seen it being mentioned in debates about whether lay arahants exist?), but on the other hand I don't think the person who posted it has made it up all by himself.
Thanks in advance for your answers!

What kind of answer are you hoping for -- just people who agree with you that, "if it were in the Canon, why have I never seen it being mentioned in debates about whether lay arahants exist"?

As you found out on Reddit, the story sounds a lot like that of Yasa, who didn't of course become an Arahant before meeting the Buddha, and certainly not in his sleep! But to your general question, stories of lay people who have become arahants and then left home do exist in the texts. A notable example that comes to mind is Khema Theri (see palikanon.com/english/pali_names/ku/khemaa.htm).
Worth keeping in mind is that an arahant needs to learn from a Buddha to become enlightened, so if the story in question means the prince became an arahant before meeting the Buddha, that is impossible.

Does this mean that paccekabuddhahood is not open for all, but only to mendicants outside of where the Buddha's words are known?

Yes, the orthodox Theravada doctrine IIRC is that all paccekabuddhas enter parinibbana before the Buddha arises, and none will arise until after the Buddha passes away.


text:
In need of help in meditation
I have recently started meditation . I'm just doing normal breathing techniques and concentration techniques. Though, while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body?Is it normal?how can we control this?

Welcome to Buddhism.SE.
I'm not sure what the current policy is on these sorts of questions, but considering how powerful the mind is, seeking help in a forum like this might be problematic.

while trying to concentrate I feel this weird shiver in my eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in my body?

I'm guessing the question mark is a way of saying something like "I don't even know if I'm describing it correctly". The Buddha used teachings like the five aggregates to help students understand that feelings are just feelings, shivering is just shivering, heaviness is just heaviness, etc. You finding it weird is just a mental phenomenon and has nothing to do with the nature of the experience itself - i.e. it's not weird, that's your judgement of it.

Is it normal?

Meditation can trigger all sorts of responses as it affects mental and physical formations that exist prior to meditaiton practice. There is no "normal", as your physical and mental condition are unique. Also, different meditation practices will affect the body and mind differently, so there's really a very wide range of potential feelings, etc. that you might experience.

how can we control this?

Control has the danger of increasing attachment of self. Regarding your experience specifically, there is no real Buddhist imperative to control feelings; what we are interested in changing is our reactions to experiences, not the experiences themselves.

My advice is to simply breathe, and to feel the breath in your body, see how that operates in your perceptions, allow mind and breath to become one, and to simply rest in the Dhamma/Dharma as you best know it. Concentration comes and goes on it's own, be natural with it, it goes where it belongs when you don't try to direct it. In other words, right concentration of mind is natural in meditation. This alone will take you deeper quite naturally.

You said

while trying to concentrate.

This is not conductive to the practice .In Meditation you simply notice whatever is there.It frees you from the idea of making your mind act forcefully.Frees you from should and should nots.Every action then becomes natural because its based on awareness of experience. Real understanding.
You said you felt weird shiver in your eyelids and whole skull area and a weird heaviness in body ,just notice them when they arise , know they exist.And again don't make it as instruction for your mind even the noticing itself should't be instruction when for you there is only existence then it sets you free.

The Buddha did not teach any breathing techniques or concentration techniques. The Buddha simply taught to keep the mind free from craving & therefore to simply sit still & quiet. When a practitioner sits still & quiet, without any desires or thinking, the mind will automatically become aware of the breathing. As for "concentration" ("samadhi"), this is simply the increase or convergence of this "quiet mind".
As for shiver in eyelids & whole skull area and a weird heaviness in the body, these are probably effects of your wrong meditation technique and possibly combined with your past kamma. If we want to meditate, our life needs to be relatively pure. We must follow the five precepts and not take drugs, alcohol, watch pornography or have casual sex.
The Buddha taught mindfulness & concentration as follows:

A monk develops mindfulness & concentration as factors for awakening relying on seclusion [from sensual pleasures], relying on dispassion, relying on cessation, maturing
  as letting go.
MN 118

The word "mindfulness" means "to remember to keep the mind" free from craving.

Can one enter  a state of stillness & quietness by being immersed in a discursive meditation, that is, Silanussati or Maranussati? I know your method is to be vigilant of the mind itself, but are such meditations suitable as well?

With maranussati, i would reply "yes" to the question. Regards


text:
Concentration's Meaning
I've read a few answers and concluded that for most of these answers, concentration in meditation often implies unawareness of peripheral stimuli. This confuses me. I usually have wisps as thoughts rather than full blown thinking in meditation, but I don't particularly become unaware of my environment.
Is such an experience very advanced? More so, does unawareness imply literally not seeing/hearing/etc. or merely not being solicited by such distractions?
Finally, I'm wondering whether the diminution of thoughts in itself means little. Is attention placed upon the object consistently more important than thought reduction? For example, I can imagine attention being close to the object but thoughts (e.g. about the object) arising, but I can also imagine a thoughtless person's attention being fragmented, directed without focus. Is any of these more important?
Thank you

I've read a few answers and concluded that for most of these answers,
  concentration in meditation often implies unawareness of peripheral
  stimuli. This confuses me. I usually have wisps as thoughts rather
  than full blown thinking in meditation, but I don't particularly
  become unaware of my environment.

Well, it does depend very much on what sort of concentration you want to achieve.
The concentration that leads to unawareness is absorption concentration. And that is not the type you want if you want to go for enlightenment. So, absorption is not the concentration of the Noble 8-fold Path.
Think about it. We all were and are absorbed in all kinds of stuff: reading, watching a movie, absorbed in thoughts, and so on. If absorption would be the way, half the planet would be enlightened.
The type of concentration the 8-fold Path speaks about is more of peaceful, unwavering composure of the mind. It is not focused on one particular thing, it is not absorbed. Some monks compared the needed concentration to the Hubble telescope (wide lens, wide field of awareness), it's not a laser.
The mind is unwavering, it keeps united and has the entire experience in one sight, so to speak. Think of a person standing on the top of a mountain being able to see everything with one look. That's what's meant with one pointedness.
And then, whatever thoughts, sights, sounds, smells, tastes or touches appear, it really doesn't matter. Because they are all caught in that one field of awareness. And since they are all in one picture there is no need for the mind to jump here or there, as it is with laser pointed concentration.
But again, depends on what you want to achieve.

Is such an experience very advanced? More so, does unawareness imply
  literally not seeing/hearing/etc. or merely not being solicited by
  such distractions?

Well, what do you call advanced? It really depends on the goal, doesn't it.
And yes, unawareness means not seeing, hearing and so on. Nice exercise, but completely useless for one who wants to achieve enlightenment.

Finally, I'm wondering whether the diminution of thoughts in itself
  means little. Is attention placed upon the object consistently more
  important than thought reduction?

Again, it depends on what you want to achieve.
There is no need to get rid of thoughts, if that's what you're asking. On the contrary, the first jhana is thinking and pondering. So, thinking and pondering on the right things. Example would be metta meditation, where you direct your attention to the thoughts of well wishing. And when there is momentum, the thoughts will continue automatically and attention can be directed at pity and sukkha, the next jhana. And so on.
But all the correct jhana have in common that they hold steady, once correctly established, so that you can go about your daily business without the mind starting to waver. Meaning you can be walking around, sitting, lying down, do the dishes, whatever, the mind will keep this unwavering quality.
Hope this helps.

Thank you, great video recommendation as well.

Concentration is a poor translation of samadhi. Samadhi means meditative state. And right samadhi is one with strong mindful awareness. Deep samadhi is a state of absorption into the meditation object.
There are also characteristic states of samadhi called jhanas which generally implies prominence of a particular mental quality (physical pleasure, mental joy, contentment and equanimity). However, the depth of each of these varies and are often debated between schools. This brings in the classification between commentarial jhanas (very deep states) vs sutta jhanas (just enough absorption to investigate phenomena).
Some schools prefer complete absorption as you imply in your question. Others, just enough absorption to have stable attention and plenty of awareness for insight practices. Certain suttas imply this sort of samadhi:

Monks, secluded from sense pleasure... a monk enters and dwells in the first jhana. He steeps, drenches, fills and suffuses his body with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that there is no part of his entire body that is not suffused with this rapture and happiness. Just as a skilled bath-attendant or his apprentice might strew bathing powder in a copper basin, sprinkle it again and again with water, and knead it together so that the mass of bathing soap would be pervaded, suffused, and saturated with moisture inside and out yet would not ooze moisture, so a monk steeps, drenches, fills and suffuses his body with the rapture and happiness born of seclusion, so that, there is no part of his entire body that is not suffused with this rapture and happiness born of seclusion. (D.i,74)

There are two ways we typically know the presence of thoughts (The Mind Illuminated by John Yates PhD et. al). Attention and awareness. You attention can be stably on the breath and you mindful awareness can see thoughts and distraction come and go. This shows maturity of practice and there is a sense of standing aback and watching the breath. Thoughts stop arising as you consistently ignore them. It's a learned behaivour (unification of the mind aka citta-ekagatta) where the mind system is together working on stabilizing attention and observing the meditation object. This is the required amount of samadhi per a lot of teachers to begin insight training as your mind is now a sharp sword that can cut through anything without getting caught up.
Further and more in depth discussion on this topic can be found here:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html
http://www.leighb.com/jhanas.htm

The bottom line though is that samadhi is a joyful, restful, alert and mindful state. It should ideally be nourishing and nurturing.

The practitioner can't remember any object of unawareness mind, sleeping, but he can clearly remember every object, mind, and mind factors of concentration meditation.
Unawareness mind, sleeping, is a resultant (Vipaka), but concentration meditation is karma (Karma).
Unawareness mind, sleeping, doesn't give any resultant, but concentration meditation gives resultants.
Unawareness mind is sleeping, ignoring the object, but concentration meditation is doing 30-36 jobs to the object.

Concentration meditation is strongly thinking of the only one object. It doesn't stop to think. Only unconsciousness mind, sleeping, is not thinking and the concentration meditation is not  unconsciousness mind.

Is such an experience very advanced?

The goal of Concentration meditation is to lengthen the amount of time you can give unbroken attention to your meditation object. A secondary goal could also be given to move through the Jhanas as your practice gets stronger. The attainment of the Jhanas can be seen as more "advanced" practice, although they tend to arise naturally as you progress.

More so, does unawareness imply literally not seeing/hearing/etc. or merely not being solicited by such distractions?

In higher Jhanas, yes it is the case that some sensations will seemingly "drop away" as your focus heightens on your meditation object, although reaching these higher Jhanas are not required for gaining insight or becoming enlightened. This is what is meant by unawareness in a Jhanic state.
When you are not in a Jhana though, you will find there is still the jumping of awareness to different sense doors. This may happen very quickly and without being noticed which gives the illusion of you observing other senses while you are focusing on your meditation object. It is important to remember that this is an illusion, and it is impossible for the attention to be directed to two things at the same time. Awareness must jump from one thing to another in order for both to be perceived.
If you catch yourself observing a thought, as long as you bring your attention back to your meditation object, you are doing concentration meditation correctly. If you keep practicing in this way, you will lessen the thought stream as well as increase the length of time you are able to hold your attention.

Is attention placed upon the object consistently more important than thought reduction?

Attention placed on the object is important for doing insight meditation. The longer you can hold your attention, the greater the chance you will be able to observe insights that will profoundly change your understandings.
Thought reduction is also important. It is very easy to get wrapped up in the content of what is appearing. This is the same reason why we suggest closing our eyes while meditating. The content of what we observe can be very distracting. Thoughts in particular are more often than not misleading, and reinforce the beliefs that hold you in Samsara. The less distractions we can have while focusing, the easier it will be to observe the processes that are occurring.

Is any of these more important?

I think the two honestly go hand in hand. With only one and not the other, you are at a major disadvantage compared to if you had both. You are correct in your descriptions that they are both very useful tools that help us discover the truth about reality. I would suggest continuing your concentration practice with the intention of cultivating both.
I hope your meditations are fruitful and wish you nothing but love.


text:
What exactly is rebirth?
According to Buddhism, one's self is made of 5 agregates. But these agregagtes should dissolve at death, because according to neurosciences,feeling, perception, thinking and conscience are just functions of the brain, which is destroyed at one's death. So what links the new human B that is considered a reincarnation of human A ?

"According to Buddhism, one's self is made of 5 agregates.", maybe according to whom's ever Buddhism and Buddhists, but the Buddha did not told such. More: he repeatedly stressed out that ones own can not be found in the five aggregates.
As for what is birth:

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. MN 141

And as part of the first Noble truth it's somehow pointless to call it "merely convention" since such would hinder one to take actions for a beyond. So for a serious practitioner it's very needed to avoid people who deny coming into being and the Noble Truths, people of grave wrong view.
What makes you the same person who wrote the question and now reading an answer? Desire? Not-knowing?
And without first things first, your practice becomes nothing but that of the many Jains around: a really poor living of real poor hypocriticals.
May you have an auspicious birth here, since it is the prerequisite of liberation.
(Note: not given for stacks, trade and exchange but as a tiny door out of the wheel of rebirth)

According to Buddhism there is nothing to be taken as a self, soul, I, me or mine. What is mistaken as a 'self' is a sequence of momentary experiences/actions/events occurring and ending one after the other. Each of these experiences has two aspects to it. The physical aspect and the mental aspect. The mental aspect is subdivided into 4 categories. Hence the five aggregates in total.
Each of these experiences are caused. None of them come to be without causes. One major cause of these experiences is Karma. It can be past karma or present Karma. Pleasant experiences are a result of good Karma and unpleasant experiences are a result of bad Karma.
'Living' simply means a session of these experiences/events arising and ending at a certain realm of existence.
Dying simply means that the causes for arising of those experiences at that realm are no longer present or they have been overpowered by fresh causes. Near the end of each session, a fresh Karma comes forward to become the cause for the arising of the consciousness aggregate at another place where the supportive conditions are right for arising of a thought moment. Ex: at a womb after the reproductive union of male and female, a fertilized egg etc. Arising of this thought moment is the beginning of the next session of experiences. This is how the so called Life A is linked to Life B, human or otherwise.
In this framework there are only experiences and their causal relationships. Concepts like the 'brain' does not exist. So if you ask a question assuming that there is an entity called the brain existing within this framework, it will only lead to confusion and false views until you are ready to give up that assumption.

Rebirth is a conventional truth. If, if you posit the wrong view of a permanent Self, then due to the ultimate emptiness of all phenomena, over all time, the space that is defined as 'I' must be empty. In other words, all intentional action by that 'I' must be balanced around '0'.
The only plausible link between spontaneous rebirths is that at all points of time, the All is still empty of permanent Self. From here there are two options:
1) Subject to the wrong view of Self, there is no pattern between rebirths. This also offers the overall '0' statistically, but goes against the regularity of experience, bringing in the spectre of chance and chaos.
2) Subject to the wrong view if Self, rebirths follow the laws of kamma-vipaka - during a life and in the spontaneous skip of rebirth - akin to Newton's third law of motion, but for intentional activity. This has continuity and regularity.
To me experience appears regular - even the laws of chance and chaos are definable laws.
But the Buddha stressed impermanence, and all this is intellectualism. He discouraged people from trying to figure out the exact workings of kamma, as the process is not fully decipherable, imo due to the fact that it is asking conventional truth to be superimposed onto ultimate truth, at least if Nagarjuna's take that 'there is not the slightest difference between Samsara and nibbana' is accepted.
Better concentrate on the here and now.

According to Buddhism, one's self is made of 5 aggregates.

The above is not accurate. According to Buddhism, one of the  aggregates (sankhara aggregate) ignorantly assumes one or more of the 5 aggregates is a "self". Refer to SN 22.81.

But these agregagtes should dissolve at death

In Buddhism, the word "death" means the "death of a self-assumption" or "a being"; such as the "death of mother, father, sister, brother, self". As for the aggregates, they cease when life terminates or ends its time. But this is not called "death". "Death" ("marana") is the idea "a being" or "person" dies; which is the condition for sorrow, grief & suffering. Refer to SN 12.2.

So what links the new human B that is considered a reincarnation of human A ?

Nothing. Original Buddhism does not teach the above idea. In the original Pali suttas, there is no word that exactly means "reincarnation" or "rebirth".
As for the quote below (which is poorly translated), it means production of the assumption of various "beings" and "categories of beings". "A being" is merely a "view", "idea" and "state of clinging". Refer to SN 23.2 & SN 5.10.

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] spheres of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. MN 141

In conclusion, the primary Pali word translated as "rebirth" is "upapajjati". "Upapajjati" means to "proceed", "walk" or "continue" in the same manner has a previous thing. This is contrasted with the word "paṭipajjati", which has the same suffix. "Paṭipajjati" means to walk in an opposite direction, such as walking the Path away from suffering and towards Nirvana. "Upapajjati" is to re-live or re-experience a previous experience. For example, if you commit an act of killing, the killing comes back to haunt the mind and the mind suffers from a similar trauma or violence that was previous inflicted when it engaged in killing. Therefore, due to violent killing, for example, a person takes "rebirth" in "hell". They proceed from one violent place (killing) to another violent place ("hell"). This is the meaning of "upapajjati"; which is commonly yet inaccurately translated as "rebirth".

But how does this square with mundane right view?

There is nothing on the mundane right view that literally says there is an afterlife. The term “paraloka” means “other world”. The term “world” (loka) does not necessarily mean afterlife. Regards

Sorry, I meant the 'spontaneously reborn beings' part.

It does not mean “reborn”


text:
No awakening without a Buddha?

Worth keeping in mind is that an arahant needs to learn from a Buddha to become enlightened, so if the story in question means the prince became an Arahant (epic for one awakened) before meeting the Buddha, that is impossible.

Was said by monk yuttadhammo
My person would reject such a categorical statement but is of course open to give it a prove.
No doubt that an awakened would seek out for the Sangha, but especially this days, although the Dhamma might be traceable, such as the Sangha is not sure.
So what is actually told about the appearances of a Paccecabuddha and Awakened, (such a person) being told as even someone who may be in the position to rebuke the monks?
(Note that this is not given for entertaining, stacks, exchange and trade but as a tiny door out of the wheel of householding)

Page 18 of
The Paccekabuddha:
A Buddhist Ascetic
A Study of the Concept of the Paccekabuddha
in Pali Canonical and Commentarial Literature

II. I. The Period In Which No Buddha Exists
Paccekabuddhas are said to exist only in periods when there are no Buddhas. “A person realises
Paccekabodhi only when reborn at a time when there is no Buddha” (S-a III 189 and 208). Other
expressions to denote this period are: ”the time which lies between (the appearances of) a Lord”
(A-a I 194); ”a period in which no Teacher has appeared” (Pv-a III 144); and “the period between
the Buddha (-periods)” (A-a II 192). One of the main characteristics of the Paccekabuddha’s
career is that he attains insight during such a period.

I think this period is also called a sasana:

Śāsana may also refer to the 5000-year dispensation of a particular Buddha. That is, we are living in the śāsana of the Śakyamuni Buddha.

I that this doctrine is saying that that a paccekabuddha wouldn't exist during a time when the sammā sambuddha was teaching (and afterwards when his dhamma hadn't yet been forgotten).


text:
How would Buddhists respond to someone harming the temple?
If a Buddhist noticed someone trying to severely harm their temple, for example trying to start a fire, how would one expect them to respond?
I could imagine a range of responses from completely ignoring it and continuing about their meditation to compassionately talking with the person to getting themselves and bystanders to safety and planning to rebuild later to carrying the person out of the temple. I know spitting on the statue of Buddha is an example used in teachings but I am wondering about scenarios of lasting harm on the facilities that would make them unusable.
Are there any instructive historical examples where something like this happened?

About examples, a similar thing happened to the buddhas of Bamyan in Afghanistan. Even though it spurred reactions from all over the world, I can’t say how the Buddhist community reacted.

Notice a Buddhist lay follower is also a law abiding citizen of a country. If s/he sees someone trying to commit arson, a terrible crime with truly gruesome consequences in terms of both lives and materials, s/he needs to immediately report it to the police.

This is highly subjective, but practically speaking, If you go to a Buddhist country and try to engage in vandalism, the chances are that the people nearby will beat the living daylights out of you until a monk interferes and calms them down. After that you will be arrested by the police.
It would be a big mistake to think that the average lay Buddhist is meek or timid.

In one of his talks, Ajahn Brahm recalled that he was once asked by a journalist what he would do if someone flushed a Buddhist holy scripture down the toilet.
Ajahn Brahm replied that he would call the plumber to unclog the pipes of course. That's the practical thing to do. The journalist responded to this with laughter.
In any country, the right thing to do, from the perspective of Buddhism, is first to ensure the safety of human life, then report the incident to the authorities without delay (inclusive of any photo or video evidence if available), and then fix the damages.
The wrong thing to do, from the perspective of Buddhism, is to react with rage and vengeance. However, as Sankha wrote, this might be the typical response of lay Buddhists who are not advanced on the path.

"Buddhists", at large, regard outwardly and inwardly Dhammas as self and so they react on harm in the many ways beings react if perceiving harm of what is thought to be ones own.
For beings nothing more dear then the self/own, knowing that, one is wise to abstain from harming others or take what they consider as their own.
Maybe worthy to note is that Bhikkhus, although having the duty to care and maintain what belongs to the Sangha, actually have to give this up in cases where destruction and violence would be expected. That's why you have places and sources like you are used to here.
You would have a hard to find anything outwardly which has been not taken over and deprived from the Sangha this days. It's good when all of you reflect a lot of how much and in which ways you probably destruct and harm the temples of the Tripple Gems in you "business as usual".
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment that keeps one in such but for release)