text:
All things exists in the past present and future , Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha?
I am interested to have correct view according to the original teachings of the Buddha. I asked myself is this according to the teachings of the Buddha and as I am a beginner I really don't know, so hopefully someone can answer my question.
So my question is the Sarvastivada says that dhammas exists in the past, present and future. Then they try to logically defend this position with their analysis.
It says, the name Sarvāstivāda literally means "all exists" (sarvām asti), referring to their doctrine that all dharmas, past, present and future, all exist. "If there were no past and future, then there would be no present period of time; if there were no present period of time, there would also be no conditioned factors (samskrta dharma). That is why there are the three periods of time (trikala)."
Is this according to the original teachings of the Buddha? They seem to give things their own enduring existence thereby seeming to say that impermanence is not true. Did the Buddha say that all things exists in the past, present and future the way the Sarvaistavada do? If not what did the Buddha say about it?
Take for instance my chair, now the time is 00:53, my chair was present here 00:51 in the past as well and will be here at 00:58 does this mean what they are saying is true it seems to be like that but I am confused and I would love to read your answers.
Thank you

As I understand, Sarvastivada explains that all things exist in continuity. Nothing comes from nowhere and disappears into nothing, but everything transforms. Therefore the past contains seeds or elements that become things found in the future. In this sense, everything exists at all times, just not in the same form. None of the forms are permanent, but everything that existed in the past, exists in the future, just not in the same way.
The original teaching of the Buddha said that the notions of existence and nonexistence are two extreme simplifications, and that the truth is in the middle. Things develop into other things, come together, and fall apart.

This question is essentially:
"How is it, does the world exist? Did the world exist in the past? Will the world exist in the future?"
to which the Buddha consistently answers:
"This is not the case here."
When asked what the case was, he answers with one form or another of the Paticca Samuppada (Rebounding Self-generation), one of the shortest versions of which is:
"This being that becomes
From the ending of this, the ending of that."
The Buddhist position is to put aside all opinions concerning the existence or non-existence of things, and to operate in stead from a position which takes no sides. That is the position that results from following the Magga.
The first step of the Magga, for example, is Samma Ditthi: or 'Consummate View'. This is a way to operate in the world without opinions concerning existence; in stead of basing one's behavior on the idea that the soul or self exists (resulting in the extreme case in self-torture) or does not exist (resulting in self-indulgence) the position is taken that 'this' (whatever, but essentially everything conceivable) is ultimately painful and should be let go with the result in freedom from pain.

Mahavihara Theravada: every reality is real every time if it still has its own factors, but it is exit, arising, only when the factors are plenary enough in some period of time then it must vanish when its factors vanish.
So, the past and future are real but not existing, but the present is real and existing.

Using the word existence is not a good idea, especially with all the philosophers who misuse it.
The buddha says that puthujjanas take some of the conditioned things as the self, as not conditionned, as not empty, whereas the proper view to have about the conditioned things is that the conditioned things are just conditioned and nothing more.
The whole point of a conditioned things is that it is born when the condition for its birth is met, and it dies when the condition for its death is met.
The buddha says that there are ''acquisitions'', so it is perfectly fine to say ''acquisitions exist'', especially for puthujjanas. The buddha never said that conditioned things do not exist for a puthujjana, nor that acquisitions do not exist for a puthujjana. The big mistake that puthujjanas do is that they view those acquisitions as self.
The the buddha claims that it is bad that conditioned things are born, so it is bad that they exist, and it is good that conditioned things die. and to get the death of conditioned things, you have to trigger the condition for their death. When all those stuff die, there is no acquisition and he calls that the perfect enlightenment and there is nothings else to do about those acquisitions (because they are all dead).

Birth & death are not synonymous with arising & ceasing. Only puthujjana believe in birth & death.


text:
Do Arahants experience non-neutral mental vedana?
In terms of the effects of the attainment of arahantship over the arising of feelings (vedana):
Do Arahants experience the arising of non-neutral (pleasure or displeasure) mental feelings?
According to Sallatha Sutta, an Arahant will still experience physical feelings of pleasure and pain, but he will just see those feelings as feelings.
What does this mean?
If physical pleasure/pain arises, he will not experience a mental pleasure/pain? Or he just feel it without the arising of aversion, craving and ignorance?
What happens in the case of the practice of Jhana? Doesn't that count as mental pleasure?
If mental pleasure and pain are eradicate, does this mean that every mental phenomena will be felt as a neutral phenomena?
For example:
If a non-arahant person feels an unpleasent feeling when seeing a corpse or when thinking about a corpse, will the presence of such phenomenon (the corpse, or the idea of a corpse) will still give rise to an unpleaseant feeling after attaining arahantship?
If the training under the Noble Eightfold Path helps to change the way the noble one feels the world, does this mean that everything feels neutrally after attaining Nibbana?
EDIT: to make this clearer, I'll be more specific.
I'm trying to fit what has been said above with what I read and interpret from Sallatha Sutta.
On one side, I see that physical painful stimuli does not give rise to mental feeling.
On the other hand, in MN 152, we see that a noble one seem to have some tendencies and inclinations toward some preferences over others, but he reacts with equanimity to the arising of liking and disliking.
So, does the training changes all non-neutral feeling to neutral feelings, or changes the way the noble one responds to non-neutral feelings?
If an arahant-to-be had a preference for pizza over tacos, will that remain the same after Nibbāna?
What do the suttas tell us about this or your experience tell us about this?
Thanks in advance for your time!
Kind regards!

Just in case, here's the same question, asked in D&D - SuttaCentral

From MN121, where the Buddha discusses his current practice with Ananda, we have:

They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance.
There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’

In other words, the Buddha was fully aware of his present circumstances yet not burdened by craving, aversion or delusion. A meal would be a meal. A mosquito bite would be a mosquito bite. There would be no delusions that wanting more or wanting less would be of any value.
Note that "conditioned by life" does allow for things like avoiding peanuts if one is allergic or taking medicines such as insulin as needed. It also allows for cultural food preferences, since those are often tied to genetics. For example, some cultures tend towards lactose intolerance while others rely on dairy products and that "preference" is largely dictated by genetics. However, I find it really difficult to imagine any arahant expressing a preference for a frappuccino over a latte.

Thanks, OyaMist! In your opinion, if an arahant-to-be had a preference for such and such meals, will tha preference still be there after attaining Nibbana? Kind regards!

Brian, thanks for your comment. I've added another paragraph to explore this gray area. Hopefully that may help.

In the sutta, the Buddha stated that when encountering a painful physical feeling, due to aversion, an uninstructed worldling will generate a painful mental feeling. Now he has two painful feelings, instead of one.
On the other hand, the Arahant, when he feels painful or pleasant physical feelings, he doesn't have aversion or lust/greed, so he doesn't generate any painful or pleasant mental feelings. Also, he would not try to seek pleasure to distract himself from pain.
However, it does not say that the Arahant cannot generate pleasant mental feelings due to jhana. It is clear that the Arahant will not generate painful mental feelings because he is free from greed/lust, aversion and delusion. However, he can still generate pleasant mental feelings due to jhana and possibly also due to other non-greed/lust causes (e.g. metta).
In other words, the sutta only says that the Arahant does not generate painful or pleasant mental feelings out of painful or pleasant physical feelings. However, it does not imply that the Arahant will never generate pleasant mental feelings.
From SN 36.6:

“Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a
  painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not
  weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling—a
  bodily one, not a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a
  dart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with a
  second dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dart
  only. So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a
  painful feeling … he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one.
“Being contacted by that same painful feeling, he harbours no aversion
  towards it. Since he harbours no aversion towards painful feeling, the
  underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling does not lie
  behind this. Being contacted by painful feeling, he does not seek
  delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the instructed
  noble disciple knows of an escape from painful feeling other than
  sensual pleasure. Since he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure,
  the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling does not lie
  behind this. He understands as it really is the origin and the passing
  away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of
  these feelings. Since he understands these things, the underlying
  tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant
  feeling does not lie behind this.
“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a
  painful feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a
  neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. This,
  bhikkhus, is called a noble disciple who is detached from birth,
  aging, and death; who is detached from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  displeasure, and despair; who is detached from suffering, I say.

Thanks, Ruben! How do you think we should interpret MN 152? Kind regards!

Talking about MN 152: Well, for an unenlightened person, surely liking and disliking (i.e. greed/lust and aversion) may arise for the six senses. The Buddha teaches here that one should abandon these and resort to equanimity. The pleasant feeling that arises from jhana is not liking. Liking is experiencing greed/lust towards the pleasant feeling arising from jhana. There are suttas stating that such people who cling to the bliss of jhana would not become enlightened, instead they would be reborn as brahmas (however you interpret "reborn" to mean).

Arahat will feel the physical pain. Say an Arhat steps on a pebble. This will b painful. He will not have the mental proliferation which adds to the physical pain because one is suffering about what happened mentally.
An Arhat will feel the pleasure of Jhana but this is purely mind born. I believe what Sallatha Sutta mentions is if one experience pleasure of pain physically this will not have a mental ripple of thoughts which are unpleasant or pleasant.

Rupa jhana = physically born

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
error in pali source, AN 9.41 fourth jhana impurity is sukha, not upekkha: who do we report to? How to fix?
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/08/error-in-pali-source-941-fourth-jhana.html
excerpt:
error in pali source, AN 9.41 fourth jhana impurity is sukha, not upekkha
pali source is cst4.
The error is on two levels.
On the doctrinal level,
AN 9.41 doesn't match SN 40.4
which  has the correct impurity popping up in 4th jhana, sukha.

pali source is cst4.
and BJT pali source has same error:

So kho ahaṃ ānanda aparena samayena sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā pubbeva somanassadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamā adukkhamasukhaṃ upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṃ catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharāmi. Tassa mayhaṃ ānanda iminā vihārena viharato upekkhāsahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. Svāssa me hoti ābādho. Seyyathāpi ānanda sukhino dukkhaṃ upapajjeyya yāvadeva ābādhāya, evamevassa me upekkhāsahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti, svāssa me hoti ābādho.

The error is on two levels.
On the doctrinal level,
AN 9.41 doesn't match SN 40.4
which  has the correct impurity popping up in 4th jhana, sukha.
SN 40.4:

So khvāhaṃ, āvuso, sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā pubbeva somanassadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamā adukkhamasukhaṃ upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṃ catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharāmi.
  And so … I was entering and remaining in the fourth jhāna.
Tassa mayhaṃ, āvuso, iminā vihārena viharato sukhasahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti.
  While I was in that meditation, perceptions and attentions accompanied by pleasure beset me.

AN 9.41 wrongly has

Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, iminā vihārena viharato upekkhāsahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. Svassa me hoti ābādho.
  While I was in that meditation, perceptions and attentions accompanied by equanimous pleasure beset me, and that was an affliction for me.
Seyyathāpi, ānanda, sukhino dukkhaṃ uppajjeyya yāvadeva ābādhāya;
  Suppose a happy person were to experience pain; that would be an affliction for them.
evamevassa me upekkhāsahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. Svassa me hoti ābādho.
  In the same way, when perceptions and attentions accompanied by equanimous pleasure beset me, that was an affliction for me.

From STED 3rd jhana formula we know 'sukham ca kayena pati-samvedeti' is pleasure experienced with the physical body. upekkha is present in both 4th and 3rd jhana, so it can not be an impure element that intrudes upon 4th jhana. Whatever 'upekkhā-sukhe' is supposed to be,  it doesn't make any sense and doesn't match the physical sukha/pleasure of 3rd jhana.
Error on sloppy editing level
The equanimous pleasure   referred to, in the previous paragraph of AN 9.41 is:

Tasmā me adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ na pakkhandati nappasīdati na santiṭṭhati na vimuccati etaṃ santanti passato’.
  That’s why my mind isn’t eager to be without pleasure and pain, and not confident, settled, and decided about it. And it’s why I don’t see it as peaceful.’
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, etadahosi:
  Then I thought:
‘sace kho ahaṃ upekkhāsukhe ādīnavaṃ disvā taṃ bahulaṃ kareyyaṃ, adukkhamasukhe ānisaṃsaṃ adhigamma tamāseveyyaṃ, ṭhānaṃ kho panetaṃ vijjati yaṃ me adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ pakkhandeyya pasīdeyya santiṭṭheyya vimucceyya etaṃ santanti passato’.
  ‘Suppose that, seeing the drawbacks of equanimous pleasure, I was to cultivate that. And suppose that, realizing the benefits of being without pleasure and pain, I was to develop that. It’s possible that my mind would be eager to be without pleasure and pain; it would be confident, settled, and decided about it. And I would see it as peaceful.’
So kho ahaṃ, ānanda, aparena samayena upekkhāsukhe ādīnavaṃ disvā taṃ bahulamakāsiṃ adukkhamasukhe ānisaṃsaṃ adhigamma tamāseviṃ.
  And so, after some time, I saw the drawbacks of equanimous pleasure and cultivated that, and I realized the benefits of being without pleasure and pain and developed that.
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ pakkhandati pasīdati santiṭṭhati vimuccati etaṃ santanti passato.
  Then my mind was eager to be without pleasure and pain; it was confident, settled, and decided about it. I saw it as peaceful.

AN 9.34 also has same error
which has a similar theme to AN 9.41, has the same pali source error

@frankk I copy-and-pasted the text from you blog post and formatted it for SE. Instead of side-by-side you can do line-by-line (I use two spaces at the end of a line to force a line break, you can alternatively use <br>)

AN 9.41 uses the term 'upekkhāsukhe' for the impurity of the 4th jhana. This is confirmed by AN 9.33, which says:

‘It’s when a mendicant, giving up pleasure and pain, and ending former
  happiness and sadness, enters and remains in the fourth absorption,
  without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and mindfulness.
‘idhāvuso, bhikkhu sukhassa ca pahānā … pe … catutthaṃ jhānaṃ
  upasampajja viharati;
That’s where equanimous bliss ceases.’
ettha upekkhāsukhaṃ nirujjhati, te ca upekkhāsukhaṃ nirodhetvā
  nirodhetvā viharantī’ti.

Also AN 9.42:

Furthermore, take a mendicant who, with the fading away of rapture …
  enters and remains in the third absorption.
Puna caparaṃ, āvuso, bhikkhu pītiyā ca virāgā … pe … tatiyaṃ jhānaṃ
  upasampajja viharati.
To this extent the Buddha spoke of creating an opening amid
  confinement in a qualified sense.
Ettāvatāpi kho, āvuso, sambādhe okāsādhigamo vutto bhagavatā
  pariyāyena.
But it is still confined.
Tatrāpatthi sambādho.
Confined by what?
Kiñca tattha sambādho?
Whatever equanimous bliss has not ceased is the confinement there.
Yadeva tattha upekkhāsukhaṃ aniruddhaṃ hoti, ayamettha sambādho.

Also, MN 66:

Take a mendicant who, with the fading away of rapture, enters and
  remains in the third absorption.
Idhudāyi, bhikkhu pītiyā ca virāgā … pe … tatiyaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja
  viharati; This belongs to the perturbable.
idampi kho ahaṃ, udāyi, iñjitasmiṃ vadāmi.
And what there belongs to the perturbable?
Kiñca tattha iñjitasmiṃ?
Whatever equanimous bliss has not ceased there is what belongs to the
  perturbable.
Yadeva tattha upekkhāsukhaṃ aniruddhaṃ hoti idaṃ tattha iñjitasmiṃ.

While in AN 9.41 only the term 'upekkhā' is ALSO used in 'upekkhāsahagatā', it seems 'upekkhāsahagatā' is used synonymously to refer to 'upekkhāsukhe'. In other words, there appears to be nothing important to fix.

‘Why don’t I, with the giving up of pleasure and pain, and the ending
  of former happiness and sadness, enter and remain in the fourth
  absorption, without pleasure or pain, with pure equanimity and
  mindfulness?’
‘yannūnāhaṃ sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā pubbeva
  somanassadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamā adukkhamasukhaṃ
  upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṃ catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja vihareyyan’ti.
But my mind wasn’t eager to be without pleasure and pain; it wasn’t
  confident, settled, and decided about it. I didn’t see it as peaceful.
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ na pakkhandati nappasīdati
  na santiṭṭhati na vimuccati etaṃ santanti passato.
Then I thought,
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, etadahosi:
‘What is the cause, what is the reason why my mind isn’t eager to be
  without pleasure and pain, and not confident, settled, and decided
  about it? Why don’t I see it as peaceful?’
‘ko nu kho hetu ko paccayo, yena me adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ na
  pakkhandati nappasīdati na santiṭṭhati na vimuccati etaṃ santanti
  passato’?
Then I thought,
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, etadahosi:
‘I haven’t seen the drawbacks of equanimous bliss, and so I haven’t
  cultivated that. I haven’t realized the benefits of being without
  pleasure and pain, and so I haven’t developed that.
‘upekkhāsukhe kho me ādīnavo adiṭṭho, so ca me abahulīkato,
  adukkhamasukhe ca ānisaṃso anadhigato, so ca me anāsevito.
That’s why my mind isn’t eager to be without pleasure and pain, and
  not confident, settled, and decided about it. And it’s why I don’t see
  it as peaceful.’
Tasmā me adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ na pakkhandati nappasīdati na
  santiṭṭhati na vimuccati etaṃ santanti passato’.
Then I thought,
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, etadahosi:
‘Suppose that, seeing the drawbacks of equanimous bliss, I were to
  cultivate that. And suppose that, realizing the benefits of being
  without pleasure and pain, I were to develop that. It’s possible that
  my mind would be eager to be without pleasure and pain; it would be
  confident, settled, and decided about it. And I would see it as
  peaceful.’
‘sace kho ahaṃ upekkhāsukhe ādīnavaṃ disvā taṃ bahulaṃ kareyyaṃ,
  adukkhamasukhe ānisaṃsaṃ adhigamma tamāseveyyaṃ, ṭhānaṃ kho panetaṃ
  vijjati yaṃ me adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ pakkhandeyya pasīdeyya
  santiṭṭheyya vimucceyya etaṃ santanti passato’.
And so, after some time, I saw the drawbacks of equanimous bliss and
  cultivated that, and I realized the benefits of being without pleasure
  and pain and developed that.
So kho ahaṃ, ānanda, aparena samayena upekkhāsukhe ādīnavaṃ disvā taṃ bahulamakāsiṃ adukkhamasukhe ānisaṃsaṃ adhigamma tamāseviṃ.
Then my mind was eager to be without pleasure and pain; it was
  confident, settled, and decided about it. I saw it as peaceful.
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, adukkhamasukhe cittaṃ pakkhandati pasīdati
  santiṭṭhati vimuccati etaṃ santanti passato.
And so, giving up pleasure and pain … I was entering and remaining in
  the fourth absorption.
So kho ahaṃ, ānanda, sukhassa ca pahānā … pe … catutthaṃ jhānaṃ
  upasampajja viharāmi.
While I was in that meditation, perceptions and attentions accompanied
  by equanimous bliss beset me, and that was an affliction for me.
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, iminā vihārena viharato upekkhāsahagatā
  saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. Svassa me hoti ābādho.
Suppose a happy person were to experience pain; that would be an
  affliction for them.
Seyyathāpi, ānanda, sukhino dukkhaṃ uppajjeyya yāvadeva ābādhāya;
In the same way, when perceptions and attentions accompanied by
  equanimous bliss beset me, that was an affliction for me.
evamevassa me upekkhāsahagatā saññāmanasikārā samudācaranti. Svassa me
  hoti ābādho.
Then I thought,
Tassa mayhaṃ, ānanda, etadahosi:
‘Why don’t I, going totally beyond perceptions of form, with the
  ending of perceptions of impingement, not focusing on perceptions of
  diversity, aware that “space is infinite”, enter and remain in the
  dimension of infinite space?’
‘yannūnāhaṃ sabbaso rūpasaññānaṃ samatikkamā paṭighasaññānaṃ
  atthaṅgamā nānattasaññānaṃ amanasikārā “ananto ākāso”ti
  ākāsānañcāyatanaṃ upasampajja vihareyyan’ti.

"While in AN 9.41 only the term upekkhā is ALSO used in
upekkhāsahagatā, it seems upekkhāsahagatā is used synonymously to
refer to upekkhāsukhe. In other words, there appears to be nothing
important to fix." -- If you can't figure out there's a big difference between upekkha and upekkha-sukhe, there's no point in discussing it with your further.

This isn't a discussion forum. To repeat, AN 9.41 makes it quite clear the impurity to the 4th jhana is upekkhāsukhe.

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


text:
Should Buddhist parents engage in idiot compassion?
If I am a Buddhist parent and a child is always messy, should I always clean up the mess they make? Are there any sutta teachings to guide parents of messy children?

It would be "just" a matter of compassion or ones own interest to clean up the messy of questions from children, or? So freedom of will as a giver.

When children made a "mess" or mistakes, parents could clean their "mess" every time but that would not be wise as they cannot be on their children's side forever. There will come a time when they will pass away. Instead, parents should teach their children to be independent and learn to reflect on their own actions. In Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta, Buddha once said to his seven years old son, Rahula:
"What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"
"For reflection, sir."
"In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions are to be done with repeated reflection."
References:
"Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone" (MN 61), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html


text:
Anapanasati practice: what’s the correct way to focus on breath?
I have practiced anapanasati for a while and encountered some difficulties. I can easily find my breath in front of nostril. Then I started to pay attention to the in-and-out of the breath continuously. But after a while, pain raised in my chest around heart. As I tried to focus more on the breath, the pain increased. In addition, if I suddenly stopped paying attention to the breath, I found my neck and shoulder very rigid and uncomfortable. I also felt exhausted after the meditation.
I’m wondering if I focus too much. Before I know anapanasati, I used to practice simple meditation like just relaxing and checking any thoughts if they arise. I felt much better by not paying attention to any object.
So my question is: what is a good “attention” to breath? Thanks!

In some sittings I deliberately asked myself not to focus on the breath too much and stay relaxed. When I found I’m too focused on the breath, I “told” myself to stop that and became aware of other things. But I’m not sure this is the correct way either.

Oh, I forgot, one of the special features of "Mindfulness of the Breathing" practice , is that when we start really calming down, one's breath becomes more subtle. This is where Dharma cultivation becomes more important. Ideally your mind becomes more subtle, too. more inward. Eventually , your breath will stop and you will go into Nirodha , which is True cessation. That is one of the major goals of meditation. Keep studying. So what happens when the breath is too subtle for you to be aware . You must develop more focused awareness.Still being relaxed and attentive. G.L. Ask me any question.

Finally, be mindful of the breath where ever your awareness naturally goes.I am not of the school that "puts one's attention at such and such place. This is Samadhi practice. Remember the four foundations. When sitting , just be yourself, and become aware of the entire breath body. Just accept what arises. This is a process...

There is no need to focus on the breath.
The practise of the Buddha is to keep the mind without craving, without attachment, without past, without future. Silent still mind.
When the mind is quiet, it will connect with the breath, itself, automatically.
Experiencing the breath is merely the "sign" the mind is without craving.

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go,
  attains concentration, attains singleness of mind.
Indriya-vibhanga Sutta

Thanks! I’m a bit confused. If I let it go, why would it “automatically” connect to breath but not anything else? I understand letting it go practice and not think about past and future. Then how does “experiencing” breath take place here? Is this effortless or require paying attention to?

The mind must be quiet. When the mind is quiet, the breath becomes the grossest sense object (apart from sounds).

How does it take place? It is the same as hearing a sound or smelling a smell. You do not make a decision to hear a sound or smell a smell. It happens automatically. Similarly, if you place your trust in the Dhamma, the quiet mind will connect with the breathing. One must trust. One must have faith. One must know how to surrender and surrender all ambition.

thanks! I’ll mark your answer accepted. There appears to be a big difference between “concentration/focus/attention” and “mindfulness/awareness”. One should not pay attention to the breath. I found other links useful: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=34926

Also, I found this discussion is useful: https://bswa.org/forum/forum/discussion/meditation/1468-my-pressing-question-and-doubt-concentration

In the Sutta itself, I believe there is an associated verbiage - long, short, etc. How does that relate to your excellent answer? Thanks,

long & short is simply the length of the breath.

Due to past Sanhkara when one practices meditation one may get different sensations which can be pleasant or unpleasant. Don't give too much importance to this and continue the practice.
The focus of breath meditation should be in the area from the top of the nose to the base of the upper lip. The areas should be widened this full area or narrowed to based on one's sensitivity to feeling the breath and concentration.

There are different ways to do the anapanasati. If I were you, I would read the Sutta at least once a week, to get the spirit of the practice. You see, what happened , over the years was that the teachers started using the breath practice as just a concentration practice. To answer your question, be fully and completely aware of the body breathing.
Each moment is a new moment, and new consciousness. Most of us are confused about the goal, because we haven't really seen any Arhants , or even Never returners.
I don't recommend the Nimita , sign , after image, practice, but this does happen naturally. Usually at retreats. Find a good teacher. Do Soto Zen. So , let me ask you, Do you have a very clear, comprehensive view of the goal? That is why we study. Find what the 10 taints are , they are removed when one has reached full awakening. Here , read this for fun and benefit
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html
So , to condense. Trust yourself, Seeking the truth is natural, but not easy.
We really have a natural tendency to go into samadhi, learn to work with that. When you are more peaceful, relaxed patient, etc, you are going in the right direction. In short all the 37 limbs of awakening need to be developed in one's practice. I hope this helps. Remember, Buddha Loves you, really.

What does Soto Zen have to do with it. Granted "Zen Mind" starts with the breath, but Soto Zen ultimately goes to shikantaza.

When I first started anapanasati meditation two years ago I was making the breaths and that hurts! Now I'm just happy to keep returning my attention to what's happening at the nostril tip - for example warm air out, cooler air in. I have no other reason to do this other than to see what's happening there - and then, for me, gradually the inexplicable happens :-)


text:
Non attachment in daily life
Has anybody personal experience in trying this ? Is it not natural to have some attachment?  I realize attachment is a cause of suffering but is suffering not natural?

Attachment to that which is impermanent will result in suffering. Attachment is clinging or holding onto something, resisting change, seeking to duplicate past experiences when that is simply unreliable or even impossible.
One can live a normal life without attaching - we can do this by ceasing to fall prey to our habitual judgements and reactions, cultivating a mindfulness that sees things as they are, without a faulty bias or colored glass to see with. When we are not mindful of our feeling, perceptions, or judgements, we get carried away with the proliferation resulting from that. One can enjoy music or a garden without becoming attached to it - you know these flowers will wither, and the music will fade to silence, yet they are still pleasant. As long as you are aware of their Impermanence and the fact you judge them as pleasant, you'll be fine.
Seeing clearly, without judgements, leads to Equanimity, which leads to non-attachment, which leads to peace, which is freedom from suffering. The more Equanimity, the less suffering. When we see clearly, we see all things as impermanent, not capable of satisfying our desire, and therefore not worth attaching to or identifying with. When one truly knows attachment as the precursor of suffering, it is easy to avoid, like you avoid putting your hand in open flame.
When attachment arises, become mindful of it. Ask, is it skillful, leading towards relinquishment and freedom? Ask, is this attachment permanent, satisfying, or truly mine? Then, simply observe as you let it go. How does it feel to release an attachment, to watch a desire fade away? When you resist the urge to eat that candy bar, how do you feel? Try it out. Come and see. ;)

I think it's important to define what do you mean by "natural".
Are you defining it as "statistically normal/frequent", or maybe as "intrinsic and necessary to the human condition"?
If it's the former, then I'd argue than a lot behaviors are normal, but that does not make them wholesome, beneficial nor necessary; if it's the latter, then I'd ask you: how do you know that suffering is necessary and inseparable from the human condition? Is it because most people say so? Is it because you've never seen someone that could've gone beyond suffering?
And from those last questions, I'd ask: How do you define "suffering"?
Remember that the Buddha used the word "dukkha" to describe the mental phenomenon he wanted (and, in my opinion, successfully did) to eradicate through the Path he (re)discovered: the Noble Eightfold Path.
"Dukkha" is polisemic word, that is, it has multiple possible renderings: sure, one of them might be "suffering", but such translation is too broad and culturally loaded. Some translators prefer instead "stress" or "pain". I think the most optimal term might be "unsatisfactoriness".
And thus, the Noble Eightfold Path is the training to uproot insaisfaction, through the eradication of its conditions; namely, craving/greed (tanha/raga), aversion (dosa) and ignorance (avijja/moha).
By getting rid of such conditions, insatisfaction cease to be present. By reaching this state, the person is at peace, no matter what outer conditions may arise or cease. In other words, such peace is unconditioned, and not dependent on having this or that. Physical pain may still arise, but the mind becomes unshakable and not influenced by it.
Kind regards!

It's been awhile since I have read much on Buddhism. I have been reading quite a bit on non attachment through Anthony De Mello but im aware it's a Buddhist teaching. Anyway I don't think you answered my question. It was a personal question to get the experiences or stories of others. But I do agree with you that attachment is not necessarily positive. On the whole it isn't if at all.

@Barryseeker Ideally an answer is based on something e.g. based on experience or a reference. But this is a "Question and answer" site and not a discussion forum, and "What is your experience with X?" is seen as a "polling question" (where you're "polling" users) and not a good type of question to ask on this site. So I'm not surprised that people answer it as if you had asked, "What does Buddhism mean by 'attachment' and isn't that just natural and not a problem?" An ideal question type is instead something like, "I have a problem with X" (for example, "What does X mean?" or "How do you X?").

Thanks for clarifying that Chris but you still didn't deal with the kernel of my issue. Sometimes a person's experience of trying something is illuminating. I don't feel academic responses or citing rules is all that helpful. This ain't a court of law. Rules can be stretched or non attached !

@Barryseeker I suppose someone could answer your questions with "Yes (some people do try this), and yes (attachment and suffering are kind of natural)." Theoretically that would answer your question, but wouldn't be interesting, would it -- maybe that suggests that your question isn't specific enough, isn't a question.

Chris you indeed have a point. It was quite vague. I was hoping to find that people had actually tried this and it worked for them. Their suffering declined. But perhaps that is an attachment too ? I will read something more on the topic. I have had personal issues with mental health but feel a lot of the approaches simply move the bomb from your lap to Under your seat to quote Anthony De Mello. The bomb being attachment. I think Buddhism provides a way to defuse the bomb

Attachment and aversion are the results of ignorance.
Eliminating Personality view (Sakkaya Ditthi) is the first step of eliminating ignorance hence attachment and aversion. Start developing right view first then the rest comes naturally.


text:
Should I judge the efficacy of Samadhi based on the ethical qualities of the meditator?
As far as I understand, one of the main purposes of the eight factor of the Path (samma samadhi) is to clean the mind from impurities.
I've read a lot of discussions where one meditator states that only his/her method is the true method, while all the other methods are worthless and wrong. There are multiple arguments for such beliefs, and one might agree with them in some degree.
There are a lot of criteria that can be used to know whether one method is right or not; for instance:
Does it follow the instructions found in the suttas? Does it interpret correctly those instructions? Does it lead to a temporary peace of mind? Does it stops during the extention of the sitting the arising of the hindrances? Can the steps followed be replicated with consistency? Can those steps be followed by everyone else? Does it lead to the arising of the factors of jhana? And so on...
But, how important and relevant is the behavior of the meditator (towards others and in general) as a factor to check whether his/her meditation style is right or wrong?
If a reknown meditator (even openly self acknowledge) shows little to no empathy, prudence or wisdom, should I suspect that his/her meditation method is wrong?
I think the above question could be especially important since it is stated in multiple suttas that Right Samadhi leads to the development of Wisdom, which I understand as a form to be more in harmony with how things are (i.e. not desiring circumstances to change), and how be prudent, intelligent and skillful when acting upon and communicating with others. If an individual shows itself as a very experimented meditator, but shows none (or little development) of these qualities, is that a sign of choosing some method not conducive to the goal as proposed by the Buddha?
Thanks in advance for your time and patience!
Kind regards!

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

As far as I understand, one of the main purposes of the eight factor of the Path (samma samadhi) is to clean the mind from impurities.
All factors of the N8P have the same purpose, they just operate on the different levels of coarseness. Their purpose is to first reduce and then completely eliminate creation of causes for the arising of dukkha. Generally speaking, some factors operate at the level of external circumstances, they are about not creating causes of dukkha in regular life. Other factors operate at the level of inner circumstances, they are about not creating causes of dukkha in your mind. The boundary between the two is not entirely black and white, and some factors are kinda both external and internal, but you get the idea. It is the same principle of "discord is dukkha, concord is sukha" applied at all levels. Samma samadhi is the most refined level of this progression from coarse to subtle. What we do on this level is shepherd our own mind to see where we habitually create/maintain discord, and try to stop that and create/maintain concord instead.
There are a lot of criteria that can be used to know whether one method is right or not;
The chief criterion, I think, is whether it's going in the right direction. And the right direction is less discord. It's very simple, really.
how important and relevant is the behavior of the meditator (towards others and in general) as a factor to check whether his/her meditation style is right or wrong?
Since we are saying, it is the same principle applied to everything from coarse to subtle, it becomes super obvious, that if the meditator keeps creating discord at the coarser levels, let alone in their external life, it probably means they do not understand the key principle behind the Four Noble Truths. If they do not understand the principle, how can their meditation be right?
ethical qualities of the meditator ... little to no empathy, prudence or wisdom
It is important to understand that our "worldly" ethical qualities are not 100% identical with Buddhist skillful qualities. They match 95% of the way, but not 100%. The Buddhist skillful qualities serve single purpose, progressive reducing of discord until complete and perfect "Nirvana". The worldly ethical qualities serve the purpose of reducing the discord between the members of society pursuing their individual worldly objectives. The principle is the same but the end goals are slightly different. This is why you can't simply assume that if someone is not perfectly ethical by the worldly standards, they are a bad Buddhist. They maybe optimizing their behavior for the pursuit of Enlightenment and Nirvana vs. being a good citizen. That said, because both objectives involve management of causes of discord, you can't really pursue one without taking care of the other, at least 95% of the way.
So, regarding empathy, someone may show little empathy to a Wall Street banker crying over his lost fortune, or a lady crying over the wrinkles around her eyes, because these are not the objectives leading to Nirvana.
As for prudence and wisdom, in Mahayana it is assumed that the practice of creating no discord at some point necessarily leads to an understanding that all conceptual constructs are simplifications. When someone understands this point (called "Emptiness") very deeply, it very certainly manifests in their worldly behavior, making them less prone to taking one-sided positions, and more inclined to be prudent, nuanced, multifaceted, and analytical, which are the characteristics of wisdom. So in this sense, it is absolutely expected that someone with a decent level of Buddhist realization should show some amount of worldly wisdom as well. Mahayana even has an official term for this. It's called "coemergent wisdom" (sahaja-jnana).
The two takeaways from all this are: 1) not creating causes of discord, and 2) seeing through conceptual simplifications -- are the two qualities that operate along the entire N8P from ethics to meditation.
In summary, you are right to assume correlation between one's meditation and ethics, and as long as you understand the principle underlying both, and all the caveats I described above, you can use someone's skill in one to infer their skill in the other, which is a good rule of thumb for evaluating potential teachers and spiritual friends.

Right immersion (sammāsamādhi) requires right view. Without that right view, we step off the Noble Eightfold Path very early on (AN4.208):

And who’s bad?
  It’s someone who has wrong view, wrong thought, wrong speech, wrong action, wrong livelihood, wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, wrong immersion, wrong knowledge, and wrong freedom.
  This is called bad.

But there are also many right ways to practice the Noble Eightfold Path, and one may find many teachers for each of those ways. Indeed, there are many suttas that discuss different approaches:

“Reverend Moggallāna, there are four ways of practice.
  What four?
  Painful practice with slow insight,
  painful practice with swift insight,
  pleasant practice with slow insight, and
  pleasant practice with swift insight.
  These are the four ways of practice.

In sutta AN4.167, Moggallāna tells Sariputta that:

I relied on the painful practice with swift insight to free my mind from defilements by not grasping.

Yet in that very diversity of teaching, there is always a shared right view. No killing, no lying, no stealing, etc.
Choose a teacher with care. I would not learn honesty from a thief, nor would I follow any famous teacher who punches students. Ethics (sīla) is quite important.

But, how important and relevant is the behavior of the meditator (towards others and in general) as a factor to check whether his/her meditation style is right or wrong?

It probably says more about their sila habits. This is of course related to other practices (like panna or samadhi) as well.
Regarding your question, we ultimately need to be "a light unto ourselves" regardless of what other says.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.043.wlsh.html
Also, as an ideal maintaining equanimity towards others is possibly more beneficial as an alternative to figuring out ways to evaluate them. Even though it may seem odd or even wrong from an observers perspective, we are all trying our best to get by in life.

You can judge the efficacy of the samadhi (and the rest of his practice, including ethics/ virtues/ sila) based on how the meditator reacts to things that he does, and to things that happen to him.
If someone scolds him and this makes him wallow in depression, then he has not progressed on the noble path compared to one who gets over it quickly.
If he does something wrong and this makes him wallow in remorse and depression, then he has not progressed on the noble path compared to one who gets over it quickly.
Also, one who is progressed on the noble path would have better control over the three poisons. This should indirectly result in better ethical conduct. So, yes, ethical conduct may indirectly provide information on the efficacy of samadhi.
Additionally, anyone who intends to progress on the noble path is expected to stick to the five precepts as closely as possible. Perfection in the practice of the five precepts is only expected of Arahants. For unenlightened persons, persistent attempt at heedfulness (appamada) in the practice of the five precepts is sufficient.
From AN 3.100:

Take the case of a person who does a trivial bad deed, but it lands
  them in hell. Meanwhile, another person does the same trivial bad
  deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left
  over, not to speak of a lot.
What kind of person does a trivial bad deed, but it lands them in
  hell? A person who hasn’t developed their physical endurance, ethics,
  mind, or wisdom. They’re small-minded and mean-spirited, living in
  suffering. That kind of person does a trivial bad deed, but it lands
  them in hell.
What kind of person does the same trivial bad deed, but experiences it
  in the present life, without even a bit left over, not to speak of a
  lot? A person who has developed their physical endurance, ethics,
  mind, and wisdom. They’re not small-minded, but are big-hearted,
  living without limits. That kind of person does the same trivial bad
  deed, but experiences it in the present life, without even a bit left
  over, not to speak of a lot.
Suppose a person was to drop a lump of salt into a small bowl of
  water. What do you think, mendicants? Would that small bowl of water
  become salty and undrinkable?”
“Yes, sir. Why is that? Because there is only a little water in the
  bowl.”
“Suppose a person was to drop a lump of salt into the Ganges river.
  What do you think, mendicants? Would the Ganges river become salty and
  undrinkable?”
“No, sir. Why is that? Because the Ganges river is a vast mass of
  water.”
“This is how it is in the case of a person who does a trivial bad
  deed, but it lands them in hell. Meanwhile, another person does the
  same trivial bad deed, but experiences it in the present life, without
  even a bit left over, not to speak of a lot. …

Should I judge the efficacy of Samadhi based on the ethical qualities of the meditator?
No, you cannot do this. Jhana only temporarily suspends the 5 Hindrances / defilments. So when it is suspended the meditator may act more ethically than otherwise. Also, when not in Jhana sometimes hindrances may arise them he might be less ethical than when the Hindrances are suspended.
As far as I understand, one of the main purposes of the eight factor of the Path (samma samadhi) is to clean the mind from impurities.
Samadhi temporarily suspends the defilements so you can develop wisdom which suspends it completely.
I've read a lot of discussions where one meditator states that only his/her method is the true method, while all the other methods are worthless and wrong. There are multiple arguments for such beliefs, and one might agree with them in some degree.
If a certain technique works for a person he might believe this is the only method that works through there might be other valid techniques.
Does it follow the instructions found in the suttas? Does it interpret correctly those instructions? Does it lead to a temporary peace of mind? Does it stops during the extention of the sitting the arising of the hindrances? Can the steps followed be replicated with consistency? Can those steps be followed by everyone else? Does it lead to the arising of the factors of jhana?
All these are valid ways to validate the technique.
But, how important and relevant is the behavior of the meditator (towards others and in general) as a factor to check whether his/her meditation style is right or wrong?
When meditating a person may relatively become a better person. But one has to become enlightened to become a perfect person. Just observing another you cannot easily judge if the technique is right or wrong.
Also, you do not know if the meditator is practising the technique right in the first place.
Best is one does the practice and if it works for oneself one know this works. If not then this does not mean it is invalid but it could be it does not work for oneself.
If a reknown meditator (even openly self acknowledge) shows little to no empathy, prudence or wisdom, should I suspect that his/her meditation method is wrong?
Some meditators may show quick results while others may get slow results. So it is difficult to judge the technique by looking at one individual and a few individuals. If you have a reasonably large sample of meditators then you might be able to make this inference.
Or to maybe put it other words: is an ad-hominem argument valid in these scenario?
The appeal of a single or few people cannot bee representative of the validity of any technique. You need to look if a reasonably large sample of people practices technique X vs Y what actually give more significant results.

Since it is impossible for an unenlightened being to know the quality of another’s mind (that being a siddhi that comes only with enlightenment) there is no way to judge the quality or character of someone else’s practice.
However, we can see the character of an individual in their way of being towards others, which may call into question the true extent of their accomplishment—are they rude? boastful? Do they retaliate in anger when questioned? Do they lack compassion towards others? Etc.
Thus, a clue for us can be found in this teaching of the Buddha:

“The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain Samadhi is to
escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from
suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you
can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness
and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the
bondage of the world's life. No matter how keen you may be mentally,
no matter how much you may be able to practice dhyana, no matter to
how high a degree of Samadhi you may attain, unless you have wholly
annihilated all tendency to unkindness toward others, you will
ultimately fall into the realms of existence where the evil ghosts
dwell.”

This quote is part of a teaching on the need to follow various precepts. Obviously, if one must follow precepts for one’s behavior in order to reach enlightenment, not doing so is a clear indicator that one’s practice is not correct. So I would say, in answer to your question: Yes, you can judge the efficacy of samadhi by the ethical qualities of the meditator—but you should only do this as part of an evaluation of a teacher, and not judge others indiscriminately because it can lead to feelings of superiority in yourself, and cause the one being judged to become doubtful, and perhaps lose their way.
Until we ourselves are fully enlightened, we are susceptible to slips and mistakes, along our path.
The above quote is taken from the “Surangama Sutra,” Chapter Two, “Importance of Keeping the Precepts.”

Right view, good householder, makes the different whether one is an insider, or still an ordinary outsider:

"Lord, the disciple of the noble ones in whom the factors of stream entry are altogether & in every way lacking: Is he called a disciple of the noble ones who lives heedlessly?"... Nandiya Sutta: To Nandiya

And it's also clear that one, even if a talented meditator, as very popular in the west, modern world, if his virtue is wrong, the whole path is wrong.
So is it that from wrong view comes wrong resolve, wrong virtue... wrong effort, wrong mindfulness, wrong samadhi... wrong release.
But one should be clear, that as long not insider, hardly ever know who is and who isn't. So ones right effort primarly is to straighten ones right view, resolve, action, speech and livelihood, and not to meditate... since right Samadhi, right wisdom and right release comes by having given the right causes by those causes.
Although western, modern, wrong introduced, think that meditation is the importand pratice, actually training in virtue and dhamma learning, hearing, discussion, are foremost to master and right practice for one not having reached what can be reached
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other word-binding trades but for an escape from this wheel]

The Buddha told Ananda to not judge others, because Ananda did not have the spiritual development to be able to judge others. Instead, you should judge your own moral & spiritual development. Are you still a puthujjana? Are you still obsessed with sex or immorally view women as sex objects? Are you ungrateful towards those who teach you Dhamma? Some suttas:

Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and
  undone. Dhammapada

Don’t Judge Others!
Therefore, Ānanda, you should not be a hasty critic of people, should
  not lightly pass judgement on people. One who passes judgement on
  people harms himself. I alone, Ānanda, or one like me, can judge
  people.
AN 6.44

68. How to Judge a Person’s Character
Four facts about a person, O monks, can be known from four circumstances. What are these four?
By living together with a person his virtue can be known, and this too
  only after a long time, not casually; by close attention, not without
  attention; by one who is wise, not by one who is stupid.
By having dealings with a person his integrity can be known, and this
  too only after a long time, not casually; by close attention, not
  without attention; by one who is wise, not by one who is stupid.
In misfortune a person’s fortitude can be known, and this too only
  after a long time, not casually; by close attention, not without
  attention; by one who is wise, not by one who is stupid.
By conversation a person’s wisdom can be known, and this too only
  after a long time, not casually; by close attention, not without
  attention; by one who is wise, not by one who is stupid.
AN 4.192


text:
11 year old daughter suffocated, was dead and was resuscitated now in a state of reduced concsciousness
I am a father of a now 13 year old daughter. She was born with the genetic disorder Achondroplasie (Dwarfism, "small people").
At the age of 11 we decided that she should undergo leg-extension surgery.
Everything went OK, she woke up after the OP and talked with us, was happy to see her feet beeing longer, was happy to get back home.
2 hours later, while back in the patient room, she was unattended and suffocated. My wife found her, started resuscitation and called the emergency team who then took over. They brought her back. At least some of her.
Today, 2 years after this horrible incident, she is now in a state of reduced consciousness.
She has her eyes open, can groan and moan, feels it when you tickle her toes, even laughs when you tell a funny story e.g. about her cats (she had 4 and loved them).
She can not talk though, chew or drink or use her body parts (like moving any part of it on intention). She is lying in a bed 24/7 listening to audio CDs with books for children. If the audio runs out, she starts crying and moaning.
My wife, my son and I myself are devastated. She was such an active, life-loving kid, although she had this genetic disorder, she was best in her class and wrote essays and made drawings you would not expect from an 11 year old girl. And now she is forced onto the wheelchair, damned to stay the rest of her life in bed or this chair.
So my question is this: what would Buddhism say that happened to my daughter? What is she today? Where is she? Is she still my daughter or has reincarnation taken place? What is the purpose of her being damned to this state?
Thank you for your answers!
Best regards
Palerider

It would be good, householder, if "entertaining" your child with the good and true Dhamma of the Buddha, the Dhamma of the Arahats, providing touch with the Tripple Gems.

It sounds like she hears and understands you, but can't communicate. So if she is capable of some moving and focusing her eyes, consider trying out the eye-tracking computer interface to enable her interacting with the world so that she could maybe even answer what she thinks about some of these questions herself, and maybe keep writing and painting with the help of a computer so that her life would be much more full.

After my wife died I found that she existed in my mind quite a lot (as well as formerly existing physically).
That existence (in my mind) could make me happy ("what a privilege to know her") or sad ("miss her dearly").
Whether I'm sad or happy is partly my choice, it's not inherent in or obliged by the physics of the situation -- instead a matter of how I train myself (habitual thought), a.k.a. it depends on how I "view" it.
On the subject of memory, one of the things to remember (according to Buddhism) is "virtue" -- for example skilful, altruistic, compassionate behaviour -- "recollection of virtue" is an mind-object whose result or purpose could be an "absence of remorse". So when people behave virtuously, remembering that doesn't cause regret -- instead, looking back, "I'm glad she did that" and "I'm glad I did that" and so on.
Because it's a matter of doing the best you can in the circumstances.
So my question is this: what would Buddhism say that happened to my daughter? What is she today? Where is she? Is she still my daughter or has reincarnation taken place? What is the purpose of her being damned to this state?
If Buddhism were speaking carefully I think it would adapt what it says according to what you understand and know -- perhaps a gradual training.
I tend to think of Buddhist doctrine as starting with "the four noble truths", but according to this topic it might begin with talking about ethics, and generosity, and heaven.
Then there are the four noble truths, which are approximately (as I remember them):

Birth, sickness, death, are dukkha (the word dukkha is translated variously as "suffering" or "stress" or "unsatisfactory"); and not getting what you want, being exposed to what you don't want, not being able to keep what you want to keep, are dukkha; in short, the five "aggregates of clinging" are unsatisfactory.
Dukkha is associated with tanha (literally "thirst", usually translated "craving") craving for sense-objects, craving for becoming/existence, even the craving for ending
Dukkha ceases when craving ceases
There's a way (Buddhist practice) which leads towards the complete ending of  craving and suffering

So apparently suffering arises with (and results from) various forms of craving -- wanting things to be other than as they are.
Another important part of the Buddhist doctrine is that everything that's put-together (including "beings") is impermanent -- so I guess you'd better not expect "compound things" to last forever ... including "human bodies" (but even also day-dreams may be fabricated and based on a false assumption that the body is under your control, e.g. that it remains healthy and unchanging).
Buddhism also praises "seeing things as they really are" -- which includes seeing, "they're impermanent" -- but I think that also includes seeing a distinction between moral and immoral (seeing kindness, altruism, and so on).
There's another doctrine, the anatta or "non-self" doctrine. If the four noble truths are the first doctrine then anatta is the second. It might be difficult to understand or explain -- those who do understand might be called semi-enlightened, there are dozens of questions about it on this site -- it might be summarised as "any view of self will result in dukkha" -- where examples of "self-view" include "I exist" but also "I don't exist" and "this is me" and "this is mine" and "this is my permanent self".
For that kind of reason the question "What is she?" is difficult to answer in a way that wouldn't cause you pain -- I think that Buddhism might say that there is no satisfactory answer to that question.
Going further the question might be described as the product of unwise attention. Conversely "wise attention" focuses on questions like "what is stressful?" and "what is not?" -- for example, "recollection of virtue" and questions like "what was virtuous?" and "what is virtuous now?" might be a more kind of "enlightening" way to try to think about things.

Thank you for this kind answer. I am myself not a Buddhist but intrigued by the idea that the true self is neither our mind nor our body.

I have a friend who got two disabled children only.
They have a very positive outlook.
They said, "Our two children are happy the way they are but we are the one unhappy as we do not have a perfect child".
It appears your child like music and happy and enjoy listening to them. This is no different from any other child. Every child is not the same. They all are different in different ways.

Thank you for your kind comment. She loved to read and was great in using language. She loved the theather play. It is funny how this strong longing of her is still vividly alive in her. Those audio books and our time reading and talking is very fulfilling for her, and for us. Its those moments when she hears soemething funny, like a play of words, and she breaks out in laughter, that we know that she can still enjoy life and laugh about it.

For as long as your daughter is still alive, in whatever state, she is always your daughter.
In Theravada Buddhism, reincarnation is believed to take place as soon as the cessation of 5 aggregates (i.e. end of life).
So far, only the Lord Buddha has the ability to read through one's absolute past Karma, such as what happened in past lives, and where they go in next life.

Thank you very much for your kind comment. One day I might hope to be enabled  understand the Karma that led to this.

What would Buddhism say that happened to my daughter?

Buddhism teaches the life of each person is composed of five aggregates (khandha), which are:
(i) physicality (rupa);
(ii) feeling sensation (vedana);
(iii) perception (sanna);
(iv) mental formations (sankhara); and
(v) sense consciousness (vinnana).
About each of these aggregates, the Pali scriptures say:

Each aggregate, due to natural impermanence, can lead to "affliction" or "sickness" ("ābādhāya") - SN 22.59
The physical aggregate, in particularly, will sooner or later be "deformed", as follows: "And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form". SN 22.79

While your daughter's situation was moving or poignant to read about, her situation is simply a case of "bad luck" or sickness/physical damage occurring much sooner rather than later.

What is she today? Where is she?

Buddhism also summarises the five-aggregates as "nama-rupa" or "mentality-materiality". "Nama-rupa" is a word compound to show "mind" and "body" are mutually dependent upon each other.
Unfortunately, the physical component is causing impairment to your daughter's mental component. It seems she is still there when she laughs when you tell a funny story e.g. about her cats, who she still loves and remembers.

Is she still my daughter or has reincarnation taken place?

It seems she is still your daughter and reincarnation has not taken place

What is the purpose of her being damned to this state?

As I previously suggested, your daughter's situation appears to be merely "bad luck". Physical damage can happen to each person and will inevitably happen eventually. You daughter can help you develop understanding and compassion.

This is not happening to her only, this is happening to you as a whole.
Try not to artificially limit and center the situation to only your daughter, as she is definitely not alone in it. Although what is happening to her may instinctively seem to be the epicenter of the situation, try to untangle from this pointedness. Embrace the wholeness of your connection and your experience as a joint being.
Seek for understanding of what kind of experience is this for you and the close circle of people, as a whole, and for each one personally. Try to question and recognize what spiritual paths are being suggested to you with the reality taking this way of arrangement. What interactions and what possibilities for showing love and spiritual growth are open.
Karma is there only for nudging us to see and understand ways of loving that would otherwise be inaccessible to us. But there is no karma, because there is only love and possibilities to learn how to love and how to show love.
Try to question this, to recognize this, to recognize the love inside you, and yourself as a being of love. Recognize and nourish the love that you feel, let it spread its wings and rise high, and let it spread around you, encompassing and taking in all the people around you, starting with your daughter, closed ones, relatives, and other people in your life.
This is not happening to her only, this is happening to you as a whole, and to us who have come to read this. The devastatement that you're feeling is actually a disappointment because we are startled and feeling sorry for lost opportunities. That is true. But the only way to continue the life is to adjust and be grateful to your daughter for this kind of love. And give that love to her in full, and keep the connection to her. Because nothing else will have mattered when you will look back at this. Make this connection as full and bright as possible, take away the disappointment from it, because you are not disappointed with your daughter, and don't let that darken the sky. She would not want you to feel bad. Recognize her love as well and in full, and let her experience it and show it to the fullest extent possible. Communicate.
Appreciate her, and appreciate her being in your life. Appreciate her life because it's what she has. All that anyone of us has. You were gradually introduced to you and your daughter having a not quite an average life, with due time to adjust, learn to appreciate and to find joy. Learn to see this. She is there, rediscover her, rediscover yourself. Let her know that you appreciate her and her personality. She and her life is not your property, let her have it, you can't lay claims, you merely accompany each other. As per your words she is fully capable of experiencing happiness and appreciating your attention. Let her know that you love her and that she is filling you with joy, unconditionally, that she makes a difference in the world, that she is making you a better man. Let your eyes open.
The spiritual path is always bigger than we are. But we are this path.


text:
How to stay mindful of the gap in the breath
When I breathe there's a certain time gap after the out breath and before the in breath. I find myself being dull or distracted at that time because there's no breath to notice.
Do I notice the lack of breath? Do I notice not noticing?

What I watch are the feelings of irritation or tension or rushing in my mind, generated in the very beginning and the very end of the gap.
My goal in meditation is to notice how I subconsciously create/maintain emotional tension or inner discord through subconscious grasping some idea, and to stop doing that.
When I see that around start and end of the gap my mind has a character of nervousness, then I know I have something to let go. Once I let go, my breathing winding down to the gap and then restarting again from the gap, feels peaceful and more natural.
So, what I really focus on is letting go and relaxing, until I basically feel perfectly good in the here and now. And the breathing around the gap serves as an indicator of the remaining tension.
As I relax, I keep watching more and more closely, in order to notice even smaller and subtler tensions and nervousnesses. It's like zooming in, more and more, on the precise moments the breath stops and restarts.
Then at some point when I really relax, I don't really care about watching the breath anymore, I watch something else (mind?) -- I don't know how to describe.

Let go of the gap. It is an illusion that is chopping up your breathing. Looking for the gap is like cutting up the goose that laid the golden egg. Looking for the gap traps you into holding your breath, which leads to dullness and drowsiness.
Just as a ball thrown in the air spans an arc of ascent and descent, so too does the breath move in a curve. Instead of following the breath itself, follow the arc of your intention to breath in as it rises to a certain weightlessness that pivots effortlessly to an intention of breathing out. As your meditation deepens, your intention relaxes yet the sense of an arc remains. Just a gossamer thread remains. Follow that.
Don't mind the gap. Mind the breath as a whole.

Take your finger off the trigger. Take your foot off the accelerator.
Just sit but with a quiet still silent mind.
Don't attempt to watch the breathing.
The Buddha did not teach to watch breathing.
The Buddha taught to abandon craving.
Every impulse to watch breathing is craving. When this impulse arises, abandon it, realise it, drop it, let it go.
When you stop trying or craving to watch breath and have a silent mind, Anapanasati (which means 'mindfulness with breathing' rather than 'mindfulness of breathing') can naturally take its natural course. 'Mindfulness' means 'to remember to keep the mind' free from craving.
When the mind stops trying to watch breathing, the mind will be free from the thought of 'trying'. Not trying actually makes the silent mind more clear, more sensitive.
Do we need to make an effort to hear a sound, to smell a smell or to see an object? if not, why does an effort need to be made to know/feel the breathing, when the mind is naturally silent?

How to handle the situation when one does not feel the breath is given below:

Just before the nimitta appears, a lot of yogis encounter difficulties.
  Mostly they find that the breath becomes very subtle and unclear; they
  may think the breath has stopped. If this happens, you should keep your
  awareness where you last noticed the breath, and wait for it there.
A dead person, a foetus in the womb, a drowned person, an unconscious
  person, a person in the fourth jhāna, a person in the attainment of cessation (nirodha·samāpatti), and a brahmā: only these seven types of person do
  not breathe. Reflect on the fact that you are not one of them, that you are
  in reality breathing, and that it is just your mindfulness which is not
  strong enough for you to be aware of the breath.
When it is subtle, you should not make the breath more obvious, as the
  effort will cause agitation, and your concentration will not develop. Just
  be aware of the breath as it is, and if it is not clear, simply wait for it
  where you last noticed it. You will find that, as you apply your mindfulness and wisdom in this way, the breath will reappear.

Knowing and Seeing (Fourth Revised Edition) by the Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw


text:
How to interpret "cessation"?
Throughout the suttas, we find the following stock passage:

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

On that text, I interprete the word "cessation" in "cessation of that very ignorance" as indicating a complete cessation of such ignorance. Is this interpretation of the cessation also applied to the other processes indicated next in the stock passage?
For instance, if the passage says "cessation of fabrications", is this implying a complete cessation of fabrications, just like in the last example?
Also, what is this "remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance"? Is this referring to Nibbāna or to Parinibbāna?
If it's indicating what happens after Nibbāna, then does this mean that fabrications (and all the posterior nidanas) cease to arise after Nibbāna as well?
If not, then should we read cessation in all the other nidanas (i.e., in all except in ignorance) as the "cessation of X nidana tainted with ignorance"?
But if, on the other, it's indicating at what happens at Parinibbāna, then Nibbāna is not the "remainderless fading & cessation of ignorance"
In sum, is the interpretion and implications of the word "cessation" dependent on the phenomenon which is ceasing?
Thanks in advance for your time!
Kind regards!

Isn't that question formed around troublesome thoughts of "to be or not to be?". Could such question arises when 'to be or not to be' isn't even a topic anymore, Nyom Brian?

Hi! I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm trying to focus this question on a semantic level. In other words, I'm trying to understand the correct application of the word "cessation". Kind regards!

There is no mystic in the cessation of holding on, cessation of the burden of 'to be or not to be'. Not after life, nor after death. Things run out according their nature, no more subject to re- assembling. (wearing cut off skin reubatched on a death cow)

Firstly, there are the five aggregates and the five clinging aggregates. From SN 22.48 and from this question:

“And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates? Whatever kind of form
  there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the
  form aggregate. Whatever kind of feeling there is … this is called the
  feeling aggregate. Whatever kind of perception there is … this is
  called the perception aggregate. Whatever kind of volitional
  formations there are … these are called the volitional formations
  aggregate. Whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past,
  future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or
  superior, far or near: this is called the consciousness aggregate.
  These, bhikkhus, are called the five aggregates.
“And what, bhikkhus, are the five aggregates subject to clinging?
  Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present … far
  or near, that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the
  form aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of feeling there is
  … that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the feeling
  aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of perception there is …
  that is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the perception
  aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind of volitional formations
  there are … that are tainted, that can be clung to: these are called
  the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging. Whatever kind
  of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal
  or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, that
  is tainted, that can be clung to: this is called the consciousness
  aggregate subject to clinging. These, bhikkhus, are called the five
  aggregates subject to clinging.”

Secondly, from this answer, you can see that the Buddha still had intentions and could plan his afternoon. So, living arahants still have sankhara of the volition kind. Living arahants also have sankhara of the kind where you have physical, verbal and mental activities (from this answer).
In SN 12.38, we read that intention and planning alone are insufficient for the continuation of suffering. There must also be latent tendencies (anusaya). This was discussed in this answer.
So, living arahants still have  sankhara. What they do not have is latent tendencies (anusaya), defilements (kilesa), effluents (asava), fetters (samyojana), craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana).
More precisely, living arahants have the aggregate of sankhara but not the clinging-aggregate of sankhara, because they have stopped clinging. See SN 22.48.
Thirdly, according to Iti 44 (quoted below), once liberated, the living arahant's ignorance, suffering and burning of the aggregates with the fires of aversion, hatred and delusion have ended. The fires have been quenched, but the embers are still glowing. These embers are the five aggregates (not clinging-aggregates). They will continue till the arahant's physical death. This is explained in Thanissaro Bhikkhu's commentary.

And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the
  case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended, who
  has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing
  to their being intact, he is cognizant of the agreeable & the
  disagreeable, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of
  passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with
  fuel remaining.
And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is
  the case where a monk is an arahant whose fermentations have ended,
  who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden,
  attained the true goal, ended the fetter of becoming, and is released
  through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished,
  will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with
  no fuel remaining."
Commentary (Thanissaro):
  With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa)
  and with no fuel remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire.
  In the first case, the flames are out, but the embers are still
  glowing. In the second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers
  have grown cold. The "fuel" here is the five aggregates. While the
  arahant is still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates,
  but they do not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion.
  When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of
  aggregates here or anywhere else.

Now, let's apply all of the above to the stock phrase that you had quoted.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance
  comes the cessation of fabrications.

A foetus has ignorance. With that as the cause, the fabrications (physical, verbal and mental) arise. The rest of the clinging aggregates will also arise and dependent origination will become fully operational.
After he grows up, he becomes a living arahant. When ignorance has been overcome with no remainder, the five clinging aggregates will cease. But the five aggregates (of the non-clinging kind) remain till his physical death, as we saw in Iti 44.

From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of
  consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation
  of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation
  of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media
  comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes
  the cessation of feeling.

Once again, this simply says that after liberation from suffering, the five clinging aggregates have ceased, because their cause has ceased. But not the five aggregates. The five aggregates, which are like glowing embers after the fire has ceased, will keep functioning till physical death.
Name-and-form is simply the mind-body link, which is anyway part of the five aggregates. The nidanas of fabrications (sankhara), consciousness (vinnana), name-and-form (namarupa), six sense media (salayatana) and feeling (vedana) are all located within the five aggregates. Hence, the distinguishing of aggregates from clinging aggregates in SN 22.48, is fully applicable to these nidanas. Also, the notion from Iti 44 that the five aggregates remain operating in an untainted way till physical death for a living arahant is also applicable to these nidanas.

From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the
  cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From
  the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
  From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the
  cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire
  mass of stress & suffering."

When ignorance has ceased, the clinging aggregates cease. With this, craving, clinging, becoming and the rest of suffering, all cease for a living arahant.
The only thing that remains are the aggregates, untainted, till the living arahant's physical death.
If the five aggregates are different parts of a guitar, then dependent origination simply explains how the different parts of the guitar work together to create music (see Lute Sutta). Music here refers to the self (atta), which is what becoming (bhava) and birth (jati) is about.
For a living arahant, the music has stopped, but the guitar remains. One day, even that will be destroyed. The five clinging aggregates is like a guitar vibrating with music, while the five aggregates not subject to clinging is like a silent peaceful guitar.
Although I said music, it's more like noise. When the noise stops, you have peace. That's the living arahant's mentally cognized peace of nibbana.

I know it's not recommended to simply write "thanks" here...
But, thank you so much for this well-thought and detailed answer.
Have a wonderful day!

Nirodha is also the third of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, referring mainly to the cessation of suffering and that one can attain the cessation of suffering. Buddhists believe that suffering is caused by attachment, craving and ignorance; once these causes are understood and eliminated, the suffering is removed and the state of nirvana is reached.
https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5326/nirodha
"remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance" Is referring to Nibbāna and to Parinibbāna according to Theravada. Perhaps the Mahayana may have a different interpretation.


text:
What's the sutta/source for Devadatta's attempt to kill the Buddha with the drunken war elephant Nalagiri?
Is there Sutta reference for Devadatta's third attempt to kill the Buddha with drunken elephant Nalagiri as mentioned in Life of the Buddha?
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_5lbud.htm

A story in the Cullavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka relates how the Buddha's envious cousin, Devadatta, tried to kill him by releasing a notoriously ferocious elephant called Nalagiri at him in the streets of Rajagaha. The Buddha is said to have subdued it by exercising metta and karuna, so that the elephant lowered its trunk and stopped before the Buddha. Hiuen-Tsang refers to a stupa at the place where this is said to have happened.

Now at that time there was a fierce elephant in Rājagaha, a man-slayer, called Nālāgiri. Then Devadatta, having entered Rājagaha, having gone to the elephant stable, spoke thus to the mahouts: “We, my good fellows, are relations of the king. We are competent to put in a high position one occupying a lowly position and to bring about an increase in food and wages. Well now, good fellows, when the recluse Gotama is coming along this carriage road, then, having let loose this elephant, Nālāgiri, bring him down this carriage road.”
https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd17/en/horner-brahmali


text:
Can we reach deep meditative states without teachers?
I read that the guidance of a teacher is "highly recommended because not all meditation experiences are spiritually skillful" and that

"It's also very common for solo practitioners to believe they have reached a deep meditative state when in fact they have barely scratched the surface. They may feel the rapture of the first dhyana, for example, and assume that's enlightenment. A good teacher will guide your meditative technique and keep you from sticking anywhere."
Developing Samadhi

Can we take a deep and authentic look, and potentially reach enlightenment without a teacher?
thanks

thanks guys i appreciate this will look into the Pali suttas

A teacher is generally required but difficult to find. The Pali suttas say:

Tathāgatappaveditassa dhammavinayassa desetā puggalo dullabho lokasmiṃ
Rare in the word is a person who teaches the teaching and training
  proclaimed by a Realized One.
AN 6.96

For an individual with a keen intellect, this 'teacher' could simply be the Pali suttas. However, even in this case, the discernment of what the Path is must be acutely discerned. Generally, even an intelligent person needs a 'rare teacher' to verbally guide through the true meaning of the Pali suttas.

You need another's voice (parato ghosa) or spiritual friend to teach you dhamma. Other than for a Buddha and Private Buddha one cannot realise the Dhamma without someone else showing the path. So you need someone to show you how to get too deep meditation. Also, show you where you might have made mistakes.
Once you learn the path it is one's efforts and practice which takes you to the final goal. You should be an island to your self without relying on another.
So to learn the technique you need the guidance of a teacher. To walk the path you need to do it your self. No external party can help here. Generally, you lean a little bit of theory and put it to practice then learn more and put that into practice. Hence it is good to have a teacher who can show you the way.
The medium thought what is taught can be direct interaction with a teacher. Reading books. Or even directly from the Tripitaka. The ultimate teacher in the line of teachers is the Buddha who made the Dhamma know.

Anything that can be learned how to be done most likely could be learned more quickly with a teacher. This applies to deep meditative states. That being said, It does not apply to enlightenment.
Nothing is required to reach enlightenment. Nirvana exists with us in every moment of our lives. Because of this, all you need to do to "reach" enlightenment is to see it clearly. Reaching deep meditative states are not required to awaken. Spontaneous enlightenment is possible and has most likely happened many times before. Awakening is not something that is done. It is more like the opposite. It is a stopping of doing. And once you stop that doing, all that is left is Nirvana.
A teacher can be helpful only in pointing you in the direction of where to look, how to look, and how to stop looking. From personal experience though, I have seen no evidence that anything can expedite the process of awakening. Awakening is only a gradual process in very select circumstances. Most awakenings are happen in a single moment and are instantly life changing. My awakening happened over two meditation sessions. The first was a sort of half baked awakening, but then 2 days later the real thing happened and blew everything open. I would say I am probably the exception as opposed to the rule though.
TLDR; Teachers are not required to help you reach meditative states, but they can be very helpful. Teachers are not required to help you reach enlightenment, but they can point you in the right direction.

In my opinion, you can't do this unless you are a Paseka Buddha. Perhaps you have given the reasons in your own post.

Even Gautam Buddha was searching for a teacher. What to speak of us! We need teachers for ordinary material education and spiritual teachings are on the highest level of intelligence.
A teacher can also be in the form of a book. However, one who has extensive experience of serving a spiritual teacher is qualified to make advancement by reading a book. So you definitely need a teacher.

What the Buddha said in AN2.126 is:

“There are two conditions for the arising of right view.
  What two?
  The words of another and proper attention.
  These are the two conditions for the arising of right view.”

For more information, consult AN5.26, which describes "five opportunities for freedom" with details about the various circumstances of practice with and without teachers. The first opportunity is to have a good teacher. But good teachers are not always available, so the question you ask is quite relevant and the answer is found in the other four opportunities.

With internet one is not really without a teacher and one should look for people who have something you want and who are teaching how to develop those very qualities.
Of course a person could isolate themselves and experiment extensively with varying results according to the variety of developments which one could devlop. There is no cap on developments which are freely and practically available tl the reader; other than becoming a Buddha, a spiderman and such effective restrictions. In as far as deep meditative states there are no restrictions on the lay community as a whole.
One would attain in accord to the directed effort. Most teachers still teach based on their learned expression and both meaning and expression will vary among teachers according to their development. Therefore if one finds a teacher for something particular it is great to learn those particulars but if one knows what the particulars and only effort is to be put in then assuming no further motivation is required one is doing this on one's own.

There is no teacher is necessary. Just believe the path showed by Buddha and act on it. He is our worthy teacher. He has crossed the flood of existence and equally shows us the way to cross it. Remember only one thing have patience, deep faith and surrender everything. So that there is blowing out of everything you posses before and in that blowing out one has insight. With that insight one can see the law of karma, past life kammathana, the seed of becoming and the one who burn that seed. With that insight there is knowledge, "Released"!

Yes, you can reach higher states and if you reach enlightenment without a teacher that means you're a paccekabuddha. The appearance of a pacceka-buddha isn't that uncommon and many can arise at once.
It seems that paccekabuddhas usually encounter sammasambuddhas in some past existence and have developed certain kamma.
The majority of people regardless of what they try won't be able to reach certain states without a teacher because of their kamma. The majority of people I encounter do sinful deeds unknowingly and think of themselves as good people.
The practice of metta (loving-kindness) seems to be only slightly below the achievement of the jhanas so if having difficulty with training then practice metta, virtue, and generating good kamma.

“Bhikkhus, whatever grounds there are for making merit productive of a
  future birth, all these do not equal a sixteenth part of the
  mind-release of loving-kindness. The mind-release of loving-kindness
  surpasses them and shines forth, bright and brilliant." (Iti 27)

I'm not sure if the arahants disappeared but I feel that they did around the same time predicted (500 years after the parinibbana).
Without arahants, paccekabuddhas, or a sammasambuddha existing in the world the dhamma is lost.
The time-period we exist in now is more fascinating than ever because higher mathematics and the scientific method exists now (since around the 17th-18th century, it did not exist for most of history).
So if a fully enlightened being arises now and people question him it will likely shock everyone.

I personally believe meditation is about practice and learning through Insight as a result of what you experience. A guide is useful but I always wonder who taught the first person who ever meditated how to meditate. That's a bit like Adam being depicted with a belly button on paintings.
My first experience of a persistent inner light was aged 10 and no one taught me to experience that. I was intrigued and aged 71 that light still appears regularly. I don't say that it's anything special, it just is there.
I then learned somehow that focusing on something brings relaxation and was shown how to focus on the breath at the nostril tip, colder as it passes in and warmer as it passes out across the membrane at the tip of the nostril. I relaxed and persisted and someone said to look for joy and it was there, hiding all the time and so glad to meet me it swelled into something more easily perceived, and so on...
What I'm saying is go explore, use a map by all means but remember that a map is not the territory.

The question is if you don't know how to build a car can a regular Joe build a car. Yes but it will be much harder if that person has no idea what they're doing prior. The better truth is "No" you should get instruction from a monk or true Buddha if you're lucky enough to find them. "Lucky" here's the thing if you're getting blissful release from meditation that fine and dandy. But that's not what you're text is suggesting your looking for. Your chasing a high. It's ok to peruse directions like this but you trade your growth and potential. The stick comes from the supernatural power one gets or that runners high one discovers. Generally speaking satori comes after kensho and men don't grasp kensho as fast as women. What I'm saying is you can't have Chan realisation without one. They don't take on human beings that haven't already began to seek sentients. If you can put all that down then you might be able to do it.  You might recognise a roshi because they are out there.
It's possible to reach enlightenment digging a hole in your back yard.
It's possible to do it in a near death experience. It's possible to do it understanding what you're mother had told you your whole life. One of My students found profound enlightenment and reached full satori on the John. Recently I had one pass through and only had right effort. I have another student I've been working with for two years standing at the door of the 50000 gateless gates and turn around because they didn't realize it-this was yesterday. The buddhalands are infinite. The mind as we build it is limited. The roshi isn't a hall pass. You have to put in the work.