text:
Color perception in meditation
In the Theravada tradition, there is a list of 38 objects of meditation. In them, there are 3 colors: Blue-Green, Yellow, Red. This is not what I'd expect if these three colors are picked in a way which is based on a basic neurological phenomena.
Can anyone point me to classical references detailing experiences and meditative observation on the nature of color observation?

I am also curious about Dukkha resulting from visual perception; any resource would be appreciated.

Aren't there four?  White is on the kasina list.  (And the Chapters 4 and 5 of Visuddhimagga details kasina practice extensively.)

@000: yes, there is also white

The most colorful sutta is MN77 Mahāsakuludāyisutta.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, blue, with blue color, blue hue, and blue tint.
Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are yellow, with yellow color, yellow hue, and yellow tint
Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are red, with red color, red hue, and red tint.
Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally that are white, with white color, white hue, and white tint.
(etc.)

AN10.29 is the second most colorful sutta.

There is what is termed the Fire Kasina which is mentioned in the path of purification or Visuddhimagga.
There's a fascinating site where people document there experiences with many types of mental visualisations.
https://firekasina.org/about/


text:
"The knowledge and vision to see things clearly" (yathābhūtañāṇadassanaṃ)
Knowing intellectually the three characteristics is one thing, experiencing them is another. As far as I understood, vipassana happens without will, since it is morality that leads to rapture and sukkha, which then helps to stabilize the mind, in order to facilitate clear seeing.
My question then is:
1) Are most people both generically and wrongly coining in the term vipassana to point to a "new age" technique that has nothing to do with "clear seeing" according to Buddhism?
2) In how far needs meditation development? According to AN 10.1 it is moral purity that leads to consummate concentration necessary for seeing the three characteristics.

[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."
— AN 10.1

With regards

I'm not really happy with the first part of the question, because it invites answers like, "Yes, teacher X and school Y etc. are teaching new-age nonsense that's non-Buddhist." Maybe better to reword it to ask what "clear seeing" is, and not what it isn't and whether most people are wrong.

I didn't understand the syntax of "In how far needs meditation development". Are you asking what's necessary, what the prerequisites are (e.g. "virtue" etc.), and how that affects the method?

This question may be or is nearly a duplicate of How do I practice ' see things as they are'?

Andrei posted a really concise summary of "jhana" here (following from this previous definition of anusati and bhavana). That was posted as a comment (or chat) though ... do you have a question about something like that?

Chris, you seem to feel kind of attacked by me saying "New-Age", however it is not always connotated negatively, but certainly most of the time. This said, it isn't the case that the Buddha spoke much about the wore 'vipassana' as most modern gurus nowadays teach. Vipassana is not a technique but a phenomenon that arises once the mind is advanced in the three trainings. While others might not necessarily teach non-sense, they are clearly non-buddhist, because some things were taught by the Buddha some not. If you experienced anatta it is proper to say that believing in self is non-sense.

I don't feel attacked directly, it's that as moderator I ask users to not attack (nor disparage the doctrines of) other users and other schools -- doing that (i.e. criticising other schools) in an answer is something which users should avoid, and which I should prevent (regardless of whether anyone actually feels attacked by it) -- so it's better if a question doesn't invite that sort of reply. I don't know about "most modern gurus", I only hope I don't have to moderate answers which say, "most gurus including yours are wrong and teach non-Dharma, only mine is right", and so on.

1) Yes. When the Buddha spoke about vipassana, he meant it as being the direct insight into reality.
What is being taught as vipassana (depending on how it is taught) is supposed to be the training which will lead us to vipassana.
As far as the Buddha-Dhamma is concerned. Meditation training means: Abandoning, letting go, of craving and clinging. Which will lead us to vipassana "clear seeing".
The whole path of the Buddha-Dhamma can be summarized with this short sentence;
"Nothing whatsoever should be clung to".
Or as Ajahn Buddhadasa would express it: "Nothing whatsoever should be clung to as being I or mine".
The amount of training (sitting meditation) that must be done, will depend on the mental faculties, moral purity, weakening of mental defilements, equanimity, understanding, wisdom etc.
Abandoning or letting go of craving and clinging should be practiced day and night, until complete cessation of craving and clinging.

"... since it is morality that leads to ..."
The goal of Buddhism is cessation of suffering. The nature of suffering is "unsatisfied craving" for the experience to be other than it is now. The nature of cessation of suffering is suchness - when experience is experienced just as it is now, without any craving for it to be otherwise whatsoever. The way this experience-without-suffering is achieved, is through "objective" and "subjective" factors. Objective factors are things that have to do with our natural environment, our health, and our social situation. Subjective factors are things that have to do with our attention, perception, interpretation - and how these shape our experience.
The above is to put this conversation in the right context. Morality is useful only so far as it serves as a factor for eliminating "objective" and "subjective" reasons for our experience to have an element of craving to be other than it is. Like I said, it's not just morality that matters, it's the entire environment we create for ourselves, entire configuration. This includes all sort of latent causes and conditions that shape our personal subjective world.
As for "clear seeing", it refers to clearly seeing these - objective and subjective - factors at play, and clearly seeing how our choices and actions - at both macro and micro timescale - contribute.
There is no magic in Buddhism. Attaining what's called "Nirvana" requires being extremely rational and exceedingly sensitive about the causes and conditions we set in motion every second of every minute of every hour.
1) Are most people both generically and wrongly coining in the term vipassana to point to a "new age" technique that has nothing to do with "clear seeing" according to Buddhism?
Yes, I think a lot of people are confused about this. Well, there is certainly enough practitioners in all traditions, including Theravada, Zen, and Tibetan Buddhism, that actually understand what this is all about and how it actually works. But there is also a lot of people that have a very naive, and I would even say mythological or fictional image of Buddhism in general and Vipashyana in particular.
Vipashyana is not something you can practice without really understanding what you're doing, and then magically get some amazing results. Vipashyana is like being a scientist, you look at your experience in real-time and you try to figure out how it works. Where does discomfort come from, where does inner conflict come from, where do expectations come from, where do interpretations come from, how does perception work with interpretations, how does evaluation and comparison works, where do frames-of-reference come from etc. And then you try to apply what you just learned to minimize and eventually stop suffering. That's Shila, Prajna, Shamatha, Vipashyana, Jhana, Bhavana, Anusati - not seven separate practices but one!
2) In how far needs meditation development? According to AN 10.1 it is moral purity that leads to consummate concentration necessary for seeing the three characteristics.
Buddhist meditation is cultivation of mind without suffering. That's what Buddhist meditation is about. Moral purity is important, it removes a huge source of suffering, but that's not enough. Seeing Three Characteristics at play is important, as it removes wrong expectations that lead to suffering, but that's not enough. Suffering is generated by the mind's interpretation and evaluation mechanisms, therefore a compete mastery of these mechanisms is required to fully eradicate all suffering.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


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

I recommend a few words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


text:
Can you reconcile (professional) ambition with buddhism?
I have been a practicioner of mindfulness and vipassana for a few years. I have felt that buddhism is at odds with striving towards professional success and ambition. Ambition and professional success inherently has elements of attachment and passion, which are at odds with the fundamental virtues of buddhism (such as equanimity). On one hand, I would like to be my best self in professional life and make significant contributions to my field, but when I have this mindset I experience negative emotions like insecurity, impatience.
Do you think that these two things are at odds with each other and if not, why?

There are some other (previous) topics like this one -- some of them are listed here if you want to read the answers to those.

It's not about what you do but how and why you do it. If you bring your practice to your professional work you will have the best of both worlds, albeit some professions would be more suitable than others. I think a butcher or lawyer might struggle to reconcile their practice with their work but it would be a doddle for a musician or doctor. Where your profession causes negative emotions, loss of equanimity and so forth this would usually be thought an excellent situation for improving and testing your practice.

In AN 8.54, the Buddha teaches the four qualities that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in this life: consummate (or accomplished) in initiative, consummate in vigilance, admirable friendship and maintaining livelihood in tune. The four qualities that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in lives to come include consummate in conviction, consummate in virtue, consummate in generosity and consummate in discernment.
Trying to be the best that you can be in your profession is actually being consummate or accomplished in initiative. This is a good thing for lay persons.
The negative emotions like impatience, insecurity, envy etc. can be overcome with the latter four qualities: consummate in conviction, consummate in virtue, consummate in generosity, consummate in discernment. Especially, becoming consummate in virtue and discernment will lead to skillful thinking and skillful living, away from the three poisons of greed, aversion and delusion.
So, trying to be the best that you can be in your profession is a good thing and is not contradictory to Buddhism. However, having negative thoughts like insecurity and impatience is contradictory to Buddhism and the root cause of these needs to be understood and weeded out.
From AN 8.54:

[The Blessed One said:] "There are these four qualities, TigerPaw,
  that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in this life.
  Which four? Being consummate in initiative, being consummate in
  vigilance, admirable friendship, and maintaining one's livelihood in
  tune.
"And what does it mean to be consummate in initiative? There is the
  case where a lay person, by whatever occupation he makes his living —
  whether by farming or trading or cattle tending or archery or as a
  king's man or by any other craft — is clever and untiring at it,
  endowed with discrimination in its techniques, enough to arrange and
  carry it out. This is called being consummate in initiative.
"And what does it mean to be consummate in vigilance? There is the
  case when a lay person has righteous wealth — righteously gained,
  coming from his initiative, his striving, his making an effort,
  gathered by the strength of his arm, earned by his sweat — he manages
  to protect it through vigilance [with the thought], 'How shall neither
  kings nor thieves make off with this property of mine, nor fire burn
  it, nor water sweep it away, nor hateful heirs make off with it?' This
  is called being consummate in vigilance.
"And what is meant by admirable friendship? There is the case where a
  lay person, in whatever town or village he may dwell, spends time with
  householders or householders' sons, young or old, who are advanced in
  virtue. He talks with them, engages them in discussions. He emulates
  consummate conviction in those who are consummate in conviction,
  consummate virtue in those who are consummate in virtue, consummate
  generosity in those who are consummate in generosity, and consummate
  discernment in those who are consummate in discernment. This is called
  admirable friendship.
"And what does it mean to maintain one's livelihood in tune? There is
  the case where a lay person, knowing the income and outflow of his
  wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a
  penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my income exceed my outflow, and
  my outflow will not exceed my income.' Just as when a weigher or his
  apprentice, when holding the scales, knows, 'It has tipped down so
  much or has tipped up so much,' in the same way, the lay person,
  knowing the income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood
  in tune, neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus
  will my income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my
  income.' If a lay person has a small income but maintains a grand
  livelihood, it will be rumored of him, 'This clansman devours his
  wealth like a fruit-tree eater.' If a lay person has a large income
  but maintains a miserable livelihood, it will be rumored of him, 'This
  clansman will die of starvation.' But when a lay person, knowing the
  income and outflow of his wealth, maintains a livelihood in tune,
  neither a spendthrift nor a penny-pincher, [thinking], 'Thus will my
  income exceed my outflow, and my outflow will not exceed my income,'
  this is called maintaining one's livelihood in tune.
"These are the four drains on one's store of wealth: debauchery in
  sex; debauchery in drink; debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship,
  evil companionship, evil camaraderie. Just as if there were a great
  reservoir with four inlets and four drains, and a man were to close
  the inlets and open the drains, and the sky were not to pour down
  proper showers, the depletion of that great reservoir could be
  expected, not its increase. In the same way, these are the four drains
  on one's store of wealth: debauchery in sex; debauchery in drink;
  debauchery in gambling; and evil friendship, evil companionship, evil
  camaraderie.
These are the four inlets to one's store of wealth: no debauchery in
  sex; no debauchery in drink; no debauchery in gambling; and admirable
  friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie. Just as if
  there were a great reservoir with four inlets and four drains, and a
  man were to open the inlets and close the drains, and the sky were to
  pour down proper showers, the increase of that great reservoir could
  be expected, not its depletion. In the same way, these are the four
  inlets to one's store of wealth: no debauchery in sex; no debauchery
  in drink; no debauchery in gambling; and admirable friendship,
  admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie.
"These, TigerPaw, are the four qualities that lead to a lay person's
  happiness and well-being in this life.
"There are these four qualities that lead to a lay person's happiness
  and well-being in lives to come. Which four? Being consummate in
  conviction, being consummate in virtue, being consummate in
  generosity, being consummate in discernment.
"And what does it mean to be consummate in conviction? There is the
  case where a disciple of the noble ones has conviction, is convinced
  of the Tathagata's Awakening: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and
  rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge and conduct, well-gone,
  an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those
  people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine and human beings,
  awakened, blessed.' This is called being consummate in conviction.
"And what does it mean to be consummate in virtue? There is the case
  where a disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking life, abstains
  from stealing, abstains from illicit sexual conduct, abstains from
  lying, abstains from taking intoxicants that cause heedlessness. This
  is called being consummate in virtue.
"And what does it mean to be consummate in generosity? There is the
  case of a disciple of the noble ones, his awareness cleansed of the
  stain of miserliness, living at home, freely generous, openhanded,
  delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in
  the distribution of alms. This is called being consummate in
  generosity.
"And what does it mean to be consummate in discernment? There is the
  case where a disciple of the noble ones is discerning, endowed with
  discernment of arising and passing away — noble, penetrating, leading
  to the right ending of stress. This is called being consummate in
  discernment.
"These, TigerPaw, are the four qualities that lead to a lay person's
  happiness and well-being in lives to come."

On one hand, I would like to be my best self in professional life and make significant contributions to my field, but when I have this mindset I experience negative emotions like insecurity, impatience.
Perhaps that might be "conceit" as explained in this topic -- because it's a form of comparison, "I'm not just good -- I'm better! I'm best! Oh, no -- I'm not so good...", etc.
Whether that's self-view or just conceit, it's kind of fleeting IMO -- hence insecurity (even if it happens it may not last, or not be satisfying), impatience (craving for it to happen again).
I have felt that buddhism is at odds with striving towards professional success and ambition.
DN 31 is famous for its detailed advice for lay-people.
I get the impression, from that, that "success and ambition" are not the goal -- success may be the method, the mechanism, the tool you can use, to benefit yourself and others.
That's not the same as, "I just want to earn a lot of praise and a lot of money, and I don't know and don't care how or why, and I want to be more successful than (or at least as successful as) other people", which is maybe the stereotype of professional success (a.k.a. the "rat race", "consumer society", or however else it may be caricatured).
Ambition and professional success inherently has elements of attachment and passion, which are at odds with the fundamental virtues of buddhism (such as equanimity).
I don't know, it could also have elements of concentration, intentional action ... and kindness when you interact with others, and so on.

Great answer @ChrisW. You make some really nice points. The negative emotions arising from ambition could be from conceit or comparing yourself to others. Also, as you say if viewed rightly ambitions and success as positive elements as well. :)

Buddhism teaches about kamma or "merit". If you have done "merit" in your profession then naturally you will be promoted at work or have the ability & opportunity for other professional advancements because this follows the law of kamma. But if you have not done merit but expect a promotion then this is contrary to the law of kamma. It creates the suffering of "wanting something & not getting it".
When I had a profession, others often expected I get promoted. My managers would encourage me to apply for promotions but I never did (apart from once, earlier on, where I gained a multi-level promotion) because I knew those higher paid jobs would require me to sacrifice my personal ethics.
It was correct I seeked to advance as high as I did because I was the right person for that job. But to advance higher was against the Dhamma.
In summary, Dhamma limits ambition in at least two ways:

You have not made the merit for the ambition; which is self-created.
The ambition falls outside the sphere of ethics; which is externally created.

Further you progress in Buddhist path more it will be difficult to reconcile professional ambition and ambition for worldly success with what you become. Because you will realize more and more that ambition is a form of craving and success is a socially/worldly defined state which will lead to (mostly your) suffering. And you will want less and less of it.
But this is not something to fear. Because at any point on your path you will also be free to choose ambition vs freedom/peace. More fulfilled you are as a result of getting rid of de-fillments, less worldly goals and ambitions you will have. And as a result you will not suffer not having.
Right now you worry about your future state from a point of view of present day you. But if you walk along the path, the you who will let go of those ambitions is not the present/same you that need those to survive. That future you will be happy to see that they are gone.


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

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

I guess this is what you are looking for

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Question

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

Second Question

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

Third Question

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


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

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

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


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

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

Your question seems to fit with AN8.6:

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

The Buddha answers with this:

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

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

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

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

I remember Chinul on this

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

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

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

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


text:
What is SGI? And the Lotus sutra?
How many types of Buddhism are there? Someone told me about SGI, Nam Myo Ho Renge Kyo. How that is derived from the Buddha. but mostly on the lotus sutra.
Can we read the lotus sutra in English online?

The main schools of Buddhism today are Theravada and Mahayana. Vajrayana or Tantric Buddhism is a part of Mahayana.
Theravada Buddhism is mostly practised in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Thailand, but also in other countries.
Mahayana Buddhism today has the main divisions of East Asian Mahayana (including Pureland, Zen etc.) and Vajrayana (including various Tibetan sub-schools).
The article "A Comparative Study of the Schools" and the question "What teachings do all schools of Buddhism share?" can help you with regards to comparison between the schools.
Nichiren Buddhism, which is the type of Buddhism propagated by Sokka Gakkai International (SGI) is considered to be a part of Mahayana Buddhism under the Japanese Buddhism or East Asian Mahayana Buddhism branch. It was founded by Japanese Buddhist priest Nichiren (1222–1282). Details on his life can be found here. His followers believed him to be either a Bodhisattva or Buddha. The chanting of "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" was a unique teaching and practice of this school. A brief description of Nichiren Buddhism can be found here.
These questions may also be helpful:

How is Nichiren Buddhism different from other branches of Buddhism?
What “technically” happens when we chant Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?
How to chant the mantra Nam Myoho Renge Kyo?

You can find the online English translation of the Lotus Sutra according to SGI here. Another online English translation can be found here.
The relationship between the Lotus Sutra and the Buddha's original teachings is discussed in the question "What is the basis of Lotus Sutta with respect to original Tipitaka?"

-1 I know Tibetans use various Mahayana sutras, but I don't think it's correct to describe the Vajrayana as part of the Mahayana. The term itself indicates that it's a distinct vehicle and Tibetan practice has a lot of elements not found in Mahayana schools. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayana


text:
Did the Buddha believe in the existence of soul?
Did Gautama Buddha believe in the existence of soul in human body? If not, why?

no one will know the answer. but there is no soul in human body.

The answer is a simple no.

As has been said, the answer is a simple no.

What is a "soul"?
In the Christian New Testament, the "soul" is most often described as the human conscience that becomes defiled or purified, similar to the mind-heart ("citta") taught by the Lord Buddha.
In later-day-Buddhism, the idea of "relinking consciousness" was manufactured; which is similar to the meta-physical idea of the Hindu soul that leaves one physical body at the end of life and enters into a new physical body. This idea is alien to the Lord Buddha.
The Lord Buddha himself was not concerned with meta-physics but with ending suffering. Therefore, the Lord Buddha was not concerned with a meta-physical soul but with the egoistic covetousness & possessiveness that creates suffering.
While the Buddha's teaching of not-self (anatta) is a natural reality; the important reason it was taught is it ends suffering. If anatta did not end suffering, the Buddha would not have taught it.


text:
What to do if parents not agree on my willing of becoming a monk?
I am a 24 year old male and i am very interested in joining a Buddhist monastery and becoming a monk so that i can give my life a right and peaceful purpose.
But my parents follow Hinduism and think that this religion is superior of all so they don't want me to become a Buddhist and also becoming a Buddhist monk.
So i don't have their permission to join a Buddhist monastery. They are self dependent and don't need any help from me.
So how can i become a monk?

The duplicate or previous question do not have a proper answer. I already read that but didn't find the answer.

According to ruben202's answer, you do need your parent's permission -- that's not the answer you want, but maybe an answer nevertheless. Have you tried asking this question at a monastery?

See also Do you need both parents permission to become ordained?

It seems a bit odd. I would have thought your parents would be overjoyed and impressed by your dedication and goals. It's a shame they don't like your plan but you're an adult with your own life to lead. Perhaps you could convince them that Buddhism and Hinduism amount to the same thing but it sounds like they wouldn't have much sympathy for this common view.


text:
Sensual Pleasures and their removal (MN 19 & MN 75)
According to these suttas, is itsomewhat possible through seeing the inherent harm in sensual pleasures, to shy away from them? I remember that it by first experiencing piti during meditation that one slowly but surely starts to abandon sensual pleasures.

There is a sutta where the Buddha says that until he experienced piti during meditation; his mind was still capable of returning to thoughts of sensual pleasure.
This said, starting the path requires abandoning sensual pleasures before experiencing piti. The Buddha abandoned sensual pleasures well before his development of the 1st jhana.
The mind that never thinks of sensual pleasures is a non-returner yet the eightfold path for mere stream-enterers has the abandoning of sensual pleasures as its 2nd and 6th factor.
Believing the 1st jhana must be attained before abandoning sensual pleasures is wrong view.

How do you go about abstaining from sensual pleasures? The thing is, merely knowing the harms is not enough, since pleasures are emotional and it easily over-writes reason. This is why I believed that piti is then the "so to speak" new drug for feeling pleasure.

The harm is enough. If you knew a person had AIDS, for example, would you have desire for them? That said, seeing "harm" can be difficult in ordinary circumstances. Regards

Can you give a reference for the "2nd and 6th factor", please? I didn't understand that.

The 1st sermon (SN 56.11) says the noble eighfold path is not for househoulders that still engage in lustful fornication &  copulation. And what is right resolve? Being resolved on renunciation.. And what, monks, is right effort? (i) There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. (ii) He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.

Thank you I'd misread the answer, and didn't know you were referring to the factors of the noble eightfold path.

DD, since you mentioned "lustful fornication & copulation" I'd like to know how you or advanced practitioners view and handle sex and sexual urges? As I am aware, Dukkha encompasses all kinds of mental pains, but why is sexual lust dukkha? It seems to be a silly question but I cannot get it. Clearly, the majority of people seem not to view it as suffering, else they wouldn't enjoy it. Don't come up with a drinking example, because Sex and drinking are a bit different. The harms in drinking are much stronger. If one has protected and consenting sex, I see no harm there? Enlighten me. Regards

You gave the argument if a person had AIDS, but that is usually not the case and I'd kid myself to believe that every women I encouter had AIDS. The Buddha actually took strong measurements to keep monks from females. So it's probably not practical as a lay-buddhist since the environment is not optimal for celibacy, is it?

Sure. As I said, seeing the harm is difficult because women are are lusty and seeking sex. But underneath, each time they fail to secure a partner, they become weaker and more lonely. Eventually they end up as one of 25% of Western women today over 40 years who are on anti-depressants. The very fact that most women want a lasting relationship but cannot achieve it shows how they have been harmed. The fact there are countless dating & relationship websites shows how all of these people have been harmed. They simply don't know how to maintain a relationship. They are too confused & damaged.

Seeing the danger of sensual pleasure is actually one of the five strategies in the next sutta - MN 20. Obviously sensual pleasure is very difficult to abandon and one'd need to take a comprehensive approach that involves all 3 gateways of Sila, Samadhi, and Panna to have a chance of success.

MN8 Self-Effacement actually discourages focusing on Pīti and warns that it is not an objective in itself. Instead, the training and the path require a broader consideration.

It’s possible that a certain mendicant, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, might enter and remain in the first absorption, which has the rapture and bliss born of seclusion, while placing the mind and keeping it connected. (...vivekajaṃ pītisukhaṃ...)
  ...
  But in the training of the noble one these are not called ‘self-effacement’

With delight being the root of suffering, sensual pleasures are bound up with identity and craving. Attenuation of sensual pleasure (i.e., "This is not mine, etc.")  is accomplished by long, steady effort of mindfulness, the relinquishing of the fetters, the Noble Eight-Fold Path. Experiencing piti during meditation helps establish mindfulness during meditation. However, that meditation mindfulness must be maintained and developed in all aspects of life. Applying that mindfulness every moment is what attenuates sensual pleasure.
For a discussion on the definition of mindfulness, MN10 Mindfulness Meditation is an excellent source

What do you mean by mindfulness? Mindfulness in Buddhist terminology means to recollect the Dhamma in a way that helps that moment (or to cultivate perceptions)

Good point. Added sutta reference for mindfulness.

According to these suttas, is it somewhat possible through seeing the inherent harm in sensual pleasures, to shy away from them?
These suttas seem to me to imply that sensual pleasures are impermanent and dissatisfactory, rather than directly harmful (though presumably addictions and so on can be harmful too).
These suttas are addressed to monks (MN 19) and a wanderer (MN 75), so I suppose that their ethics were already in place, that the audience had already self-selected life as a recluse, and so with them it wasn't a matter of actual outright harm.
This is why I believed that piti is then the "so to speak" new drug for feeling pleasure
I think that MN 19 and MN 75 both describe the same sequence, i.e.:

Stop chasing sensual pleasure
Find immersion
Find joy or bliss

So if you're hoping for piti to replace sensual pleasure, it may not work like that -- perhaps, on the contrary, bliss is the non-chasing.
I was reading DN 16 again recently:

Oh! Conditions are impermanent,
  “Aniccā vata saṅkhārā,
their nature is to rise and fall;
  uppādavayadhammino;
having arisen, they cease;
  Uppajjitvā nirujjhanti,
their stilling is true bliss.”
  tesaṃ vūpasamo sukho”ti.

MN 75 says,

Take someone who used to amuse themselves with sights known by the eye that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing. some time later—having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape of sights, and having given up craving and dispelling passion for sights—they would live rid of thirst, their mind peaceful inside.

I remember that it by first experiencing piti during meditation that one slowly but surely starts to abandon sensual pleasures
Instead, abandoning sensual pleasures is a prerequisite to meditation, and piti is  a result (and so, not something you can count on or wait for as a cause).
This essay seems to agree with you somewhat (about replacing one thing with another):

For example, if you're addicted to alcohol, it's not because you feel that the alcohol has any inherent existence. It's because, in your calculation, the immediate pleasure derived from the alcohol outweighs the long-term damage it's doing to your life. This is a general principle: attachment and addiction are not metaphysical problems. They're tactical ones. We're attached to things and actions, not because of what we think they are, but because of what we think they can do for our happiness. If we keep overestimating the pleasure and underestimating the pain they bring, we stay attached to them regardless of what, in an ultimate sense, we understand them to be.
Because the problem is tactical, the solution has to be tactical as well. The cure for addiction and attachment lies in retraining your imagination and your intentions through expanding your sense of the power of your actions and the possible happiness you can achieve. This means learning to become more honest and sensitive to your actions and their consequences, at the same time allowing yourself to imagine and master alternative routes to greater happiness with fewer drawbacks. Metaphysical views may sometimes enter into the equation, but at most they're only secondary. Many times they're irrelevant. Even if you were to see the alcohol and its pleasure as lacking inherent existence, you'd still go for the pleasure as long as you saw it as outweighing the damage.

I get the impression though that the suttas aren't saying, "try seclusion instead of sensuality, motivated by piti!" -- instead I think they talk about e.g. nibidda as the motive.
Still, it says "alternative routes to greater happiness with fewer drawbacks" -- maybe you're emphasising "greater happiness", and me, "fewer drawbacks".
I guess a problem is that chasing greater happiness might be another symptom of the same root[s].

So what is your recommendation in how to deal with sense pleasures? Of course your answer should include sutta reference, but you should also speak from your experience how got away from sensuality.

This was a previous answer, and this one.before that one. Also any sense pleasure ends of its own accord, whether or not you remained attached to them (e.g. the AIDS victim per Dhammadhatu's example), afterwards you may decide to seek, but alternatively you may decide that you don't want to seek, that same experience again -- so it's not only a matter of "getting away from" sensuality, it's a question of whether (given it's inherently impermanent) you choose to actively pursue it.

Suppose a person pursues desirable impermanent things. Everything besides Nibbana is conditioned. Even the Jhanas. And they require a lot of letting go and cultivation, don't they? Even if sensuality is imermanent, isn't it better to have the experience than to not have it all? I see little benefit in abstaining from pleasureable feelings, even if they are temporary.

I often hear the argument that sensual pleasures are dependent, and I agree. If we take chocolate for example. If I desire chocolate the good feeling resulting from it are dependent on the chocolate. But worldy pleasures are usually easily obtainable! They are temporary but they still feel good and if done in moderation, why not? If I lose the desired object of course I can become frustrated or sad, but a) although uncomfortable, I can stand deprivation, b) I can seek alternative pleasures, and c) isn't this just life? Isn't sadness, loss of objects and death part of the equation? It's nature.

Even if sensuality is impermanent, isn't it better to have the experience than to not have it all? Perhaps you're saying, "it's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all"; but perhaps it's better to have loved well, and chasing sensuality is antithetical to better kinds of love (and goodness, virtue). Maybe you're right, about replacing sensuality with something else (e.g. piti) -- i.e. the second half of MN 75 does seem to refer to something preferable to sensuality -- but that something appears to be "peace of mind" or "their minds peaceful inside" (vūpasantacitta).


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Yes, that's it.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is nothing unhealthy about annihilating unwholesome emotions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

be patient and practice meditation whenever you can

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its not arupa jhana.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

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

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

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

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

DN15

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

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


text:
What are The Buddha's most compassionate acts?
Source could be from sutras or anything else. Thank you.

Probably the decision to become a samma sambuddha for the benifit of others. Becoming an arahath and ending your own suffering is lot more easier and take lot less time.

“Then I listened to the Brahmā’s pleading, and out of compassion for beings I surveyed the world with the eye of a Buddha. Surveying the world with the eye of a Buddha, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and with much dust in their eyes, with keen faculties and with dull faculties, with good qualities and with bad qualities, easy to teach and hard to teach, and some who dwelt seeing fear and blame in the other world. Just as in a pond of blue or red or white lotuses, some lotuses that are born and grow in the water thrive immersed in the water without rising out of it, and some other lotuses that are born and grow in the water rest on the water’s surface, and some other lotuses that are born and grow in the water rise out of the water and stand clear, unwetted by it; so too, surveying the world with the eye of a Buddha, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and with much dust in their eyes, with keen faculties and with dull faculties, with good qualities and with bad qualities, easy to teach and hard to teach, and some who dwelt seeing fear and blame in the other world. Then I replied to the Brahmā Sahampati in stanzas:
‘Open for them are the doors to the Deathless, Let those with ears now show their faith. Thinking it would be troublesome, O Brahmā, I did not speak the Dhamma subtle and sublime.’
MN26

I particularly enjoy his compassionate ability to encourage people to experience their own learning of dharma.
There is a lovely example here of his compassion in the story of the mustard seed and the death of a woman's baby.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/noncanon/comy/thiga-10-01-ao0.html
In the Shurangama sutta also, the Buddha skillfully guides Ananda into searching for the six senses.
Excerpt from the Shurangama sutta:

"Ánanda, all phenomena, near and far, have their own nature.  Although each is distinctly different, they are seen with the same pure essence of seeing.  Thus all the categories of phenomena have their individual distinctions, but the seeing-nature has no differences.  That essential wonderful brightness is most certainly your seeing-nature.
  "If seeing were a phenomenon, then you should also be able to see my seeing.
  "If we both looked at the same phenomenon, you would also be seeing my seeing. Then, when I’m not seeing, why can’t you see my not seeing?
  "If you could see my not-seeing, it clearly would not be the phenomenon that I am not seeing.  If you cannot not see my ‘not seeing’, then it is clearly not a phenomenon. How could it not be you?
  Besides that, if you’re seeing of phenomena was like that then when you saw things, things should also see you.  With substance and nature mixed together, you, I, and everyone in the world would no longer be distinguishable from each other.
  "Ánanda, when you see, it is you who sees, not me.  The seeing-nature pervades everywhere; whose is it if it is not yours?
  "Why do you have doubts about your own true-nature and come to me seeking verification, thinking your nature is not true?"

Source: http://buddhasutra.com/files/shurangama_sutra.htm

Almost each and every single act's of The Buddha is compassionate act's.

Philosophic and logical answer since we can not measure feelings as if feelings are abstract. So there's no more or less "Compassionate" act.

To accept the request to teach the Dhamma althought he neither had any duty to do so nor could see many who would accept his gift and take it to heart, put it into practice and to return so many, many times approaching his "worthless" disciples again and again.
Actually it's a question which needs requires to understand, that there is no action of a Buddha/Arahat, which is not perfect in compassion/wisdom and judgement of which in particular, would be leaded for the most by personal preoccupations and benefits for worldly desires and attachments.
Again, as possible known, the gift of Dhamma (showing the path to the deathless), excel all other gifts.
Of what counts as compassion/wisdom as foundation for actions is mentioned and declared as right resolve and only then without stains, if based on right view.
A person not having reached the path, a worldling, is not capable to see and understand real compassion, would always praise Maras actions as most compassionate. Only for one having accessed the Noble Domain, right resolve and compassionate actions (virtue section), is penetrated and understood. Only if actions are harmless for one self and all others is it right to speak about compassion and not just another act based on personal preference.

It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. ...admirable beings

One story has the Buddha in a previous life crossing a river on a ferry. The passengers are attacked by a murderous thief and the Buddha kills him, accepting the karmic consequences. It may be a teaching story rather than an historical account but it would be an example of a compassionate act.

Good that it has neither be done by the Bodhisatta nor assumed as compassion. So it would be good for one totally misleaded to try to do not forward such harmful nonsens, otherwise PeterJ would not only nurishing crazy people acting crazy but also approve all kind of killing others, past, current and future... he, that Peter, wouldn't be happy if someone kills him, to safe others from following,, would he?

That's one of the Jataka tales. The theory (in the story) is that he did it to prevent the pirate's killing, and so, to save the pirate from going to hell. It's famous, perhaps because it's about the only instance in the canon where the Buddha seems to to approve of killing. But see also Getting the message --, "When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When [etc.]"

@SamanaJohann - I feel you have rather missed the point. As Chris indicates it shows how much more sophisticated is an approach grounded in compassion and knowledge than on a set of written rules that do not take account of circumstances and motives.

It's not from the Canon, @ChrisW , it's a clear fake story placed by fools. With such idiotic ideas one can justify all and call even acting like Hitler the act of a most compassionate Bodhisattva. Not knowing does not prevent from effects, Peter, so don't spread harmful things or forward slandering of tge Bodhisatta.

The compassion within certain harsh seeming actions stops at verbal actions (like here and now). It a fool can not be redirected in coming to mind, let him walk where he desires to go by his actions... in regard of this fake story, some accounts here, Violence and killing in Jātaka tales.

Yes perhaps you're right about it's not being one the Theravada Jataka tales (and so I was mistaken); it's Mahayana (and Tibetan) e.g. attributed to a sutra on the topic of skilful means.

My person does not care about what any "national social" group makes with the lable good. Again, not knowing, approve based on such, leads to hell and acting on compromise is weakness of the attached, defiled (foolish compassion) @ChrisW -> simply tanha. Defending foolishness is either benefical for the actor nor for others, not to speak about oneself.

@Samana - I feel you would do better to try an understand the story and why it is preserved rather than assume your low view of it is the correct interpretation. It is really just a version of the 'Trolley Problem'. It makes clear that Buddhist ethics is not about following a rule book but about responding to situations with selflessness and compassion according to circumstances. I'm not able to guess why you're so upset by the story but must assume you don't grok why it is told or the lesson it conveys.    .

I'd guess it's because killing people is, more-or-less unequivocally, wrong. See e.g. here (also here), Theravada and Mahayana may seem to disagree sometimes about the expect moral behaviour of of enlightened beings,

@ChrisW - You use the qualifier 'more or less' and to me this indicates that we do not disagree about this. There will be some circumstances under which killing is right action. An ethical scheme that lays down hard-and-fast rules for actions will run into trouble in its application while a scheme that depends on the motives of the actor with no fixed rules for actions is fit for any situation that might arise. This would be why I called the latter more sophisticated. The former is clumsy since a set of rules for actions will not apply in all situations. I'm hoping we agree on this.


text:
What are the "seven stations of consciousness" supposed to mean?
DN 15 & also AN 7.44 exclusively include the utterance of the "seven stations of consciousness", where the later six equate with the six of the eight jhanas, namely:

1. There are sentient beings that are diverse in body (kāyā) and diverse in perception (saññino), such as human beings, some gods (devā) and
some beings in the underworld.
2. There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn (ābhinibbattā) in Brahmā’s Group (brahmakāyikā)
through the first absorption
3. There are sentient beings that are unified in body and diverse in perception, such as the gods of streaming radiance (ābhassarā).
4. There are sentient beings that are unified in body and unified in perception, such as the gods replete with glory (subhakiṇhā).
5. There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond perceptions of form (rūpa). With the ending of perceptions of impingement, not
focusing on perceptions of diversity, aware that ‘space is infinite’,
they have been reborn (upagā) in the dimension of infinite space.
6. There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite space. Aware that ‘consciousness is infinite’, they have
been reborn (upagā) in the dimension of infinite consciousness.
7. There are sentient beings that have gone totally beyond the dimension of infinite consciousness. Aware that ‘there is nothing at all’, they
have been reborn (upagā) in the dimension of nothingness.

The deva (godly) abodes attained with each rupa jhana are listed in AN 4.123, namely, brahmakāyikā, ābhassarā, subhakiṇhā & vehapphalānaṃ.
Now, the above utterance in DN 15 & AN 7.44 omit the 4th jhana or gods of abundant fruit (vehapphalānaṃ) found in AN 4.123. Related to this is AN 9.24, which refers to the 4th jhana as 'non-percipient' (asaññino).
My question is what are the "seven stations of consciousness" supposed to mean (for example, why do the permutations of 'diversity' and 'unity' exist in the various jhana & states of being) and why, in particular, does this utterance omit the 4th jhana?

"...what does it mean to be unified in perception?"
It is important to understand the stations of consciousness in order to understand those places where consciousness should be let go.
In this case it is important to think of consciousness as 'identified-with consciousness' or consciousness of named forms or the consciousness of an existing being, understanding the meaning of 'existing being' in accordance with the way it is described in DN 15.
Understanding that consciousness is empty in and of itself and needs an object in order to be consciousness of an existing thing or state, those existing things or states need to be recognized in one's progress towards freedom of consciousness: consciousness of freedom from the consciousness of named forms (or identified-with consciousness) that is downbound to the world.
"When that consciousness is unestablished, not coming to growth, non-generative, it is liberated."
That is from the SN 22.54 Bija Sutta, a sutta which very clearly explains this dependent relationship of consciousness with its object:
http://buddhadust.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sn/03_kv/idx_22_khandhasamyutta.htm#p54
Why then 'saññā'? (Note in the Bija Sutta the stand for consciousness is not restricted to perception. But 'perception' is a good all-encompassing way to describe any sort of platform for consciousness as the inseparability of the relationship between perception, sensation and consciousness is frequently described in the suttas.) Because consciousness in and of itself is uniform and empty-of-content characteristic, it becomes known in diverse ways only because of its diverse objects, that is, what is being perceived in various states.
As a matter of practical application this just means 'consciousness'.
"There are beings whose consciousness is diverse and whose bodies are diverse, such as human beings." We can see that. The beings here appear different from one another and hold different views of the world (see the same things in differing ways). I know, recognizing this stand for consciousness, that this is a realm or state which has not yet achieved freedom of consciousness. So I will move on.
Those who have the same perception of their world and appear the same (such as the Subhakinna devas, have as you suggest identically shaped bodies and they all perceive (and are nourished by) the same joy. Visiting that realm also one is able to see that consciousness has not yet shaken off its attachment to an object.
'Ekatta' here should be understood as 'uniformity' per the Mula-pariyaya Sutta. They are uniform in appearance, not that they have a single body though there are cases we know of where multiple minds occupy a single body (such as in the case of schizophrenics.)
So a break-down of those major places and means for identified-with consciousness to establish itself is very useful relative to the attempt to free consciousness from every object it may come across.
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/07_sevens/an07.041.olds.bd.htm
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/dn/dn.34.rhyt.pts.htm#p8

This is a great & probably correct answer, particularly highlighting SN 22.54 the Biju Sutta, which explains the meaning of the Pali viññāṇaṭṭhiti, which means as you said, namely, states of consciousness that become "grounded" or "established" and must be let go of.

Piya Tan's analysis of DN 15 (on pages 160 through 163, i.e. page 16 through 19 of the PDF) explains that,

According to Brahma,jāla S (D 1) and Pāṭika S (D 24), this is not a “station for consciousness” because no
  consciousness is found in the beings there. All cognitive activities are suspended here. As soon consciousness arises
  in a being there, he vanishes from that world

It cites many references including e.g. DN 1 to begin with ...

There are gods named ‘non-percipient beings’.
  Santi, bhikkhave, asaññasattā nāma devā.
When perception arises they pass away from that group of gods.
  Saññuppādā ca pana te devā tamhā kāyā cavanti.

A STUDY OF VIÑÑĀṆA IN ABHIDHAMMA (by Ho Thi Lien) includes a description of what is meant by "unified in body" etc. (see pages 30 through 32 i.e. pages 42 through 44 of the PDF). It appears to be paraphrasing the DN commentary, for example:

‘Viññāṇaṭṭhiti’ means ‘abodes or supports of consciousness’, ‘the stages
  of sentient beings’. In the Dīghanikāya and its commentaries,86 the stations of
  consciousness are classified into seven kinds as follows:
2) Nānattakāya-ekattasaññī = Beings who have different bodies but the
  same perception are Brahmās of the first jhāna plane who are born first in the
  Brahmā abode. Although their bodies and life spans are different, they have the
  same rebirth linking consciousness, which is the first jhāna. According to the
  Dīghanikāya Mahāvagga commentary, beings in the four apāyas are also
  included in this category because they possess different bodies but the same
  type of rebirth-linking consciousness, which is ahetuka akusalavipāka
  santīraṇa.
3) Ekattakāya-nānattasaññī = Beings who have similar bodies but
  different perceptions are those living in the second Brahmā abode. They have
  similar bodies but different perceptions. While in the first jhāna their minds are
  associated with both vitakka and vicāra, in the second jhāna, the minds are
  associated with vicāraonly but not vitakka; and in the third jhāna, both vitakka
  and vicāraare forsaken (according to the pañcaka method).

The footnote says,

86 D. II, 58, DA. II, 99 -102, DṬī, 114 -116 (CSCD).

I presume the "eight liberations", which immediately follow in DN 15, also refer to these stages.
Piya Tan's analysis quotes the Paṭisambhidāmagga to say that the first few liberations are associated with meditations using internal and external kasinas (perhaps you'll disagree with that -- so far as I remember, perhaps I'm misquoting you however, you associate the jhanas with making "letting go" as the "object").

Thanks for your effort Chris. I scored to answer up. But the answer provides no insight.. Particularly, the 4th jhana is not non-percipient . The Buddha taught to practise yoniso manasikara when hearing the teachings rather than rote learning, copy & paste and blind faith. Personally, I will think about my question when i have time, later today.

After considering the pertinent answer of Mike Olds, I will provide a personal interpretation.
The Pali translated as "stations of consciousness" is "viññāṇaṭṭhiti", which is similar to the terms "viññāṇaṁ tiṭṭhamānaṁ" & "patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa" found in SN 22.53.
"Viññāṇaṭṭhiti" is explicitly described in SN 22.54 Bīja Sutta as follows:

Suppose these five kinds of plants propagated from seeds were intact,
unspoiled, not weather-damaged, fertile, and well-kept. And there is
soil and water. Then would these five kinds of plants propagated from
seeds reach growth, increase, and maturity? Yes, sir.
The four grounds of consciousness (viññāṇaṭṭhiti) should be seen as like the earth element. Relishing and greed should be seen as like the water element. Consciousness with its fuel [nutriment] should be seen as like the five kinds of plants propagated from seeds. As long as consciousness remains (tiṭṭhamānaṁ), it would remain involved with form, supported by form, grounded on form (rūpappatiṭṭhaṁ). And with a sprinkle of relishing, it would grow, increase and mature.
If a mendicant has given up greed for the form element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation (patiṭṭhā) for consciousness. If a mendicant has given up greed for the feeling element … perception element … choices element … consciousness element, the support is cut off, and there is no foundation (patiṭṭhā) for consciousness. Since that consciousness does not become established (appatiṭṭhitaṁ viññāṇaṁ) and does not grow, with no power to regenerate, it is freed.

Therefore, the seven grounds (ṭhiti) or establishments (patiṭṭhita) of consciousness (per SN 22.53, per SN 22.54 & per the post of Mike Olds) refer to the establishments/fixations of consciousness that are to be abandoned.
To the contrary, the 4th jhana is something not to be abandoned because, per the many suttas, the equanimity of the 4th jhana is directed towards the realisation of the Three Knowledges (of past abodes, the kamma of beings & the ending of the defilements); as also stated in MN 140, for example, where the equanimity of the 4th jhana was directed at liberation; or even in DN 16, when the 4th jhana was the last jhana entered before the Buddha emerged & passed away.
That is the end of my answer. The 4th jhana is not something to be explicitly given up because it represents the completion of the Noble Eigthfold Path that is to be directed towards Right Knowledge & Right Liberation.

As for the descriptions in the OP, I will retain the content of my previous answer to the question:

The word 'kaya' does not mean 'physical body' ('rupa'). The word 'kaya' means 'collection' or 'group' of aggregates (as I have posted many times before. For example, when suttas use the phrase "at the ending of the body", this means the ending of a certain collection of aggregates rather than the ending of life).

1st jhana is more refined than the previous state of being. It is diverse in its collection (kaya) because it includes sankhara aggregate (vitakka & vicara) and feelings (vedana aggregate) as the settling place of consciousness.  It is unified in perception only in comparison to the previous state of being (human, etc) because it has one-pointedness (ekkagattacitta). However, this unity is only illusory, i.e., only due to its comparison with the previous diverse state of being.

2nd jhana is unified in kaya because consciousness settles on only one aggregate, namely, feeling aggregate. However, it is diverse in perception because it knows two feelings, namely, piti (rapture) and sukha (happiness).

3rd jhana is unified in both kaya and perception because there is only one feeling as the settling place of consciousness, namely, sukha (happiness).

DN 15: 7 planes of existence, what does it mean to have unified body and unified perception?
pali+english excerpt here:
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2020/02/dn-15-7-planes-of-existence-what-does.html
I had a similar question to OP, so I ask in here instead of starting a new thread.
I'm also curious as to how it corresponds to 4 jhanas and their rebirth in brahma kayika realm on up.
It seems like being "unified in body" would probably mean they all look like clones of each other? From some other source, perhaps commentary, they say in brahma realm there's no gender, and no breathing (as humans, animals, devas have).
But what does it mean to be unified in perception? For brahma kayika, it could mean they're only interested in 4 jhanas and 4 brahmaiharas (rather than the diversity in deva realms where they could have differences in liking various divine pleasures of music, sex, food, etc). But then why is the next realm above Brahma kayika have diversity of perception?
Also Brahma kayika beings, some could be Buddhists, some Hindu, etc, so that seems like quite a diversity of perception right there.