text:
Hesitation between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta
I hesitate between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.
Buddhism pleases me very much for its willingness to seek an end to suffering, being depressed it speaks to me a lot.
But intellectually, philosophically, I find the Advaita Vedanta logically more convincing.
I don't understand the emptiness that Buddhism gives to consciousness.
The Advaita vedanta teaches us that we are pure consciousness, and that there is no self in the sense that we hear it. If Buddhism teaches that there is no self in this sense, I can understand it. But Buddhism seems to indicate that there is no self at all, no conscience.
I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up?
If there is no self, there is at least one conscience witness, one spectator.
You don't think so ?
Yours sincerely.

If you want to know the truth about reality, you have to learn how to make impartial observations of nature. When you ask questions like "Who is waking up? Who is witnessing?", you have already made the assumption that there is an entity involved. The moment you do that, you drift away from reality and the experiment becomes biased. It's the same as asking "Who is making it rain? Who is making the sun rise from the east? Who is making the fruits fall to the ground?".
To take an example, if you impartially analyse the experience of seeing, you wouldn't be asking the question "who is seeing?". You would ask something like "what are the different aspects of seeing?". That question does not add anything assumed/fabricated/artificial to the test environment. Then you will notice a physical aspect and a mental aspect to the experience that took place. Physical aspect is the light, eye and the mental aspect is the awareness of it. Upon further investigation, you will notice that these experiences do not just happen magically. You will notice that they arise due to causes. You will notice that the awareness aspect of the experience is also something that arises due to causes and that it is impersonal.
Likewise, if you want to know reality, throw all of  the assumptions out of the window and take each experience as it is. If you do not hypothesize or fabricate, the truth will reveal itself.

beautiful. And perfectly summarised the right Buddhist inquisitive spirit - the Viriya and the no need of any doctrine.
But when I study Advaitha Vedanta, my Vipassana becomes much more deeper and stronger.

Advaitha Vedanta talks about a true soul and does not lead to understanding of reality.

Sure. That helps to inspire me to work deeper.

That doesn't make sense to me. But if you are inspired to practice proper Vipassana, it's good.

I don't understand the emptiness that Buddhism gives to
consciousness.

The word 'emptiness' ('sunnata') means 'empty of self'.

The Advaita vedanta teaches us that we are pure consciousness

Buddhism teaches there is no "we" or "self" in pure consciousness.

But Buddhism seems to indicate that there is no self at all, no conscience.

Conscience (moral sense of right and wrong) does not require a self.

I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up?

The mind (citta) abides in Nirvana; the mind (citta) wakes up.

If there is no self, there is at least one conscious witness, one
spectator.

The mind is the witness & spectator.
What is known as "self" is a product of thinking (thought fabrication) rather than of consciousness.

There is the case where a person assumes form, feeling, perception, fabrications &/or consciousness to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.
Parileyyaka Sutta

I do not understand this, 'The mind (citta) abides in Nirvana; the mind (citta) wakes up.' If the mind abides in Nirvana it means that it is the self that we know is now attained Nirvana, 'mind wakes up' it feels like saying the mind has attained the Nirvana state. Have we not left the mind far beyond before the jhnana?

I can only suggest to focus on the present rather than imagine things about the future that have not occurred (such as "left the mind"). This said, the mind attains nirvana, per Dhammapada 154.

I used to admire and subscribe to the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta which speaks of a universal consciousness.
Chuang Tzu once dreamt that he is a butterfly flying through a garden. When he woke up, he wondered whether Chuang Tzu dreamt that he is a butterfly, or whether the butterfly is dreaming that it is Chuang Tzu. The only thing common between the two is "I" (consciousness), hence this "I" must be the "permanent" thing?
There are many beings, but only one "I" (consciousness) according to Advaita. The "I" (consciousness) is identical between beings that Advaita says is the same Supreme Consciousness, that is the silent witness behind and beyond all beings. And this is also the Atman, the Self, which manifests as the Supreme Consciousness through all beings.
As nice as that sounds, when I read the Buddha's description of consciousness, it met my observation of my own consciousness more accurately than Advaita's.
From 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.

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.
Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It was a "aha" moment for me when I read that, and realized that the Buddha's analysis of consciousness is more accurate than Advaita's.
In terms of self, the Buddha never said that there is no self. There is a self. But this self is not permanent, not standalone. It arises by the inter-working of the five aggregates (form, sensation, perception, mental formations and consciousness). It is not independent. In normal day to day circumstances, there is obviously a self, but if you examine deeply, the five aggregates (and
everything else) are themselves ultimately empty of a self.
From AN 6.38 (shows that there is a self for all practical purposes):

“So, brahmin, when there is the element of endeavoring, endeavoring
  beings are clearly discerned; of such beings, this is the self-doer,
  this, the other-doer. I have not, brahmin, seen or heard such a
  doctrine, such a view as yours. How, indeed, could one — moving
  forward by himself, moving back by himself — say ‘There is no
  self-doer, there is no other-doer’?”

From Dhammapada 160 (shows that you use your self to reach the fruit of liberation - arahatta phala):

One indeed is one's own refuge; how can others be a refuge
  to one? With oneself thoroughly tamed, one can attain a refuge (i.e.,
  Arahatta Phala), which is so difficult to attain.

From SN 44.10:

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a
  self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming
  with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism
  [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being
  asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer
  that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans &
  contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that
  death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by
  Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that
  there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of
  knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
  self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
  Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
  to have now not exist?'"

From MN 2:

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
  arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
  established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely
  by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is
  precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as
  true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
  mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of
  good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
  everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
  is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
  views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
  Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
  not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
  stress.

I like the metaphor of Chuang Tzu dreaming of butterfly since a little child. However, your "There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind" this is but also isn't so. The Dhyana/Jhana practice, higher level is to shut down these. These are the limitations, instead. But Form, Sound, Smell, Taste, Sensation and Concepts are "materials" to build the "world", true.  -- Chinese Canon has Sutras explaint it, not sure the Pali Suttas though since I've not read the Agamas yet.

Can you please explain this,' ...there was consciousness being aware of something...touch or mind. ..therefore no independent consciousness.' Initially I was of opinion of Vedanta that Consciousness is entity, then I read Bhikku Bodhi's book and I thought similar to what you said, then I read Ajahn Brahm's book he said, Consciousness is one of the five aggregate so it is there independently, also in one of the Jhnanas we have let-go of all the senses we enter the plane of 'infinity of consciousness', so if its infinite there, it must be a stand alone entity, only manifesting through senses.

OP reminds me of Richard Feynman s infamous lecture on quantum physics where he talks about reasons people dont comprehend his lectures and says that some people just dont like it, dont find it philosophically pleasing or psychologically easy, to these people he says that they just have to come along or move to another universe where the rules are different.
I mean no offense, imo you asked a very good question in that there is a lot to say for one who has the time and ability.
Consciousness in Buddhist doctrine is not synonymous with the English word "Consciousness". The word is Vinnana (wrong spelling), to find out what it means we should search the Discourses. What we will find is ie
Vinnana Sutta: Where definition of what is Vinnana is given. One will see that (i simplify) it is "consciousness of" rather than just mere "consciousness" that is referred to.
We also find the referrence to something called "vinnana anidassanam" and it is clear that this is not the same as "vinnana". Anidassanam is usually translated as without surface, as i understand it is like without a filter, consciousness rather than "consciousness of". There difference between the two is that one is a single element while the other is more of an event.
Further;
When we look to the Discourses for the difinitions on "Emptiness". We will find a Sutta called "Emptiness"
Within we find a referrence to the most Exalted State of Emptiness.
So what is the exalted state? Simply put, Emptiness is what is left when all is emptied out, in the same way that one would get rid of problems and be left with happiness. It is similar to when it is described as Cessation in that both Cessation and Emptiness come about by removal of something.
I advise OP to find a well respected teacher who teaches what you think you can rightfully consider orthodoxy and in whom you can have some level of confidence in. Then pounder what you learn and see if you can come to agreement, always ask definitions and demand explainations to reasonable questions. Of course be a good student by doing what he says for meditation.
Dont grind the theory if it is not easily grasped because it is likely that you lack some pieces of information, have some views, conditioned bias etc making it harder to connect the dots on your own and id want the skill of guarding well cultivated so you can be mindfull of the intellect faculty so doubt and speculations dont become views when studying and poundering teachings. At very least i strongly advise reading a book on language so that one is at least equipped with basic training in general interpretation of words. Book example is
Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase, 2nd edition can be found in pdf and will turn on into a legit genious relatively speaking.

Nice distinction of the two types of Vinanna. Perhaps it could be said that meditation practice helps one improve at plain Vinanna and then experience Vinanna Anidassanam?

From Greater Set of Q&A (loosely):

It cognizes
It is connected with perception, discernment and feeling
What is felt is perceived, what is perceived is cognized.
Difference between Discernment and Consciousness is that Discernment is developed, Consciousness is to be comperhended.
No discussion about Vinnana, Perception, Discernment or Feeling outside context of mundane reality, synonymous with Arising of Contact in this context. When there are aggregates contact can arise, when there is contact one could delineate it by means of objectification into Feeling, Vinnana etc.

In other words if you mean that by practicing Satipatthana Meditation with all factors of Enlightenment, one gains insight Into workings of the Aggregates, understanding mundane Vinnana will in this way lead to Vinnana unbound, without Surface, Illuminous All-Around. Then yea, that is what it means.

(commenting on the answer, not on the comments) That's true. IMO consciousness/vijnana in B. be better translated as "experience", as in "visual experience". What do you think about that?

I am not sure what you mean by "vinjana in B", if you mean that "Normal Vinnana" is A, and Vinnnana Anidassanam is Vinnana type B. Then one could imo rightfully say that the Type B is a "Visual Experience" referring to the Arising of Dhammacakka, The Eye of Wisdom.
Type A can also be referred to as Experience rightfully, in sense that Arising of Eye-Consciousness (Type A), awareness of seeing, is experienced, seeing, hearing etc is experienced, what is experienced is felt, the felt is cognized, the cognized is perceived, the perceived is discerned

Mundane consciousness is to be understood by looking at arising of experiences at the Senses. We cant really study the consciousness by looking at it because we can be said to be using consciousness to look. However when we are studying looking we can observe its mechanics and how the element which can be known as "Consciousness" is instrumental in that process by observing its effects and not the Consciousness itself directly, because it does not really exist as an entity, only as delineation of contact, that is what we have to make sense of and perceive, cognize, discern properly.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, or using the wrong word, but it seems to me that it is possible to experience "consciousness itself" without contact, in the same way that I can experience my body, without touch happening - for example by dancing.

when experiencing the awareness of the body while dancing, what experienced is the Arising of Body-Consciousness at the moment of Sensations of the Body, same with other Senses. We only experience what the senses present, the senses are not the consciousness in itself, but consciousness is pre requisite condition for the Contact that is the Arising of Such and Such Consciousnesses at the different Sense Doors

Contact has Three prerequisite Elements;
Internal, External and Consciousness.
In examples Contact at the Eye-Door is evidently made up of the three;
External (light) Internal (eye) + Consciousness (awareness at the Eye), Meeting of these 3 is Contact. This evident, when there is no light we cant see, when there is no eye we cant see, when there is no consciousness we cant see, only when all three are present.

Seeing when it Arises is not The Eye, The Consciousness or Light in itself. It is Seeing.

What is awareness without an object? For example, I am meditating, not feeling my body, it is quiet, eyes are closed, not having thoughts, yet can know that I am... Knowing... That I am knowing... Etc.?

Awareness in itself does not exist, it is a word which we use to describing an element which has evident experiential effects, which we can study as we experience different states of sensations and intellect, so when you know something, that is a moment we could call "knowing".

What we know we discern, what we discern that we perceive, what we perceive that we cognize, what we cognize that we are aware of. In this way all these concepts can be said to be different way of [looking at] or [explaining] the same ultimate reality.

I find that illogical; who lives the Nirvana? Who's waking up? If there is no self, there is at least one conscience witness, one spectator.
I think that Buddhism talks of several consciousnesses: for example, seeing a deer running would be "eye consciousness"; hearing a sound there will be "ear consciousness"; etc.
I think that grammar (language, or "logic" i.e. words) encourages reification, e.g. sentences are expected to have a verb, and verbs need a noun or pronoun as subject, e.g. "I run", "You run", etc. Some languages don't require that and might say something like "Running in the mountains" without being specific about who or what is running. Similarly I don't think it's necessary (except to be grammatical) to assume that when there's a verb (e.g. "seeing") there must be a reified subject, a who or what that is seeing.
Buddhism's reluctance to postulate a "self" is at least partly for soteriological reasons, not metaphysical reasons -- e.g. according to the answers to this topic it's because views-of-self result in suffering (or "are unsatisfying" or "are confusing" etc.).

The sense of being present - pure, empty or bare awareness - arises and subsides.  That which is always already there to witness it arising is the Self.  The Self is not aware of itself, that is, it is never an object of its own awareness.  It simply is without effort, motion, form or characteristics of any kind. What we 'are' we are without any effort or doing on our part. I am that by which I know that I am, but I am never anything conceivable of perceivable.

Is this a buddhist or hinduist approach?

If you are looking for a logical breakdown of the "self" in Buddhism, then look no further than the Five Aggregates. This wikipedia article however doesn't go into enough detail into the Volition aggregate (4th skandha). In Abhidhamma this skandha is broken down into 82 different factors... I'd recommend the book "How to Measure and Deepen Your Spiritual Realization" for a lucid, motivating rundown on it. The author references texts of all traditions including some vedanta.
I.e.: the "observer" is composed of multiple factors.
I also like Vedanta and you do not have to choose one or the other.
However, Buddhism is often more scientific in its analysis. Which is not to say that Vedanta is not the right energy for you and may definitely give you what is needed to Awaken. I certainly have Vedantic texts/commentary on my to-read list...

You are thinking clearly. If there were no Atman (the consciousness principle), which is not a spatial being at all, no signals coming in through ANY of the sense organs would ever result in any perception at all. Light would fall on the eyes, but there would be no seeing. Sounds would enter the ear, but there would be no hearing. Sugar could be placed on your tongue, but nothing would be tasted. Someone could pinch you, but nothing would be felt. Fumes could enter the nose, but nothing would be smelled. It is because of the Atman aspect of matter that matter, in the form of organisms, could ever be sentient at all. No amount of totally unconscious matter could ever be arranged into an organism and then consciousness arises out of this dumb, dead stuff. It is only because consciousness (which has both a passive mode and active mode) pulsates and masquerades as matter itself (and may well start out relatively dumb, but not completely and utterly insentient), that your eyes see, ears hear, etc. This consciousness is ultimately unbound and free. Lastly, to any of you Buddhist critics (with the exception of many, but not all Dzogchen and Zen folks) who like to speak of grasping at a self, please take note of the following, which is a statement by Greg Goode, which I once read on some forgotten web forum, "The Self can't do grasping."
Furthermore, I would like to suggest that without the Atman, you would never have anything like a stable identity over time. With each passing moment, you would feel like a different person, but I trust that is not how you feel. I also reccomend looking into Pratyabhijna philosophy of Kashmir Shaivism.

You wrote, "without the Atman, you would never have anything like a stable identity over time." When a person has an accident and injures his head, he may have a totally different identity or personality due to brain injury. Does that mean, his Atman has changed or become damaged?

I may have pushed things too far with that statement. It is conceivable, though, that the information (memories, skills, insights) underlying personality being expressed up until the time of brain injury remains intact, but cannot be accessed. Perhaps the brain and its states act as a filter for consciousness and that, at death, the information that the brain-damaged individual lost access to (including memory areas rendered inaccessible on account of brain injury) is present to him/her once again, as the self (or mindstream) leaves the body.

As you may already know, there are numerous reports of veridical perceptions (i.e. later verified)  had by people who were in cardiac arrest and lacking brain activity.  Although I'm not yet prepared to say these are irrefutable proof of post-mortem survival, many cannot be proven to be the effect of physiological events.

In any case, the real root SELF in itself is not a particular personality at all...It is the direct non-conceptual knowing of being and the witness of arising and passing of thoughts, feelings, body, and world, which, while not completely identical to the Self, are of the same essence of existence. It is the already existing consciousness aspect of existence that, together with the shaping influence of brain, body, and world, makes all the impermanent (and RELATIVELY stable) selves possible.


text:
Mental ilness, causes and apaya realms
Mental illness is not uncommon in modern society, from mild to severe illness. Depression, (generalized) anxiety disorder, panic disorder and schizophrenia, to name a few. Do people with (long-term) mental illness are "destined" to be reborn in one of lower realms or they're seen just illnesses rather than unwholesome states of mind? What is the cause of mental illness from Dhamma point of view?

What is the cause of mental illness from Dhamma point of view? Well, it's attachment of course. Attachment to false, harmful concepts. Attachment to harmful sources of emotional energy. Attachment to old experiences. Even attachment to traumas.
Attachment makes us stuck, rigid, dysfunctional. "Klesha"s are mental and emotional obscurations that we generate through our attachment. Kleshas are like clouds that distort our perception of reality.
And why do we attach? Because we want to avoid pain. Physical pain, mental pain, emotional pain. We think that by holding on to one side, we can escape the pain associated with the other side. But that's an illusion, the more we avoid pain the more frightful and painful we make it. And that fear of pain becomes gasoline that feeds the engine of mental illness.
So from this standpoint the way to mental health is through letting go of attachments, letting go of fear of pain, letting go of extreme polarization, towards integration and acceptance of the opposites. Essentially letting go of false harmful concepts of the world and self, and the emotions associated with those concepts. This is why study of Emptiness is a key, because it leads to deconstruction of rigid concepts.
From the perspective of Enlightenment, we are all mentally ill in some degree. Mental illness is just a more blatant case of samsaric thinking, and Dharma is medicine for the mind.

In your individual experience, moment by moment of being detached and content with each moment as they go by your attention, is where the dhamma is after all the pondering. We better learn the practice quick before the body goes mentally ill.

Not much comes to mind but there is the Dhammapada verse from the Violence Chapter:
Whoever uses violence
..
Quickly goes to one of ten conditions:
...
Bodily injury or insanity,
.."
When it comes to hell realms, it is too abstract to say. The question is always what particular views, perceptions, tendencies and volitional formations are in play in the process of death because these will be giving rise to consecutive formations and desireablity of the result will be determined by the nature of the parent-states.
From Dhamma point of view you reap what you sow, so when asking what caused X, just by knowing things about X we can know some things about the things that caused it. So in example good is caused by good, bad is caused by bad, otherwise it would be paradoxical if something rightfully discerned as good was caused by something rightfully discerned as bad. If one doubts, pounders and does not gain conviction because of hypothetical situations in which bad actions seemingly have good results, that would be dependant on wrong understanding of the mechanics of Contact and therefore the Aggregates, basicly the whole analytical aspect is not grasped.

I think that unwholesome states of mind are conditioned and temporary.
It's difficult to generalise (i.e. I was told there are different results/experiences for different people) but if someone has a mental illness they may have seemingly unwholesome states of mind, and this condition might last for decades, for a lifetime -- but/or, a change in medication, a change in their social situation (friends), might condition a thorough "night and day" change in the states of mind even before the end of this life.
Sometimes it may seem that the range of (or the extremes of) experience is wider: i.e. a longer and more acute experience of a hell and/or a heaven (even in this life) than other more "normal" people will experience.
I'm not sure that Buddhism rightly talks about what's "destined" for people, i.e. perhaps it isn't correct to ask about it: because you can't predict the future and it may surprise you; because you should have some faith in the possibility of salvation, of becoming enlightened, of teachers, of refuge, of the three jewels; because there's some scope of agency and good (or bad) intentions, i.e. results are not predestined; and because the ability to see the effects of kamma on specific people is one of the Buddha's supernatural powers (and the fact that he did it sometimes doesn't mean that we should assume that we can).

It's not so conductive to try to figure out the line of Kamma, and such leads one to get crazy, as the Buddha told.
Good to know or accept, that phenomenas have causes, and unpleasant by previous and current unskillful deeds. It's clear that such "illness" will strongly increase in so called "secure" sociaties.

And as for the results of taking life... holding wrong view, he will feel them either right here & now, or in the next [lifetime], or following that. mn 136

Just think how many following such today, listen to people teaching such even here:

"Face to face with Gotama the contemplative have I heard this, face to face have I learned this: 'Bodily action is barren, verbal action is barren, only mental action is true. And there is an attainment in which, on being attained, nothing is felt.'"
"Don't say that, friend. Don't slander the Blessed One. For it's not good to slander the Blessed One; the Blessed One would not say that: 'Bodily action is barren, verbal action is barren, only mental action is true.' But there is, friend, an attainment in which, on being attained, nothing is felt."

Think about the big branch of cheaters all around and those acting on their account, especially in this realm, mental illness, the trade around it,and their psychiatrics... once living on them, once serving the others... bound are they together.
The best to beginn, if setting mind out to ways of liberation, is taking the full medicine as given by the Buddha: The Healing Power of the Precepts, and once established with firm convidence in the Tripple Gems, one virtue without spots, nothing is there which can really trouble the mind to low states.
There having been "crazy" people also at the Buddhas time who gained even Arahatship.
Wrong view, wrong ways of thinging, association with people of wrong view and acting on accord of this, is the cause of mental illness, the cause of realms of devastation, poorness, anxiety.
Approaching and associating with wise, with those of right view, bending ones ways of thinking according to their advices and act on this accord is the cause of good realms and even Unbinding, in the here and now.
Beings bound to those of wrong view, avoiding those with firm confidence and knowledge of the Buddhas way to really heal dis-ease, who aside they by themselves could help them to work on the liberation of their bounds?
So your turn. Beginning not to nurish and keep those with illness, those weaker, for ones personal gains, not harming, eating on them and turn to that of which is excalted, above, is the first step.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade]

Mental illness is not uncommon in modern society, from mild to severe illness. Depression, (generalized) anxiety disorder, panic disorder
and schizophrenia, to name a few.

I suppose mental illness might need to be divided into two types:

Illness with biological origins, such as imbalances of chemicals or neural structures in the brain.

Illness with psychological origins, such as life experiences of emotional trauma.

Examples of psychological origins include people who have been subject to violence & abuse may develop anxiety disorder or people subject to loss of loved ones may experience depression, such as described in MN 87 (which does not refer to any cause, apart from in the here & now). The fact that people can develop anxiety due to violence explains why the Buddha taught about giving the gift of fearlessness (abhayadāna).

The noble disciple gives to an immeasurable number of beings freedom from fear, enmity and affliction. He himself in turn enjoys
immeasurable freedom from fear, enmity and affliction.
AN 8.39

What is the cause of mental illness from Dhamma point of view?

I do not recall any mention of biological mental illness in the Pali suttas. Although the term 'mental illness' is generally used in the world, imbalances of chemicals or neural structures in the brain have been said to really forms of physical illness, as follows:

In the time of the Buddha, "mental disease" referred to an illness of view or desire. These days, however, it refers to ordinary mental
ailments that have their base in the body and are mixed up with
physical disease.
Bhikkhu Buddhadasa

Buddhism (SN 22.59) teaches every component of the body & mind can be subjected to injury, disease &/or illness (ābādhāya) due to decay, natural imperfection & impermanence. This is why mental illness can occur, either psychologically, biologically or a combination of both.

Do people with (long-term) mental illness are "destined" to be reborn in one of lower realms or they're seen just illnesses rather
than unwholesome states of mind?

'Hell' is an unpleasant state of mind, as explained in the suttas. Therefore, people with mental illness are often already in a lower realm.

I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named ‘Contact’s Sixfold Base.’ There whatever form one sees with the eye is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable. Whatever sound one hears with the ear … Whatever odour one smells with the nose … Whatever taste one savours with the tongue … Whatever tactile object one feels with the body … Whatever mental phenomenon one cognizes with the mind is undesirable, never desirable; unlovely, never lovely; disagreeable, never agreeable.
SN 35.135

As for the belief that "rebirth" occurs after the termination of life, similar to visions of schizophrenia, in my opinion, this also arises from "mental illness", as the term was used in the Buddha's time, i.e., illness of view or desire.

Schizophrenia is an illness characterized by a group of so-called “positive” symptoms that may include hallucinations (hearing voices,
seeing visions), delusions (fixed false beliefs), and/or a thought
disorder (speech that makes little sense).

As a suggested edit, maybe "Although the (modern) world generally uses the term 'mental illness', imbalances of chemicals or neural structures in the brain are really forms of physical illness." would be closer to what Bhikkhu Buddhadasa was saying -- I'm not comfortable with the current version which may imply that any/all mental illness is only a physical illness, especially with saying so on Buddhism.SE. Also Bhikkhu Buddhadasa makes that distinction, less in order to pronounce on mental illness from a Buddhist perspective, more in order proceed to talk about everyone's spiritual disease.

I am struggling to follow your suggestion, here.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Assuming empathy is a worldly thing (which i believe it is), why does/would a buddha try to help others find the way?
I've always believed that empathy/feeling for others is a biological feature of evolution in social animals. So, why does/would an enlightened being go to lengths to help others reach enlightenment?
Maybe if we are all different instances of the same consciousness, it kind of makes a little sense (one enlightened instance helping others),but not completely. Could someone clarify?

Enlightened beings help others due to compassion. Compassion(Karuna) is a virtuous mind state. When someone becomes enlightened, he only cuts off unwholesome mind states. Virtuous mind states continue to arise.

Perhaps you're assuming a syllogism like,

Empathy (and cooperation) is a biological feature of social animals which (via evolution of the species) benefits the self (or benefits the species, or the world) by benefiting one's allies
The Buddha is independent and requires no allies
Therefore the Buddha need not experience empathy, nor practice it

I guess that's a selfish and self-serving view: which you should hesitate to ascribe to the Buddha as a motive.
Another motive might be conceit (e.g. "I'm more enlightened than you") but we're told that the Buddha is beyond that too.
I assume instead that it may be motivated some kind of kindness or generosity.
Or it may be some kind of virtue -- virtuous behaviour.
I think there's a sutta where the Buddha says, something like (I don't remember it well), that a person should venerate their teacher ... that being somehow subservient or obedient (to the teacher) is essential ... and that the Buddha himself, with no teacher of his own, said that he would obey the Dhamma as his own teacher.
I think that even the precepts, i.e. "don't kill" and so on, are based on empathy/morality/virtue.
Also though "unselfish empathy" may be a heavenly attitude, it's only one of them -- there's also "taking pleasure in another's virtue" (which might be another reason perhaps for the buddha's encouraging others' enlightenment), as well as equanimity (see "brahmaviharas" for more detail).
Another answer is that there are people who do as you suggest, i.e. attain enlightenment but without being willing or able to teach; these people might be known as "arhats" or "private Buddhas" -- so (trivially) the Buddha tries to help by definition, i.e. if he didn't try to help he wouldn't be a Buddha, it's his trying to help that makes him a Buddha.

I believe the answer to your question is given in "The Brahma's Request" quoted below.
As it reads, the Buddha taught out of compassion / mercy to beings almost free from the dust of worldlings.
The Buddha refrain from passing into the final Nirvana after a request by Brahma Sahampati.

THE BRAHMA'S REQUEST
The Blessed One having attained Buddhahood while resting under the
shepherd's Nigrodha tree on the banks of the river Neranjara,
pronounced this solemn utterance:
"How sure his pathway in this wood, Who follows truth's unchanging
call! How blessed, to be kind and good, And practice self-restraint in
all! How light, from passion to be free, And sensual joys to let go
by! And yet his greatest bliss will be When he has quelled the pride
of 'I'.
"I have recognized the deepest truth, which is sublime and
peace-giving' but difficult to understand; for most men move in a
sphere of worldly interests and find their delight in worldly desires.
The worldling will not understand the doctrine, for to him there is
happiness in selfhood only, and the bliss that lies in a complete
surrender to truth is unintelligible to him. He will call resignation
what to the enlightened mind is the purest joy. He will see
annihilation where the perfected one finds immortality. He will regard
as death what the conqueror of self knows to be life everlasting. The
truth remains hidden from him who is in the bondage of hate and
desire. Nirvana remains incomprehensible and mysterious to the vulgar
whose minds are beclouded with worldly interests. Should I preach the
doctrine and mankind not comprehend it, it would bring me only fatigue
and trouble."
Mara, the Evil One, on hearing the words of the Blessed Buddha,
approached and said: "Be greeted, thou Holy One. Thou hast attained
the highest bliss and it is time for thee to enter into the final
Nirvana."
Then Brahma Sahampati descended from the heavens and, having worshiped
the Blessed One, said: "Alas! the world must perish, should the Holy
One, the Tathagata, decide not to teach the Dharma. Be merciful to
those that struggle; have compassion upon the sufferers; pity the
creatures who are hopelessly entangled in the snares of sorrow. There
are some beings that are almost free from the dust of worldliness. If
they hear not the doctrine preached, they will be lost. But if they
hear it, they will believe and be saved."
The Blessed One, full of compassion, looked with the eye of a Buddha
upon all sentient creatures, and he saw among them beings whose minds
were but scarcely covered by the dust of worldliness, who were of good
disposition and easy to instruct. He saw some who were conscious of
the dangers of lust and wrong doing. And the Blessed One said to
Brahma Sahampati: "Wide open be the door of immortality to all who
have ears to hear. May they receive the Dharma with faith."
Then the Blessed One turned to Mara, saying: "I shall not pass into
the final Nirvana, O Evil One, until there be not only brethren and
sisters of an Order, but also lay disciples of both sexes, who shall
have become true hearers, wise, well trained, ready and learned,
versed in the scriptures, fulfilling all the greater and lesser
duties, correct in life, walking according to the precepts-until they,
having thus themselves learned the doctrine, shall be able to give
information to others concerning it, preach it, make it known,
establish it, open it, minutely explain it, and make it clear-until
they, when others start vain doctrines, shall be able to vanquish and
refute them, and so to spread the wonderworking truth abroad. I shall
not die until the pure religion of truth shall have become successful,
prosperous, widespread, and popular in all its full extent-until, in a
word, it shall have been well proclaimed among men!"
Then Brahma Sahampati understood that the Blessed One had granted his
request and would preach the doctrine.

Emphasis added

A maybe more relayable source Brahmayācanakathā with a slight different background of intent. How ever, Mara often tried to convince the Buddha, that awakened being would not teach, like in the Brahma-nimantanika Sutta. That might help @bladebabji and others to see the in between.and of course greate compassion of one without any duty and debt any more. (Btw. Its good to add source and to take care not to take/use of what might be not given)

I think this could be understood as the lack of ill will   - so its more what a buddha wouldnt have
The opposite of many bad (unwholesome-akusala) things is good (wholesome=kusala)
so the opposite of ill will i believe be empathy  - the 5 hindrances which arhants (and the buddha was an arahant)  dont have :
Sensory desire (kāmacchanda): the particular type of wanting that seeks for happiness through the five senses of sight, sound, smell, taste and physical feeling. ....  opposite will be to be content with what is
Ill-will (vyāpāda; also spelled byāpāda): all kinds of thought related to wanting to reject; feelings of hostility, resentment, hatred and bitterness.
.... opposite will be metta to all
Sloth-and-torpor (thīna-middha): heaviness of body and dullness of mind which drag one down into disabling inertia and thick depression. ... opposite will be enregetic
Restlessness-and-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca): the inability to calm the mind.  .... opposite will be calm
Doubt ... opposite will be to have faith in the dhamma

They say Buddha's mind is incomprehensible. It is impossible to understand Buddha's perspective or motives, because it's beyond any fixed position.
Chogyam Trungpa said, enlightened mind sees everything from all possible angles, "like a lawyer". I guess you could call that quantum vision or multidimensional mind.
Because of this, it's really impossible to give one answer to "why does a buddha try to help others?". There are many reasons, but at the end of the day the answer is: "because Buddha is Buddha and this is what Buddha does, by definition"

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


text:
Marriage and Buddhism
What I have read says that the cessation of all passion is one of the goals in Buddhism. However I was already married when I started this practice. How can I be a good husband and a good Buddhist at the same time?


text:
How can I forget my old girlfriend?
Hello to all of you and thank you for your time in answering the questions here.
I have a big problem with my feelings. I have a huge emotional lack, which means I've never moved on with my old girlfriends. My last three girlfriends, two that I loved a little bit, and one with whom I had a long relationship and thought she was my soul mate.
As a result, I suffer and often come back to them again and again and again and again... in a never-ending loop. I look needy and pathetic.
How can I get better, please?
Thank you very much.

See also Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose? -- not to help answer how to forget former girlfriend, but might help answer how to "find soul mate".

As my teacher explained, the reason we are needy and clingy is because we have not discovered how to be our own source of "energy". We are like babies depending on mothers' tits for nutrition, in this case emotional/psychosomatic nutrition.
In order to become independent, we must learn to obtain energy by ourselves. The entire Buddhist path can be seen as a method for gaining complete independence from external circumstances as far as energy. Once we learn to be completely independent, we are free (call that Enlightenment, Nirvana or anything you want).
In order to understand energy we must understand the principle of this/that conditionality and 2nd/3rd Noble Truths. In brief summary: when "is" and "should" match, we feel gratified, we gain energy. When "is" and "should" mismatch, we feel miserable, we lose energy. When we clearly see this principle at work in our own lives we can extract all kinds of tricks from it.
Famous Buddhist trick is to let go of "should" (aka attachment) in order to liberate oneself from the mismatch and thereby cease suffering. A more advanced trick is to transcend any and all "is" and thereby make oneself immune to any future suffering.
But there is other side to this equation, and it involves taking advantage of matching "is" and "should" in a positive way. If you frame your goals and values, and your achievements in such way that "is" and "should" match, you can extract energy from the same mechanism that normally generates suffering. Buddha described it gloriously in many suttas on Jhanas.
In fact, generation of energy is one of the most important practices in Buddhism, but not all practitioners realize that. And how do we generate energy? We generate it by setting up clear criteria for success, achieving them, and congratulating ourselves on the achievement.
Traditionally in Buddhism this is practiced as Sila. We vow to uphold the precepts, then we uphold them, then we examine ourselves, congratulate ourselves, and extract energy from the achievement, energy we can then reinvest back into practice. But it does not have to stop with Sila. Every and all action can be a source of energy. Starting with simple daily tasks. We can set our own standards of perfection for tidiness and cleanness in our household. Then we can slowdown and put some determination into implementing our standards. Then we can observe ourselves having achieved it, congratulate and extract energy. Makes sense?
This works even at the level of day to day actions. If we set our own standards for dressing comfortably and looking the way we want, and then stay true to our own standards every time we dress, the daily ritual of dressing becomes a source of energy.
In general, being consistently perfect by your own standards minute after minute, hour after hour every day - is an incredible source of energy. It is a nuclear station we always carry with us.
Achieving this level of satisfaction requires developing a perfect connection with ourselves. We must be in deep touch with our inner core, with our true nature, so we can always stay true to ourselves, never rushing, never compromising with our truth.
When we are like this, we don't depend on any external source of energy, we don't even depend on favorable circumstances anymore, and not even on success. We get a kick from the very process of knowing that we always stay true to ourselves and always do our (optimum) best, given the multifactor/multidimmensional limitations of the circumstances.
This in itself is a path to Enlightenment, if you follow it through to the very end. But it can also serve more mundane purpose, like making you free from dependency on a girlfriend. Dharma is a very powerful tool when one puts it to actual use.
Good luck with your problem and let us know if you have further questions.

In Buddhism, it is taught a successful lasting relationship requires two people to share the same qualities, which would include the same life goals. Therefore, in Buddhism, before two people get romantically, sexually & emotionally involved, they determine whether they share the same life goals for a lasting relationship. Today, while women often attempt to give the impression otherwise, generally, most women still want what they are biologically designed to want, which is financial security, marriage, children, family, etc.

If both husband & wife want to see one another not only in the present time but also in the future, they should be in tune [with each
  other] in conviction, in tune in virtue, in tune in generosity and in
  tune in discernment. Then they will see one another not only in the
  present time but also in the future.
Samajivina Sutta: Living in Tune

Did the relationship fall apart because there was something lacking within yourself?
If so you can cultivate that piece and try to win her back (lots of guides on the internet for techniques on this because women often validate in non one-on-one interaction)... or if you determine what was lacking is not worth it to you... it is not part of your life mission... then you need to look for the woman that values what you have/will have.
For example, some of the women that my reptilian brain finds beautiful, wonderful and warm, I know are horrible choices for a partner because all they care about is alcohol, money, and novelty. Straight up, there are a lot of nice women like that, even within the Buddhist circle.
Sometimes it is also self-sabotage... and you are not even aware of it. My first long-term relationship, I withdrew emotionally because I saw that she did not care much for my spiritual conversations. She lit up at everything else but when I talked about Buddhism, Taoism, etc., due to her childhood experiences, she did not care much for it.
Eventually I withdrew emotionally, going through the motions but not feeling the emotions any longer. I was already disconnected but did not know it. When she could not find the appreciation/love from me, she broke it off with me and I suffered. Only many years later did I realize that I was clinging to her out of habit and not because I actually liked her any more. I FELT for her out of habit--something I could not let go of because I kept revisiting her in mind and conversation. Despite her nice physical features, I should have ended the relationship the moment I realized our values were so horribly misaligned. All the past, all the pleasure: empty dreams. Maybe a lesson but not the right person either of each other. Are you in the midst of something like that and you just don't know it because the chronic emotions are there (emotions are a chemical addiction)? Do you two have a meaningful QUEST together?
Buddhism teaches that everything is causes and conditions including yourself, and including other women.
Think objectively and measure out what kind of person you are really looking for.
What kind of person will be happy with you and you with her?
Don't attach to the story (high school lovers, etc.). The story does not matter.
Shared values, ideals, and practices matter a lot.
That's the end of my rambling but here are so other important, obvious tips to your main question:

Exclude them entirely from your life (mentally and conversationally) for at least 6 months. It will take at least this time for the emotional circuits in your brain to clear out.
Involve yourself in healthy activities, common and personal.
Do some vipassana meditation every day (which means practicing the four foundations of mindfulness and five faculties)
Do the corpse meditation. Do this with your own body and your exes.
Work on your goals. Find out who you are again and what is special to you.

In the end you gotta trust the woman's decision. Women know better than men what is right/wrong (when it comes to social/sexual dynamics). They are extremely intuitive (they have to be, nature made them the Mother and live longer on average). In Tibetan Buddhism it is even said that women are closer to Enlightenment than men. Many years later when you have found your untrammeled, independent happiness, you will be happy that they initiated that strong decision instead of languoring in a stale, de-potentiated relationship.
(P.S.: And in the case that this woman is the right person in every way, and you really do deserve her--her intuition is just confused or wrong--there are other women with those qualities and with a fresher story-line, anyway. You don't want this woman who is so easily confused and can't recognize what is good.)

Meditate on the repulsiveness of the body. Do Patikulamanasikara meditation until your mind gives up on the notion that there's anything attractive or valuable in the female body. Also do the same on your body until you realize that the body is just a sack of repulsive parts bound together that you have to regularly clean and feed and the idea of going through so much trouble to put it next to another sack of filth becomes ridiculous.

This is a great question.  According to Buddhism, suffering comes from our attachment to things whose nature is actually impermanence.
Our goal as Buddhists is to understand the true nature of things, and to accept it and flow with it.  Form is emptiness, emptiness is form.  Emptiness is none other than form, form is none other than emptiness.  Following Nagarjuna's explanations, we should not fall to either nihilism (nothing matters), nor to eternalism (attachment to things as if they are solid and real).
Just because the world is illusory, doesn't mean we give up...we should strive to evolve ourselves and be of benefit to the world around us.  There are different practices for working with neurotic emotions.  In some of them we run from the emotions to seek peace.  In others, we confront the emotions to understand their true nature.
Take this experience into your practice.  It can be a very rich source for energy for your practice.  Find the true source of the emotions you are feeling, try to go all the way to the core.

Just as, monks, this body lives on nourishment, lives dependent on nourishment, does not live without nourishment — in the same way, monks, the five hindrances live on nourishment, depend on nourishment, do not live without nourishment.
— SN 46:2
A. Nourishment of Sensual Desire
There are beautiful objects; frequently giving unwise attention to them — this is the nourishment for the arising of sensual desire that has not arisen, and the nourishment for the increase and strengthening of sensual desire that has already arisen.
— SN 46:51
B. Denourishing of Sensual Desire
There are impure objects (used for meditation); frequently giving wise attention to them — this is the denourishing of the arising of sensual desire that has not yet arisen, and the denourishing of the increase and strengthening of sensual desire that has already arisen.
— SN 46:51
Six things are conducive to the abandonment of sensual desire:

Learning how to meditate on impure objects;
Devoting oneself to the meditation on the impure;
Guarding the sense doors [especialy thoughts];
Moderation in eating;
Noble friendship;
Suitable conversation.
  — Commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta
[Reflecting the backwards]

The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest

Piyavagga: Dear Ones
From what's dear is born grief,
  from what's dear is born fear.
  For one freed from what's dear
  there's no grief
      — so how fear?
From what's loved is born grief,
  from what's loved is born fear.
  For one freed from what's loved
  there's no grief
      — so how fear?
From delight is born grief,
  from delight is born fear.
  For one freed from delight
  there's no grief
      — so how fear?
From sensuality is born grief,
  from sensuality is born fear.
  For one freed from sensuality
  there's no grief
      — so how fear?
From craving is born grief,
  from craving is born fear.
  For one freed from craving
  there's no grief
      — so how fear?

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, given for release, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]

Please try to understand the reality of things around you. You cant even stop you are getting old. We cannot even stop being ill. Die. How can we controll someone else in this world when we are in a situation of cannot control us.

One could say a lot on how to deal with this, however it is a welcome insight.
It seems to me that according to you; there is suffering.
A good start. You have identified some suffering, go from here. It is definitely conditioned, has orgin in something and is not your fault at very least, you did not know better.
The Tathagata s teach the cause and the path to cessation of all suffering by means of knowing better!
Development of Four Frames of Reference, Five Strenghts, Five Faculties and bringing the Seven Factors of Enlightenment to Culmination.
According to yours truly, your primary weapon will be training Satipatthana according to either Mahasi or similar Sati oriented method, secondary weapons will be these three texts, id learn them by heart:
skip to end if tl;dr: Relaxation of Thoughts Sutta, Two Types of Thinking, Verbalizations of Craving.

When evil unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate, and
  delusion arise in a bhikkhu through reflection on an adventitious
  object, he should, (in order to get rid of that), reflect on a
  different object which is connected with skill. Then the evil
  unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
...
If the evil unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu, who in
  order to get rid of an adventitious object reflects on a different
  object which is connected with skill, he should ponder on the
  disadvantages of unskillful thoughts thus: Truly these thoughts of
  mine are unskillful, blameworthy, and productive of misery. Then the
  evil unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
...
If evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu who
  ponders on their disadvantageousness, he should in regard to them,
  endeavor to be without attention and reflection. Then the evil
  unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
...
If evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu in spite
  of his endeavor to be without attention and reflection as regards
  evil, unskillful thoughts, he should reflect on the removal of the
  (thought) source of those unskillful thoughts. Then the evil,
  unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
...
If evil, unskillful thoughts continue to arise in a bhikkhu in spite
  of his reflection on the removal of a source of unskillful thoughts,
  he should with clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate,
  restrain, subdue and beat down the (evil) mind by the (good) mind.
  Then the evil, unskillful thoughts connected with desire, hate and
  delusion are eliminated; they disappear. By their elimination, the
  mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated, just
  within (his subject of meditation).

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.020.soma.html

I was still just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the thought occurred to me: 'Why don't I keep dividing my thinking into two sorts?' So I made
  thinking imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, &
  thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and thinking imbued with
  renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued
  with harmlessness another sort.
"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued
  with sensuality arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with
  sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to
  the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs
  discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'
"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I
  noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction
  of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not
  lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with
  sensuality had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it
  out of existence.
"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued
  with ill will arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with ill
  will has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to the
  affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs
  discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'
"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I
  noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction
  of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not
  lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with ill will
  had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it out of
  existence.
"And as I remained thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, thinking imbued
  with harmfulness arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with
  harmfulness has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or
  to the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs
  discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Unbinding.'
"As I noticed that it leads to my own affliction, it subsided. As I
  noticed that it leads to the affliction of others... to the affliction
  of both... it obstructs discernment, promotes vexation, & does not
  lead to Unbinding, it subsided. Whenever thinking imbued with
  harmfulness had arisen, I simply abandoned it, dispelled it, wiped it
  out of existence.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html

"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is
  internal? There being 'I am,' there comes to be 'I am here,' there
  comes to be 'I am like this' ... 'I am otherwise' ... 'I am bad' ...
  'I am good' ... 'I might be' ... 'I might be here' ... 'I might be
  like this' ... 'I might be otherwise' ... 'May I be' ... 'May I be
  here' ... 'May I be like this' ... 'May I be otherwise' ... 'I will
  be' ... 'I will be here' ... 'I will be like this' ... 'I will be
  otherwise.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what
  is internal.
"And which are the 18 craving-verbalizations dependent on what is
  external? There being 'I am because of this (or: by means of this),'
  there comes to be 'I am here because of this,' there comes to be 'I am
  like this because of this' ... 'I am otherwise because of this' ... 'I
  am bad because of this' ... 'I am good because of this' ... 'I might
  be because of this' ... 'I might be here because of this' ... 'I might
  be like this because of this' ... 'I might be otherwise because of
  this' ... 'May I be because of this' ... 'May I be here because of
  this' ... 'May I be like this because of this' ... 'May I be otherwise
  because of this' ... 'I will be because of this' ... 'I will be here
  because of this' ... 'I will be like this because of this' ... 'I will
  be otherwise because of this.' These are the 18 craving-verbalizations
  dependent on what is external.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.199.than.html
You will also need to support yourself by calming the mind by non-regret and thinking delightful themes, ie friendly thoughts, your virtues, virtues of moral behavior, heavenly realms, good-will, reflecting on greatness of the teacher, those in training and those who have completed the training, on the goal, on the non-attractiveness, the repulsiveness, non-delight & Death.
Biggest support you could arrange for yourself is to put yourself in a group where people are also training same things and run away from people who dont.
If you live with people who are learned, follow same regiment, dont engage in chatter, hold same views and restrain eachother from falling away it will be a huge support.
This kind of training will make you see straight. Thinking patterns will become progresively more pleasant and controlled, behavior will be based on that very thinking and thus of pleasant result.
Even if you know your thiking is unpleasant now, the "pathways" to put it in wordly terms, the neural pathways are irrational because feelings are given higher value than their real value. It takes active "work", to weaken those "structures" and build a healthy world view to as a foundation for a happy life and healthy behavior.
I guarantee if you do these things even for one day and one night you will have more or less solved your problem.


text:
Relationship between karma and science
How can science support or challenge the concept of Karma?

Is this like a [tag:comparative-religion] question. of the type we're not sure we like on this site? See Can we ban “comparative-religion” questions?

They are perfectly compatible. The teaching of Karma is about latent (potential) result of our actions and choices. Science is in complete support with the idea of potential energy, latent results etc. It's just normal causation, albeit its subtle/hidden aspect, nothing magical.
It's like, when you act like a jerk, it leaves aftertaste with people, and then it comes up in the middle of other situations sooner or later. Or, you keep rushing in your daily life and leave simple things not taken care of, like taking out garbage or paying bills - and then these little things accumulate and really interfere with your life. It is stuff like that. Our actions, our intents leave residue, they create some little tensions in our mind, in other people mind, in the fabric of everyday things - and that stuff eventually comes up as some funky result downstream. I repeat, it's not magic, it is totally normal stuff - just hard to see because it's subtle.

Newton's third - 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction', seems a nice parallel!

If you need scientific explanation to Kamma and Vipaka is all about probability and possibility due to chain of causes and relative effects. There are different type of kamma some are generate vipaka at same moment and some take longer time. E.g 1. if you hit a person you will be get the respond within seconds. 2. Think that your house full of rats and you keep some poison to get rid of it and if you have a child in your home there is a great risk of consume poison by child as unaware of it and will be fatal.( I have read news article few months ago. Incident was there are product to kill rats looks like a chocolate and eaten by child and killed.) 3. If you cut a tree today you will not get vipaka sooner. When cut trees collectively long period the vipaka will be generated gradually with the time. So this is about probability of chain of causes and effects. There is no mystery about Kamma and Vipaka. If Kamma and its relevant vipaka are linked to privious life to this life (as rebirth or reincarnation process) is more close to mythical and speculative. It's like saying "Don't kill butterflies as colors of rainbow will fade away". If you mention "Don't cut down trees as earth will burn by sun" is more wise statement and scientific.

The word 'kamma' means 'intentional action' and has no explicit relationship to ideas of reincarnation. The teachings attributed to the Buddha say:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech & mind.
AN 6.63

From intentional actions (kamma) there arise 'results', called 'vipaka'.
For example, you have an intention to have & maintain a romantic relationship & enter into & engage in such a relationship. This is kamma. Then later, due to certain causes relating to incompatibility, the relationship ends, which is contrary to your intentions. As a result (vipaka), you suffer from sorrow & unhappiness due to not getting what you want. This is 'kamma-vipaka', which science obviously does not deny.
The following link explains kamma: Kamma in Buddhism

This is very practical and "closer to facts"answer. I think this is what buddha states "come and see". Additions to your example "vipaka" not always suffering. If someone can advance romantic relationship to better understanding and best compatibility it can lead happy marriage life. So this proves "vipaka" has positive and negative aspects. Also as you mention there is no relation to reincarnation or rebirth. Kamma and Vipaka here and now.

According to my opinion...
When a child born, he weeps, plays, through his legs without knowing how to do, why to do and what to do. This action of doing things is called karma. After some couple of years, the child gets to know, how to do the things, why to do the things, what to do for them is called the science. In this scenario, to do the things or execute the things is karma, and to doing or execute the thing with rhythm, sequence, a manner is called science. It can be in many forms like psychology, sociology, physics, maths etc... Karma did not tell us how to do, it just an action without knowing anything but science gives us a method of doing things...

There is a reaction after action good or bad , simply karma like reaction for our good or bad action.
compare this with science .. :)

Maybe you could elaborate a bit on the science part.

@Lanka - if someone taking about science, we have to think he/she knows about science.
Previous comment - Newton's third - 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction', seems a nice parallel! – Ilya Grushevskiy

Can any one tell me the correctness of my answer ? who set the minus points should know the correct answer .


text:
Leave pain while enjoying life?
I'm really interested in Buddhism, but I have a hard time motivating myself to follow the five precepts. I don't particularly want to stop eating meat, let alone stop drinking and/or smoking.
Can I still move along the Buddhist path? In the path to the disappearance of suffering?
Thanks!

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

You don't have to be a vegetarian if you follow Theravada Buddhism. The Buddha himself left it up to the individual preference. Only certain later Buddhist schools started demanding the followers to become vegetarian.
But you have to stop drinking as it leads to heedlessness and breaking of the other 4 precepts. Smoking does not break the precepts, but it's an addiction and very bad for your health.
Being a Buddhist only requires you to take the refuge in the Triple-gem, but you will not get far in Buddhism without keeping to the five precepts.

You don't need to stop eating meat.
Drinking and smoking are not compatible with the path of the Buddha.
The more you follow the path of the Buddha, the less you will do these things. So you can step on the path if you smoke and drink - everyone has to start somewhere -  but you are not a follower of the path if you do those things.
Notice how these things are not satisfying you because you are looking for something else (Buddhism currently). Buddhism will help you understand your craving for these things (and anything) and its role in your suffering.
Good luck.

The five precepts are training rules, not strong prohibitions.
When you undertake them, you can increase your compliance over time.
For e.g. from drinking alcohol habitually, you can reduce it to the occasional social drink, and then reduce further.
But before undertaking the five precepts, you may want to learn the basics of Buddhist teachings first - the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. Gaining Right View is the first step on the path.

I don't particularly want to stop eating meat, let alone stop drinking and/or smoking.
A reason (perhaps a good reason) to stop doing these things is that (or is if) they're a cause of suffering.
If you ever decide that

They cause suffering
You are able to stop, and happier without
You want to avoid causes of suffering

... then you may decide to stop.
Until then (or before then, i.e. now) I'd guess that your interest in (studying, practising, meeting with) Buddhism might help with any or all of the above 3, and help with other things besides.
I read someone say that if you can't keep 5 precepts, it's better to keep 4 (or 3) than none.
Something like the "Kalama sutta" suggests you aren't expected to practice what you haven't understood or realised for yourself (though it also recommends behaviour that's "praised by the wise" ... which can help you learn from or avoid other people's mistakes too).
I think someone wrote that alcohol is associated with suffering; even just a little alcohol is associated with at least a little suffering; but I think that's something you have to decide (for yourself and for the people around you) -- people telling you things may not suffice.
What you wrote might be a false dichotomy:

Either drink and smoke and eat meat and enjoy life
Or move along the Buddhist path and stop enjoying life

I find I enjoy life more with less (or no) alcohol, smoke, or meat -- I might still "enjoy life" (e.g. meet people socially) but choose to avoid alcohol (and smoke and meat) because having observed them for a while I decided that these interfere with (are not associated with) happiness.
See also Is moderate drinking acceptable in Buddhism? for a variety of opinions on the subject.

Five precepts are not about forcing oneself to do something unnatural that reduces one's enjoyment of life. It's not like that at all! :)
Instead, in the beginning we tend to be a little confused about ways to enjoy life, and while thinking we're pursuing enjoyment, we sometimes hurt ourselves. It's like a kid eating playdough thinking he enjoys it but in fact only getting sick in the stomach.
What precepts are really about is our mental and emotional stability. They are the opposite of getting carried away and eating playdough.

To abstain from killing.

What this really about is anger management. Every time we let ourselves to get carried away by anger we end up doing/saying stupid things and then regretting it later. So being able to control anger and (verbal or actual) violence based on anger is beneficial to us and to others.

To abstain from taking what is not given.

This is about desire management. Every time we get an urge or an obsession to posses something - that's not us anymore. We become slaves of an idea or an image we have caught somewhere. It's like a mental virus that makes us sick with disease of wanting something. We are not free anymore. So being able to not get obsessed with desires is a matter of mental/emotional health, that leads to freedom to chose what we do based on rationally expected result, not on an irrational urge.

To avoid sexual misconduct.

This is similar to the above. Desire to enjoy pleasant sensations gets us into a condition of tunnel vision. We no longer have clear idea of what we do, what are its sideeffects, what results we may expect for ourselves, and how we may be hurting others. Instead, our actions should be based on clear and rational understanding of the expected results, not on seeking pleasure. Sexual pleasure is one case, but pleasure of any kind is a false misleading promise. We may enjoy eating five pounds of icecream, and then get sick with a cold. Instead, if we eat strategically, with health in mind, we end up being healthy. Similarly, if we engage in sex with the goal of communicating our feelings for the other person, and with the goal of procreation - we end up creating the positive effect, because we are not blinded by desire, we see and know what we are doing every step of the way.

To abstain from false speech

False speech and negative speech are almost always motivated by fear and hatred. It either is done in order to protect oneself, or to put the blame on the other or both. It seems that by engaging in false speech we're benefiting ourselves. But in fact we hurt ourselves a lot more, because by doing that we're increasing division and isolation, we build an invisible glass wall between ourselves and others. The more we do it, the lonelier we become.

To refrain from intoxicating drinks and drugs which lead to carelessness

This one is obviously hurting oneself by putting oneself in the position of reduced mental capacity, confused understanding of one's environment, and decreased control over one's actions. Driving while drunk is an obvious example, but the point here is not even literal intoxication, it is subjecting oneself to any situation when one is confused and out of control to the point when one is hurting oneself. This could be indulging in video games, or watching too many TV series, or hanging with bad company - immersing oneself into any strong influence that leads to loss of critical capacity and awareness is a way to make oneself helpless and eventually hurt oneself.
So as you can see the five precepts are not about being harsh on ourselves - it's the opposite. Five precepts are about taking care of ourselves by being balanced, rational, and aware of one's state, one's actions, and their results.

On Being a Lay Follower.
But what makes it hard to keep precepts? And no need to worry or hope that compromises might come, Buddha Dhamma does not really desire for you, while trades will and seldom, especially when not rejoicing in virtue, one would not fall into their bounds. Your qualities of desires make your destiny.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]


text:
How is dharma formed?
I believe that the word 'dharma' (among other things) refers to the constituent elements of a body and mind, and that the Buddhist should find those dharmas void of a person, and perhaps any substantial quality whatsoever.
How is dharma formed?
"Form" is one of the skandhas, what a body-and-mind (I believe 'nama-rupa' in the sanskrit word for that?) has contact with in order to generate the rest of us.
Is there a Buddhist philosopher who talks or debates, perhaps at length, and ideally grounded in sutras, about how dharmas depend upon form?
I suspect there's a major / basic teaching on this, just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything, when i research this question, which I find interesting because the contemporary world seems to make its ideas out of "form".

perhaps too broad as a question, sorry if that's the case

I guess you are asking about Dependent Origination?
You can find detailed information in "Learning materials for Dependent Origination (Paṭiccasamuppāda) in Theravada Buddhism".
For a perspective from the Abhidhamma, "The Abhidhamma in Practice" may be helpful.


text:
How to view people with metta and karuna?
There are definitions of metta and karuna here: What are metta and karuna?
There's a metta-bhavana meditation.
I'm wondering how to practice these socially, though, e.g. as a lay person when talking with people individually or in a group (or perhaps even as a monk talking with people).
In particular what type of view should you try to have of (or see in) people?

My question is sparked by this comment:

I posted the way of the Buddha, which is metta plus asuba. Asuba alone won't work. Metta is to view women as mothers, sisters & daughters rather than to view them as sex objects. If you can see that sexual promiscuity of women diminishes & often destroys the capacity for good motherhood, then you might understand the teachings of Gotama better. In summary, asuba is not really necessary for laypeople. It is generally pointless suggesting asuba to a layperson who does not have the disposition to be a monk.

I found that comment questionable, because why not view women as people?
Viewing "women" as "mothers" sounds like pigeon-holing "them" as just another type of sex-object (gender-specific-object) or social role/stereotype/function (slave).
I mean, "yes" to metta -- but "metta" isn't  necessarily to "view women as mothers", or is it?
But then the question occurred, if metta isn't as described in the comment then what does metta mean?
The reason I found the above comment questionable is because I expect a person (a woman) might view him- or her-self in a variety of ways: as a mother, as an adult child, as a consumer, as a worker, an athlete, a friend, a volunteer, a voter, and so on ... different views (different ambitions or roles) at different times.
I think that holding a view of someone that isn't the same as their own current view of themselves is a form of harm and a cause of suffering (e.g. a view like "you can't be a friend because you're a woman", "you can't be an employee because you're a mother", "you can't be political because you're a girl", while she wants to be a friend or employee or etc).
So maybe "sympathy" means that you should see other people as they see themselves?
But someone's view-of-self might be a cause of suffering too, so maybe it's better if you don't try to see each person as they see themselves? Perhaps it's fantasy to hope that you can see others as they themselves, except in limited circumstances (e.g. in a job interview)?
In summary this question (about metta and interacting with people) has devolved towards views-of-self and the thicket-of-views.

So what can be said about metta and karuna, if they interact with identity-view, self-view?
What does a kind of transactional behaviour (attitude) sound like (is it good or bad?) e.g. a view like, "you're a bus driver and I'm here because I'm on the bus ... it doesn't matter who you think you are, nothing matters except your driving the bus and me having an absolute minimum standard of politeness so as not to be actually offensive"?
Sorry if this is a confused question. The suttas (e.g. Sigalovada Sutta) necessarily talk about general truths, and ends up maybe seeming impersonal, cold, robotic, and I'm not sure if that's the right impression or the whole lesson.

Metta is wishing for all beings to be happy and be at ease.
Looking at women as mothers is not metta.
But I can find a reverse-mother reference for metta below.
The metta practitioner should feel loving-kindness towards all beings just as a mother would want to protect her only child.
Metta can be used to counter one's own impulse to cause harm or unhappiness to others by considering the welfare and happiness of others.
From the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

As a mother would risk her life
  to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
  with regard to all beings.
  With good will for the entire cosmos,
  cultivate a limitless heart.

Viewing "women" as "mothers"
Viewing "women" as "mothers" appeared in Bhāradvājasutta which is not taught about metta, but that sutta was teaching about ordained life keeping (5 saṃvaya):

“Great King, the Blessed One who knows and sees is worthy and rightfully enlightened has said: ‘Monks, think of them who are like your mothers as your mother, of them who are like your sisters as your sister, of them who are like your daughters as your daughter. This is the reason for the young monks with black hair, in the prime of youth, not to enjoy sensual pleasures, to devote their life to lead a complete and pure holy life until the end of their lives.”

Mettā VS Mettā Jhāna VS Mettā Meditation & Karuṇā
Metta is wishing to give happiness to the other living life(s).
Mettā jhāna is perfect and successful concentration that focusing in a living life by that wishing-to-give-happiness-method.
Mettā Meditation is that mettā jhāna in advance. The mettā practitioner who attained mettā jhāna in a person, will meditate in the other persons more to attain mettā jhāna in each person, or groups. They will meditate like that until they can attain mettā jhāna in every people as the same quality/volume/feeling/etc. This is called sīmasambheda (mettā limitation cessation).
Karuṅā is wishing to help one cease from suffering, pain, hurt, etc.
So, in venāgasutta:

Here, brahmin, in the morning I put on robes and taking bowl and robes go for alms to the village or hamlet relying on which I abide. After the meal is over and returning from the alms round, I roam in that forest stretch. Finding a heap of grass or leaves, I collect them and sit on them making a cross legged position, keeping the body straight and establishing mindfulness in front. Then I abide pervading one direction with loving kindness, so to the second, the third, the fourth, above, below and across, in every respect, on the whole, entirely grown great, immeasurable and without anger [=sīmasambheda].

The path of purification, CHAPTER IX, THE DIVINE ABIDINGS (Brahmavihára-niddesa) page 291 already explained very well. But I recommend pāli version, because it is easier to understand the relativity of pāli words.
Mettakathā in K.N. Paṭisambhidāmagga is very well one.

Yes I suppose it makes sense for the ordained to view laypeople as being primarily family-members. And thank you for the reference to words like "metta jhana" and "sīmasambheda", because that lets me look for some exposition of those topics.

I believe the same advice was given to a man who served as a servant/driver of the queen or some princesses. He had to touch their hands and assist them get down from the cart on a daily basis. I don't remember the Sutta.

Nyom Chris,
Like Nyom Vorapol (Bonn) pointed out helpfully, it was for the Buddha very important, that they get neither confused in regard of gratitude and deeds of others (in ways like "there is nobody doing...who did", as shown in the quote from the Bhāradvājasutta) nor in regard of who is the carrier of suffering (in the Bhāra Sutta).
This is something many are led to be confused about, by common ways of interpretations of Buddha's way of thinking; for benefit and non-confusion,  The common thief-like Niganthas/Jains-ways of metta and insight practice
Especially metta-bhavana has person/s individual/s as object. Thoughts of goodwill be extended not only toward a single being, group or kind, but toward All possible existing beings, which gives release to reach certain Jhanas (see Karaṇīya Metta-Sutta as a guide for practice).
As it is pointed out in the quoted sutta text by Nyom Vorapol, certain related people (family) should be regarded in terms of what they had done on beneficial and duties toward one, and not in regard of sensual pleasure one might have received (which might goes up till sexual pleasure). When we think on emotions of love, for example, those are mostly in certain range of the seven kinds of sexualities (see Methuna Sutta).
The tool of using beloved relations, to possibly develop metta also toward not beloved persons, beings, one can find when the Buddha tells that:

A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find... A being who has not been your father... your brother... your sister... your son... your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.

On one hand, to know clearly about the goodness one had received from others, and the fact that nearly all other beings had been such generous beings as well, like those we highly regard for now, cuts away any willingness to be not of goodwill as a reward.
As the understanding of giving/taking and obligation, goodness and gratitude, gets also clear at the same time, step by step, it also urges samvega and to seek good mindstates and concentration, giving by performing a temporary "debtlessness" in giving ones goodwill equal torward everyone, good or bad, not necessary to be seen equal (since beings are not), for insight and liberation and not for the sake of Coupling (even at is lowest grade: desire for heavenly being and union)
If willing to pull the term of "mother" into your metta-bhavana, there are again, two anchors:

Remember that there is hardly a being having not been you mother in the past, to cut of aversion and increase a supportive attitude of obligation for being easily able to develop thought of goodwill.
and as reminder, that you/one should stick with practising metta and thoughts of goodwill like a mother clings/loves and holds on her only son (might it be skillful in regard of the mother or not): fight against any thought that likes to harm you metta-state of mind (=son).

If one wishes to bring together asobha-meditation (on the ugliness and imperfection of matter/form, of all kind) and metta meditation (which was actually introduced as a straw-man to excuse unseeming approach) together, such might bear certain dangers. Like told in the quoted Sutta of the comment (if there is sense-desire involved, which is possible in imperfect metta), even a corpse can be reason for sexual lust. So such might be not good to do together, if not one of the two is already good developed. But it is right, as commented there, that such as other kinds of "pleasant" meditation objects are useful as a compensation of to much disgust toward body in a harmful way.
The same counts for karuna (thoughts of wishing to be helped) in regard of "how to view people" and becomes even more visible in regard of mudita, appreciation of goodness developed/done by all other beings and rejoice with all, appreciate then (again a temporary release of subtle present force of obligation) to reach certain concentration.
People and beings, when seen in this way, should always been seen in their deeds, way of deeds, result of their deeds, and certain kind be selected to act on it proper. If understanding such as commonly known as "Buddha-nature" in that way, to find a source of deeds in any being, to be able to regard them properly and with thoughts of metta, karuna and mudita, a matter of gratitude and appreciation for deeds, then to use "Buddha-nature" as a translation for that, to approach other sects developed practice as well in a way to do not increase wrong view, might be good as well.
In the same way one should also regard oneself, have gratitude and appreciation toward ones many previous sacrifices done in the past to in such a seldom, rich and auspicious situation: not waste ones merits and current wealth (in all regards) having no idea of how hard it was to gain and use this again as a strong drive toward liberation and to stick joyful with right effort.
My person hopes that this gives enough reasonable ground to dispel confusions and the questions of "what can be said about metta and karuna, if they interact with identity-view, self-view?"
To get your metta-bhavana on the right track (neither being nor not-being), it's good to remember the contained sentence in the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

Since mettā meditation has the (concept of) "beings" as object, it is close to the ego-illusion or the wrong view of a personality (of what ever kind). Hence, in order to prevent the entanglement in this and other wrong views, and in order to reach the 'fruition attainments' of the 'Noble Living' through insight meditation, the Buddha commences the last verse with the statement: 'And not holding to wrong view'.

(As probably the access might be again taken, one might feel free and given to discuss the topic and ask here further.)
Actions give causes, from this comes that, with this that arises.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other lower wordily gains by ways of exchange or trade.]

Thank you for explaining. If I could try to summarise it in one sentence, "You shouldn't only 'view women as mothers': instead 'metta' means that you might view any being as if they had been everyone in your family; and nurture attitude of goodwill as if you were its mother."

Just try to finsh your duties and be sure that you do not do it for whom evers sake. Dhamma does not work if just add or just substrate or when addition is needed tend to - and when - is needed tend to +, N @ChrisW. The sample to remind on the goodness one has received is good to cut of aversion and unwillingness for goodwill and the fact that you will never fix it, when bound, should urge one to stick to thoughts of goodwill like one sticks to ones beloved, not that you regard the objects of goodwill you should love! Love is what brings you to debts. So give release by thoughts of goodwill.

It is not directly related to Metta, but the idea is to keep lust away from the mind when you interact with women. It doesn't mean you should ask women to become mothers, sisters, daughters etc. The person who uses this technique to curb lust does not really care if the women he interacts with become mothers, sisters, daughters in real life. :D It is only for his personal usage within the mind.

In my understanding, the objective of metta cultivation in Pali Canon Buddhism, is to counter, to be an antidote, for the attitude of negativity, hatred, and envy towards the world. Such negative attitude hurts its bearer first of all, but it also creates objective problems with interaction. This works on the principle of this/that conditionality. Holding a grudge against the world ("that") we are holding to a certain attitude and outlook in ourselves ("this") and vice versa. This configuration is stable and self-sustaining. It contributes to the injured condition of its subject and is an obstacle to Liberation. It also functions as root of harmful karma. By cultivating metta we deconstruct our habitual image of "that", and this through inference relieves our attachment to "this" with its suffering.
In Mahayana metta is part of a broader concept called bodhicitta. Bodhicitta is this attitude of altruistic drive, attitude of a winner who now has no fear and no personal goals but still has a sense of accountability because he knows and he sees. In Mahayana we're not trying to counteract anything, we're "using result as path". We simulate Buddha's qualities with the objective of becoming Buddha through assimilation. And to simulate Buddha's qualities requires one to genuinely care about other beings, the way Buddha does.
I agree with you in your assessment that to see women as sexual objects, or to see them as mothers or even as however they happen to currently see themselves -- is all equally limiting. In all cases we project a flat image on a multidimmensional phenomena. This sort of projection is the very attitude of samsara.
In my opinion the spirit of Metta/Karuna is nonjudgmental acceptance. Instead of having a flat view of the other person, we see them from many possible angles. We see good in bad, bad in good, we see them as victims of circumstances and previous karma, we see them as masters responsible for their lives, we appreciate that they are doing their best, we appreciate their limits, we see their suffering, and the same time we see that they in fact in some sense are happy with their lives and not willing to change them. We see all sides of phenomena in its complexity. We also appreciate the fact that we may not have all information, we may be basing our view of the person based on our own guesses and stereotypes.
When we have all of the above, we enter a state when we can't really judge a person, since we no longer have a firm basis for judgement. Instead, we enter this state of absolute acceptance and kind tolerance. We no longer take the person in isolation, we see them in context of their circumstances, and there is nowhere to place blame anymore. We can't even feel pity for them anymore - indeed who are we to assume that they are pitiful? And yet we can't help but feel their pain, and maybe even marvel at how they're handling it.
This is what metta looks like to me, as absolute multidimmensional nonjudgemental acceptance. Sort of like modern humanistic liberalism on steroids. Which is why I have hope that in 21st century this perspective will strengthen and become mainstream thinking.