text:
Is 'be thankful to your parents, for they brought you life' incongruent with Buddhist thought?
It appears to me that this is incompatible with Buddhist teachings. Life will bring suffering, and it'll not be a kind and easy journey. So why be thankful?
On the other hand, if you weren't an arhat then you were going to be reborn in some way. If you were born in some type of affluent family with good values etc., then I guess you could be thankful.

Are you saying that "be thankful" is Buddhist teaching, and wondering why? Or are you saying that you don't know whether "be thankful" is Buddhist teaching? You enclosed the phrase in "quotation marks": if it is quote, can you say where you're quoting it from?

The phrase is in quotations because this is what I have heard often when children are angry with their mom or whatever... I think it's a common thing to say, at least in my part of the world. I'm wondering if it is congruent/compatible with the buddhist point of view.

From the Anguttara Nikaya 2.32

"I tell you, monks, there are two people who are not easy to repay. Which two? Your mother & father. Even if you were to carry your mother on one shoulder & your father on the other shoulder for 100 years, and were to look after them by anointing, massaging, bathing, & rubbing their limbs, and they were to defecate & urinate right there [on your shoulders], you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. If you were to establish your mother & father in absolute sovereignty over this great earth, abounding in the seven treasures, you would not in that way pay or repay your parents. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world.
"But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father."

Gratitude is a Buddhist concept. Below is an essay on Gratitude in Buddhism by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Anguttara Nikaya The Further-factored Discourses

As a Western Buddhist, I'd say the advice is incongruent on the grounds of the First Noble Truth, and incongruent because child neglect and child abandonment exist in the world; but on the other hand the advice is congruent because mother and farther generally teach a lot of virtue and useful skills.
Ultimately though it's a worldly matter where morality (sīla) is called for. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

The Buddhist version of the 'Golden Rule' might be very slightly different: i.e. the examples given in Wikipedia are all, "Don't treat others as you would not like to be treated", especially as a reason for non-violence.

One reason why it is congruent with Buddhist thought is that it's better than some alternatives: for example, thinking, "I hate my stupid parents, they wronged me, they never gave me enough, I wish I'd never been born" is unhappy.
Gratitude can help be an antidote for those feelings: in the same way that compassion is recommended.
There are some limits to this gratitude, or minor limits to the obligation that might be implied by gratitude. For example there are stories of people (starting with Gautama himself) who went against their parent's wishes, by choosing "the holy life" instead of becoming a householder as their parents wanted them to.
There's something about this story for example, which makes me think that she's able to feel "debt free" partially because she is willing to 'give her gratitude' to the supporter who gave her the robe. Perhaps "gift" and "gratitude" are supposed to arise together (co-originate), that's the natural (free) way of things.

I have to part company here and say that expressing gratitude for being brought into the world (or for breeding) contradicts the 1st Noble Truth.
Sutras should be taken with a grain of salt.  Test them, apply what works, and dispense with the rest.  Don't hold anything as being worthy of veneration just because it's a Sutra.  While many Sutras are profound, many are contradictory, incoherent or just plain nonsense.
So work it out for yourself. If life is Dukkha, then why be happy (and express gratitude) that you were brought into it?  If (as some Buddhists claim) it's because it's an opportunity to practice, then ask if you'd feel similarly grateful to someone who broke your legs and thus gave you an opportunity to heal.
This isn't to say that we should harbor ill will because of this; it is what it is, and our energy is best spent making the most of where we are.  But acting like we were done a favor by being thrown face first into Dukkha strikes me as disingenuous.
I believe this is the result of politics.  At some point Buddhism needed to appeal to laypeople who had families, or to the politico/social order, and the result are teachings like this.
None of this is to say that laypeople can't benefit greatly from Buddhism.
Conclusion: Don't take anything seriously just because it's a Sutra.

I recently had my finger broken by someone. I had to have surgery because the break was so bad. I am very grateful for that person. I am grateful for the experience as well. I have been able to look into my own impermanence. My finger did not heal properly and I can no longer make a fist. When I look at my deformed finger it reminds me of impermanence and that brings me great joy and happiness. I am very thankful for this experience.

My parents could have easily (but didn't) hold a grudge against me for being born and interfering with their lives/plans. I think I'm supposed to believe that I wanted to be born (whether that was a sensible desire to have is another matter, but it was my desire). And I'm grateful not for their conceiving me (they didn't do that on purpose) but for the so-many things which they did do deliberately to help me afterwards: feed me, clothe me, talk with me, listen to me, help me when I'm sick, etc. Nice parents, I was lucky.

Also, Life Isn't Just Suffering

@ChrisW Well, it isn't how we're treated, but being born itself that I was challenging with regards to gratitude.  I agree that life isn't just suffering, nor will I claim (or not claim) that the pleasure/pain balance even falls on the side of pain. However, my response was with regards to a particular reading of the 1st Noble Truth which puts a priority on suffering.  Perhaps another approach to the original poster's question is to analyze/challenge the assumptions behind that particular interpretation of the 1st Noble Truth?

I suppose I agree with you (about being born: I'm not sure whether that is of itself a kindness). The reason given in the Kataññu Suttas is about how we're treated, "Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, they nourish them, they introduce them to this world."


text:
Memories in frames
I have a question regarding my insight meditation practice. When i practice and my mind becomes still then when memories pop up i see them in frames. When my mind is not stilled i see memories fluently, like in a movie.
Is it normal to see them in frame by frame when meditating? What does it mean that they are seen in frames. Is that because conditioned and compounded phenomena is build by component parts and thereby im seeing the impermance?
May all beings be happy, peaceful and free from mental and physical suffering.
Harshani

What does the frame around your memory look like? Like a picture frame? Or like an architectura/structural frame?

Im sorry, what?

In your mind, when you see these frames surrounding your memories, what do the frames look like?

I just see a picture of the memory and there is no frame. I think i used the wrong word maybe. When i say frame i mean "still picture". I see the memory in still picture and then another still picture. Its not fluently at all. You know like a movie on Television it consists of many independent still pictures.

Well then, seems like you are quite normal then :) Here is a link on how memory works in a fun video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUoJc0NPajQ

So when you see the memory of "2x2=4" I see it as a still image. A single picture or photo of the equation. Same with lots of my memories. I am picturing the book cover of a favorite book and it appears as a "still picture". I am remembering my car and it appears as a "still picture" as well.

Thank you for your answer Christopher:) Im still wondering about how this "still picture"-thing is relating to the nature of the mind. By the way - great video you gave me.

What happens is
Sense door > Sense contact > Metal image > Contact with metal image > Recognise > Evaluate > Sensation > Proliferation of metal form > Mental contact > ...
So there is a chance that at some stage you start seeing things in quantum.
NB: This is my personal opinion any sense contact is followed by metal contact as physical creates a metal impression also.
As a final note. Don't get carried away by this as it will cause you to regress. Keep up your meditation.
Following is and alternative image from Formations by Piya Tan. This also shows that thoughts are cycling in nature hence why you might see things in quantums or frames.

Thank you for this explanation Suminda and the PDF file about how formations work in daily life and the warning about regressing. I value that a lot.

No worries. If you have any other question don't hesitate to ask.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do I integrate Vipassana practice into daily life?
I'm am completely new to meditation, and I have really been wanting to start it. The past few days, I've been doing Vipassana sessions for the first time; however, I hear people say that it doesn't matter if you mediate if you do not carry the practice into daily life.
But, how can I continue to be mindful in daily life? Any tips for a newbie?
Thanks!

Follow the following basic steps in integrate meditation to daily life:

Pay attention to fabrication and how they are created, i.e., when you react to sensations. Train to be equanimous to sensations. Understand the cause and effect with relation to what causes misery. Understand that to the reaction to sensations cause new fabrications. Actively clam the creation of fabrications.
Try to understand the 3 marks of existance / characteristics with regard to the 5 aggregates and the mind matter phenomena. Starting the process by seeing the impermanence of sensations. (Even when looking at impermanence of a body part, how you sense the body part of the sensation when you bring your attention to the particular body part. Also seeing impermanence is easier and lead to seeing the other two characteristics of existance - corelessness and unsatisfactoriness.)

In more detail:

Physical

Bodily fabrications

Actively look at sensations in the body - especially areas tied to sense faculties i.e. skin, eyes, ear, head, mouth - when they come in contact something
Understand that the normal tendency is to react. Try to ensure you do not react and maintain equanimity to what ever sensation.
Try to look at the breathing process and the sensation it create. Sensation of touch around your nostrils. Feeling of oxygen spreading in the in breath and sensation in your body in the out breath. Expansion and contraction it causes in the body. The speed and length of the in and out breath.
Contemplate on the sensation on you body part by part. (How you sense a body part is by looking at the sensation aground it when you move you attention to the body part. This not any verbalisation or visualisation.)
Contemplate on you bodily posture. The sensation associated in staying in a particular posture and sensation when changing your bodily posture (like when walking)
Also the vibrations is the body cased by your heart beat when breath is not predominant
You should investigate phenomena with a view to understand phenomena at the experiential and empirical level. Through this investigation you should eventually see the at 3 characteristics of all physical form at the experiential level. This is not a concept or verbalisation but at the experiential level.
Further investigate the make up of the corporal structure: solidity, liquidity, gaseous nature, and heat. Investigate how sensation related to these states. Investigate the changes of the states. E.g. numb leg, rumbling stomach, etc. Investigate the relationship of fabrication and these states. E.g. how numbness comes and goes, headache comes and goes, etc.

Mental

Verbal fabrications

Look at applied thoughts or mental verbalisations or visualisation and sensations it creates
When you your sense doors cones in contact this cause a sensation in recognising and giving evaluation to the contact and a perception created. E.g. This is my friend. Associated with this again feeling comes into play.
Look at the change of mental state and associated sensations when you get distracted. E.g. if you think about dinner you will get a sensation throughout your body but predominant around your belly. If you are not equanimous this will lead to to more through proliferation with verbalisation or visualisation of food mental state change
Proliferation of thought from any contact. E.g. a smell cause to remember some previous incident. You should investigate the sense doors in involved.
You should actively calm the chartering mind which would lead to concentration.
Look at 3 characteristics of all mental form

Mental fabrications

Look for moods and mental states, perception forming
When you your sense doors cones in contact this cause a sensation in recognising and giving evaluation to the contact and a perception created. E.g. This is my friend. Associated with this again feeling comes into play.
Look at changes in mood and mental state when it comes in contact with any sense objects. First this arises around the organ e.g. around the ear followed by the head when you give evaluation and perceive
Look at 3 characteristics of all mental state

In any of the above if any uneasy or tense sensation / feeling arise bring your attention to it for a short while. At higher stages when something comes to your attention it dissolves. Use this to release your tension. Initially the sensation will be physical but as you go on physical sensation become pleasant and neutral much of the sensation would be linked to thoughts and mental states which generally dominant around the head area. At some state all sensations will be pleasant. Keep dissolving even pleasant sensations until it is neutral by moving your attention to the sensation. At this point where there is neutral feeling all over and you are not creating any new fabrication is an important point. You have the leave the results to time.
You should actively investigate cause and effect and through this understand the cause and effect misery and how to eliminate it. Contact > Recognise / Register > Evaluation Through Perception > Sensation > Craving > Clinging > Fabrications. Through this understand the root cause of misery is the clinging to sensations and this sensation is caused by your perception and giving evaluation as wanted or unwanted and reacting to it with craving or aversion. When you stop giving evaluation and be equanimous than reactive then the fabrication stops as well as the pain due to your attachment or expectation of the outcome.
Acrobats, dancers, etc, have to be really mindful of what they do otherwise there would be disaster. With an exception of Uggasena, acrobats are far away from enlighten. The main thing is to practice the right type of mindfulness. The right type is to be mindful of the the sensations without reaction understanding it true nature. With each contact we have a choice. To react to the sensation the contact brings and be miserable or not to react and be at peace.
Investigate the sources from which sensations arise. External form coming in contact with a faculty resulting in contentiousness followed by sensation. You crave to prolong, get rid of be in situation where certain sense input is available (at a show) or situation where certain sense input is unavailable (get out of prison and go to the Caribbean). You have no absolute control over the form. Even you eat the same dish it might not be the same. You do not have absolute control over the faculty as your eyesight may deteriorate. You have no absolutely no control over the sensation as it just arise and passes away. Investigation of physical / material form of the organ would show they are also arising and passing away. At least at the logical level if not seeing arising and passing away externally see that external form is impermanent as well.
Then investigate what we are made of:

We have physical form with physical sense faculties. Investigation of physical form my brining your attention and sensing the sensations arising and passing on those parts.

We have faculties. These faculties come in contact with external form and you register this contact. I say this. I heard that. I read that.

We have a way to recognise and register external form and stimulus. This recognition is what makes our faculties useful. Investigate you your mind recognise something on contact and what following and sensations that arise when recognising.
We have a mental form

We views and outlook of the world and we analyse things against this perceptions. From this you analyse and build you take or view on the matter. This taste good. What a great story.
We have habits and reactions. When we get a sensation resulting from a contact we have build a habitual response and reaction to it.
We have mental images of what we have come in contact.

We have feels and sensations. May it be happiness, sadness, heat, cold, touch, etc. When we get and input from out faculties we analyse against our perception or view we conclude that this is wanted or unwanted. Being in contact and registering the input on its own gives rise to sensation but burning is the sensations through your take on the matter and longing for more or less and to be in situation which might bring more or less of the input.
Investigation on all physical and mental form will reveal all this is changing, cannot be fully controlled and or worthy of being identified as me and any expectation or exertion of control any of these things which are part of us result in misery.

In our minds we created a universe of our own with yourself as the centre. This universe is mainly of different perceptions which differ from reality. It can be perception about one self, view and beliefs, habits, etc. Many off these perceptions results in misery when reality is different. For different inputs you give evaluation and identify a gap which is positive (linked to pleasant sensation - craving as the base), negative (linked to unpleasant sensation - as aversion as the base) or neutral (linked to neutral sensation - as lack of wisdom as the base). Through you meditation you should note the arising of these sensation and straiten your views such that you are not attached to perceptions which cause misery and cultivate perceptions which help get over misery. (Girimananda Sutta mentions 10 of them.)
Also when analysing your mental and physical processors you will see that any mental action will have physical manifestation and vice versa. With regard to both you will that some sensation are linked with the characteristics of matter (since we are sensing this through a sense faculty what we see is the associated sensations). Namely, solidity / hardness, liquidity / flowing nature, gaseous nature, temperature / vibrations, space between the quantum of elements and conciousness. Without conciousness you cannot feel anything. Feeling has some characteristics of matter (solid, gas, ...). When you are angry you will also feel a bit hot. Also when you have a numbness there will be a solid feeling around the area. The make up of you body also will have these characteristics. Also food and environmental influences have similar manifestations.
The 3 poisons and all defilements and linked to sensation and perception. Identify as defilements come and go. What sensation they create. When you transgress morality also the same thing happens (unpleasant sensations). When you do do good the opposite happens (pleasant sensations). Also your thoughts and mental actions are similarly. Be mindful of all actions and thoughts which cause sensations (what ever the nature - generally pleasant [craving as the root] or unpleasant [aversion as the root]) and contribute to building perceptions (generally neutral [delusion as the root])
In all cases we should be

Mindful of the arising and passing away of sensation while maintain equanimity
Investigative of the causes of sensations
Develop concentration to be able to and do finer analysis of any mental / physical form and input
Exert effort to be mindful and maintain equanimity, develop concentration and calm the fabrications and crating of fabrications
Be investigative of phenomena.
Actively calm the fabrication process
Be mindful and attentive to sensation until painful sensation subside and you are left with pleasant sensations. When any pain comes to your mind it will just pass away at some stage. Exercise appropriate effort of be mindful. Be investigative of what cause the pain and what makes it dispensary. Investigate keeping you attention on the whole body that there is not place without pleasantness
Similarly be mindful and attentive to pleasantness until it is no more.

In summary there are 4 thing you should look out for:

Cause and effect and the impact on rising and passing away of misery
Actively calm the fabrications. (Bodily, verbal and mental)
Get right of unwholesome perceptions and out look of the world and replace it with a more conducive out look towards your mental well being
Understand the 3 characteristics of all phenomena

See:

What are examples of identity-view?
Culavedalla Sutta which involved Vishaka who was a householder (lay disciple).
Contemplation of Feeling
Importance of Vedana
The Importance of Vedana and Sampajanna
The Great Discourse on the Establishing of Awareness (See introduction: Vedanā in the Practice of Satipaṭṭhāna)
Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta
Formations
Bhaddekaratta Sutta (Chinese version)
Madhu Pindika Sutta
Chettana Sutta
Bhaddekaratta Sutta
Anathapintikovade Sutta
Dhatu Vibhanga Sutta
Channovade Sutta
Bojjhanga sila sutta
Mula Pariyaka Sutta
Titth Ayatana Sutta

@Harshani Updated the answer. Let me know if this is better. Also you can edit if you think you can improve.

Hi Suminda:) Well i think you improved an already great answer. I think the last part about the dependent origination and how to stop reacting is of great importance. I imagine a picture where one throws rocks into a lake and how it create ripples. Reacting to phenomena is like the ripple effect but if one stops reacting then the ripple effect stops too.

Yes. Any contract is like throwing a stone.

Wow, you made the answer even more profound. Great.

This is by far one of the longest answers I have written. I generally keep things as short as possible. Please you can proof read it to see if there is something out of place.

It's well recieved and appreciated because you incorporate so many of the dhammas into one answer thereby giving a broader perspective and showing how the different teachings fit perfectly together. I will proof read it soon:) Wish you well Suminda.

Also if you don't mind can you go through some of my questions and answers (http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/suminda-sirinath-salpitikorala) and see if they need any improvements?

I think this answer should be made Community Wiki. Moderators ? Is such a feature available on B.SE ?

@Monk A Community Wiki feature is available, but it maybe isn't necessary here yet? You are already allowed to edit this post, to suggest improvement to it, if you want to (except perhaps try to avoid adding something that Suminda would disagree with). You are also welcome to start a new answer of your own, with any supplemental information (E.g. you could start a new answer writing, "Further to Suminda's answer, etc.").

i think at many places metal means mental ?

Yes. It should be mental. Corrected it. Well spotted. See if there any more issues.

While I agree that it's important to incorporate meditation into your "active" life, I think sitting meditation is useful and its effects will find its way into your daily life. Actively practicing meditation while living yields best results however.
With that said, here are some suggestions.

Incorporate some meditative movement (walking meditation, Yoga, Tai Chi) as a "bridge" between your meditative practice and "active" life.
Prior to engaging in your affairs, take a moment to remind yourself that your "goal" is to be mindful.
When being mindful, simple may be best.  Perhaps restrict your practice to bare, non-judgmental awareness to anything that arises in your experience.
Try a timer or mindfulness reminder app that will chime at regular intervals to "bring you back" and remind you of your mindfulness goals.

Bare attention, without getting caught up in analyzing thoughts and images seems helpful. I think of it as if I were an auditor for a museum. I've been hired to simply audit the paintings there. I walk through the museum simply counting the paintings. I don't care if they are Rembrandts, Miros, Picassos or Aunt Sally down the street. All I'm interested in is "the painting", not what it is OF.
The content doesn't interest me at all. Just the painting. Just the thought or image that arises. It could be a painting/image/thought of any thing at all. There is no good/bad in any painting/image/thought. I just move from one to another. Or, I could say, they just move in the mind as clouds move through the sky. I don't try to control them, comment on them, judge them.
Ah, then comes a thought/image that I react to. I hop on the train, get involved in the thought/image, engage it, ride on the thought train for awhile and then hop off! This almost always happens! When I've jumped off the thought train and am again simply doing bare attention, any judgment I have re "I lost it, I shouldn't have jumped on the train"...that then becomes the focus of awareness. I try to "bare attention" that judgement and....so on!
I hope this is appropriate. If not, let me know. Thanks, Steve.

While vipassana can be beneficial on its own without any other instruction than how to achieve it and what to look for, it is suggested that one should follow the Threefold Training: (1) develop sila (virtue, morality) in order to effectively practice (2) samadhi (concentrated meditation), in order to effectively practice (3) vipassana (insight, panna).

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


text:
What advice did the Buddha give to corrupt officials?
I'm wondering if there were any such occasions, and what suttas/sutras this is recorded in.
Also if the Buddha gave advice to otherwise evil people besides Angulimala or Devadatta, or possible connections to psychopathy or sociopathy.

Was King Pasenadi corrupt?  I think the only advice he heeded from the Buddha was to moderate his eating, and he lost a bunch of weight as a result :)

Corrupted officials: Dhanañjani Sutta

"What do you think, Dhanañjanin? There is the case where a certain
  person, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers
  ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his
  guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does
  what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his
  unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell.
  Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is
  discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell,
  hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He
  did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't
  [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

Other evil people(demon): Alavaka Sutta


text:
What are examples of identity-view?
Identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is the first of the ten fetters.
The "eradication" of identity-view is important towards enlightenment.
Presumably, "eradication of identity-view" is more than simply claiming, "Yes, there's no self anywhere!!"
So, how should one understand what "identity-view" is, and whether it's eradicated?
If "eradication" of identity-view marks an important step or stage, can that eradication be analyzed into smaller substeps (e.g. is there an 80-step lesson plan or set of tests towards eradicating it)?
Can you give some of important examples of the practical consequence of identity-view: how it affects belief and behaviour? So that it might be possible to use the presence or absence of these beliefs and behaviours to test whether identify-view exists or has been eradicated?
Is "eradication of identity-view" synonymous with having no habits?
Can you recommend any competent English-language literature on this topic?
If there are not good questions to be asking about identity-view please suggest better ones!

Among the reasons why I'm puzzled are the that Culavedalla Sutta for example seems to describe it:

As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification, self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?"
"There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One."

Is identity-view the same then as being aware that skandhas exist? The same as being attracted to (clinging to) sense-objects? Isn't the answer to that, "No that's not true, because 'sensual desire' is the fourth fetter"?
Also, questions about the self come with a warning: "This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, etc." -- so I have not been trying to analyze that (views-about-self) ... but maybe I am supposed to know what identity-view is?

From my perspective, when it comes to eradication of identity view, there is analytical level, and then there is the level of day-to-day intuitive action.
On analytical level, it is a clear direct understanding that:

the boundaries of ("external") entities are conventional designations;
thoughts come from perceptions plus associative memory, not "I think";
actions arise the same way as thoughts, not "I decided";
the ocean of information and causation is the source of its own existence-activity;
identification with a living organism is not necessary (but understandable and even inevitable given the way intelligence is mediated by organic life at this place at this time);

On the level of daily activity, it is what R. Barzell said, operating without an unspoken assumption that there is some inner core that needs to be protected from "external" threats, who deserves something, who is better or worse than someone, whose case has to be promoted etc.
Why is it (eradication of identity view) enlightening? Because identity view is a quintessential element of the childish, oversimplified, mistaken view of the world, and is one of the major contributors to suffering, both at social as well as at individual level.

I love this statement: "the ocean of information and causation is the source of its own existence-activity". Ocean is my favorite metaphor of... um... well, you know.

Well, here's my take on Identity view.  I think it's relatively compatible with the Sutras, but should not be considered an exposition of them.
First, what is this "self"?  One answer is that it's your reaction when contemplating the following questions...
1. When you feel pride in an accomplishment, what is the recipient of this pride?
2. When you feel offended at being insulted, what was insulted?
3. Who is the "star" of your narrative?
4. What is the agent that wills and acts and controls thought?

Identity views cause pain since this self is something that can come under attack and hence becomes a source of worry and regret (see #3) and conflict (see #2).  Further, suffering continues because experience becomes filtered and emotionally laden because of how it's seen to relate to this "self" (see #3). Then there's the fact that desires are in reference to a "self" -- when you seek desires, you seek to feed this "self".
So the goal is to suspend belief in a self.  This doesn't mean claiming it doesn't exist -- but rather, letting all beliefs about it go.  That's the only way the apparently contradictory claims of the Sutras (and the various view fetters) make sense to me.
You suspend these beliefs by inquiring into the nature of this self.  Be mindful and present to your experience, especially when confronted with 1-4, and inquire deeply into this "self" that seems to present itself.  During meditation (or in quieter times) try to focus on this sense of "I" and go through the Skhandas to see if you can find any self there.  You can even look at it logically; if the self is "you", the thing behind your consciousness (not that I'm claiming it is), then how can you be aware of it, as to be aware of anything means its an object of consciousness and not the subject?
As for Western approaches to the self, I think the most systematic treatment is Derek Parfitt.
After that, there's David Hume.  Here's a PDF outlining his identity views.
And here's a passage from Hume (from here) about his views on a self.  This may make a good object for meditation, and the relationship to Skhandas is clear:

For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I
  always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or
  cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can
  catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe
  any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are remov’d for any
  time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may
  truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions remov’d by
  death, and cou’d I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor
  hate after the dissolution of my body, I shou’d be entirely
  annihilated, nor do I conceive what is farther requisite to make me a
  perfect non-entity. If any one upon serious and unprejudic’d
  reflexion, thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess
  I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may
  be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in
  this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and
  continu’d, which he calls himself; tho’ I am certain there is no such
  principle in me… But setting aside some metaphysicians of this kind, I
  may venture to affirm of the rest of mankind, that they are nothing
  but a bundle or collection of different perceptions, which succeed
  each other with an inconceivable rapidity, and are in a perpetual flux
  and movement.

excellent, very practical.

You said: "when you seek desires, you seek to feed this 'self'." This strikes me with such clarity and force that I feel like if we could convey this simple message to everyone, the whole world would be enlightened at one stroke.

@nocomprende Thanks!  I really wanted to convey this relationship clearly, so I'm delighted this resonated with you!

Is identity-view the same then as being aware that skandhas exist? The
  same as being attracted to (clinging to) sense-objects? Isn't the
  answer to that, "No that's not true, because 'sensual desire' is the
  fourth fetter"?

The Samanupassana Sutta might help you in answering some of the questions you asked above. I think the Samanupassana Sutta makes the difference between sakkāya-diṭṭhi and clinging to sense-objects quite clear by illustrating what exactly is meant by sakkāya-diṭṭhi (and it can also be said to extrapolate on the terse teaching of the Culavedalla Sutta). You could also refer to the Maha-nidana Sutta for the teaching on "Delineations of a Self". And, although this may be a bit unrelated to your question The Brahmajāla Sutta also describes some pernicious speculations on self and the Buddha's warning against such speculations and holding such speculative views.

Delineations of a Self
"To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self?
  Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates
  that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self
  possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is
  possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and
  finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or,
  delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self
  is formless and infinite.'
"Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed
  of form and finite, either delineates it as possessed of form and
  finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally]
  become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], or he
  believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into
  being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed
  view of a self possessed of form and finite obsesses him.
"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of
  form and infinite, either delineates it as possessed of form and
  infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally]
  become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], or
  he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it
  into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a
  fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite obsesses him.
"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and
  finite, either delineates it as formless and finite in the present, or
  of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite
  [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not
  yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the
  case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and
  finite obsesses him.
"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and
  infinite, either delineates it as formless and infinite in the
  present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless
  and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that
  'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that
  way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a
  self formless and infinite obsesses him.
Non-Delineations of a Self
"To what extent, Ananda, does one not delineate when not delineating a
  self? Either not delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one
  does not delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or,
  not delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one does not
  delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, not
  delineating a self formless and finite, one does not delineate that
  'My self is formless and finite.' Or, not delineating a self formless
  and infinite, one does not delineate that 'My self is formless and
  infinite.'
"Now, the one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it
  as possessed of form and finite, does not delineate it as possessed of
  form and finite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a
  nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite
  [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is
  not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being
  the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of
  form and finite does not obsess him.
"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as
  possessed of form and infinite, does not delineate it as possessed of
  form and infinite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such
  a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and
  infinite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that
  'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that
  way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a
  self possessed of form and infinite does not obsess him.
"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as
  formless and finite, does not delineate it as formless and finite in
  the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will
  [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death],
  nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will
  convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to
  say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite does not obsess
  him.
"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as
  formless and infinite, does not delineate it as formless and infinite
  in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it
  will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after
  death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I
  will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is
  proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite does
  not obsess him.
Assumptions of a Self
"To what extent, Ananda, does one assume when assuming a self?
  Assuming feeling to be the self, one assumes that 'Feeling is my self'
  [or] 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling]' [or]
  'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious to feeling, but
  rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'
"Now, one who says, 'Feeling is my self,' should be addressed as
  follows: 'There are these three feelings, my friend — feelings of
  pleasure, feelings of pain, and feelings of neither pleasure nor pain.
  Which of these three feelings do you assume to be the self?' At a
  moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no feeling of pain or of
  neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pleasure is
  sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of pain is sensed,
  no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only
  a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling
  of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of
  pain is sensed. Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed
  at that moment.
"Now, a feeling of pleasure is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on
  conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and
  cessation. A feeling of pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on
  conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and
  cessation. A feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is inconstant,
  fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away,
  dissolution, fading, and cessation. Having sensed a feeling of
  pleasure as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own
  feeling of pleasure, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling
  of pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own
  feeling of pain, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of
  neither pleasure nor pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of
  one's very own feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, 'my self' has
  perished.
"Thus he assumes, assuming in the immediate present a self inconstant,
  entangled in pleasure and pain, subject to arising and passing away,
  he who says, 'Feeling is my self.' Thus in this manner, Ananda, one
  does not see fit to assume feeling to be the self.
"As for the person who says, 'Feeling is not the self: My self is
  oblivious [to feeling],' he should be addressed as follows: 'My
  friend, where nothing whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would
  there be the thought, "I am"?'"
"No, lord."
"Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that
  'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling].'
"As for the person who says, 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my
  self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self
  is subject to feeling,' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend,
  should feelings altogether and every way stop without remainder, then
  with feeling completely not existing, owing to the cessation of
  feeling, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"
"No, lord."
"Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that
  'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling],
  but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'
"Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the
  self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that 'My self feels, in that my
  self is subject to feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not
  sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world.
  Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound
  right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life
  fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'
"If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus
  released that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' is his view, that
  would be mistaken; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'...
  that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'...
  that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is
  his view, that would be mistaken. Why? Having directly known the
  extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation,
  the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression,
  the extent of description and the extent of the objects of
  description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects
  of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having
  directly known that, the monk is released. [To say that,] 'The monk
  released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is
  his opinion,' that would be mistaken.

And,

Can you recommend any competent English-language literature on this
  topic?

The Study Guide by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on The Five Aggregates may be a reasonably good choice.

"Presumably, 'eradication of identity-view' is more than simply claiming, 'Yes, there's no self anywhere!!'"
From [my understanding of] the Theravada standpoint, in terms of practice, it is definitely more than simply claiming something like that.
"So, how should one understand what 'identity-view' is"
[edited]: I suppose there is no other way but to actually practice following the instructions and the clues and similes on the texts. Monk's answer quotes a sutta (Maha-nidana) that I think is quite unique. Most of the other suttas describe a formula like:

"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever form [feeling, perception, etc], past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that form must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
-- SN 22.59

"Regarded with proper wisdom" implies, then, that it is not an inclination to be taken at face value, but "directly seen". So, wisdom ha to be developed, say, through the practice of vipassana (see Satipatthana sutta), which benefits from well developed concentration/samadhi (thus, the development of the jhanas), and these require Sila to be developed, and so on.
Other suttas help to further explain, in brief, debate, simile or in more detail what exactly is meant. For example (again SN 22.59):

"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'

(The above line of argument is often used by the Buddha when debating with a Brahmin).
Or the famous Nagasena and King Milinda debate (technically not "Buddhavacana"? but, apparently, part of the Burmese khuddaka nikaya):

[...] "How then did you come on foot, or on a mount?"
"I did not come, Sir, on foot, but on a chariot."
"If you have come on a chariot, then please explain to me what a chariot is. Is the pole the chariot?"
"No, Reverend Sir!"
"Is then the axle the chariot?" No.."Is it then the wheels, or the framework, of the flag-staff, or the yoke, or the reins, or the goad-stick?"..."Then is it the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins, and goad which is the "chariot"?"... "Then, is this "chariot" outside the combination of poke, axle, wheels, framework, flag-staff, yoke, reins and goad?"
"No, Reverend Sir!"
"Then, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot at all. This "chariot" is just a mere sound. But what is the real chariot? Your Majesty has told a lie, has spoken a falsehood! There is really no chariot!
-- Milinda Panha

Outside buddhism (and quite interesting from a materialistic point of view) some scientists have come up with estimates for how long it takes for a body to have all its cells replaced (quick google showed this article on nytimes). Similar estimate for atoms arrive at the "obvious but not so obvious" conclusion that our bodies are actually completely different (ie. it's a 100% "another body") from what they were some time ago (maybe, except, for tattoos?). That's without going subatomic...
"[how should one understands] whether it's eradicated?"
This might be one of those things that "you know when you know". Simultaneously, one of those things that people "believe they realized but didn't" -- granted, not a very helpful answer.
I think if, for each description the Buddha provides for one who does not possess identity-view, one's mind works perfectly according to it (plus, any other associated factors developed by side-effect), than this person is quite accomplished (if not fully accomplished) in this matter.
"Can you give some of important examples of the practical consequence of identity-view: how it affects belief and behaviour? So that it might be possible to use the presence or absence of these beliefs and behaviours to test whether identify-view exists or has been eradicated?"
In general, it opens the door for all kinds of misunderstandings, hindrances, fetters, further craving and clinging, birth & death, etc. Some suttas describe in more detail (but not that much detail), for example:

The Blessed One said: "Not knowing, not seeing the eye as it actually is present; not knowing, not seeing forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye as they actually are present; not knowing, not seeing whatever arises conditioned through contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — as it actually is present, one is infatuated with the eye... forms... consciousness at the eye... contact at the eye... whatever arises conditioned by contact at the eye and is experienced as pleasure, pain, or neither-pleasure-nor-pain.
"For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that — grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow. His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses & mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental stress.
MN 149

"Is 'eradication of identity-view' synonymous with having no habits?"
I don't think so. The way I understand, it is simply the abandoning of any doctrine of self, displaced by the understanding of conditions, arising and cessation of whatever was once regarded as 'I' and 'mine'. I think it's reasonable to assume that such person could still mantain the habit of eating.
"Is identity-view the same then as being aware that skandhas exist?"
Hm, no (at least, if you mean 'it exists' in the contemporary sense, not in the "sutta-sense" were it is implied that such thing is/has an eternal self). As I understand, from ignorant to arahant, a person is still aware of skhandas, six-sense doors, etc.
"[Is identity-view] The same as being attracted to (clinging to) sense-objects?"
Not clinging to the sense-objects, but to any of the skhandas, as the sutta quoted in the question. Perhaps, a specific kind of clinging that takes place as a person regards the skhandas as self.
"Isn't the answer to that, 'No that's not true, because 'sensual desire' is the fourth fetter'?"
I don't think sensual desire equates to clinging. Even if that was the case, I think the clinging to a skhanda, in this context, is not really clinging to any sense-object, but to an illusory self clothed as a skhanda.

You wrote "... the instructions and the clues on the texts", and "... each description the Buddha provides". Would you identify which 'texts' and 'descriptions' help to answer this question (unless you meant only MN 149 which you already cited)?

Thank you for writing, "... displaced by the understanding of conditions ...". I found it a bit easier to understand 'displacing' (i.e. replacing one view with a different view) than to understand 'eradication' (i.e. replacing a view-of-self with ... nothing or the unknown).

Sure, I elaborated a little more. I don't have quite at hand the suttas that deal with anatta, but a search on accesstoinsight.org for, say "this is not my self" may, hopefully, offer more pointers.

Do you understand why "the combination of poke, axle, etc." is not "the chariot"? Is that just because "the chariot" is being used as a simile for something eternal, i.e. soul (Ātman).

I don't know, that puzzled me too. I imagine he refers just to these things "thrown together" but not properly assembled as a "chariot"

[warning, mystic tries to apply logic...] To prove that something is true, you can assert that it is false and show that it leads to a contradiction. (You cannot prove that something is false, you can only try to prove truth and fail in a blindingly obvious way.) So, assert that there is no self and then we can prove that there IS a self, right? But in the scriptures it has been shown that no contradiction is reached.
As a practical matter, if I tell you that there is no self because: 1. it would have to be impermanent 2. it is subject to change 3. it is not anything particular (I might have some of the details wrong here) then does that lead to a contradiction for you? No, life goes on pretty much the same, so it seems obvious that the theory of self has no support.
"Eradication" is an important word because it suggests a relentless process over a period of time, not a sudden insight (although it could become obvious suddenly, the groundwork must go in first). How to accomplish it? Accept that it is true and like Diogenes with his lamp, look for it everywhere you go. It MUST become obvious, because it is the truth. You ask why it is important to know this (being the first of the ten fetters it must be important): because it is the truth. We function properly with the truth and not so with error (for large values of error).
You ask if identity-view is various things and then seem to contradict yourself, so I will not address each separate question. Identity-view is simply the perspective of thought (view) that a particular, permanent, unchanging self of any kind at all must exist. Nothing in the world works this way, so why we think it would be uniquely true of a self is delusion. A wrong idea. If you think that there is a self, reconsider. At some stage, it will not make sense to you anymore, and later it will become clear why identity-view is just wrong. It amounts to superstition (also one of the ten fetters. 2 points!)
Then, you can try to explain it to other people : )

IMO the first job (of several jobs) of a scientific view (aka theory) is to fit the observed facts. Also IMO: given the facts we observe, either of two views (e.g. "this is self" and "this is not self") are tenable (at least temporarily). But the former is conducive to suffering and the latter leads towards the end of suffering; it's not that the latter is truer (or that the former is easy to dismiss using proof-by-contradiction), it's that we should choose/prefer the latter view because it's more beneficial.

Texts like Anatta-lakkhana Sutta say "must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus" and "is [it] fit to be regarded thus" ... i.e. not whether it's "true" to be regarded thus but, maybe, more like whether it's worthy, noble or "right" to be regarded thus.

@ChrisW: I am still pondering that quote by George Stanley: "You have confused the true and the real." Some people say that truth is beauty or beauty is truth, which seems like a similar ideation. But Ideations can never be true. So maybe I am agreeing with you? The self cannot be true, because it is only a thought that we have about ourselves. Paraphrasing from Alcoholics Anonymous: "First the man has a thought, then the thought has a thought, then the thought has the man." Terrifying.

At the Buddha's time there were many philosophies an religion around Atta and Sakkāya. Some off them took the form that the aggregates are Atta and with some saying particular aggregate is Atta.
In order to remove identity views in my opinion the following training would be beneficial:

Eliminate the perception of self

External form as a possession in relation to one self. My car, my wife, etc.

With you expect some thing to be mine and something unwanted happens you become miserable

Being in control

Things going out of control becomes a pain

Faculties and physical form being part of self

Weakening eye sight would be a pain

Conciousness of form being in relation to one self. This is what I say. I heard so.
Sensation arising from contact effecting oneself as the subject. He hut me. It is too hot. He said good thing about me and made me happy.
Perception being in relationship to self. My view.

Realise there is no:

Core or eternal part

What you have to realise is when you build a perception of one self and there is a gap in the perception of one self and reality misery follows. Generally perception of one self is superior or inferior and even at times if realistic as things change gaps will appear. Also you cannot always close the gaps and trying would be very tedious. Any expectation of one self will not always be met hence again resulting in misery. When you realise a certain perception is unrealistic you should abandon it and replace it with a realistic view. When you have fully dissolved the notion of a self and ego you are free from misery arising by grasping onto this wrong perception. Use of non self is also not very accurate as this it self is view but abandoning the identification or perceptions of self as with any perception cannot be very accurate and many lead to perceptions as there will always gaps. This is a paradigm shift in thinking. When you stop reacting hence do not create any unpleasant sensations regarding any gap or you do not identify gaps with a grasping or expecting it to be otherwise you know you do not have identity view any more. Initially this will be a temporary suspension until you get stream entry there you have seen something beyond the sense sphere.
Like wise meditation with a view to realise there is solid core and true nature of all mental and physical also helps realise and overcome the view on identities. As you progress in meditation you see that certain aspects of the aggregates are not permanent. Initially this will be physical form and the last will be perceptions (part of mental fabrications). Then you will see something beyond perception and sensation then your view is complete that there is noting which is eternal. This I have elaborated more in my answer to: How do I integrate Vipassana practice into daily life?
Also see:

Cula Vedalla Sutta
Cūḷa Saccaka Sutta
Mahā Vaccha Sutta
Alagaddupama Sutta
Uppāda Sutta / Dhamma Nniyāma Sutta
Aggi Vaccha Sutta
Girimananda Sutta
Nimitta and Anuvyañjana - Piya Tan
Perception - Piya Tan
Atammayatā - Piya Tan
Mine - Piya Tan
Me - Piya Tan
I - Piya Tan

From SN 12.20 (below), we see a very succinct test of whether one has self-view or identity view or not.

“When, bhikkhus, a noble disciple has clearly seen with correct wisdom
as it really is this dependent origination and these dependently
arisen phenomena, it is impossible that he will run back into the
past, thinking: ‘Did I exist in the past? Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what
did I become in the past?’ Or that he will run forward into the
future, thinking: ‘Will I exist in the future? Will I not exist in the
future? What will I be in the future? How will I be in the future?
Having been what, what will I become in the future?’ Or that he will
now be inwardly confused about the present thus: ‘Do I exist? Do I not
exist? What am I? How am I? This being—where has it come from, and
where will it go?’

The question quoted Culavedalla Sutta:

As he was sitting there he said to her, "'Self-identification,
self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is
described by the Blessed One?"
"There are these five clinging-aggregates, friend Visakha: form as a
clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a
clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate,
consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These five clinging-aggregates
are the self-identification described by the Blessed One."

How the clinging aggregates are connected to self-identification can be found in the Yamaka Sutta:

"How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as
the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?...
Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In
perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?...
Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than
consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
Dhamma."
"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A
monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the
break-up of the body, after death?"
"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling...
Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which
is inconstant is stressful (suffering). That which is stressful has
ceased and gone to its end."

If we cling to the five aggregates and associate a self with it, then it becomes self-identification. It can be our self or other selves.
For e.g. thinking that the Buddha used to exist before his passing away, then ceased to exist after his passing away, is also self-view. This is just creating a self of Buddha then associating it with the five aggregates of the Buddha or even the mental image that one has of the Buddha.
Let's say the mother of a person passes away. This person then cries "mother, why have you left me?" although the dead body of the mother is still in front of him. So, what is it really that has left? It's just the self that was associated with something.

authors: Артём Казановский

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


text:
Vibrations while sleeping
The following questions are targeted to Vipassana. Nevertheless, contributions from other traditions are appreciated.

is there any stage where it is expected that meditators feel vibrations while sleeping ?
-- If yes, then how should this be managed ?
-- Moreover, how to handle this when vibrations are so intense that it is impossible to move during this experience  ?
What if it is not clear if such experience is while dreaming or awake ? Sometimes it is not clear if such experience happened in a dream or in real life.
Moreover, is there any guideline on how to manage experiences that happen while sleeping ?

Answers with references are strongly appreciated.

If you are not getting good sleep, please see a doctor. May you be healthy.

This sounds like sleep paralysis, which often involves the following:

An inability to move
Vibrations
Imagery
A sense of a (often malevolent) presence near you

This is a common state that has nothing to do with Buddhism. In fact, some hypothesize that stories of alien abductions or succubi are distorted reports of experiences in that state.
Perhaps meditation may increase the incidence of this? One reported way of entering sleep paralysis is to remain conscious while the body falls asleep, an ability aided by improved concentration which can come with meditative practice.
To bring this back to Buddhism, if you are in this state, then you could try to induce a lucid dream by visualization and use that to practice Dream Yoga.  You can also use the experiences you gain as insight into your daily life.  With so much of life said to be illusory or dreamlike, experiences in this border state can be very illuminating.
For non-Buddhist stuff, you can...

Enter a lucid dream for fun.
Will "yourself" out of your body.
Focus all your might on moving your big toe to snap out of this
state.

Of course if you suspect that there may be any medical issues involved with this, then see a doctor!

Sabbo pajjalito loko, sabbo loko pakampito.
The entire universe is nothing but combustion and vibration.

At certain times you will experience vibration at different intensities, not necessary limited to when you are sleeping. You should look at it arise and pass away.


text:
How do I make non-buddhists help understand I operate with a different view?
I have started on my path not very long ago and because I'm very unsure where it will take me, I am hesitant to label myself as a Buddhist or even a meditator or such. Also where I live, eastern schools of thought are not well known anyway.
In certain social situations (most recently at the office Christmas party) I am usually nagged to relax more or to enjoy myself more. I understand that these are good intentioned tries to make me have a similar experience to what these people deem as joyous. However I don't feel anxiety or loss of comfort just because for example I don't get drunk and dance in a very animated way. In fact I'm usually quite content to just lean on the bar and observe people and be mindful of what's happening. I have yet to meet a party goer who will believe this.
Do you have any advice on how to try and help these people understand that I don't partake in their experiences because I don't find them wholesome and ultimately fulfilling without having them brand me as a weirdo or a liar? Specifically without mentioning Buddhism, meditation, mindfulness and similar terms? I'd like to convey believably that there are other ways to enjoy yourself, not just drinking and hitting up attractive people.
Thanks!

"I'm not happy like them"   Make sure you are not being judgemental of their happiness. Try not to start labeling and separating happiness when at a party interacting with people. Perhaps during sitting meditation later you can investigate happiness, but when interacting with people just be yourself. When you say I am not happy like them, then you are bringing assumptions to happiness. May you be happy and know happiness :)

Here is a great blog about judgement that I think might help. http://tinybuddha.com/blog/why-judging-people-makes-us-unhappy/

I'm not sure what your goal is, if I knew that, I could more easily suggest the Buddhist style of getting there. Did some one ask you why you don't drink at a party? (i.e. you're following the precepts?) Or you are trying to get out of going to one of these parties you don't enjoy? Or did the topic of personal religion come up, for example if someone asked you to join in a group Christian prayer or something?

Is that a can of worms you want to open?  Trying to explain this could be misinterpreted as being judgmental...

At the moment I live a mostly secular life and am surrounded with such people. I'd rather build bridges then stand out like a sore thumb just because I can't explain myself in simple, secular terms. If I continue on the Path I suppose there will be more things I need to either explain or reconcile somehow for outsiders. My question intends to find out if there are any early best practices, not merely allowing the communication gap to widen. (Though I see how I could be over thinking this.)

Early on, before I had told anyone at work I was Buddhist, a well meaning co-worker kept urging me to have some wine at our company picnic. I finally screwed up my courage and said "Actually, I'm a practicing Buddhist so I stay away from alcohol." I then reached into the cooler and grabbed a bottle of spring water. It turned out to be "Nirvana" brand spring water. Made us both laugh. In time, it feels a lot more natural, once the ice is broken, as they say. :)

As long as what you are doing is not immoral in my case I would go along with what the others are doing.
Main point is by doing this you should not accumulate more fabrication. One way is to reduce contact through it is not very effective, which you are trying now.
The more effective way is to go along with the crowed but what every you do be mind full of the sensation and its impermanence. It is reaction of clinging or aversion to the sensation created when you come in contact with something which causes fabrications. This is what you should actively avoid. Though you might not chase sense pleases you have to go with the flow in social contexts if you want to be a householder.

I find this answer eye opening so thank you for that! Interestingly in this video an immoral act is defined by something that leads to suffering. Now you could argue and I would agree, that since I am in a social situation of entertainment, I am already surrounded by unwholesome acts and thoughts so I either go for the social acceptance or leave. However I feel that a middle ground is more beneficial for me, since my practice is not that strong yet, and going full with what others are doing would cause suffering I couldn't be mindful of properly.

very good answer!

Most Buddhists I know exude happiness. Seeing a monk or a nun just standing and silently smiling brings much joy and happiness. True happiness is infectious. I have never found that my happiness goes unnoticed. In fact many people become happy and calm themselves when around practitioners.
However, peer pressure to drink is a different story. If someone presses you to drink after you have said no, that should be examined separately.

Thank you for your input. I really didn't want to convey any "pressure to drink" and I'm not looking to exude anything. I want to be mindful and help people understand that what they might perceive as me being uptight due to not sharing a particular experience the same way they live it, is just merely me enjoying myself in a different way. I hope that makes it a bit more clear.

Well instead of trying to make people do things because you are not happy like them and/or because you do not like how they act or how they think, instead let go off all that and just be yourself. When you experience true happiness you will share it and exude it even if you do not try. Let go of how they perceive you. Let go of trying to control their views and their actions. Just be there in the present moment at the party with them. Cultivate joy and happiness together. That is mindful living.

I understand now how the initial wording of my question was unfortunate. Thank you.

"I appreciate you wanting to be sure that I am enjoying myself, and I understand that you do not perceive me as doing so, but I assure you, I very much am!"

just BE WHO YOU ARE,Have you ever noticed that even when you were a party animal before people had stuff to complain?You are right to be mindful and you should do it every second you are awake,this might look a bit extreme but trust me it always help.as for having fun don't be immoral live your life but remember you are not a puppet of anybody friends respect who their friends really are,if they do not you might want to rethink about your entourage.If they ever ask about your sudden change don't mention meditation or your path simply say that people change with time and you are going through such a pace too.This should get you out of any awkward situation with your friends or family!


text:
How are Buddhists supposed to spread Buddhism?
Some religions spread through its followers actively seeking out new followers. Some religions do their own thing and inspire others to join. Some religions preach openly to people and let them decide. Some religions cannot be joined unless you know someone who is already in it. Some religions do not have any agenda when it comes to recruiting.
What is the ideal manner in which Buddhism is to be spread to others?

Could you clarify what is your criteria for ideal?  Is it (1) maximizing the number of Buddhists, (2) spreading the purest Dharma, (3) getting people Enlightened [is this the same as (2)?], or (4) adhering to some authority on the right way to spread it?  Depending on how you define ideal, the answer to how to spread it can differ dramatically.

It varies by sect. These questions generally attract a bunch of people who think you are advocating in-your-face Christian style evangelism.
The patterns I'm going to describe appear to be true for the US, Europe and Russia.
SGI. Works the hardest to gain new members and at least back in the 70s (80s?) was willing to send people out to interact with strangers on the street. It's what makes SGI special, their outreach has reached a broader demographic than just about anyone and what also makes people think SGI is a cult. I'm not SGI, but I think they're far from a cult. They try the hardest to gain members and seem to have had some success.
"Ethnic Buddhist." Some people don't like the word, but it describes communities of recent immigrants who set up Buddhist temples, target recent immigrants, practice in their home language and generally make no effort to involve the "host" community.
State Buddhism. This has been how Buddhism spread in the past. For example in Japan, it used to be that the government assigned you to the local temple. There is some vestigial form of this in modern Japan, most people often don't know what sort of Buddhist temple their family temple is. This means of spread is a nonstarter in the US and Christians are already up in arms about attempts to teach secularized mindfulness in schools.
"(Upper) Middle Class" Buddhism. Generally educated people who are well read and familiar with a variety of world religions and who have chosen Buddhism. This spreads via books and meditation classes.
As for what normatively should be done to spread Buddhism, it's hard to say. On the internet, generally people get bogged down in "respect for autonomy", they have a hypersensitive trigger for seeing someone being forced to do this, or required to do that against their will, or in the case of religion, how teaching religion is some sort of child abuse.
The historical Buddha sent his sangha in every direction to enthusiastically spread the word. Mahayana Buddhism makes teaching (i.e. spreading Buddhist ideas), essentially a requirement, it is mentioned many times in the BNS precepts. Historically Buddhist governments saw no problem with making it a state religion and funding it. I think it would be hard to say Buddhism as a organization, sangha or movement doesn't care about spread, it clearly does. But how to do it, isn't so clear.
Personally, I think Buddhism should be marketed like any other idea and using means that work for a given community in a given time. Some people will buy your book & read it. Some people will go to a book club. Some people read posts on the web. Some people will go to a meditation class if it's advertised in the local community events page.

For fairness, I find it best to wait a day or two before marking as answer

Compared to stackoverflow, the Buddhist website feels like it has a lot of questions that never get an answer marked as the answer or look like there can't be a single best answer.

@MatthewMartin good point and so true.  For a while, StackOverflow users were particularly vocal about telling people to accept answers to questions, but I haven't seen that kind of pressure here.  Maybe if more people put that kind of pressure on people, this would improve?

I believe Fo Guang Shan has also a strong[er] outreach movement.

On this "OVerflow" the top 5 or ten people need to be able to mark as answers and change which is the correct answer. Because, how would the ignorant asker know? (Wouldn't be asking if I weren't ignorant)

I think the Fo Guang Shan affiliate in DC (where I live) is "Ehtnic Buddhism", the website shows a lot of outreach to the Chinese speaking community. I hope they have a broader target in the future, Chinese Buddhism, imho, is one of the better, but under represented forms in the US.

They have some representation in Brazil, where they've built an "expensive" temple. Though ceremonies are strongly target at the chinese community, it receives a lot of non-chinese people (including tourists). Also there were frequent retreats (I can't remember any chinese among participants) and community service working with children from the favelas during the time I was there -- I'm somewhat familiar with their motto of "spreading the dharma", which I thought it had too much "evangelizing" attitude for my taste.

oops misspoke. DC's largest Chinese org is City of 10000 Buddhas, not Fo Guan Shan, but I have seen their books on Amazon. I should read up on them.

@YodaBytes, the "ignorant" asker can still rely on the votes being given by others, those votes being independent of what the original asker thinks. But ultimately only the original asker knows the extent to which their question is answered for them by any given answer. That's why it's possible to see an answer marked as "The Answer" by the original asker still have a lot fewer votes than some other answer which "the community as a whole" prefers. When I look at answers, I focus on the ones with the highest votes first, and the one marked by the original asker second.

Different schools approach this in different ways.
The best method of teaching is by example and by teaching what you practised and have verified at the experiential level / empirically.
First you should practice and then teach what was beneficial to you and what you have verified 1st hand.
Through your practice there should be a visible change in you to inspire other. When you have experienced the benefits 1st hand you should get inspired to share this with loved ones and friends. Sharing the benefits and experience should be the motivating factor to teach.

I searched for the word "proselytize" on accesstoinsight and found it in only two articles. One is Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi saying (talking about religion in general in the modern world, not only about Buddhism),

The two religious phenomena that in my view are false detours which must finally be rejected are fundamentalism and spiritual eclecticism. Both have arisen as reactions to the pervasive secularism of our time; both speak to the widespread hunger for more authentic spiritual values than our commercial, sensualist culture can offer. Yet neither, I would argue, provides a satisfactory solution to our needs.
Fundamentalism no doubt bears the character of a religious revival. However, in my opinion it fails to qualify as a genuinely spiritual type of religiosity because it does not meet the criterion of true spirituality. This criterion I would describe, in broad terms, as the quest to transcend the limitations of the ego-consciousness. As I understand fundamentalism, it draws its strength from its appeal to human weakness, by provoking the ego-consciousness and the narrow, volatile interests of the small self. Its psychological mood is that of dogmatism; it polarizes the human community into the opposed camps of insiders and outsiders; it dictates a policy of aggression that entails either violence against the outsiders or attempts to proselytize them. It does not point us in the direction of selflessness, understanding, acceptance of others based on love, the ingredients of true spirituality.
Spiritual eclecticism — omnipresent in the West today — is governed by the opposite logic. It aims to amalgamate, to draw into a whole a sundry variety of quasi-religious disciplines: yoga, spiritualism, channeling, astrology, faith healing, meditation, I Ching, special diets, Cabbala, etc. These are all offered to the seeker on a pick-and-choose basis; everything is valid, anything goes. This eclecticism often reveals a longing for genuine spiritual experience, for a vision of reality more encompassing than pragmatic materialism. It fails because it tears profound disciplines out from their context in a living faith and blends them together into a shapeless mixture without spine or substance. Its psychological mood is that of a romantic, promiscuous yearning for easy gratification rather than that of serious commitment. Owing to its lack of discrimination it often shades off into the narcissistic and the occult, occasionally into the diabolical.

I think that's saying that a "fundamentalist" (and ego-maniacal) view divides the world into insiders and outsiders (e.g. Buddhists and non-Buddhists), and attempts to proselytize the outsiders, instead of being selflessness, understanding, and accepting of others based on love.
Another is this Personal Observation

When I first came to Sri Lanka from America, I had just about given up all hope of living. The doctors in America had provided me with maybe twenty-five different drugs for a very bad heart condition and other ailments. We fled America, my husband and I, to live out our lives among peaceful surroundings — in the heart of Buddha-land. Shortly after arrival, what with the long trip and thoughts of death, I truly was dying. I had a myocardial infarction and was taken to the hospital. I found the hospital conditions so deplorable, I felt it would be better to die in bed at home. Consequently, I left the hospital. My husband had found a lovely home for us and there I waited to die. After much pain and emotional upheaval my husband found an anagarika, a Buddhist lay brother, who came to our home and performed a miracle, or to state it better, pointed out to me the "path" that I shall follow for the rest of my days here on earth. This monk-like follower of the Buddha, the Anagarika Tibbotuwawa, instructed me in meditation.
We went through four stages and in time I threw out all drugs, and the life "here and now" became clear and meaningful. Many strange things began to occur in the course of meditation. First I began to feel that I was on another plane of consciousness. I no longer had a self, sick or otherwise. I was at one with all, all of us in a new world, with all non-beings too. I found that the "ego" that nearly wrecked my life was now gone. I felt reborn, and extended my meditation to vibrations of loving-kindness. Thought messages I call them. Then one morning a friend called from America. On the phone he said that he had received my message. He was elated beyond belief, thanked me and promised to come here in the near future. The strangest of all was a telegram from my sister. She asked if we could accommodate her at our home in three weeks. I nearly had a heart attack! My sister is seventy-eight years old. I had heard no word from her for fifteen years. Yet I had been sending her "thought messages" of loving-kindness, and her image was growing clearer and clearer — even before arrival. She was "with me" even before arrival. At age seventy-eight she had traveled half-way around the world to see me. When she arrived she said she had had a compelling urge to see me. We were both delighted and, to my amazement, she meditated each evening with me and said she had never known such "peace and love" as she found in our home.
She could not remain with us, as I had hoped, but had responsibilities at home that she felt better able to cope with now. She left, adding, "I have promises to keep — and many miles to go before I sleep."
These few experiences have been so uplifting that now, even though I never proselytize, many young people come to me for instruction in meditation. Recently a young man from Switzerland came to our home. He felt he was dying of rabies ("rabbits" he called it in broken English). I was so sure he did not have this disease that I suggested that he meditate with me and Anagarika that day, and he seemed pleased with the experience. Well, this young man came not only each evening, but also every morning at 5:30 a.m. bringing fresh flowers for the Buddha. He left, after three weeks of intensive meditation and instruction and reading of the Dhamma, well and happy and full of ideas to help suffering humanity.
There are, of course, many ideas I have omitted which are advanced procedures in insight meditation, the three stages which usually follow the concentration on breathing. These are body, feelings, perceptions and consciousness, ultimately expressing themselves in "the mind experiencing pure mind." I feel, however, that the reader can find these steps in many publications that have been released on this subject. If this booklet helps the beginner with just a little insight into the "way" and the "why" of meditation, this will be my happiness.

Apart from the fact that she "never proselytizes" there's the story of the "Buddhist lay brother" in the first paragraph: i.e. a person who needed him went looking for him.
Perhaps the best way to spread Buddhism is to cultivate it within yourself (?and make yourself available).

I've also seen "Dharma books" being spread: e.g. I have a book published by these people in Taiwan, which I found free of cost from a temple in Canada. Or in the same way that Gideon Bibles are famously found for free in hotel rooms, in some countries (Singapore) you find a Buddhist 'bible' in the hotel room.

Finally, I presume that what is said about Right Speech is applicable to talking about Dharma.

I don't think the questioner is suggesting that we should be a parody of evangelical fundamentalists in the spread of the dharma including aping their ignorant ideology.

Yes, I don't know why you'd think that. And the answer suggests that's not recommended. Are you saying you don't like my using "proselytize" as a synonym for "actively seeking out new followers" and "preach openly to people and let them decide"? Can you think of a better single word (search term) to use in a search? Other words are (also) problematic used as search terms, e.g. when "preach" is used in a text that's often used when someone is preaching "to the choir"; or "spread" is often in a historical survey.

Long answer:
First start with learning about your self.
By:
practicing compassion to beings around you.
Eventually, one learns that one's presence is just as "important" as all other beings around you.
Henceforth brings to the realization that: your compassion to other beings benefits also yourself.
You would then be spreading the word, without even having to utter one.

The best way to convey Buddhism is by setting a good example.
These days many people are learning Buddhism online at Buddhism.link or whywelive.org
The more compassion we exercise, the more we see how we are all connected.
We are one.

The phrase "We are one" does not seem to be part of the Buddha's teaching.

@Lanka maybe it is though, in a way, It's anatta. You are as much everything an you are just Lanka.

If a bear wants to eat a monist, should he let him, given that he and the bear are already 'one'?

I think We are one phrase belongs to Advait Vedanta & Kashmiri Shaivism, not Buddhism.

It's a very interesting question. I put a lot of stock in the actual 'seeking of refuge' in the 3 jewels when this subject arises.
I lost everything in a 13-15 month period. My marriage, my family, my career, my father passed away, my mother was committed to a home and was beyond communication, and I had 2 heart attacks. And died twice. It was from the bottom of this pit that I sought my answers.
Now I consider myself fortunate. The job of stripping my life bare and relinquishing attachments had been done. It really gave me an advantage in being able to build myself back up. I likened it to the period where Siddartha experimented with asceticism. I went thru all that torture and found my bare essence. And I sought the wisdom of the Buddha from that point as I had discarded my old religious beliefs years before and was living as an atheist.
I sought the dharma by following my own intellectual curiosity. I tried to follow what I felt to be the most true and accurate representations of Buddha Sakyamuni's original thoughts. This led me to the dhammapadda, then the upanishads. Then I took to reading the entire tipitaka. I read some texts and brochures for the lay Buddhist and that seemed like drivel compared to actually developing my own views based on what was said by Buddha, Ananda, Maha or anyone in the Sutta Pitaka.
Of course I have so much more to learn but every once in awhile I will compare my understanding by looking to various koans and I feel right on track with both modern answers as well as those from 3,500 years ago. Following my inner self as a guide and using my curiosity has served me well. But I had the advantage of starting from scratch.
Thus I consider myself a sort of boddhisattva. And my special path will add to those others have cleared/traversed finding their way here on their own. Then as I draw refuge in their company, my sangha, we can share our experiences and gain from them all.
So I consider it a balance like all things. But I prefer the breadcrumb option and let people gather strength of will from their journey as well as new experiences to add to the future sutta.

Jeff Messer


text:
Do Buddhists believe (as do some Christians) in non-material forms of healing?
Not necessarily spontaneous, but any type of spiritually assisted healing.
If so, can you elaborate?
If not, can you offer a reference?

This question is apparently about any situation of Energy Healing, not just 'miracles'. Leaving miracles aside, based on the lack of response it seems that there is not much of a tradition in Buddhism of teaching Energy Healing? I was taught how to do it (not via Buddhism) and it is effective, but miracles are not to be expected. Often, it is a course of treatment over a period of time rather than only one time. Blessings (as mentioned below) are different.

There are several cases of working cures mentioned in the suttas many more in the Jataka stories which are much later. Two oustanding cases found in the suttas are the one where Angulimala
http://obo.genaud.net/backmatter/appendixes/personalities/angulimala.htm
did an act of truth to relieve a woman of a painful labor, another is the case of the Buddha himself 'bending down his mind' to the suppression of an illness.
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bs/dn.16.rhyt.bs_1.2.htm
scroll down to #28
The 'act of truth' is a declaration made to the gods of the truth of some statement in the form of a wish: "If such and such is the truth, let such and such happen." Usually the thing being declared to be the truth must be something hard to believe or embarassing, something not likely to be revealed unless under strong motivation to do so.
Generally the Buddha suggests not working cures with the idea that beings have their kamma to live out. Working a cure does not relieve a person of the experience of his bad kamma, it just postpones it and that may not be a wise idea if it postpones the experience beyond its manifestation in this life there is the possibility that the next life will be so hazardous (as in animal life) that insight and taking counter-measures would be highly unlikely. Consequently curing someone may not be doing them any favor.

There is the tradition of the Medicine Buddha in Mahayana Buddhism - I'm most familiar with his appearance in the Lotus Sutra but he has an influence further that that one (albeit very influential) sutra. The Medicine Buddha is associated with mental and physical healing. While this Buddha certainly does heal the existential suffering that is the more familiar concern of Buddhism he does also heal physical aliments as well in some traditions. To quote from wiki

[The Medicine Buddha has] very powerful method for healing and
  increasing healing powers both for oneself and others, but also for
  overcoming the inner sickness of attachment, hatred, and ignorance,
  thus to meditate on the Medicine Buddha can help decrease physical and
  mental illness and suffering

As a further aside I was watching a documentary about the Dalai Lama and he was receiving people for blessings. One man brought him a young child with a nasty looking open fracture to ask for the Dalai Lama's healing. So a belief in healing through blessing clearly exists in the Buddhist world today. I have to say that the Dalai Lama was having none of it. He strongly suggested that the child should be taken to hospital as soon as possible.
Reference Note: I'm fairly certain that the above scene comes from the documentary The Unwinking Gaze but I'm very happy to be corrected on that point if anyone knows better.


text:
What significance does the dragon hold within Buddhism?
What significance does the mythical dragon hold within Buddhism and why, where does it originate within Buddhism?

Nagas are serpent like creatures that are also identified with dragons. I'm aware of a couple of places within Buddhism that these appear but there are undoubtedly a lot more.
The Buddhist philosopher and Mahayana pioneer Nagarjuna is reputed to have recovered the Perfection of Wisdom sutras from the Nagas. He then went on to distribute the sutras to the world at large.In addition Naga's would come to him while he was preaching and provide shade to him while he was teaching.
Again from with the Mahayana tradition, the Nagas appear many times in the Lotus Sutra. The Dragon (Naga) Kings daughter has a starring role within one of the chapters. Although she is young and female she nevertheless attains Buddhahood. This points to the fact that everyone (even if they are young or a woman) can attain the highest spiritual perfections.

The Dragon, (in Pali, 'naga') is just simply a term for any very large or substantial invididual or animal.
See: http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/06_sixes/an06.043.hare.pts.htm
For a sutta which is otherwise drivvle, a sort of flattery common to the courts of kings, but which makes the definition clear.
The Buddha is often characterized as a Naga. There is no mysterious significance.


text:
Progress in meditation
If one progresses in this lifetime, but doesn't attain enlightenment and doesn't become totally free from suffering, what can happen in future lives?

Welcome to Buddhism SE! Please note that on this site we prefer questions that are objectively answerable and asking for people's opinion is considered off-topic. Could you please rephrase your question? Also can you explain how the question title is related to your actual question?

I've edited the question to attempt to make it clearer, hopefully that's what Mariam had in mind.

Nothing is lost. However a person below the level of Streamwinner is still subject to rebirth below the level of human being. The good kamma of having made an effort will eventually surface again and bring one back to a place where practice can be resumed.
The non-streamwinner is subject to stray and unskillful thoughts that can lead to a bad destination. Should such a tendency occur at the time of death, it's: 'Have a nice day!'
The principle is something like standing at the downtown platform in the subway. Up until the time one enters a car and the doors shut one can go over to the uptown platform, but once the door has shut on the downtown train one is going downtown at least for one stop.
This is the concern when it comes to attention to death, that is that one not be thinking, as the ordinary person thinks, that ok, death will come, but some time later. One should train to think that death is a possibility as close as a breath in and out or the chewing of a mouthful of food.
See for the above idea: http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/06_sixes/an06.019.hare.pts.htm
and see for the practice:
http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/06_sixes/an06.020.hare.pts.htm
This is why one should strive for Streamentry. At stream entry, the knowledge is firmly fixed that 'that which comes into existence comes to an end.' This idea at that point is so vivid as to present itself at the time of death and acts as a barrier to making a foolish decision at that time, and the ball has been set rolling for an inevitable attainment of Arahantship within a period of no more than seven further rebirths in various heavenly states and among men.