text:
Is it even possible to attain Nirvana?
Sorry, I've just read Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10) and feel a bit overwhelmed.
As far as I understand, this is some sort of instruction on how to attain enlightenment. It teaches, that one has to develop the perfect mindfulness of the body, feelings and mind; to observe all the hindrances and be sure that they won't arise anymore; to develop the ending of the aggregates; to abandon the fetter of the senses; to develop all the awakening factors; to contemplate all the arising dharmas considering their relationships with the Four Noble Truths.
Beats me, even if one devotes all their life to the perfection of all of these things, can they really perfect these? Attaining Nirvana seems to be really complicated, and there are many conflicting points (both within and between major schools) on what are more important objects of meditation & techniques out there.

Interestingly, the central theme of Christianity has to do with the direct equivalent to your question, with regard to gaining entry into heaven.  If you're interested in researching how Christianity approaches its own equivalent to your question, New Testament books like Hebrews and Galatians can be good places to start.

Beats me, even if one devotes all their life to the perfection of all of these things, can they really perfect these? Attaining Nirvana seems to be really complicated, and there are many conflicting points (both within and between major schools) on what are more important objects of meditation & techniques out there.

There sure are many conflicting points within and between schools, but more important meditation objects isn't one of them, for there's no such thing as the best meditation object. The best meditation object is one that is the most suitable to solve a problem due to the personality, shortcomings, and orientation of the practitioner. Full of lust? then meditate on the foulness of the body thru its 32 body parts; full of hatred or anger? meditate on loving kindness and joy; full of drowsiness or torpor? meditate on light or various kasinas, etc.
Regarding the possibility of Nibbana, there's no doubt it's no trivial pursuit. But one can see it in a more positive light, if the road to Nibbana is like a marathon which would take millions of steps forward, as long as one puts in the time and effort slowly and consistently, any step s/he puts forward would mean it's one step closer toward the finish line. But if s/he doesn't put their foot forward, s/he won't go anywhere.

"There sure are many conflicting points within and between schools, but more important meditation objects isn't one of them" - well, for example, Bhikkhu Bodhi argued, that kasina meditation was not taught by the Buddha, as kasinas do not appear in the most ancient scriptures, therefore should not be practised, according to Bhikkhu Bodhi

I think this answer is quite good because it captures the essentials of developing sati and removal of obsessive thoughts & hindrances by any means. Btw in regards to schools op might not know that Theravada has like factions, they don't split even tho conflicting views, if u made a q about this id tell what i know but school delineation is a ballpark reference to what texts people consider to be true rather than their interpretations.

B.Bodhi, Analayo, Brahm and Sujato are the monks who have an angle on parts of canon being inauthentic but they have no proof afaik. I suspect this has to do with the female ordination drama, feminism, disagreeing with some partriarchal sutta and perhaps seeing legitimate flaws (i don't fwiw). These are most "reformist" monks there are and most visibly politically engaged.

Indeed, attaining Nirvana is the Ultimate Challenge.
There is nothing higher, so I'm surprised you are surprised that it's difficult. Did you expect it to be easier than e.g. becoming an Olympic Champion or becoming a billionaire businessman? If it were easier it would not be The Most Valuable Attainment in the Universe.
As any serious pursuit this must be your topmost priority for you to even have a chance to succeed. You can't achieve it "by the way" among other things. If you speak with any serious Buddhist teacher, they will tell you that they put their entire life, every second of every minute of every hour, to the service of enlightenment. Only this level of commitment makes the goal of Nirvana achievable.
Of course, if you want to move in the right direction, you need to know clearly where you are going and what you have to do to get there. Are you clear now? Do you know many people who are clear? If not, there's zero chance, ZERO, that you will be able to do the right thing at the tremendously high level of effort, consistently for a long time. You can't become an Olympic champion by trying random exercises from different sport books, can you?
So you need a system, one with clear goal, clear principles, and clear practices that use the principles to move towards the goal. You need to have a clear understanding of the goal, the principles, the negative actions that move you away, the positive actions that move you closer, and irrelevant actions that you can ignore. It must be very clear, so you can implement it very precisely, with no gaps, every second of every minute of every hour, improving your practice, until it becomes perfect. I'm telling you how it is. If it's sounds hard, that's because it is. These are mandatory requirements.
Once you are clear about the what and the how, you must keep yourself motivated and focused, to stay on the practice without distraction, without losing hope, for years and years, maybe even decades. Perhaps only a few years, if you are extremely talented and strong, but most likely decades if you are an average person. Unfortunately there's no shortcut.
So if you are scared of all this, then this Challenge is not for you. But if you want to be on par with Spider Man and Bill Gates - and are willing to sacrifice your life for it, then your foremost concern must be understanding of the principles. The more you understand the principles, the better you can apply them in practice -- the better you practice, the clearer things get -- the clearer things get, the better you understand the principles. It starts and ends with the principles, the principles are the key.
And what are the principles?

It's all in your head. Our mind creates the virtual reality we know as "our world". Our problems, successes, sufferings, joys, meanings, pursuits - are mind constructs. Therefore the solution lies in understanding how mind works and not falling victim to its mechanisms.
Karma is the fabric our lives made of. Every choice we make shapes our life. Our future is literally made of our past. Therefore, every little step we make builds the house of our future, rock by rock. Therefore, we must get very clear what we should and should not do.
There are two basic states: harmony and conflict. They apply to all situations in life, large and small. Harmony feels good, conflict feels bad. The goal of Buddhism is perfect Harmony. (You can call it nirvana or whatever you want.)
Now, the master key. What you sow is what you reap. If you sow conflict, you reap conflict. If you sow harmony you reap harmony. On micro and macro levels. In your person life and in social life, it works the same way. Conflict between two thoughts is still a conflict.
If you want to achieve nirvana, you must practice creating nothing but harmony, and your practice must get perfectly watertight. Which means you will start coarse and keep improving. At some point you will start questioning what's what and splitting hair. This is expected as you get to the microscopic level. To achieve nirvana you need to get clear about harmony on all levels - from cosmic to nanoscopic level of your subtlests thoughts. Conflict between two thoughts is still a conflict.
All practices - ethics, mindfulness, meditation - serve this single purpose: don't create conflict and create harmony, outer and inner. Now you know what to do.
At some point your pursuit of inner harmony should get soooooo refined that you will come back to principle #1 above and make a breakthrough. At which point your beliefs will fall, your head will explode, and all those other cool things described in texts will happen. But anyhow, the way to get there is to avoid creating conflict and only create harmony, which gets harder and harder as you begin scrutinizing these two notions as they apply to your immediate first-hand experience.

Even when you're clear about all of the above, (and I suspect that most people are not) - it's still a very tough game to master. Like I said, you must be crazy to think you can win. But if you have spirit of Spider Man and patience of Bill Gates, then maybe you have one chance in a million. Worth giving a shot?

Sounds more like motivational speech than an answer to my question. My question is, what one must stick to in this mountain of scriptures to fulfil their goal? Since, indeed, "you can't become an Olympic champion by trying random exercises from different sports books". And this sutra really seems like "random exercises from different sports books", and I just see no way how one can master all these. I stuck to Anapanasati sutta before, but this one really complicates the Path.

Principles, principles, principles. See above for principles. Principles above.

The key principle is to create inner and outer harmony, I get it. But Buddha would never call the goal of Nirvana as a Challenge and compare it to the training for the Olympics or becoming a billionaire. Such comparisons feed the ego and are counterproductive.

Not at all. Didn't you read the sutta where he says that wanting to be better than other monks and jealousy of their attainments leads to Nirvana? Go ahead and ask a new question about that.

@AndriyVolkov Which sutta is that, are you referring to what the Bhikkhuni Sutta says about conceit?

I'm sorry I don't remember, but yes Bhikkhuni Sutta reads exactly like what I had in mind. Although there it's said by Ananda I think there was another one where the same thing was said by the Buddha...

Well the Satipatthana sutta answers it doesn't it?

"O bhikkhus, should any person maintain the Four Arousings of Mindfulness in this manner for seven years, then by him one of two fruitions is proper to be expected: Knowledge (arahantship) here and now; or, if some form of clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning (the Third Stage of Supramundane Fulfillment).
"O bhikkhus, let alone seven years. Should a person maintain these Four Arousings of Mindfulness, in this manner, for six years... for five years... four years... three years... two years... one year, then by him one of two fruitions is proper to be expected: knowledge here and now; or, if some form of clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning.
"O bhikkhus, let alone a year. Should any person maintain these Four Arousings of Mindfulness, in the manner, for seven months, then by him one of two fruitions is proper to be expected: Knowledge here and now; or, if some form of clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning.
"O bhikkhus, let alone seven months. Should any person maintain these Four Arousings of Mindfulness in this manner for six months... five months... four months... three months... two months... one month... half-a-month, then, by him one of two fruitions is proper to be expected: Knowledge here and now; or, if some form of clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning.
"O bhikkhus, let alone half-a-month. Should any person maintain these Four Arousings of Mindfulness in this manner for a week, then by him one of two fruitions is proper to be expected: Knowledge here and now; or, if some form of clinging is yet present, the state of non-returning.
"Because of this was it said: 'This is the only way, O bhikkhus, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the destruction of suffering and grief, for reaching the right path, for the attainment of Nibbana, namely, the Four Arousings of Mindfulness."
Thus spoke the Blessed One.

There are ways given by the Buddha for finding correct people to whom one lends ear, that by observing them as in canki sutta, there are also ways of examining texts given in the four great references.
Learning of texts & doctines one is overwhelmed with the amount schools and volume.
If one starts with the oldest texts of Pitaka one will have a good reference to texts known to be true so one can then move on to examining the later up to contemporary texts.
To me this seems to be the meta because starting from the late texts doesn't make any sense. I assume we want to know what Buddha said more so than what other people say about it not the other way.
Having learnef the basic pali texts one will keep track the development of interpretations as time went on.
It does take a long time to learn the thousands of discourses but this kind of study of schools isn't necessary for the attainments as in beginning there were much fewer discourses and more attainments. One does need to learn but that just enough not to hold pernicious wrong views and to rouse effort for the development.

If you are serious about reaching enlightenment, you will reach it. What I have to say goes against some Buddhist teachings and will most likely be frowned upon by most who read this, but my hope is that something I say resonates with you and sparks the drive to continue on the path and not get discouraged. Reaching enlightenment is no small task, but it is certainly not as difficult as the Sutta you read makes it out to be.
Before I start with opinions, I need to share the hardest pill to swallow. I consider myself an Arahant, and have been living without suffering for the past two years. I also know many people personally who have also reached enlightenment, it is not as uncommon as you may first suspect it to be. Once you have awakened, it becomes fairly easy to identify who has also completed the path. There are specific ways that people speak about the unspeakable that are easy tells.
Now when I tell someone this though, their automatic response tends to be disbelief. I personally think this is because of exactly the situation you find yourself in now. You read a Sutta and you are so overwhelmed with rules and guidelines you think it must be impossible. I personally believe many Suttas, through translations and permutations over thousands of years, have accumulated unnecessary fluff. I think many of those who have translated the texts have not been enlightened themselves, and therefore have added verbiage that no longer retains the accuracy it once had. I also believe permutations have occurred that tended to add extravagance to the idea of enlightenment, setting unrealistic expectations that further alienates the reader from believing they have a chance at true freedom.
Everything I am going to say after this depends on you believing that my attainment is true. It will carry no weight otherwise. Just know that I write this post, exposing my experience and potentially bringing the wrath of others upon myself, for the tiny sliver of a chance that you may one day experience the same peace that is granted to those who's lives are truly blessed. I pray for nothing more than your liberation, for it is without a doubt the most beautiful and amazing thing that has ever happened to me.
First I plan to answer your question. Then, I will talk about my experience with enlightenment to see if my experience is something you desire. Finally, I will give my recommendations of how to proceed, so you can hopefully avoid many of the pitfalls I found myself in.
Now to finally answer your question, no, you do not need to "perfect" anything in order to reach enlightenment. Every moment you are aware is a moment that enlightenment is possible. Nirvana has no requirements to be seen. The main impediment we face that stops us from instantly becoming enlightened is the insane number of beliefs we hold without question. The linchpin belief being our belief in a separate self, the human being you presently believe yourself to be. Once it is seen in your own experience that the self does not exist, a domino effect occurs and enlightenment becomes inevitable.
Now here is the part where I try to set realistic expectations about enlightenment, but I expect those who have never experienced enlightenment to lash out at my crushing their dreams of what they hope and pray it to be. I only include this so that you can make an informed decision. It's easy to desire to walk the path if you are told you will be in a constant state of bliss and all your problems will go away. Unfortunately, that is not what enlightenment is.
Enlightenment is experienced from the human perspective as an end to all beliefs, a perceived balance in effort, and an unending peace. Enlightenment is experienced from the non-human perspective as complete unity and emptiness.
Our entire lives we exert so much unconscious effort propping up our belief systems. Samsara, or, the world we believe ourselves to live in, only exists because of these beliefs. Creating the universe takes a lot of effort, and its an effort we are so used to constantly exerting, we don't even notice its presence until its gone. Once all beliefs end for the first time, Nirvana is seen, and from there on out, there is an unending tranquility that you now will have access to, in all experience. This peace underlying all things will allow you to endure anything.
When all your beliefs end, so does the belief that you are a human being. Your experience becomes one of complete unity, seeing the universe as yourself. You will experience what you truly are, the totality of reality uninterpreted by beliefs. It is the holiest of experiences, and one I am eternally grateful to have been able to experience.
Just because the belief that you are a human being has ended does not mean your human experience stops. Your experience continues as it once did, but now with an added non-human component. Both logically at odds with one another, but coexisting perfectly. You will still experience things like sadness, frustration, and anger, but in a completely new light. Suffering is not a feeling or experience. Suffering is nothing more than energy exerted to satisfy aversion. When you are an Arahant, you will become sad and cry, but you will not be uncomfortable. You will get angry and yell, but be at peace. True freedom comes from the acceptance of all experience. As long as you want these experiences and not those, you will never be free. Any enlightenment description that highlights you being able to control anything is misguided. True freedom is in the complete relinquishing of control of everything. True freedom is in the full acceptance of anything that occurs. You do not need to change who you are to be free. You simply need to observe, without exerting the effort of interpretation.
Without getting into my life story, I can tell you it took me 6 years of searching to become an Arahant. I personally believe most of that time was wasted, wandering from teaching to teaching, trying to piece together what would help me, and what was just dogmatic beliefs. I think, if I had the correct resources from the beginning, I could have done it a lot faster. Enlightenment is possible for all who seek it. The hardest part of the path is discarding all the beliefs that hold us from seeing the Truth.
Now for my advice to you for how to move forward on the path. It's so easy to get stagnant. I have seen many spin their wheels for years making no progress, and I pray all who have read this far do not make the same mistakes that I did.
If you desire to be free, my highest recommendation is to find a teacher who has already walked the entire path. I have seen many waste so much time, learning from teachers who also believe the end goal to be an impossible task. An Arahant hillbilly would be more useful to you than a monk who has spent the last 60 years memorizing the Suttras.
If you can't find a teacher, I highly suggest you read this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Mastering-Core-Teachings-Buddha-Unusually/dp/1904658407
It was written by an Arahant, for people confused or lost in the Suttas. It boils down what you need to most basic component. I fully attribute the final stages of my progress to reading this book. I couldn't recommend it more.
I hope this book of a post I have written you finds you well. To all who have made it this far, I have no doubt that you have the open-mindedness and ability to set aside your own beliefs that are infinitely helpful in reaching true freedom. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.

Thank you, I appreciate your answer and agree with many of your points (Oh, beliefs and opinions again!). I certainly feel like the original teaching of Siddharta Gautama has been altered and overcomplicated since many years of oral transition. It can be even seen with how many "formulas" are there in the suttas. I highly doubt that the original teaching was so formalistic. Probably it's like that because it's easier to remember. "Abhidhamma Pitaka" was probably written by non-arahants. And, yes, probably "a monk who has spent the last 60 years memorizing the Suttras" isn't a great teacher.

Also, unrealistic expectations could be set because over time the figure of Buddha has started to resemble god, omnipotent and omniscient. In reality, Buddha was a liberated being, but still a normal human being. It's even written in the suttas that in the old age Buddha has led less ascetic lifestyle and started to practise the naps.

As for your claim for being an arahant, it probably can't be proven nor disproven, like all the other such claims. I can only say that in the 20th and 21st centuries there's been a lot of such claims, but people who claimed this often have held false opinions and were teaching harmful stuff, so obviously they weren't really enlightened.

Finally, I can say that your answer certainly resonated with me and helped me to calm down.

You are most welcome. Believing I am an Arahant would just be another belief acting as a barrier to your awakening, so hopefully you don’t believe a word. =] Im just happy you read my words to the end. You don’t need anyone to get where you are headed, but sometimes guides and friends can be good company along the way.

Oh your words fill my heart with joy! Thank you for making my day. ❤

I am just a learner, not a knowledgeable monk or scholar but I will venture an answer as I have had the same questions and thoughts as you. These are the answers that have worked for me:

Can this be done? Yes. Example: the Buddha and some others who followed.
Can this be done in the current lifetime? Yes. Example: the Buddha.
Should one expect to attain this in one or the current lifetime? No. Example: the many who try but failed; even the Buddha spoke of his past lifetimes. As others here have pointed out; it is incredibly difficult to attain.
Should this put you off trying? No. As others have said, even if it is not been achieved, the trying will bring you that much closer so you can start ahead in your next existence.
Which is the right path/teaching to follow to achieve it? Trick question. IMHO, the Buddha taught us the understandings & goals we need to achieve. He also gave us some helpful ideas on some practices which could be used to achieve those.

However, most important, he also taught us that we needed to look within ourselves to find our way to enlightenment. Buddhism does not have priests or rabbis or imams for a reason. Monks are teachers and advisors, not infallibles.
We are each different individuals, with different backgrounds, ways and capabilities. I believe that there is no one way or one set of practices that is the right one for all to follow to enlightenment. Each of these have been developed by individuals who looked within and found a certain set which helped them achieve. The mistake even great teachers make is to believe that the method that worked for them will work for all (one of the toughest lessons I had to learn as a teacher).
Each of us needs to survey these, look within ourselves and choose the best methods FOR US to attain the understandings and goals set out for us. Again, the answer is within each of us not down one defined "yellow brick road".

A simplistic view and indeed a commonsense view of the Noble Eightfold Path for achieving Nibbana (through Samadhi-Vipassana) begins by understanding and seeing what 'Right View' is and then coupling it with 'Right Effort' and 'Right Mindfulness'. It is this framework that needs to be applied to the the remaining path factors as well.
The above view is well articulated in the Maha Chaththarika Sutta and it is a very useful framework that I had already synthesised for my practice by then (arising from a commonsense perspective). Nevertheless, going through the Sutta made it even more useful and reinforced my understanding further and also clarified what these meant (to some extent) and the importance of thinking so which is logically articulated by the Buddha in this Sutta.
What is important to note is that there are specific meanings attached to what 'Right and Wrong View' etc are (not limited to commonsense meanings), and it is only by latching on to these specific meanings that one would be able to develop insight and trek the Path towards Nibbana.
So, in order to respond to the question connected with the Satipattana Sutta, I for one feel that (with my little understanding) what it attempts to explain is what 'Right Mindfulness' is about but 'Right Mindfulness' alone would not be sufficient without first understanding what 'Right View' is and why it is indeed fundamental and foremost as explained in the Sutta (although Maha Chaththarika Sutta translations into English aren't great and have therefore listened to sermons and read various other suttas from other languages with stutta titles misleading at times too).
The said three-pronged framework makes sense to me even from a commonsense perspective. I feel, it is part of the big picture which needs to be linked with the Four Noble Truths to complete it (simplistically). So, to achieve Nibbana, it cannot be achieved by simply following what is said in the Satipattana Sutta but needs to be combined with what the Buddha had said in totality while understanding the big picture as I see. A good question that got me thinking.

To attain enlightenment, all one simply needs to learn is how to continuously observe the breathing, i.e., practice anapanasati.

Nibbana is an experience (or a mental state), not something to be understood intellectually. The answers cannot be found by comparing techniques or schools. One has to apply the dharma pertaining to the body to the body, the dharma applying to sila (virtue) to one's life. It is a process of slowly changing the composition of one's mind and life over time. Please find a local monastery or meditation retreat that speaks to you. May you find peace!
With metta

OP: Is it even possible to attain Nirvana?

If you have to ask this question, then the answer is NO.

P.S. This is a zen-style answer.

well, that was triggering

Nibbana is easy. All you need is get rid of cravings , slowly but surely. Once you get rid of the cravings , clinging will not arise. If clinging won’t arise , attachments won’t arise. If attachments won’t arise , becoming won’t arise. If becoming won’t arise , birth , ageing and death and whole mass of related suffering won’t arise. This is Nibbana.

Buddhism takes a familiar American principle—the pursuit of
happiness—and inserts two important qualifiers. The happiness it aims
at is true: ultimate, unchanging, and undeceitful. Its pursuit of that
happiness is serious, not in a grim sense, but dedicated, disciplined,
and willing to make intelligent sacrifices.
What sorts of sacrifices are intelligent? The Buddhist answer to this
question resonates with another American principle: an intelligent
sacrifice is any in which you gain a greater happiness by letting go
of a lesser one, in the same way you’d give up a bag of candy if
offered a pound of gold in exchange. In other words, an intelligent
sacrifice is like a profitable trade. This analogy is an ancient one
in the Buddhist tradition. “I’ll make a trade,” one of the Buddha’s
disciples once said, “aging for the ageless, burning for the unbound:
the highest peace, the unexcelled safety from bondage. (Thag 1:32)”
There’s something in all of us that would rather not give things up.
We’d prefer to keep the candy and get the gold. But maturity teaches
us that we can’t have everything, that to indulge in one pleasure
often involves denying ourselves another, perhaps better, one. So we
need to establish clear priorities for investing our limited time and
energies where they’ll give the most lasting returns.
That means giving top priority to the mind. Material things and social
relationships are unstable and easily affected by forces beyond our
control, so the happiness they offer is fleeting and undependable. But
the well-being of a well-trained mind can survive even aging, illness,
and death. To train the mind, though, requires time and energy. This
is one reason why the pursuit of true happiness demands that we
sacrifice some of our external pleasures.
Sacrificing external pleasures also frees us of the mental burdens
that holding onto them often entails. A famous story in the Canon (Ud
2:10) tells of a former king who, after becoming a monk, sat down at
the foot of a tree and exclaimed, “What bliss! What bliss!” His fellow
monks thought he was pining for the pleasures he had enjoyed as king,
but he later explained to the Buddha exactly what bliss he had in
mind:
“Before … I had guards posted within and without the royal apartments,
within and without the city, within and without the countryside. But
even though I was thus guarded, thus protected, I dwelled in
fear—agitated, distrustful, and afraid. But now, on going alone to a
forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, I dwell
without fear, unagitated, confident, and unafraid—unconcerned,
unruffled, living on the gifts of others, with my mind like a wild
deer.”
A third reason for sacrificing external pleasures is that in pursuing
some pleasures—such as our addictions to eye-candy, ear-candy, nose-,
tongue-, and body-candy—we foster qualities of greed, anger, and
delusion that actively block the qualities needed for inner peace.
Even if we had all the time and energy in the world, the pursuit of
these pleasures would lead us further and further away from the goal.
Pleasures of this sort are spelled out in the path factor called right
resolve: the resolve to forego any pleasures involving sensual
passion, ill will, and harmfulness. “Sensual passion” covers not only
sexual desire, but also any hankering for the pleasures of the senses
that disrupts the peace of the mind. “Ill will” covers any wish for
suffering, either for yourself or for others. And “harmfulness” is any
activity that would bring that suffering about.
Of these three categories, the last two are the easiest to see as
worth abandoning. They’re not always easy to abandon, perhaps, but the
resolve to abandon them is obviously a good thing. The first resolve,
though—to renounce sensual passion—is difficult even to make, to say
nothing of following it through.
Part of our resistance to this resolve is universally human. People
everywhere relish their passions. Even the Buddha admitted to his
disciples that, when he set out on the path of practice, his heart
didn’t leap at the idea of renouncing sensual passion, didn’t see it
as offering peace. But an added part of our resistance to renunciation
is peculiar to Western culture. Modern pop psychology teaches that the
only alternative to a healthy indulgence of our sensual passions is an
unhealthy, fearful repression. Yet both of these alternatives are
based on fear: repression, on a fear of what the passion might do when
expressed or even allowed into consciousness; indulgence, on a fear of
deprivation and of the under-the-bed monster the passion might become
if resisted and driven underground. Both alternatives place serious
limitations on the mind.
The Buddha, aware of the drawbacks of both, had the imagination to
find a third alternative: a fearless, skillful approach that avoids
the dangers of either side.
To understand his approach, though, we have to see how right resolve
relates to other parts of the Buddhist path, in particular right view
and right concentration. In the formal analysis of the path, right
resolve builds on right view. In its most skillful manifestation, it
functions as the directed thought and evaluation that bring the mind
to right concentration. Right view provides a skillful understanding
of sensual pleasures and passions, so that our approach to the problem
doesn’t go off-target. Right concentration provides an inner stability
and bliss so that we can clearly see the roots of passion and, at the
same time, not fear deprivation at the prospect of pulling them out.
There are two levels to right view, focusing (1) on the results of our
actions in the narrative of our lives and (2) on the issues of stress
and its cessation within the mind. The first level points out the
drawbacks of sensual passion: sensual pleasures are fleeting,
unstable, and stressful; passion for them lies at the root of many of
the ills of life, ranging from the hardships of gaining and
maintaining wealth, to quarrels within families and wars between
nations. This level of right view prepares us to see the indulgence of
sensual passion as a problem. The second level—viewing things in terms
of the four noble truths—shows us how to solve this problem in our
approach to the present moment. It points out that the root of the
problem lies not in the pleasures but in the passion, because passion
involves attachment, and any attachment for pleasures based on
conditions leads inevitably to stress and suffering, in that all
conditioned phenomena are subject to change. In fact, our attachment
to sensual passion tends to be stronger and more constant than our
attachments to particular pleasures. This attachment is what has to be
renounced.
How is this done? By bringing it out into the open. Both sides of
sensual attachment—as habitual patterns from the past and our
willingness to give into them again in the present—are based on
misunderstanding and fear. As the Buddha pointed out, sensual passion
depends on aberrant perceptions: We project notions of constancy,
ease, beauty, and self onto things that are actually inconstant,
stressful, unattractive, and not-self. These misperceptions apply both
to our passions and to their objects. We perceive the expression of
our sensuality as something appealing, a deep expression of our
self-identity offering lasting pleasure. We see the objects of our
passion as enduring and alluring enough, as lying enough under our
control, to provide us with a satisfaction that won’t turn into its
opposite.
Actually, none of this is the case, and yet we blindly believe our
projections because the power of our passionate attachments has us too
intimidated to look them straight in the eye. Their special effects,
as a result, keep us dazzled and deceived. As long as we deal only in
indulgence and repression, attachment can continue operating freely in
the dark of the sub-conscious. But when we consciously resist it, it
has to come to the surface, articulating its threats, demands, and
rationalizations. So even though sensual pleasures aren’t evil, we
have to systematically forego them as a way of drawing the agendas of
attachment out into the open. This is how skillful renunciation serves
as a learning tool, unearthing latent agendas that both indulgence and
repression tend to keep underground.
At the same time, we need to provide the mind with strategies to
withstand those agendas and to cut through them once they appear. This
is where right concentration comes in. As a skillful form of
indulgence, right concentration suffuses the body with a non-sensual
rapture and pleasure that can help counteract any sense of deprivation
in resisting sensual passions. In other words, it provides higher
pleasures—more lasting and refined—as a reward for abandoning
attachment to lower ones. At the same time, it gives us the stable
basis we need so as not to be blown away by the assaults of our
thwarted attachments. This stability also steadies the mindfulness and
alertness we need to see through the misperceptions and delusions that
underlie sensual passion. And once the mind can see through the
processes of projection, perception, and misperception to the greater
sense of freedom that comes when they’re transcended, the basis for
sensual passion is gone.
At this stage, we can then turn to analyze our attachment to the
pleasures of right concentration. When our understanding is complete,
we abandon all need for attachment of any sort, and so meet with the
pure gold of a freedom so total that it can’t be described.
The question remains: How does this strategy of skillful renunciation
and skillful indulgence translate into everyday practice? People who
ordain as monastics take vows of celibacy and are expected to work
constantly at renouncing sensual passion, but for many people, this is
not a viable option. So the Buddha recommended that his lay followers
observe day-long periods of temporary renunciation. Four days out of
each month—traditionally on the new-, full-, and half-moon days—they
can take the eight precepts, which add the following observances to
the standard five: celibacy, no food after noon, no watching of shows,
no listening to music, no use of perfumes and cosmetics, and no use of
luxurious seats and beds. The purpose of these added precepts is to
place reasonable restraints on all five of the senses. The day is then
devoted to listening to the Dhamma, to clarify right view; and to
practicing meditation, to strengthen right concentration. Although the
modern workweek can make the lunar scheduling of these day-long
retreats impractical, there are ways they can be integrated into
weekends or other days off from work. In this way, anyone interested
can, at regular intervals, trade the cares and complexities of
everyday life for the chance to master renunciation as a skill
integral to the serious pursuit of happiness in the truest sense of
the word.
And isn’t that an intelligent trade?

Trading Candy for Gold Thanissaro Bhikkhu


text:
Does the first precept require me to check the shower for bugs and make sure to remove all of the bugs before using it?
I recently noticed that perhaps fewer than 10 bugs seem to be in my shower.  I can try to remove all of the bugs from the shower before using it so that they don’t get washed away and killed.  However, some of the bugs are very small and hard to see, so I can’t be sure I can remove all of them.  Also, even if I remove all of the bugs in the shower, it is possible bugs will return, so I don’t know if I need to check the shower for bugs before each time that I use it.

I recently noticed that perhaps fewer than 10 bugs seem to be in my shower.

The reason many bugs show up in one place is usually due to that place having "things" that attract them, whether it's smell, shed skin cells (as their food source), humidity (their suitable dwelling environment), etc. So, instead of doing it the hard way, try tackling the issue at its root cause, try to keep the shower clean, free of residues, or humidity, etc. after you've finished using the shower, and you won't have to worry much about those bugs the next time you use it.

The intention is important as outlined in the story below.

The Story of Thera Cakkhupala
While residing at the Jetavana monastery in Savatthi, the Buddha
uttered Verse (1) of this book, with reference to Cakkhupala, a blind
thera.On one occasion, Thera Cakkhupala came to pay homage to the Buddha at the Jetavana monastery. One night, while pacing up and down in meditation, the thera accidentally stepped on some insects. In the morning, some bhikkhus visiting the thera found the dead insects. They thought ill of the thera and reported the matter to the Buddha. The Buddha asked them whether they had seen the thera killing the insects. When they answered in the negative, the Buddha said, "Just as you had not seen him killing, so also he had not seen those living insects. Besides, as the thera had already attained arahatship he could have no intention of killing and so was quite innocent."

May you find peace! With metta :)
source: http://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001

Well in the case of Arahat Chakkulapa, there was no bad kamma because he was already an Arahat. But anyone who isn't an Arahat still gains bad kamma even if you do not volitionally kill a being. Although the bad kamma is very less when compared to intentional killing.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do experienced Buddhists preserve their equanimity and well-being in unfavourable circumstances?
What are the examples in ancient texts or in history when a trained Buddhist sustained their equanimity and well-being through torture, forced isolation or other unfavourable circumstances?
Which tools given in Dhamma do you think would be useful if one had to survive, for example, through the years in prison? Could it be possible to keep on the development of skilful qualities in places like this?
Would you consider suicide as a solution?

Consider splitting the suicide question apart

You might try searching for the web for talks or papers by "Buddhist prison chaplains" -- to see what the experience is of chaplains who teach or work with prisoners.

Would you consider suicide as a solution?

A big NO...., suicide is not a solution, it creates more problems.

Which tools given in Dhamma do you think would be useful if one had to survive

Buddhism teaches us consequences for our each action,
For example if you hate someone, that person won't even know that you've hated him/her unless you told, but if you hating someone else and it isn't hurt them or do bad for them, it's really bad for the person who hate. Because hater's mind is impure, and it count as bad Karma.
When you collect bad Karma for long time, and suddenly die, while do the another bad Karma, there's high probability of being reincarnate in one of Four Hell(Animals, Pretha, Asura, Hell). And that's the danger of reincarnation. And those four places has lot more Pain, Suffering than human world, it's unimaginable.
" Imagine while four muscular guys hold your hands and legs and another two of'em rip your body apart with a saw, and no way to survive, And advice for the person who getting hurt is not to hate those six guys, being nice them. " And this is a allegory for Meththa.
So if someone think those accordingly and believe that's it truth, no one would do any bad things, And i think that is the best Motive for the survival of such situations.(If you follow and believe Lord Buddha).
I hope this would help.

There are numerous stories in Tibetan Buddhism about Lamas getting imprisoned for years or decades by the Chinese and how they not only endured the hardships but became spiritual guides for other inmates and even their prison guards.
Tibetan Buddhism in general has a recurring theme of teachings about "putting all obstacles on the path" - meaning, using every real life problem as a practice aid, instead of seeing it negatively.
It's all about your perspective, and if your perspective is that your situation is a blessing, then you will perceive it as such.

First the stories as i remember them;

In the commentary to Dhp there is a story of queen who hires a prostitute for the king because the queen is otherwise occupied attending to the monks. The prostitute later throws hot oil at the queen but the queen is established strongly in perception of sympathy and remains thus unharmed.
In a Sutta, a lay disciple Mahanama is worried about getting mad at his servants and expresses these unholy bad qualities to the Tathagata. Buddha assures him that he isn't going to fall to lower realms and of having fruition of stream entry.

I don't recall anything else relevant which is a story and not  an instruction nor a simile.
The general answer on the how-to is in dealing with the five hindrances, all and any one in particular.
One removes perception of aversion and perception of sensuality by establishing wholesome perceptions; of unattractiveness, inconstancy, death, dispassion for all worlds; and does not tolerate unwholesome thoughts.
As for suicide it is blameless only if one does not take another body. An Arahant is said to be using the knife blamessly.

Sāriputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sāriputta, should you remember it.”https://suttacentral.net/sn35.87/en/bodhi
But this is not enough for me to call someone ‘blameworthy’.
  Na kho panāhaṃ, sāriputta, ettāvatā saupavajjoti vadāmi.
When someone lays down this body and takes up another body, I call them ‘blameworthy’.
  Yo kho, sāriputta, tañca kāyaṃ nikkhipati, aññañca kāyaṃ upādiyati, tamahaṃ
  https://suttacentral.net/sn35.87/en/sujato

Fwiw; some hold that an Arahant can't kill himself and that the people in the Sutta who are said to use the knife blamelessly kill themselves as worldlings and become Arahants at the moment of Death.

Which tools given in Dhamma do you think would be useful if one had to survive, for example, through the years in prison? Could it be possible to keep on the development of skilful qualities in places like this?
Would you consider suicide as a solution?

Look at it on the bright side, there're certain kinds of life outside of prison that are much much worse than inside. Imagine living in a war-torn region, working like a slave for at least 15 hours a day, witnessing the living hell going on all around you, seeing your parents killed, your sisters raped, your younger brothers forced to do child soldier's work, etc. Of course killing oneself would be the easy way out. But if you believe in the law of Kamma, you'd already knew that's the worst possible option, for bad Kamma is like a debt, and the collector is one cruel ruthless s.o.b who, like a terminator, will never ever ever stop hunting down his debtor until the debt's been paid in full, in this life or the next. So, make the best of what you've got. At least the inmate has an 8-hour/day(or more) advantage to cultivate the Dhamma, over the poor brothers outside of prison who have to work their behinds off every day to be able to afford little morsel of food to feed some hungry mouths and some money to keep a roof over their heads.

An example in the ancient texts of the termination of the life span is the monk Channa in MN 144, where his life was tortured by debilitating physical pain. This example appears related to if the rest of the life span has to be spent subjected to continuous violence (because such a life would be pointless). MN 144 says (my translation):

The mendicant Channa did indeed have such families. But this is not
  enough for me to call someone ‘blameworthy’. When someone lays down the burden (nikkhipati) if this group (of aggregates) and attaches to (upādiyati) another group (of aggregates), I call them ‘blameworthy’. But
  the mendicant Channa did no such thing. You should remember this: ‘The
  mendicant Channa slit his wrists blamelessly.’

Otherwise, if terminating the life span is not an option, only Dhamma can be practised, as taught in MN 21 and SN 35.101. There is no other choice.
As for 'forced isolation', well, as long as you are fed food, there is nothing challenging about this, even though spending the rest of your life in jhana or Nibbana is also meaningless or pointless; similar to the silent Buddhas in MN 116.
My opinion is an enlightened Buddhist does not live life for the sake of merely living. Even if not subjected to violence, I think the only reasons for an enlightened Buddhist to live is: (i) looking after their parents (DN 31); and (ii) teaching the Dhamma (MN 26). If there is nobody to teach Dhamma to, there is no point in living, in my opinion.
There are numerous stories in Tibetan Buddhism about Lamas getting imprisoned for years or decades by the Chinese and how they not only endured the hardships but became spiritual guides for other inmates and even their prison guards. If such a situation is possible then it would be practised. For example, the Chinese suffered very much under European & Japanese imperialism therefore some Chinese might be receptive to the Dhamma of a Tibetan Lama who renounced the Dalai Lama's allegiance to the American CIA. But if you were in a Bolshevik gulag run by that tribe who cannot be named then you might not fare so well.

Thank you for your answer, but the question is not about "enlightened Buddhist", but about "trained" and "experienced" one, and the possibility of keeping equanimity and well-being through harsh circumstances, or even development of these and other skilful qualities.

A trained Buddhist is enlightened, i.e., at least a stream-enterer.

Suicide i doubt is forbidden by monastic rules. MN 144 does not look unfavourably upon suicide when there is no attachment to life.

Vinaya Pitaka clearly forbids suicide and killing (https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-bu-vb-pj3/en/brahmali). Sutta you recited implies that only mendicant Channa blamelessly committed suicide, it doesn't imply that all the monks doing so are blameless. This is why other disciples did not expect Buddha to justify it. For mendicant Chanda, keeping his life would mean just few more days alive in torture, because he was "gravely ill" anyway. I think Buddha would not justify suicide for those who have a chance to live without constant torture.

"When someone lays down this body and takes up another body, I call them ‘blameworthy’. But the mendicant Channa did no such thing. You should remember this: ‘The mendicant Channa slit his wrists blamelessly.’” - therefore, only for arahants suicide can be blameless because they do not "lay down this body and take up another body", i.e. they will not be reborn.

no - i did not write what you posted. the sutta is not  about not being reborn. i translated the sutta. the sutta is about ending life without attachment. even a stream-enterer can do this. the sutta does not ever say Channa was an arahant

Praising death -- e.g. "What's the point of this wretched and difficult life?" -- is an offence of defeat.

Are you claiming the Buddha was defeated when he said Channa was blameless?

I was quoting the vinaya, and was not saying that the buddha recommended suicide.

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


text:
Basic readings and references: where to start
Although I have read some basic articles and book about buddhism, they are all written by modern western sources, and I would like to get to know the foundations. Even when reading this site, I sometimes feel at a loss because I miss so many of the particular terms, and all the names of the classical texts are kind of mixed in my mind, I don't even know where to start. My question is then: What would be a good "programm" to introduce myself in buddhist (foundational) readings?
I am aware of other questions dealing with introductory texts to Buddhism, but, as I see it, that is easy to find. What I want is sort of a guide to start navigating the important foundational texts of which I keep hearing/reading a lot, but that I cannot grasp.
Also, I would love to learn at least a bit of the languages (Sanskrit, Pali) to improve my understanding of what I read, and some references in this sense would also be much appreciated.

Highly recommend Ven. Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon" which will lay a solid foundation to all the important key concepts of the Buddha's Teaching.

See also "Reference lists" -- it's a list of other topics on this site, which ask for lists of books and so on. And you might find the "Useful resources" listed on this page helpful. The Dhamma lists page mentions and provides a simplified translation of many of the most important Pali words, for example dukkha and tanha etc.

You can use the book by bikkhu Nyanatusita to learn the vinaya. It has the pali, then the english translation, then the definition of all the pali words. The draft from 2008 is here
https://www.dhammatalks.net/Books14/Bhikkhu_Nyanatusita-Analysis_of_the_Bhikkhupatimokkha.pdf
the book from 2014 is here
https://books.google.com/books?id=6s3iBQAAQBAJ
For a list of suttas and a super short summary, there is always
An Analysis of the Pali Canon and a Reference Table of Pali Literature By Russell Webb and Bhikkhu Nyanatusita
https://www.bps.lk/olib/bp/bp607s_Webb_Analysis-Of-The-Pali-Canon.pdf
which has also a huge catalog of texts on buddhism, as of 2011, and it has also  A Reference List of Pali Literature, which is also found here separately
http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil_elib/Nyt008__Nyanatusita_ReferenceTableOfPaliLiterature.pdf
The course by bikkhu bodhi for Pali is a good introduction
https://bodhimonastery.org/a-course-in-the-pali-language.html
and the little help for Pali Verb Conjugation and Noun/Pronoun Declension Tables, by Bhikkhu Nyanatusita (2005; 486k)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanatusita/index.html
For the suttas themselves, you can begin with the short ones, so DN which is some copies of suttas form SN and AN, MN, dhammapada, sutta nipata, then SN and AN
Also do not forget the parallel suttas. Scholars already know about this since the 80s, like lamotte says in HISTORY OF INDIAN BUDDHISM (Peeters Press, 1988, page 156):

However, with the exception of the Mahayanist interpolations in the Ekottara [the Chinese equivalent to the Pali Canon's Anguttara],
  which are easily discernable, the variations in question affect hardly
  anything save the method of expression or arrangement of the subjects.
  The doctrinal basis common to the agamas [preserved in Chinese and
  partially Sanskrit and Tibetan] is remarkably uniform. Preserved and
  transmitted by the schools, the sutras [discourses] do not however
  constitute scholastic documents, but are the common heritage of all
  the sects.

THere is a short book The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism: A Comparative Study Based on the Sutranga Portion of the Pali Samyutta-Nikaya and the Chinese Samyuktagama by Mun-keat Choong
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/The%20Fundamental%20Teachings%20of%20Early%20Buddhism_Mun-keat.pdf
and of course lots of work by Bikkhu Analayo
A Comparative Study of the Majjhima-nikāya
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/compstudyvol1.pdf
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/compstudyvol2.pdf
Madhyama-āgama Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/mastudies.pdf
Saṃyukta-āgama Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/sastudies.pdf
Dīrgha-āgama Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/dastudies.pdf
Ekottarika-āgama Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/ekottarikastudies.pdf
Vinaya Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/vinayastudies.pdf
Early Buddhist Meditation Studies
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/ebms.pdf
Perspectives on Satipaṭṭhāna
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/pdf/5-personen/analayo/perspectives.pdf

Thank you for your complete answer

"DN" isn't the "short ones" -- aren't they the longest.

I found the https://www.buddha-vacana.org/ site an interesting introduction to Pali -- see for example https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/samyutta/maha/sn56-011.html -- use a mouse to hover over Pali words to see a popup with a translation and a link to a dictionary definition.
Another site with Pali and English on the same page is https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/ for example https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=001
And all of Ven. Sujato's translations on suttacentral have side-by-side or line-by-line copies of the Pali -- see for example https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/sujato -- click on the Settings icon near the top of the page, and activate "View original text with translation" and "Activate Pali word lookup", then again use a mouse to hover over the words of interest.

Pali nouns have "case" -- i.e. nominative, accusative, ablative, etc., which show what place they have in a sentence -- that's instead of word-order being significant, and using conjunctions -- so it's like Latin or Greek.
There are several online resources for that -- grammar and dictionaries -- an introductory one is https://www.buddha-vacana.org/toolbox.html
And there are compound nouns, often you might guess how a word is compounded in order to look up each portion individually -- for example "manopubbaṅgama is a Pali compound consisting of the words mano and pubbaṅgama" (with mano being one of the words for "mind").

Thank you! those resources look amazing

My advice is to stick around where people quote and recite texts known to be true.
You can learn effectively just by following the public discourse and asking questions.
What will be most important is the self-study of the referenced texts and remembering them. This is more important than how other people interpret it.
Eventually you will learn many texts, various interpretations and controversy.
Reading about the pali sutta is not as important as reading the sutta and the public discourse is more or less an introduction because questions repeat themselves quite a lot.
As you study the Buddha's pali discourses you will also learn a bit about commentary and pick up on things here & there from the public discourse.
As for Pali language you will eventually learn many technical terms from the public discourse and comparing pali translations.
If you want to learn the grammar and to expand your vocabulary you can attemp reading stories from jataka, vinaya and dhp commentaries.
For grammar one can find some course.
One can also memorize pali for recitation, ie the patimokkha. One will learn some this way but it's rather negligible in & by itself.


text:
Is daydreaming bad (outside of meditation)?
A advise that I was given is to be "mindful" when I'm not meditating. However, it seems that mindfulness is incompatible with daydreaming (especially those in which we can get really engrossed and lose our sense of the present moment). Therefore, is daydreaming/fantasizing bad?

It is hard to be mindful yet it is beneficial.

SN1.18:2.1: “Few are those constrained by conscience, who live always mindful.

It is easy to daydream yet it is fatal while driving.
Which would you choose moment by moment?

Yes, in general it's a giving of wrong attention.

Whatever a monk keeps pursuing with his thinking & pondering, that becomes the inclination of his awareness. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

Thoughts based on perception of attractiveness, of honor & fame and of sensuality are going to wreck havoc on your training and discipline.
If it's rooted in delusion, aversion or greed then the thought should not be tolerated and is classed as distracting thought.
Removal of distracting thoughts is taught in a likewise named sutta.
In general if one sees these thoughts it's due to lack of development of good perceptions and due to the development of bad perceptions.
If one doesn't even take note of these circumstances then one lacks mindfulness.
If one does take note as one sees the arising, persistence & the cessation of thoughts, feelings and perceptions,then one can make adjustments like ie countering perception of attractiveness by focusing on the unpleasant.
If one can both take note and make the necessary adjustments then one will eventually become quite great;

When, indeed, bhikkhus, evil unskillful thoughts due to reflection on an adventitious object are eliminated, when they disappear, and the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated just within (his subject of meditation), through his reflection on an object connected with skill, through his pondering on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts, his endeavoring to be without attentiveness and reflection as regards those thoughts or through his restraining, subduing, and beating down of the evil mind by the good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate, that bhikkhu is called a master of the paths along which thoughts travel. The thought he wants to think, that, he thinks; the thought he does not want to think, that, he does not think. He has cut down craving, removed the fetter, rightly mastered pride, and made an end of suffering."https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel021.html#ch-1


text:
Are the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism merely semantic/perspective?
having studied Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, I've seen that the differences between the two are almost non-existent.
This video does a good job at fleshing out the Vedanta and Buddhist perspective and he himself seemingly states that the differences between the two are trivial at best.
I'd be interested to hear some input from those more familiar with Buddhism.

There are a dozen or more topics about vedanta on this site already? The video is 30 minutes long, and is maybe mostly off-topic on this site. Does  it make any specific claims about Buddhism which you'd like to question -- is so then at what location[s] in the video?

Buddhism teaches Anatta (not self) and the Nibbana is the final goal. You can't find them in Advaita Vedanta. Buddism also has Noble Eightfold Path with a clear set of instructions as to how to attain Nibbana. In my opinion, it is just more than semantics. The only way to be sure is to study and practice both.

In merely the first 10 seconds, the video refers to alien ideas, such as "immortality" & "Self".
The video then talks about finding happiness & ending suffering, which is the aim of many philosophies; including hedonism. Even monkeys seek to avoid suffering & find pleasure.
The video then says "if you knew yourself as you truly are all your suffering would be overcome". It says "the real Self is the witness consciousness- the one unchanging experiencer - the real me"... "The witness consciousness is freedom from the person & what is witnessed". These ideas are alien to Buddhism, particularly the permanence of consciousness and the idea of a "real me".
Also, the speaker never stops referring to a "you", as though there is a "you".
The video then says "when you [lol] stop there saying all things I am not, you [lol] have Buddhism and fall short of Vedanta". This is wrong. Buddhism does not have the doctrine of "I AM NOT". The doctrine of Buddhism is "this is not a me; this is not a mine; this is not a self".
Then the video wrongly said Hindu Atman & Buddhist Anatta are the same thing from a non-dualistic perspective. In actuality, original Buddhism does not teach self (atta; atthattā) & not-self (anatta) are a "duality". Original Buddhism teaches "I am" ("atthattā") and "I am not" ("natthattā") are dualities because both ideas still believe in an "I", i.e. an "I" that is and an "I" that is not. "Not-self" ("anatta") is not part of any duality that is transcended into non-duality. "Not-self" ("anatta") is the inherent characteristic of everything, without exception. Both the "dual" & "non-dual" are "anatta".
Then the video falsely says Buddhism does not believe there are "things". This is wrong and confused. The original Buddhism of the Buddha says there are "things" ("dhammas"). It is the Mahayana Buddhism of the philosopher Nagarjuna that purports there are no things. The speaker actually quotes Nagarjuna, which shows the speaker falsely believes Nagarjuna is the Buddha.
In conclusion, there is nothing I heard in the video that is related to Buddhism. The goal of Buddhism is to perfect something called DISPASSION and END CRAVING. The speaker in the video appears devoted to, delighting in & even worshiping the delusion of a silent unchanging witness. This is not Buddhism. Buddhism does not delight in anything. Buddhism says delight is the root of suffering. Buddhism says any type of consciousness, gross or subtle, is dukkham (unsatisfactory; not warranting delight).

According to Wikipedia by the way, Nagarjuna wrote, in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty (sunya). This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore, non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance (svabhava) because, like a dream, they are mere projections of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti)..

I think your saying that "Nagarjuna that purports there are no things" was an oversimplification or misrepresentation -- conversely the quote or summary above isn't far from what you find in the suttas, e.g. the Foam sutta (SN 22.95). It's kind of tangential to your answer, but since you wrote "Nagarjuna purports there are no things" I thought that was worth clarifying.

Those seeking Right View can refer to this question and the last part of the chosen answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/39238/does-the-foam-sutta-sn-22-95-say-there-are-no-things

@Dhammadhatu. We have a be-nice-policy on Buddhism SE. As you have been told countless of times, please adhere to it.

In the video, the speaker said:

Vedanta is about Atma (the Self). ... the next word is Sakshi (Witness) ... What
  is the Self? Is it this bundle of flesh and blood? Is this person in
  the body? The mind, the intellect, the memory, the likes and dislikes,
  the knowledge, the person I think I am - is that the Self? Or is it
  something beyond that? According to Vedanta, you are the real Self, is
  the Witness-Consciousness. It is that which experiences. It is that
  which experiences in the waking state, in the dream state, in the deep
  sleep state. The one unchanging experiencer, which enables all
  experience. What does that mean?
Take a simple methodology. It's a philosophical enquiry into who am I?
  ... This technique is called the seer and the seen. ... Remember, the
  purpose is to discover the Atma, the real Self. It's about discovering
  who you really are. ... It says: You are that which experiences. That
  which is experienced, is not you (the Atma). ...

The speaker goes on to explain how the body, sensory organs, feelings, thoughts, and mind is that which is experienced, so it is not the Self. He says the Self is the Witness-Consciousness. He says you are not the person (which is the ego-identity or ego-personality constructed by the mind)  - you are that which is aware of the person. He calls it the illuminer of the body-mind. He calls the Atma unchanging, while all the changing things are that which is experienced, not the experiencer.
Somewhere further in the video, he says Buddhist Madhyamaka has emptiness but even that emptiness must be experienced by a Witness-Consciousness.
Then further on, he goes on to explain what Advaita teaches, which is that all the changing things are not separate from Brahman, but rather manifested from Brahman and experienced by it. He provides the example that one witnesses the contents of one's dream, but the dream is also part of the mind and not separate from it. Then he says that God is the experiencer through all beings.

OP: Are the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism merely semantic/perspective? ... having studied Buddhism and Advaita
  Vedanta, I've seen that the differences between the two are almost
  non-existent.

The answer depends on what you define as Buddhism.
If you look at Mahayana Buddhism, I would say different Mahayana schools have different opinions.
From the following statement from this page, we see an explanation of Yogacara philosophy that sounds similar to Advaita Vedanta, yet is not exactly the same. This answer shows how Yogacara is different from Advaita.

The central thesis in the Yogācāra philosophy, the theory of the two
  truths echoes is the assertion that all that is conventionally real is
  only ideas, representations, images, creations of the mind, and that
  there is no conventionally real object that exists outside the mind to
  which it corresponds. These ideas are only objects of any cognition.
  The whole universe is a mental universe. All physical objects are only
  fiction, they are unreal even by the conventional standard, similar to
  a dream, a mirage, a magical illusion, where what we perceive are only
  products of our mind, without a real external existence.
All these arguments based on the facts of experience show that
  objects do not exist really outside the mind, that they are products
  of mental creation and that their appearance is entirely mind
  dependent. Therefore the Yogācāra's theory of the two truths concludes
  that the whole world is a product of mind—it is the collective mental
  actions (karma) of all beings. All living beings see the same world
  because of the identical maturation of their karmic consequences.
  Since the karmic histories of beings are same, there is homogeneity in
  the way in which the world is experienced and perceived. This is the
  reason there is an orderly world instead of chaotic and arbitrariness.
  This is also the reason behind the impressions of the objectivity of
  the world.
... The idealism of Yogācāra holds nondual mind as the only ultimate
  reality and the external world as merely conventional truths.

The same page explains Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka (below). Based on the following, it is clear that Advaita Vedanta is incompatible with Madhyamaka, because Madhyamaka advocates groundlessness i.e. everything is empty of intrinsic essense, including consciousness and emptiness itself. On the other hand, in Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the substratum or ground for everything (see Vivekachudamani 225-231, 289).
There is absolutely nothing that has intrinsic essence in Madhyamaka, not even consciousness, not even emptiness. Empty of intrinsic essence does not mean unreality or non-existence, but is rather because everything is conditioned, changing and dependently originated.

On Nāgārjuna's Madhyamaka all things including ultimate truth are
  ultimately unreal, empty (śūnya) of any intrinsic nature (svabhāva)
  including the emptiness (śūnyatā) itself, therefore all are
  groundless. In this sense a Mādhyamika (a proponent of the Madhyamaka
  thought) is a an advocate of the emptiness (śūnyavādin), advocate of
  the intrinsic unreality (niḥsvabhāvavādin), groundlessness,
  essencelessness, or carelessness. Nevertheless to assert that all
  things are empty of any intrinsic reality, for Nāgārjuna, is not to
  undermine the existential status of things as simply nothing. On the
  contrary, Nāgārjuna argues, to assert that the things are empty of any
  intrinsic reality is to explain the way things really are as causally
  conditioned phenomena (pratītyasamputpaṅhā)
Nāgārjuna's central argument to support his radical
  non-foundationalist theory of the two truths draws upon an
  understanding of conventional truth as tied to dependently arisen
  phenomena, and ultimate truth as tied to emptiness of the intrinsic
  nature. Since the former and the latter are coconstitutive of each
  other, in that each entials the other, ultimate reality is tied to
  being that which is conventionally real. Nāgārjuna advances important
  arguments justifying the correlation between conventional truth
  vis-à-vis dependent arising, and emptiness vis-à-vis ultimate truth.
  These arguments bring home their epistemological and ontological
  correlations ([MMK] 24.14; Dbu ma tsa 15a). He argues that wherever
  applies emptiness as the ultimate reality, there applies the causal
  efficacy of conventional reality and wherever emptiness does not apply
  as the ultimate reality, there does not apply the causal efficacy of
  conventional reality (Vig.71) (Dbu ma tsa 29a). According to
  Nāgārjuna, ultimate reality's being empty of any intrinsic reality
  affords conventional reality its causal efficacy since being
  ultimately empty is identical to being causally produced,
  conventionally. This must be so since, for Nāgārjuna, “there is no
  thing that is not dependently arisen; therefore, there is no such
  thing that is not empty” ([MMK] 24.19, Dbu ma tsa 15a).

From this page (quoted below), Candrakirti (a Madhyamika) criticizes Yogacara:

One further Buddhist movement that Candrakīrti criticizes is the
  Yogācāra school, which he presents as advocating a form of subjective
  idealism. Their claim that the world of experience is consciousness
  only and that the contents of consciousness cannot be objects external
  to consciousness itself is supported by several texts within the
  Mahāyāna scriptural tradition. Candrakīrti explains these scriptures
  as examples of teachings that the Buddha gave to counter a particular
  kind of commonly held wrong view. There are, says Candrakīrti, those
  who mistakenly believe that all their suffering is due to causes
  outside themselves; they see themselves as unfortunate victims of a
  hostile world. The Buddha, wishing to make it clear that the
  predominant factor in dissatisfaction is the way one thinks about
  one’s experiences, said, in effect “It’s all in the mind.” It would be
  a mistake to take that statement literally and to conclude that
  nothing but consciousness exists and that the world of experience that
  feels as though it is external to consciousness is in fact produced by
  consciousness or is inseparable from consciousness. The Yogācāra
  offers good reasons to show that the contents of consciousness are
  conditioned and therefore are empty of inherent existence, but they
  fail to appreciate that exactly the same can be said of awareness
  itself. In other words, says Candrakīrti, the Yogācāra philosophers
  fail to acknowledge that everything, including consciousness itself,
  is empty.

Also the same page (quoted below), mentions Santideva's (a Madhyamika) criticism of Yogacara:

Although beautifully written, Bodhicaryāvatāra does not display much
  philosophical originality. Its principal contribution is in offering a
  concise recapitulation of the currents of Madhyamaka thought and of
  Madhyamaka arguments against Yogācāra monism, which portrays
  consciousness as the ultimate source of all realities.

But what did the Buddha himself teach? From his own words in the Pali Canon (MN 38):

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
  dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
  is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
  on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
  burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
  fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
  cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
  simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
  classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
  is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
  it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
  is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
  in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
  ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
  & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
  as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
  the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
  body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

The Buddha rubbished any notion of a permanent independent universal consciousness and explained how consciousness is linked to the six senses (including intellect).
From the same sutta:

The Blessed One then asked him: “Sāti, is it true that the following
  pernicious view has arisen in you: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught
  by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and
  wanders through the round of rebirths, not another’?”
“Exactly so, venerable sir. As I understand the Dhamma taught by the
  Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders
  through the round of rebirths, not another.”
“What is that consciousness, Sāti?”
“Venerable sir, it is that which speaks and feels and experiences here
  and there the result of good and bad actions.”
“Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in
  that way? Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness
  to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no
  origination of consciousness? But you, misguided man, have
  misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and injured yourself and stored
  up much demerit; for this will lead to your harm and suffering for a
  long time.”

Here, the Buddha says there is no such thing as permanent consciousness that experiences everything. Rather, it is dependently originated. Please also see this question.


text:
Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance?
I read the following on the internet:

According to Wikipedia by the way, Nagarjuna wrote, in the
  Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty (sunya).
  This did not mean that they are not experienced and, therefore,
  non-existent; only that they are devoid of a permanent and eternal
  substance (svabhava) because, like a dream, they are mere projections
  of human consciousness. Since these imaginary fictions are
  experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti).

Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance?
Also, is Nibbana a mere projection of human consciousness?
Also, are all things "mere names"?

The quote said "Since these imaginary fictions are experienced, they are not mere names (prajnapti)". Is your last question contrary to the quote or in accordance with it?

From this page, according to Nagarjuna's MMK, XXIV, 18 - 19:

Whatever is relativity, we proclaim that emptiness. It is dependent designation. It is also the central way.
Nothing whatsoever is found which is not relativistically originated. Therefore, nothing whatsoever is found which is not empty.

A fish spends all its time in water, but may not understand what water means, unless it leaves it momentarily.
Similarly, from my understanding of Nagarjuna, if you have no samsara, then no one would understand what Nirvana means. Nirvana is identified only to contrast it with samsara. Hence, Nirvana is empty of an intrinsic essence, because its definition is relativistic i.e. relative to samsara.
Also, from this page:

Nevertheless to assert that all things are empty of any intrinsic
  reality, for Nāgārjuna, is not to undermine the existential status of
  things as simply nothing. On the contrary, Nāgārjuna argues, to assert
  that the things are empty of any intrinsic reality is to explain the
  way things really are as causally conditioned phenomena
  (pratītyasamputpaṅhā).

This means Nagarjuna does not say that Nirvana does not exist or is nothing. Rather he says that it depends on something else. Nirvana does not substantially depend on samsara i.e. it is not conditioned or compounded by anything. However, it depends on samsara for its relativistic definition i.e. Nirvana depends on samsara semantically, rather than substantially.
Another analogy is this - if a tree falls in a forest, but there is no one there to listen to it, does it still make a sound? The sound of a tree falling is only defined relative to a listener. If there is no listener, then it does not make sense to identify sound as such. But it does not mean that it doesn't exist. Similarly, in the case of Nirvana, it is defined relative to samsara.
Nagarjuna is really discussing the mental concept of Nirvana, rather than Nirvana itself.

Pleases me that a Theravada practitioner provides the answer :)

I know based on your tags that your point is "those crazy Mahayanists love to speculate and philosophize, their minds consumed by papanca". And yet, the release from papanca through a kind of philosophical catharsis is exactly what the authors aimed at (as we know from numerous commentaries and sub-commentaries).
So you are asking questions which have been endlessly debated, nitpicked, and split-haired all over commentarial literature for centuries. Don't expect a simple answer.
One way to look at it: if things (dharmas) are called "empty" because they are conditional, constructed (samskara), and dependently originated - is Nirvana, too, dependently originated OR is Nirvana the Dependent Origination itself?
If it's the second, then is Dependent Origination itself dependently originated or is it unconditional, unborn, and undying?
Another way to look at it, is: if all experiences (vijnapti) are relative to the experiencer and the experiencer's model of perception/interpretation, isn't experience of Nirvana also such? Is Nirvana experienced (vijnana) by an experiencer according to his models and interpretations or is it cessation of all models and interpretations that we call Nirvana? If so, can it be called "an experience"? Can we call Nirvana "an experienced phenomena"? If no, then "all experienced phenomena are empty" may not apply to Nirvana. If all experience ceases in Nirvana, can we really say "Nirvana can be seen by the wise" other than as a metaphor for realizing the limit of models and interpretations?
Yet another way to look at it. If Nirvana is metaphor for cessation of craving, is this cessation conditional on being attained or is it unborn and undying? In other words, does peace exist "primordially" even when we are at war, or is it a "projection of mind" at that moment?
Can these questions be answered conclusively, or is any answer necessarily dependent on our definitions and interpretations? Where does this leave us? ;)

Can't think your way out of a think tank! :)

Of course you can, if you think until you puke

Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance?

So the phrasing of this question makes it slightly difficult to answer, but I will do my best. I would answer in this way.
Nibbana is devoid of anything but itself. Nibbana is eternally present, but it is often described as “empty” or “devoid” because once it is experienced alone for the first time, the practitioner realizes that every day of their life they have experiencing Nibbana, but never noticed it due to it being “full” of other experiences. Hopefully my answer to your next question will clear up what I mean by this.

Also, is Nibbana a mere projection of human consciousness?

This is how I like to describe the structure of Nibbana, and how it fits in to our experience. This explanation is incomplete, but I think it accurately conveys its structure.
You can think of Nibbana as the totality of the universe. It is the only thing that actually exists. First Nibbana exists. Then, within Nibbana experiences appear. We call these experiences seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling, and thinking. From these experiences, form is conceptualized, and the “physical” universe we believe to exist is born.
Nibbana is like a television. When a television is turned off, you could describe it as “empty”. Devoid of any content. When it is turned on, it does not create anything. The beings that exist within a TV do not physically exist. The sights it produces could not possibly exist outside of the TV, for the images themselves are the TV. The only thing that ever exists is the Television, and the forms that appear within it are still the TV, simply pixels modulating that we interpret as something more meaningful.
Have you ever been so focused on the content of a movie or show, the presence of the TV melts into the background? Have you ever had the experience of suddenly being pulled out of the show and realizing “oh yea, I’m just looking at a screen”? This experience is much like the feeling that occurs when you see Nibbana for the first time.
Nibbana is like a tv, modulating, taking the form of an image that we interpret as mental phenomena. Then we conceptualize the image/mental phenomena as form, and falsely believe the form has some independent (physical) existence outside of its mental appearance.
I would not say Nibbana is a projection of human consciousness. I would say human consciousness is a projection within Nibbana.

Also, are all things "mere names"?

I would say “all things are nothing more than concepts”. Trees, your mother, sadness, and mathematics all are the same thing. Nibbana. But with the appearance of thought usually comes also conceptualization. We single out a sight and sound we heard before and label that group of sense experiences as “Mother”. Everything you have a name for is conceptualized. What makes Nibbana so difficult to describe, is that Nibbana is what exists when no conceptualization is occurring. It’s logically impossible to describe such a thing, so we fall on words like “empty” as a poor attempt to describe what it’s like when no one is describing.
Although these questions are virtually impossible to answer outside of your own personal experience, I hope my very poor explanations have at least pointed you towards the answers you seek.

Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance?

Yes. As I read from scriptures Nibbana must be empty of permanent and eternal substance. In Root Of All Things sutta even Nibbana is understood as no Self which means it must be empty of permanent and eternal substance.

Also, is Nibbana a mere projection of human consciousness?

Nibbana is cessation or 'nirodh' of ignorance or craving. It is not a projection of human consciousness.

Also, are all things "mere names"?

No. Probably the question is invalid.That calls into question the understanding of reality. What is Universe? What is soul ? Are the body and soul separate or the same? To answer this Buddha mysteriously invokes the Middle Path saying on what conditions Ageing and Death come to be? On the condition of Birth. On what conditions Birth come to be ? On the condition of existence. On what conditions Existence come to be ?....etc. Existence has all the things and consciousness. Therefore it will be foolish to say all things are mere names because reality doesnt come about to be that way.

All things are mere names, just biased delineations.
The idea and name of nibbana are mere projections of consciousness. Nibbana is only direct experience.
Direct experience of what is permanent? Direct experience without names is not impermanent - there is no thing for a name to latch on to.

Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance?
Nibbana is the name given for devoid of craving.
Also, is Nibbana a mere projection of human consciousness?
It is a result of not having a craving.
Also, are all things "mere names"?
No. There are Dependently originated phenomena.

Nibbana is pure consciousness conscious of itself.

Not according to Theravada.

Is Nibbana devoid of a permanent and eternal substance?
Also, is Nibbana a mere projection of human consciousness?
Also, are all things "mere names"?

Well, to be able to answer all 3 questions with guaranteed certainty, the obvious assumption and prerequisite is that the one who provides the answer's already truly had first-hand direct experience of Nibbana AND penetrated "all things"! While waiting for that precious enlightened being to show up here on buddhism.stackexchange.com, it might be a good idea to go with those definitions as taught in the suttas, and I'm sure you already knew a thing or two more than the average forum participants here on BSE when it comes to suttas knowledge.


text:
Does the Foam Sutta (SN 22.95) say there are "no things" or, otherwise, discuss emptiness similar to Nagarjuna?
I read the following on the internet:

I think your saying that "Nagarjuna that purports there are no things"
  was an oversimplification or misrepresentation -- conversely the quote
  or summary above isn't far from what you find in the suttas, e.g. the
  Foam sutta (SN 22.95). It's kind of tangential to your answer, but
  since you wrote "Nagarjuna purports there are no things" I thought
  that was worth clarifying. –
No I meant that Wikipedia's summary of Nagarjuna's seemed to me
  similar to the doctrine of the Foam sutta. I doubt whether anyone
  believes "there are no things" which is why I thought that phrase of
  yours (i.e. "Nagarjuna that purports there are no things") was
  mis-stating Nagarjuna's doctrine.

Does the Foam Sutta (SN 22.95) say there are "no things" or, otherwise, discuss emptiness similar to Nagarjuna?

No I meant that Wikipedia's summary of Nagarjuna's seemed to me similar to the doctrine of the Foam sutta. I doubt whether anyone believes "there are no things" which is why I thought that phrase of yours (i.e. "Nagarjuna that purports there are no things") was mis-stating Nagarjuna's doctrine.

the speaker in the video quoted Nagarjuna as i posted. i doubt one that struggles to understand the Buddha can understand Nagarjuna

1.    Wrong view of there are “no things”?

@ChrisW, “I doubt whether anyone believes "there are no things"”

Remember the 62 kinds of wrong views in Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1) [https://suttacentral.net/dn1/en/sujato]? With annihilationist and nihilists, or flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers around, yes you can make a bet that there are plenty people who believes in silly things. If there are really “no things”, how can beings cling to the Five Aggregates.
2.    Has Nagarjuna misrepresented the Buddha?

In the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, "[A]ll experienced phenomena are empty
  (sunya)… they are devoid of a permanent and eternal substance
  (svabhava) [literally "own-being", "self-nature", or "inherent
  existence"]” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna

I’m not sure how accurate is the translation and interpretation. But let’s assume that Nagarjuna clearly did not say that “there are no things" (which is what a nihilist would say, an extreme he warned about), but did think that “all things are empty of inherent existence”. What Nagarjuna got it right was "dependent arising”, “impermanence”, and “emptiness”. What Nagarjuna got it wrong was Buddha wasn’t interested in the view of existence or non-existence, self or no-self, essence or no-essence, etc. Imagine if somebody purchase something, even before opening the box, they would have at least some expectations of how the goods should look like. So similarly, when analysing the dhammas, Nagarjuna was still expecting some kind of self/existence view, whereas the Buddha has already put it aside or done it away completely. If you truly are freed from any kind of views, grasping, and attachment towards the “goods” via the Middle Way, your mind will not be obsessed or even be interested whether if there is something inside (eternalist) or nothing inside (nihilist) the “box.”
3.    How is this related to Foam Sutta (SN 22.95)?
The “emptiness” in Foam Sutta (SN 22.95) [https://suttacentral.net/sn22.95/en/sujato] is not addressing the self/existence issue, but about the drawbacks of Five Aggregates. Again imagine if somebody orders something online, and upon delivery of it and before opening the box, they would have some preconceived notion of it. If it turned out as expected or better, then they will be happy and satisfied. But if it turned out not to their liking, worse, or even an empty box, then they will be angry or feel cheated. Similarly, (as how I interpret) the Foam Sutta (SN 22.95) is describing that people tend to assume the Five Aggregates as reliable, consistent, permanent, attractive, and pleasant (which is why they desire, attach, and motivated to pursue it in the first place). But upon closer examination, they will realise that the Five Aggregates is actually full of drawbacks in terms of impermanence and suffering (in fact the more desirable it is, the more painful to lose it). Appearing “empty, void, hollow, and insubstantial” is just like the disappointment of a swindled online shopper didn’t get what they paid for, and the disillusionment of a noble person realising the drawbacks of Five Aggregates. The escape or solution is simply relinquishing any desire for Five Aggregates. Of course, opponents are quick to jump and shoot the Buddha for being a pessimist, but it’s not the case. While this sutta particularly focuses on the drawbacks of Five Aggregates, you can see throughout the Pali Canon, the Buddha does mention the full spectrum of arising, passing away, gratification (opposing nihilist & pessimist), drawback (opposing eternalist & optimist), and escape of Five Aggregates.

The five aggregates are conditioned things. They are impermanent. Clinging to impermanent things will result in suffering.
But that's not all. The five aggregates are not all that they seem to be. Why does a person crave a beautiful form of a human being and is sexually attracted to it? Craving is a habit of objectification-classification aka reification (papanca) - see this answer.
If you see the form of a human being as an impermanent lump of flesh and bones as prescribed in the asubha contemplation, then this type of craving will be diminished.
The foam simile is a generalization of asubha contemplation to cover all the five aggregates.
But how does this relate to Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka? According to Madhyamaka, all things are empty of intrinsic essence (svabhava).
The beautiful form of a human being, is such a thing, which is empty of intrinsic essence i.e. it is empty of the essence given to it by your mind. If papanca is like baking, then svabhava seems to be the cake.
In other words, Nagarjuna is talking about the mental concept of things, and further, he generalizes to cover everything, even physical objects and Nirvana. If you see that Nagarjuna is talking about the mental concept of things, then you would find that he is not contradicting the Buddha.
To my understanding, Nagarjuna is not saying that the world is an illusion, rather he is saying that your mental model of the world is an illusion. To think about anything in the world, you actually need to have a mental model of it.
This can be further linked to anatta. Objectification-classification (papanca) assigns intrinsic essence (svabhava) to things, relative to its relationship to the mental idea of the self (atta), which itself has intrinsic essence (svabhava), given to it by objectification-classification (papanca). According to Snp 4.14, when you put an end to "I am the thinker", the root of objectification-classification (papanca), you will end craving and clinging. And by this, you end suffering.

It is nice that you are interested in the teaching of "the second Buddha", precious Master Nagarjuna.
The Foam Sutta is actually very popular in Tibetan Buddhism, and is often quoted in commentaries on Kangyur texts.
The way Mahayana usually interprets the message of Foam Sutta is not as much about impermanence, as is about the empty and illusory nature  of phenomena. Indeed, as foam appears solid but is empty inside, phenomena seem to have stable and well-defined identities but upon careful scrutinizing examination turn out to be ill-defined approximations.
Similar to the individual bubbles in the foam, covered with moving colorful patterns, our subjective worlds may look full of exciting hopes and promises, but as we look at it with the sobered up vision of a mortally ill, they turn out to be empty of real value, other than the illusory hope of solving today's problems and getting to a better tomorrow, only to find ourselves facing another set of problems and another promise of better tomorrow.
Physical objects are certainly not unlike the bubbles of the foam either. They appear solid only if you look briefly and in passing, but if you watch long enough you can see how they come from the whirlpool of worldly events and burst into the nothingness of the bygone centuries, leaving but photographs at best.
Theravada loves its impermanence, but we in Mahayana see impermanence as merely an inevitable attribute of things not being statically delineated entities out there, but amorphous ever-mixing conglomeration delineated by the observer as of the moment of observation.
There is no need to imagine some wrong understanding and impute it to Nagarjuna using all sorts of invalid quotes and bad translations if you can read him with the same respect you read suttas and try to understand what he could have meant.


text:
Samma ditthi vs Miccha ditthi
Can someone guide me? Whenever I try to concentrate on Samma Ditthi, some obstacle generate within this body? It's like mirage of something real! Its like a whirlpool of mass of atoms.  Help me!

Arduent grasping for samma ditthi will result in renewed sankharas. What you describe seems like you are in fact intensifying sankharas. Samma will arise spontaneously, provided that you have stilled the sankharas (samatha-bhavana).
You could try renunciating your eagerness by following the tetrads of the anapanasati sutta step by step. As a suggestion, try to sustain the first tetrad until you have established samatha.
This enables further investigation (vipassana bhavana), which will gradually facilitate deepened samma ditthi.
https://suttacentral.net/mn118/en/bodhi

Yes, these are unwholesome mental formations you have accumulated in the past, coming to the surface.
If you give up bad kamma and maintain right view, the accumulated past formations will dissolve (after they reach a certain challenging intensity).
Samma ditthi is for the brave and not for the politically correct.
If you want to practice Buddhist meditation, your life must be relatively pure. Follow the five precepts. No porn, video games and other internet poisons.

First of Samma Dhitti is not something you can just concentrate on, Samma Dhitti means
Believe in Lord Buddha and the fourth noble truth, and it's the only way to attain Nirvana
Michcha dhitti is the complete opposite way of it.
And what you trying to say is (if i'm getting it right), once you are trying to meditate, some irritating thoughts comes out of nowhere and break your concentration.
It is how our mind works, and it's completely normal, and there is no exact answer for that,
but there is a way to avoid such a thoughts,Anapanasathi and practice more.
Hope this would helps.

Also, You should consult a teacher who can guide you in your meditation journey.