text:
Effects of modern culture (Movies/Gaming) on karmic reactions
Having read the following:
Are actions in computer games bad for karma?
Background: I have watched the latest Doom Eternal gameplay, its brilliant in terms of Graphics and dynamics. The actions and details are more "real" than ever before. I used to be a fan of the doom franchise and enjoyed the game like any other gamer. Having touched Buddhism, it is the first time I question the origin of these games and the effects it brings onto the players, from a karmic perspective. I never had such thoughts and questions before I learned about Buddhism and the Dharma.
My question:

What would be Theravada's take on this issue? If we know the in-game "killing" isn't real, will this create any negative karmic effects?
From a hypothetical perspective, are these cultures being carefully prospered by the ruling class of this planet to keep individuals chained to Samsara for as long as possible? (preventing enlightenment)

If we know the in-game "killing" isn't real, will this create any negative karmic effects?
I guess there may be two problems with it:

It may be unlikely to create positive karmic effects -- I think that positive karma is associated with wealth and ease and so on -- see for example Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) for an example of some of the Buddha's advice for lay-people (I remember it as the sutta of the "six directions").
It may be (which I think is what RuthLydia's answer was saying) an activity that not associated with progress towards the ending of karma.
I guess that playing video games is associated with sensual craving -- craving ongoing sensual stimulation.
Instead perhaps you're supposed to find peace in the "unconditioned" ("unconditioned" meaning "doesn't have a cause") -- or possibly something to do with, beginning with, conditioned by, virtues (perhaps "good deeds" or "skilful" actions).

Also it might be worth mentioning the "Brahma-viharas" which are said to be, "the answer to all situations arising from social contact". Assuming that video games are a type of social contact, perhaps they're unskilful to whatever extent that they don't involve the Brahma-viharas (i.e. developing "good will" towards people, and so on).
As for movies, there's a sutta addressed to an actor (SN 42.2) which warns against acting, for which it reasons:

Any beings who are not devoid of passion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of passion, focus with even more passion on things inspiring passion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of aversion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of aversion, focus with even more aversion on things inspiring aversion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival. Any beings who are not devoid of delusion to begin with, who are bound by the bond of delusion, focus with even more delusion on things inspiring delusion presented by an actor on stage in the midst of a festival.

In other words, what's presented on the stage in a festival will tend to increase the Three poisons (i.e. desire, aversion, and ignorance).
From a hypothetical perspective, are these cultures being carefully prospered by the ruling class of this planet to keep individuals chained to Samsara for as long as possible?
I think you tend not to blame other people for your own lack of progress (e.g. "It's not my fault, it's his fault that I'm chained to samsara!").
When there is an opponent to enlightenment, an enemy, that's often portrayed as being Mara.

"n other words, what's presented on the stage in a festival will tend to increase the Three poisons (i.e. desire, aversion, and ignorance)." It is more hypothetical than factual, it might depict some noble setting and aim for noble outcome that is mediated by right intention.

@bodhihammer I didn't understand the comment -- how or why is it more hypothetical than factual ... and what is "a noble setting"? Perhaps you're saying it depends on the subject-matter of the play in question -- that some may be properly educational (or something like that).

Anyway, earlier in the sutta it was an actor saying that after a actor "entertains and amuses people in a stage or festival with truth and lies" then they'll be "reborn in the company of laughing gods" -- that was the context. Also the purpose of the play in question is to arouse rajanīya ("enticing, excitement").

Maybe that is semantics, since it is actual "will tend to", but yes I meant educational or in general - having positive outcome. Another thing is that the audience would have to be ignorant people that are not mindful of mental phenomena to be completely and mindlessly driven by them, so the actor context and the sutta I find rather weak  that rather refers to a very specific narrow case than general case. I mainly find it overused since it actually refers to deceiptful intent of a comedian.

@bodhihammer Ok. I don't know that I have a high regard for the educational potential of stereotypical Hollywood movies though, whether they be e.g. romantic comedies or e.g. shoot-'em-up action movies.

The intent of what one wishes to watch is most important, everything plants karmic seeds.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Well there are

kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result
kamma that is dark with dark result
kamma that is bright with bright result
kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html

karmas that are useless in order to stop being a puthujjana = bright karma, dark karma, bright and dark karma.
SInce karma is a bad thing, the goal is to stop karma, you do not stop karma  by creating more karma. You stop karma by spending your energy doing ''nonbright and non-dark karma'' which is the most neutral karma of all.
Now as usual, to evaluate  the effect of an activity, or better a tendancy, you look at the results. Playing video games has nothing to do with the ''kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result'', so look at the other 3 karmas, which are useless to stop being a  puthujjana:

"And what is kamma that is dark with dark result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication, fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious mental fabrication. Having fabricated an injurious bodily fabrication, having fabricated an injurious verbal fabrication, having fabricated an injurious mental fabrication, he rearises in an injurious world. On rearising in an injurious world, he is there touched by injurious contacts. Touched by injurious contacts, he experiences feelings that are exclusively painful, like those of the beings in hell. This is called kamma that is dark with dark result.
"And what is kamma that is bright with bright result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates a non-injurious bodily fabrication... a non-injurious verbal fabrication... a non-injurious mental fabrication... He rearises in a non-injurious world... There he is touched by non-injurious contacts... He experiences feelings that are exclusively pleasant, like those of the Ever-radiant Devas. This is called kamma that is bright with bright result.
"And what is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates a bodily fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious... a verbal fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious... a mental fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious... He rearises in an injurious & non-injurious world... There he is touched by injurious & non-injurious contacts... He experiences injurious & non-injurious feelings, pleasure mingled with pain, like those of human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms. This is called kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result.

During, after and before Playing video games, are you led to ''non-injurious bodily fabrication'' or to ''a verbal fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious'' or to ''fabricating an injurious verbal fabrication'' ?

It is worth noting that dark and bright karma in this context is karma that results in experience like pleasure that is driven by self view, so in here obviously good deeds are selfless deeds of right action and right resolve, and that is why these are non bright nor dark. It is actually called noble karma and thus, no-karma. And so ending karma (intention) is ending the Self-view of the doer.

Please see What does “ending karma” mean? and particularly this answer, it might give you some further insight into your question.
Shortly, karma is intention, if intention is noble, then it contributes to ending karma. We have Eightfold path, a path of Selfless deeds and ethics that end karma, since ending disease of Self and "mine" ends karma.

In 1611, Musashi began practicing zazen at the Myōshin-ji temple, where he met Nagaoka Sado, vassal to Hosokawa Tadaoki;

For many years thereafter he fought duels, killing many. Musashi studied Zen and Buddhism--they helped shape his inner life. He had deep insight and broad skills, not only in the martial arts, but also in the fine arts. He also violated the precept against killing.
To fight a duel effectively or play a video game effectively, one needs to be free of greed, hate and delusion. In the former case, one lives or dies in real equanimity. In the latter case, one does acquire some equanimity in the face of the game illusion, but it is weak and lacking any lasting satisfaction.
Game equanimity is weak because it arises in the context of "I am playing a game, and it will never hurt me". This weak equanimity rends like tissue paper in the winds of real change and real threats. And so we run into people who dream of living in the game, their selves safe for all imagined eternity.
Furthermore, numbed to reality by the games, we become intrigued by games that are connected to reality. Some play drone games, and real people die. But the self is still safe, so very safe. It feels immortal.
We can indeed learn something playing video games. We learn that illusion always disappoints. Knowing this, we can meditate and be done.


text:
Egoic voice in head
It has been observed, all the egoic voices heard is same as the younger brother. When any positive resolution is made, for example, fasting on certain days, doing japa, abstaining from certain foods, going on pilgrimage & all positive things that will increase spirituality. This voice of younger brother is troubling since many years. Tried mindfulness, however this voice always triggers pain in the body, could see the soul very sad, as if any tantra is done. Please suggest any Buddhist way to get rid of these voices.
Edit:Just wanted to add something more to this experience.
It's not just voice sometimes, it is observed the body is overcome & actions of the body are controlled by another spirit(same as the younger brother). Kind of spooky, but it was observed many times.

Hey Christopher, does this voice only sound like your younger brother, or it is in fact coming from other person ?

It's exactly like the younger brother

I would add as short answer that the problem is not the voice put your desire to get rid of it. This desire is what makes you suffer, because you clearly don't get what you want. Give up the wanting, and the voice will no longer be an issue.

It's not just voice sometimes, it is observed the body is overcome & actions of the body are controlled by another spirit. Kind of spooky, but it was observed many times. Proper meditation should help. Please do suggest any medication.

In my analysis what you are calling as the voice of the younger brother is really the psychological concept of super-ego. It's really a voice of your parents and your cultural conditioning.
I will suggest you start practising Vipassana. Only practising mindfulness will not help, you will end up being mindful of the voice and that will be a torture.
Attend a 10-day vipassana course, it's free of cost based on donation. Learn how to resolve our sankaras. Learn to resolve the knots tied deep within. Then practise for 6 months and do 2-3 more courses. I think you will be healed.
Also, practise forgiveness meditation towards your parents. You have to let-it-go, whatever happened, whatever was taught to you, that has to be let-go.

Thank you for the answer. Definitely will check on how to resolve Sankara's. Would like to add, the nature of the mind sometimes same as the father. .

Just a suggestion but, if its too bad go see the psychologist. There are lot many psychiatrist conditions diagnosed about voice in head. It can be cured through medicine.

Sure, will visit a psychiatrist

Suffering has three parts: greed, aversion and delusion. By hating the voice, you are suffering. If a younger brother brings aggravation, a younger brother can also bring kindness. Having aversion for one and greed for the other is suffering.  Both will make the voices stronger.
Instead, be aware of your breathing and simply observe that conviction of a persecuted self may be a deeply constructed delusion arising out of a forgotten craving and delight:

Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated,
  willed, dependently originated, that is inconstant. Whatever is
  inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not me, is not what I am,
  is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it
  actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it
  actually is present.

Firstly, take comfort in the fact that you're not the only one suffering from such a problem.
From this page, I found out that the actor Anthony Hopkins suffered from this too. He purportedly said:

"I’ve always had a little voice in my head, particularly when I was
  younger and less assured”, he said. “While onstage, during classical
  theatre the voice would suddenly say, “Oh, you think you can do
  Shakespeare, do you?” and he added; “Recently, I was being interviewed
  on television and the voice inside my head said to me, “Who the hell
  do you think you are. You’re just an actor, what the hell do you know
  about anything”.

Apparently, hearing voices may or may not be related to mental health conditions, so it's good to get it checked with a medical professional.
Meghan Jisho Caughey, a sufferer of Schizophrenia (which may not be your condition) reported how Zen meditation helped her in this blog entry:

So this is what I have found during the hours on the cushion. First
  of all, let me say, Zen practice, for me, is hardly ever relaxing. I
  don’t do it because it feels good. Just in the last few years, due to
  a better medication, it does occasionally feel somewhat peaceful. But
  much of the time, it is simply uncomfortable to sit there, and stay on
  the cushion.
I sit, and the internal voices often get louder. It‘s challenging.
I want to stop; I want to pay attention to the voices. They are
  seductive.
I try to count my breaths, if I can count to four, it is unusual.
I switch to listening to sounds meditation. External sounds---the bird
  in the tree outside, a car, the wind in a tree, my dog’s snoring. This
  actually works quite well fairly often when I am hearing voices
  because it competes with the voice; it changes the focus if I can do
  it for a little while.
Sometimes the voices or a body distortion will be really stubborn. I
  am just stuck with it.
There I am, on the cushion, no escape.
So what I have learned to do is just to be there.
I learned this in sesshin.
Just to be there. Moment by moment. With all the Stuff. Whatever.
I found out that it wasn’t going to kill me. And then I found out that
  I could choose my attitude toward the Stuff. Chose the feeling–tone.
  So now, the practice goes something like this:
I’m sitting doing zazen and the scary perceptual stuff comes up, And I
  recognize it, and I say to it, “Oh, so it’s you again!” And I lovingly
  tell it,” Well, I’m putting the welcome mat out for you, just come
  right on in!” And the scary stuff gets kind of smaller and not so
  scary, and sort of shuffles off into a corner, not so bad, after all.
Still, there are times when I just have to sit and it is like I am
  sitting in a snowstorm, or a war, except the energy is inside.  So,
  one might ask, why do I sit—if it is not peaceful—and there are not
  more moments of bliss?
Sometimes I ask myself this question, and what I get in touch with is
  that by sitting that I somehow connect with my True Nature. For me
  this is especially meaningful, because for years I thought that my
  True Nature was my disease, schizophrenia. But deep down, I could hear
  something else: Buddha Nature.
When I was in my early forties—I am now fifty-one—I took the Precepts
  and Refuge in the ceremony called Jukai. I was given two Dharma names
  by my teacher. One name, Jisho, means compassion for all life. My
  teacher made a point to say that I must have compassion for myself.
  The other name is Ahimsa: nonharming. This meant to me that I could no
  longer act out self destructively, regardless of what the voices told
  me to do. I had to change my life.
I owe my life to this practice. My gratitude is beyond words. To sum
  it up, I would say that my practice with schizophrenia is just moment
  by moment, stay on the cushion with whatever comes up, and it is all
  workable, if you just stick it out.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How will I know that this state of no suffering will last forever?
Suppose I have reached a state of no suffering. Then what is the proof that suffering won't arise again ? How can I be sure that state of Nirvana doesn't change or decay ?

I have noticed a pattern in your recent questions that seems to indicate a grappling with just what it means for something to be impermanent. I think some of the confusion comes from the gross understanding of impermanence which implies true endings and true beginnings. In order to dispel some of this confusion you might consider that if nothing ever truly arises, then it cannot truly end.

I agree that the unconditioned neither changes nor decays nor arises nor vanishes.

At that point there will also be no doubt. You will know for 100%, due to experience.

Theravada Buddhist Answer.

How will I know that this state of no suffering will last forever?

A good and important question. The thing is that you can't know whether or not this state of suffering will last forever.
There are especially two (and probably more) important reasons for this.
The first one being that fact that the Buddha didn't want us to accept his teaching based on blind belief, hear-say or something similar. The Buddha's teaching is a practical teaching meant for us to realize through especially meditation practice.
The second reason dives into the nature of reality and how to understand it. There exists different types of realities; Conventional and Ultimate realities.
Conventional realities consist of concepts. What characterizes a concept is that it can be understood by hearsay, logical reasoning, inference or intellectual thinking. In other words, such concepts are not regarded as ultimate reality.
An ultimate reality such as Nibbana cannot be understood by the above mentioned methods. A person born blind can never know colors no matter how others may explain those colors. Likewise, one can never know toothache if one has never had them.
In the same way, insight-knowledge and Jhana can never be known, unless one has attained them. Nibbana, the end of suffering, can only be understood by personal experience, ie. through correct meditation practice.
Ultimate reality is only accessible for insight-meditators, those who attained Jhana and the noble ones.
Lastly, be aware that Doubt (Vicikicchā) is one of the Five Hindrances to Enlightenment. The antidote for doubt is; studying the teachings, finding a good teacher and vipassana meditation practice.
The second Bojjhanga, ie. the Investigation of Phenomena (dhamma vicaya) is also a direct remedy for Doubt, since it leads to personal experience of the Three Marks of Existence (tilakkhaṇa) and how the mind-body complex operates.

Suffering is a sankhara, conditioned phenomenon. This means it arises from an interplay of certain conditions coming together. Now, whatever is conditioned can be prevented from arising by removing one of its necessary conditions.
A necessary condition for suffering is clinging and grasping, aka attachment.  If you don't grasp - suffering cannot arise.
Everything else in the world is impermanent but your no-grasping can be permanent and unconditional. Just don't grasp, ever. This is unconditional Nirvana, plain and simple.
You know this Nirvana won't decay and suffering won't arise again when you are disenchanted about everything. Since you are disenchanted, you are dispassionate. Because you're dispassionate, you don't grasp.
You get disenchanted when you know how things work and you know what is possible and what is impossible. You know Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta. You know there's no magic. You know no one will descent in a golden chariot to take care of you and make you happy. Because you know, you're disenchanted and dispassionate, because you're dispassionate, you don't grasp. Because you don't grasp, you don't add your opinion to things. When you see, you see what you see. When you hear, you hear what you hear - with no aversion. You don't crave for something that isn't here. Everything is "just so" for you and not otherwise. This is called "suchness" or "Nirvana".
Because you don't crave for something else - your suchness is stable, everything is just so, always. This is not subject to change and decay because it's not fixed, not assembled from conditions. This is called "non-abiding Nirvana".

This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.

Suppose I have reached a state of no suffering.

Don't suppose. Let go. No suffering is a mental fabrication and obstruction. You try hard to, but you cannot experience it by intellectual means.

Then what is the proof that suffering won't arise again ? How can I be
  sure that state of Nirvana doesn't change or decay ?

Let go, let go, let go of Nirvana. Sit down to Samatha and meditate, calm the mind, make it useful. Nirvana is beyond graspable, don't try to grasp at it's concept and future of How will I know. Go beyond clinging, go beyond taste. It is the only way to find out.

To paraphrase another answer, which was deleted ...
Worldly people crave for knowledge of future events, and for "proofs" -- but logical proofs and arguments are unreliable -- and so are various (ancient and modern) meditation doctrines/systems.

Worldly people don't know the difference between right and wrong.
Whereas, a sottapana knows:

The path
The conclusion of the path (nibbana)
That nibbana exists and is good because it's not anicca

The path from sottapana to arahant is as follows

The five aggregates are all anicca, which arouses disgust: so much anicca and so much dukkha -- too much to handle -- that any business with the aggregates is severed (forever).
In a bit more detail, what happens is:

Aniccānupassī (knowledge of impermanence of the aggregates)
Putting the citta in samadhi (to avoid getting upset by the revulsion associated with Aniccānupassī, however the citta cannot be in samadhi until you die)
Dispassion towards the aggregates (which are cursed with impermanence), and so ...
Virāgānupassī (knowledge of dispassion -- no lust for what's anicca, and no ignorance about what is dukkha and/or anatta)
Without lust for aggregates it's "game over" -- except for some residual karma
Knowledge of the characteristics of nibbana -- not conditioned, not anicca, not dukkha, and anatta

Nibanna is found by elimination:

Not the five aggregates (which are anicca and disgusting)
Not the five senses (because also anicca)
Not mano i.e. mind and ideas (because also anicca)
Not some other imaginary/fantasy world (because of dispassion towards mano)

I like Lanka’s answer, but I will give a Mahayana perspective...
Consider how it feels to wake up from a dream and realize that all you felt during that dream was, “just a dream.” All the passion you felt while dreaming would dissipate upon waking up with the certain knowledge that it was “just a dream,” right?
Now, what if you knew you were “just dreaming” while you were dreaming? Like in a lucid dream? The passion and zeal would dissipate right then and there as you would know it all to be unreal.
One who has achieved Nirvana dispels suffering just like that by dispelling ignorance of how things really are. And this knowledge continues in the mindstream into the indefinite future in just the same way as ignorance continued in the mindstream in the indefinite past.
In short, Nirvana is just the replacement of ignorance with knowledge.

I'm happy that we have different traditions represented on our site.

Me too. We all have the same teacher after all :)

Waking from the dream makes me realize all was a dream but this knowledge is lost again when I sleep. Similarly Nirvana is waking up from the ignorance but I dont see a reason why it cant be lost again... Buddha awakened to the Truth and he knew that he would not return to the world again but what made made him so sure? What was permanent and unchanging aspect of his attainment?

How will I know that this state of no suffering will last forever?
This very question is a source of suffering. That state has ended with this very question.
Do not trust even one's own knowledge, this too is subject to change.
The arahat knows all states will change, Nibbana lets them all go. In the letting go, the realization of Nibbana arises. Nibbana is not a state, it is a realisation that nothing is eternal, everything is unsubstantial. There is no eternal self, though conditions may - and do - arise where identity correspondingly arises. However, "No Self" is a self-view and an object of attachment.

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


text:
Mahayana doctrine about dreams and illusions

Is there some standard Mahayana doctrine about dreams and illusions?
How is the doctrine meant to be used -- assuming it's a view, how is it meant to be effective?
I ask because of this answer:

Consider how it feels to wake up from a dream and realize that all you felt during that dream was, “just a dream.” All the passion you felt while dreaming would dissipate upon waking up with the certain knowledge that it was “just a dream,” right?
Now, what if you knew you were “just dreaming” while you were dreaming? Like in a lucid dream? The passion and zeal would dissipate right then and there as you would know it all to be unreal.

I don't think I have the experiences of dreams, described above -- instead:

The feelings, the emotional content, of a dream -- how I feel towards a someone in a dream, or about the place or surroundings in dream -- is not very different from the emotional content of waking life: similar feelings whether I'm asleep or awake.
There are some childhood nightmares I remember -- of falling out of a tree, or being chased by a dinosaur -- I still remember the fear ... I probably am (or could be) still afraid of being a young child chased by a dinosaur, even though I know that was/is a dream.
When I know that I am dreaming -- e.g. because I'm with someone in my dream who I know has died in waking life -- the passion doesn't dissipate. The passion is part of the dream, part of the memory perhaps, part of the fabrication you might say, just as much as the person's form (appearance, voice, character, actions) is part of the dream.
The "lesson" I get from the experience isn't that passion and zeal dissipate -- instead the lesson is that experiences (e.g. views of people and relationships) are mind-made. I assume that to whatever extent they're mind-made in a dream, they're similarly mind-made in waking life.
The experience even leaves me doubting (because it's contradicted by experience) whether sankharas (if that's what dreams are) are really "impermanent" -- or perhaps they should be called "attachments" or I don't know.
In summary I don't get the impression that dreams are less real than waking life, I do get the impression that waking life is mind-made like a dream.

I'm not sure these are the right "lessons" to derive from the experience though -- or are they? -- since they seem to contradict the answer quoted above.
Inaccurate/approximate portrayals of the word illusion might imply: "everything is an illusion, nothing exists, nothing matters" -- I think that's a kind of nihilist wrong view according to the suttas: how about in Mahayana?
Another problem I have with "dreaming" as a characterisation of or analogy for waking life, is that I think I'm quite passive in a dream: i.e. things happen to me, things come out of nowhere, unpredictable. I fear that may be an unhealthy, unwise, unskillful attitude to have towards waking reality -- is one supposed to be, instead, active (not just reactive) and intentional? What does "awake" mean, in context?

I note that the above doesn't mention anatta -- which, to the extent that the above is a problem, may be part of the solution -- but maybe the above question makes some sense as-is.

Definitely a good question as-is! A clarification: when you have a nightmare that someone close to you has died - say a mother or a child or a dear loved one - aren’t you relieved when you wake up that it was “just a dream” and not real? Or when you are in a dream and someone breaks into your home and stabs you to death... aren’t you relieved when you wake up that it was “just a dream”?

Similarly, when you have a good dream of something pleasant like winning the lottery or something aren’t you disappointed when you wake up that it was “just a dream”?

Two separate topics -- 1) two childhood nightmares, one about falling out of a tree and another of being chased by a dinosaur -- still a bit scary even though I know that's a dream (and that my chances of meeting a live dinosaur in waking life are slim to none); 2) an adult dream, in which I'm with someone in the dream, where I know even while I'm dreaming that the person has already died in waking life -- and that knowledge during the dream, of their having died in real life, does not change or diminish my feeling or "passion".

Yes, I see both of those in your original question. But what of the dreams mentioned above? Have you no experiences like this?

Yes, for years afterwards I used to dream that I had failed my final school/university exams ... and was relieved on waking to discover that was untrue (i.e. that I had passed them, and that was in the past, and that I had a job and so on as a consequence of having passed them). So "relief", yes. But "confusion" too, that experience (of facts and feelings in the dream) would be lying.

Is there some standard Mahayana doctrine about dreams and illusions?
Not sure if there is anything like "official Mahayana doctrine" about dreams, but the examples of dreaming are used in the verbal tradition all the time. For example, from this lecture by Thrangu Rinpoche:

[Speaking about the first link of Twelve Nidanas.] This basic ignorance concerns two things: external phenomena
  and mind. First we believe the appearances such as trees and rocks
  that we see in our mind are external and real objects. That is the
  nature of mistaken appearance. Second, we believe that internal
  mind is truly existent.
For example, when we sleep dreams are an
  appearance that arise out of the luminosity of the mind. The
  luminosity of mind does not stop just because we go to sleep; the mind's luminosity when we dream appears in our mind which "sees"
  those various appearances as external objects. We know, however,
  that those mountains and elephants that appear in our dreams were
  created by the luminosity of the mind and do not exist. Since we
  know that they do not exist, we can also understand that the "I" or
  the mind seeing all these appearances in the dream does not exist
  either.
Now when we apply this example of our experience of dreaming
  to our experience while awake, we can see that there are external
  appearances and internal appearances (thoughts and feelings) and
  that these also do not exist.
...
[Speaking about the second link, Sankharas, which he calls "latencies".] Let us take an example of an elephant — one that we see while we are asleep and dreaming and one that we see while we are awake. In both cases an elephant appears to us as a real elephant. While we are awake, the outside sensory impression of an elephant appears real, because our impression of an elephant
  matches these internal latencies which come from the eighth consciousness. In a dream the latencies of the elephant also come from the eighth consciousness and appear to us, and we see it at the time as real. So we see that the dream elephant and the real elephant are the same in two respects: they really do appear due to latencies, and they are both truly empty.

Paraphrasing, according to this presentation, so-called external objects as well as internal mind (=thoughts & feelings) arise out of the luminosity of the mind. External objects arise when outside sensory impressions match internal latencies, while internal objects arise out of the same internal latencies without any sensory impressions. This is usually summarized as "appearances are mind". At the same time, to say that "mind is a real entity" or that "mind is truly existent" is a mistake. The true nature of mind is emptiness which has the "quality of luminous clarity", "quality of knowing" and "spontaneous presence". So all our experiences, both when dreaming and when awake, are projections of mind's "latencies"; these "latencies" or "tendencies" are imprints from the previous experiences -- and this is how the cycle of ignorance feeds itself.
I guess the point of comparison between dreaming and wakeful states, at least as used in this presentation, is that both types of experiences are projections of imprints from the previous experiences and in this sense are equally unreal.
How is the doctrine meant to be used?
I think the practical side here, is that: once we know that the desirable or the frightening object (or situation) is a projection of our mind, we stop reifying it as something separate from the mind and so it loses it's power and grasp.
For example, I recently saw a dream in which I was physically attacked by someone stronger than myself. While I (kinda) knew it was a dream, I did not realize the enemy was actually my own projection. Then, as I knew I could not win that fight, I paused and contemplated an idea that both the villain in that dream as well as my sense of "I, the victim" were actually two parts of the same mind which was, therefore, fighting with itself! At this point my feeling of fear towards the attacker was gone and at the same time the attacker himself seemingly lost his hostility towards me. I was able to touch his forehead with mine and he was sucked into my head as a drop of melted metal from Terminator 2.
Several months after that dream, I had a conversation with someone intellectually smarter and emotionally tougher than me, whose judgement I was always afraid of. Habitually, I reflected on something I just said and thought that I must be looking very stupid from his perspective. Then suddenly, I remembered my dream and realized that my idea of his judgement was actually my own projection, since the guy actually never ever said anything or otherwise non-verbally indicated any negative opinion about my intellectual or emotional inferiority. As soon as I realized that this was my own projection, I was able to integrate the two parts of my mind (the judging one and the one being judged).
So I think the point of all this talk about dreams and projections, is that reification of our projections as something objective leads to suffering, and cessation of reification leads to cessation of suffering.
That said, as is shown in my dream example, knowing that objects are unreal is not enough. I too in my dream knew that it was a dream - and yet I kept fighting my attacker out of habit and disgust, following my emotional habits (latencies/imprints). It's only when I made a conscious effort to re-interpret the situation in different terms, to see it from a different perspective - is when the freedom from projections was attained.
For me, this all comes back to my teacher's verbal instruction, that our experience of reality is an interpretation we make, and that Liberation (aka Enlightenment) is freedom from attachment to any single interpretation (or "view").

For 4. and 5. Yogacara of Svatantrika describes this to some extent. Storehouse consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) always processes, even in sleep, coma or moments of death. It is the same source for scattered thoughts and appearances out of nowhere in waking state. It is just while sleeping, you don't have something that in Madhyamaka terms is called referential thing, which is a part of reality to reference. Therefore visions in dreams are completely illusive. You don't have too much control in this realm of sleep either - it's realm of "bubbling water", and bubbles are appearances of mind and mind is the source. It is true for mind-only school of Mahayana that the root of all appearances are karmic seeds from the past. As we know, cyclical presence of karmic imprints imply that Self view was not abandoned, and grasping is present.
In here also, mind-only schools claim that mind precedes and creates the body, you are not connected to the body in your sleep, yet mind creates some other body. In Vajrayana, for example, there is concept of Three Vajras; Mind, Body and Speech, but all of them are ruled and created by mind.
From Vajra Essence, essential text on Dzogchen in Nyingma tradtion:

Since I am unoriginated emptiness, the source of my origination is
  empty. As to seeking the source, earth is something I have created.
  Similarly, all phenomena, including water, fire, air, and space, are
  nothing other than apparitions of self-grasping
“I am the nonabiding nature of emptiness, so there is no place I
  dwell. As for the so-called body: Sores, swelling, goiters, ulcers,
  and so on may arise in the body that appears in the waking state, but
  they are not present in the dream body. And sores, swelling, goiters,
  and ulcers that appear to afflict the body and limbs in a dream are
  absent in the waking state. During the waking state, the body may be
  wounded or beaten as punishment by a king, but this does not appear on
  the dream body. If it happens in a dream, it is not present on the
  body in the waking state. Similarly, location, environment, and their
  possessor, whether they appear to be outside or are grasped as being
  inside, are all nothing more than my own appearances. “Therefore I do
  not abide in either external or internal phenomena, nor do external or
  internal phenomena abide in me. They are apparitions of self-grasping,
  like a magician’s illusion, but they are not created intentionally, as
  in the case of a magician and his magic. The self arises, so external
  appearances arise automatically, but they have no location. Even if
  you investigate the agent and the destination, the one who moves and
  the destination have no objective existence, so they do not go with
  the nature of me and mine.

For 1. and 2. As I have elaborated before, I can say that the experience of the body (and dream body) is the domain experience of the mind. All experience of the body within the dream is a sensation of the mind and comes from the mind. The body in the dream is a different body, it's health condition differs, et cetera.
If you're looking for effective practise, there is Dream Yoga and it's widely practised in Nyingma tradition of Vajrayana and generally speaking - all Dzogchen lineages. There are some people that teach it in non-sectarian way.

Where is the realm of "bubbling water" a quote from?

“So you should view this fleeting world --
A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream,
A flash of lightening in a summer cloud,
A flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream.” Diamond sutra, depending on translation.

OK then. I thought you were quoting doctrine about the sleep state.

Bubble phrase from Diamon sutra is very often referenced in the context of dreams in Mahayana, but it is not a part of any doctrine per se.

IMO "bubbles" is an accurate description -- I've imagined that there's a place in the mind which bubbles proto-dreams continually like the air pump in an aquarium, one bubble after another ... and if (with eyes closed etc) I attach to one then it stays and expands and develops into a dream, as if I have entered into the bubble. But this is all being descriptive ("the world is like this") rather than prescriptive ("you should get in gear to engage thusly"). Is Mahayana (or the Diamond sutra) prescriptive? Sorry for such a naive question, please don't overestimate how well I understand Mahayana.

It is prescriptive. Generally speaking, the most prescriptive is Vajrayana, where there is a meditation technique for everything, coming through stages of generation and arriving at meditations on states of dream-like existence (including dying).

When we are children we often have a hard time getting over nightmares and vivid dreams. Similarly, we often have a hard time with movies / video games. We mistake illusion for reality and vice versa. We are ignorant of how things work, but as we grow up we learn more and more about how things work. Our parents can teach us that dreams/nightmares aren’t real and therefore are not worth getting as bothered about.
As a consequence, generally speaking adults are better at distinguishing between real things and unreal things. Movies and nightmares sometimes still bother us, but not as much as when we were kids. Check yourself, isn’t this true?
To the extent that unreal things - that we know are unreal - still bother us it is generally because we buy into them, right? Don’t we call this “suspending disbelief?” If you are watching a movie and are emotionally invested and then notice a glitch or continuity break in the movie doesn’t this “take you out of the movie” and disrupt the emotional connection?
If you meet someone with a lot of makeup on and think them very attractive and then one day see them without the makeup doesn’t this, “break the spell?”
If you are in the desert and very thirsty and see a mirage aren’t you disappointed to find it, “isn’t real?”
Your childhood dreams occurred when you had a harder time distinguishing real from unreal, right? Your adult dream where you emotionally invested in the deceased person was craving for that person to be real or suspending disbelief that they were not, right? Were you mindful at every second that they were not? Any joy you felt was predicated on whatever success you had in seeing them as real, right? Any disappointment you felt was predicated on whatever failure you had in seeing them as real, right?
Your exam dream is a good example! That anxiety you had that you’d failed turned to relief when you woke up. If you were mindful every second while dreaming that you were dreaming would the same anxiety have arisen in the first place?
The teaching regarding everything as like illusion is not exclusive to Mahayana IMO and it most definitely does not mean that nothing exists or that nothing matters. That is nihilism and thinking that is indicative of incorrect understanding. One should back away from that belief with all due haste and understand that one has gone astray lest one destroy oneself and the aims of all those who are counting on one to become Buddha.
I apologize for whatever mistakes I have made in explanation that might cause the arising of nihilism in another and I implore to please please know that is not what I intend. It is the result of my own unskillful communication.

"generally speaking adults are better at distinguishing between real things and unreal things" -- I'm not sure what "real and unreal" are meant to mean, in the context of a metaphor which implies that reality is illusory. And PTSD is maybe an example of adults' failing to distinguish. But yes, checking myself, I'm not afraid of nightmares any more. However I am still afraid of, like, day-dreams -- such as, "what if I try X, and fail?"

That’s a great question about the metaphor, but probably a separate question.

FYIW, I regard this Pali sutta as having the same essential meaning as the famous phrase in the Mahayana Diamond Cutter Sutra to see all conditions phenomena as unreal: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html

Yes the "foam" sutta was a topic here before -- If Theravada doesn't posit the selflessness of phenomena, then how to interpret SN 22.95? -- not so much illusion IMHO, more to do with compound things being impermanent, fragile, unreliable, therefore unworthy. I think that's inline with e.g. this doctrine. Is that Mahayana, though? And suitable for a layperson (I think that Theravada has a slightly different doctrine for laypeople than for monks)?

I don’t think dharma is divided between lay people and ordained, but rather people who have accumulated the merit necessary to extract the heartwood from a teaching and those who have not yet done so. Not all teachings are for everybody becaus we all have our different skills and predilections. It just so happens that people who ordain are - generally speaking - ready for more advanced teachings than lay folk.  But this is not always the case of course.

As for interpretation of SN 22.95.... well, I think it goes far beyond just being unreliable or impermanent, but to each their own interpretation :)

I didn't mean to imply that you misled me, if you ever mentioned "illusion". I'm partly commenting on (complaining about) something I read long ago, didn't understand and don't remember, which said that Buddhist doctrine had something to do with "illusion" -- it might have been someone's introduction to the Diamond Sutra. perhaps: I didn't know what to make of it. I guess I do see why you used "waking up from a dream" as a simile, specifically in this answer -- i.e. of adding knowledge or a waking consciousness, instead of afflictive ignorance.


text:
What are the Tibetan sketches in the movie Samsara called?
In the movie Samsara by Pan Nalin, an older monk shows some sketches to the protagonist monk. The sketches are erotic in nature but when held in front of flame reveal true nature as skeletons. It's a very powerful teaching.
Do these sketches have any significance? What are they called?
This is the youtube link for the movie (look @44:37).
Screenshots from the movie are copied below -- they are hidden using 'spoiler' tags because they are "erotic in nature", so mouse-over the image if you want to make them visible.

And after changing the angle of the 'paper' (there's light from a candle on the other side):

After a little more research, to me this looks like Vajrayana version of akusal bhava. but still not sure

"This video contains content from Miramax, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." - for USA

Isn't this simply Heat-Activated Invisible Ink - not specific to Tibetans?

@AndreiVolkov I think it's more likely different drawings with regular inks on the two sides of the page -- the drawing on the reverse becomes apparent when light comes through the page from behind.

For those in the US who are getting the YouTube notice that Andrei mentioned, google “watch” and the title of the documentary and “online”, there is a free link.

@Andrei I am more of interested in the sketches as used by the monk to teach the truth of indulgence. I want to know are those sketches used by monks in Tibet or it was just the film. If yes what are they called?

The sketches you refer to are a combination of three influences: the core Buddhist teaching of impermanence, the Hindu imagery association of sex and death, and the Chinese drawing style for depictions of sexuality. The sketches are clearly from a non-Tantric school, because in Tantric Buddhism, sexual pleasure is seen as a beneficial act representative of the union of female and male Buddhas (when done correctly). The sketches seem to borrow from the 3 influences mentioned above to communicate the impermanent view on sexuality. This is not a common practice. In fact, strict guidelines existed on how to create the "correct" imagery. AFAIK there is no specific name for the sketches and their intent.
The strong association between sex and death stems from Indian culture. Buddhist cosmology is strongly influenced by Hinduism, the dominant religion at the time of the Buddha, and more generally Indian culture. Historically, Indian culture is almost diametrically opposed to the West in its liberal depiction and description of sexual pleasure and techniques (just think of the Kama Sutra). There is a very strong association between sex and death in Hinduism in the form of Kali, who is often depicted in coitus:

Another goddess depicted in the same way in Hinduism is Chhinnamasta in Kundalini Yoga, which uses techniques westerners refer to as Tantrism. There are Tantric forms of both Hinduism and Buddhism, with very similar imagery in the form of Dakinis.

Another factor to consider is a statement from Robert Thurman, a Tantric Buddhist scholar in his translation of the Pancakrama:

Sexual union between coarse bodies is the only situation, other than
  death, in which all the neural wind-energies dissolve into the central
  channel.

The drawing style of the sketches however is definitely Chinese - the hair style is a "dead" giveaway. Like Indian culture, the Chinese were much more liberal in the depiction of sexuality. We find many images like this as early as the Yuan dynasty.

Thank you so much for the answer. This helps a lot.


text:
Too much Dhamma in modern age
Ajahn Brahm’s quite interesting position on "too much Dharma" and studying Abhidharma might be conveyed in this citation:

I think of our modern age is that too much Dhamma. So much Dhamma that
you get really confused. So, just keep it easy Four Noble Truths,
Eightfold Path. Keep it simple and if you keep it simple - it [is]
much, much, much easier.
(…)
That gets too much, it gets so much that
people get confused. So, that's reason why they don't get enlightened.
Keep it simple.
(…)
You can actually see that [in Abhidhamma] language - those concepts they didn't arise until a couple of centuries after the time of the Buddha. So, even the language shows you it's much
later.  You know that's great relief you don't have to study all of
that very very difficult stuff. You have to be like a professor to
learn the Abhidharma sometimes. It's so complex. Keep it simple - Four
Noble Truths, Eightfold Path, meditate. That's all the Gunpowder you
need, so keep it going.
Abhidhamma was not taught by the Buddha -- YouTube

Not only Ajahn Brahm, but also Ajahn Sumedho seem to also reduce the Buddhist practise to bare minimum, to repeating “Let go” for the first number years of his practise, which is similar to general teachings of Zen/Chan and experiential Dzogchen approach as well.
Given that obsession is clinging and clinging is suffering - then, truly, for Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana, Dharma cannot be realised and experienced merely through reason. Thus, theoretically, sets of teachings might be double edged sword for own progression.
There seems to be common ground in Mahayna with Ajahn Brahm’s claim. Quoting important piece that is a complementary reading to Heart Sutra, a Diamond Cutter sutra:

Moreover, Subhuti, when a bodhisattva practices generosity, he does
not rely on any object—any form, sound, smell, taste, tactile object,
or dharma—to practice generosity. That, Subhuti, is the spirit in
which a bodhisattva practices generosity, not relying on signs. Why?
If a bodhisattva practices generosity without relying on signs, the
happiness that results cannot be conceived of or measured.
(…)
In a place where there is something that can be distinguished by signs, in
that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of
signs, you can see the Tathagata.
(...)
Subhuti, a bodhisattva who still depends on notions to practice
generosity is like someone walking in the dark. She will not see
anything. But when a bodhisattva does not depend on notions to
practice generosity, she is like someone with good eyesight walking
under the bright light of the sun. She can see all shapes and colors

We know that Buddha didn’t coin a great deal of technical terms and vocabulary that did arise as attempts of explanation. As such, many things were imputed to Buddha, according to many scholars. The extent of it I don’t dare to bring up as such is not a nature of this post. Yet, we can deduce that most of the practitioners that attained Arahantship in Buddha’s times had in majority followed practical and minimalistic Buddha’s advice. That is at least what Suttas depict intuitively, rather than operating in terse sets of lexical and intellectual frameworks.
In conclusion, several questions arise:

What is the barrier and to what extent do we need to understand things by intellect? Is it not true that just Four Noble truths, a simple teaching, can alone lead us to liberation, quoting Ajahn Brahm?
Is such complexity and variety of modern Dharma why there aren’t more Arahants these times? Because of “Too much Dharma” ? Is this what really sets Buddhists apart from Enlightenment?  Getting attached and clinging to ideas rather the simplicity of a “very simple teaching” of Four Noble Truths?
Should we all study, for example Abhidharma? Buddha did not - he sat down for 49 days under a Bodhi tree, without reading anything of sorts. So, maybe abandoning reliance on sings and concepts yields greater benefit to us?
Is it safe to say that a frustration of imbalance between our ideal, imagined, conceptual realisation causes suffering due to unmet expectations of the actual current experience? Is it then correct that we best incrementally broaden knowledge slowly, in tandem with progressive experience, because such balance leads to better sanity?

See also Questions asking for an answer to a controversy -- there's one answer there which asks people not to be disrespectful to "the abhidharmic tradition", for example. I suppose a good answer to this question might explain or outline the controversy (if there is one), i.e. present "both sides" or several views -- or explain why some one approach or tradition is necessary or sufficient, but without disparaging another.

@ChrisW Thanks for the link. I think here it only tangentially refers to the case of Abhidhamma. At least I didn’t intend to delve into this quarrel too much (I tried!).

I had written a big detailed answer but later I realized it was not related to Abhidharma, but I will just like to pitch-in that, 'THE PITFALLS ARE MANY'. You need to know right things at the right state of practice. That is why Ajahn Brahm has so many videos on youtube and not just few on basic teachings.

@FriedrickNietzsche I may be wrong but maybe "abhidharma" was just an example, in the question -- that the question was about "too much dharma" of any type, for example but not necessarily the abhidharma -- instead of a minimal core of doctrine (e.g. the 4NT and N8P and meditation and little else). So an answer doesn't have to be about the Abhidharma, specifically.

@ChrisW Thankyou for the clarification. I edited a little and undeleted. Thanks :).

Great question OP.

I marked the question down because it is too long to read. It is "too much dhamma". It is important to be aware than esoteric philosophy can also be merely intellectual. Also, since AB gives hours and hours of low grade dhamma talks, i doubt AB is an authority on "too much dhamma".

@Dhammadhatu -- lowgrade*, seriously! please guide us simpletons towards high-grade Dhamma talks.

The problem arises due to a misunderstanding of how Buddhism is supposed to be practiced.
Especially in the West people tend to study the teachings in a greater degree than practicing it. The depth and profundity of Buddhism can never be understood by intellectual thinking alone. It will only lead to mental proliferation and more questions. Its an unending spiral.
A scientist will never understand reality if he only theorizes about it. It will only lead to more questions. He has to personally experience reality by performing experiments and thereby gaining feedback from reality, that can correct his (wrong) views/theories.
A person sitting in a restaurant reading the menu card will never understand the taste of the food unless he actually orders and eats it. Merely reading and thinking about the food will never result in a personal, emphirical experience of tasting.
Buddhism has to be practiced in order to personally experience the nature of reality. When practice deepens, a lot of the previous questions and doubts will subside.
There needs to be a balancing of the faculties, i.e. more Wisdom, gained from meditation practice.
TL:DR: Less thinking, more practicing!

Nicely put. Question now: is Four Noble truths and Eightfold path completely sufficient then in your opinion (referring to Ajahn Brahm's claim) ?

Ajahm Brahm is correct. The Noble Eightfold Path is a complete teaching in and of itself. It needs nothing added to- or subtracted from it. Our Buddha got enlightened by following this Path, so did countless of other beings before him and so will countless of beings in the future.

My teacher said, this happens for two reasons:

students don't meditate and
students read books without talking to live Buddhist teachers (former students who got it) to get a sense of high-level meaning and practical real-life implications.

Because of this, students don't see how the teaching connects with real life.
Since they don't see how the teaching connects with real life -- all they have is theory (=a bunch of concepts).
Since all they have is a theory, they try to extract some knowledge by speculatively analyzing the available concepts.
Without connection to real life, the concepts can no longer be simple approximate pointers to the most important "gist" of what is really happening. Instead, the students are forced to try and keep the concepts precise - with all the details, exceptions, and endlessly recursive definitions.
This is how speculative analysis leads to further conceptual proliferation.
When students meditate and talk to live teachers, their theory connects with practice in real-life. Then the concepts can be simple (even if imprecise) pointers to what happens in real-life. These pointers do not need too much elaboration, exceptions, and definitions. Then Dharma is embodied in practice instead of proliferating as concepts.
Intellectual understanding is important. I don't agree that Enlightenment is something irrational, completely beyond the intellect. In my opinion, Enlightenment is attained through understanding. However, it has to be live, practical -- and not just theoretical -- understanding, that goes hand-in-hand with implementation.

Whereas I agree with most part, the last paragraph not so much. Ordinary, speculative mind (Manas) is unable to touch the lower levels of mind and intuition (or the ground). It is just not possible to grasp the idea intellectually, and whatever the idea - the idea isn't real and doesn't reflect anything real, thus it's samsaric delusion. Through samsara there is liberation - I agree, but samsara is not liberation itself, rather, it's an important part of achieving Nibbana.

Ah, this is where I go wrong. I talk to dead teachers instead of live ones. (Really had to laugh at that one. ;) ). The dhamma has to be lived, I agree with that one. However, for the realisation of Enlightenment what has to be understood is reality as it is. That goes deeper than understanding of real-live, as you put it.

In my humble opinion;
For a person who is not so stupid as to realise his tiny-puny EGO, these six nails of Tilopa will be enough to reach the promised land.
Bare minimum Buddhism

Don't recall    : Let go of what has passed
Don't imagine   : Let go of what may come
Don't think     : Let go of what is happening now
Don't examine   : Don't try to figure anything out
Don't control   : Don't try to make anything happen
Rest            : Relax, right now, and rest

You forgot about the conditioning and latent tendencies of past lives. :) I don't agree with your statement that everyone needs to study everything (to avoid the entire list). Not every mind is capable of holding all that info, let alone make sense of it. Also, it really is not necessary. As a famous Bhikkhu said several times: "A Buddha needs to know everything; an arahant has to let go of everything."

@Medhiṇī yes I deliberatly left out the past lives, some people are averse to that argument. I agree with you that not every one needs to know everything, it is much easier when there is a teacher around. Its that, what I have experienced makes me need to know lot of things to make sense of my life. Thanks for your comment :).

The suttas are more than "Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path" -- maybe they're still relatively simple, though, when compared to the Abhidhamma.

If the doctrine were only the first three noble truths, that would have been a good beginning.
You can't have the fourth noble truth without asking or explaining what the eightfold path is -- then the existence of eightfold path raises further questions -- like, "what is 'right view'?", or, "what method of meditation?"
I think the anatta doctrine is helpful (and so, may be worth teaching) but apparently it's difficult to explain or to understand. I'm not sure where it fits into the 4NT or N8P: "right view", perhaps.
A lot of further doctrine is consequent to teaching anatta:

Te doctrine of the 12 nidanas for example, in my opinion, exists to explain what the "self" even is, if it isn't "me" ... and maybe as a prescription towards ending craving and attachment (i.e. by guarding the senses) ... and some doctrine about "birth" and so on.
Similarly the doctrine of the 5 aggregates also, IMO, exists to explain what is or isn't the "self" ... and it introduces doctrine about impermanence (after which, dispassion, etc.).

I hadn't mentioned "virtue" yet -- but the suttas do, in some detail, at least a book's worth. Not to mention the vinaya.
Something else which pervades the suttas -- the notion of skillful versus unskillful, the fact that some things tend toward suffering and some things tend away. Maybe it's necessary, to begin to draw distinctions like that, in order to say anything specific or prescriptive at all, and not only truisms? Once you begin, though, to analyse reality into dualities, perhaps there's a lot to say.
Other topics in the suttas include:

Social interactions (friends and brahmaviharas)
Contradicting (or correction) of other (non-Buddhist) contemporary doctrines.
Success stories
Various lists -- fetters, hindrances, stages of enlightenment, factors of awakening
Answering FAQs -- "isn't desiring enlightenment a type of desire?" for example

Are the suttas enough or not?

Maybe not -- for example in the Noble search (MN 26) it says,

And so I was able to convince them. I would teach two monks while three went for alms, and we six lived off what the three brought back from their alms round. Then I would teach three monks while two went for alms, and we six lived off what the two brought back from their alms round. Then the group of five monks — thus exhorted, thus instructed by me — being subject themselves to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth etc.

At least two of the suttas record for us what he told this first group of five monks, but (according to the quote above) there were more teachings that weren't recorded.
But maybe -- the Punna sutta for example tells of a monk who the Buddha instructed "with a brief instruction" and who then (successfully) went to practice alone.
According to that sutta, his "brief instruction" was dispassion towards sense objects (associating delight and attachment with dukkha)
I guess that "the Dhamma and the Discipline" were originally all there were -- except the Sangha as well -- I'm not sure why the Abhidhamma was developed too so I can't address that.

"What is the barrier and to what extent do we need to understand things by intellect?"

"Intellect" as opposed to what? Isn't dukkha and craving and so on maybe a statement about "emotions", and not just intellect? So emotions, at least, too.
And there's an extent to which mind conditions the body and vice versa, so that as well.
And society too; or seclusion.

But ... if you're studying Maths, for example -- which I guess is an example of an "intellectual" exercise -- I think you're not going to learn how to do Maths just by reading Maths lectures or watching videos.

You may need a live teacher for some reason
What about motivation, what's to motivate you?
You may have questions
You may benefit from a teacher's advice, correction, or example
You need some kind of practice or exercise, you need to practice applying what you learn (and learn to apply)

I am not sure I agree with Math example; Math cannot be experiential and intuitonal, but purely logical and knowledge-progressive, also regarding exercises etc. As we know Dharma is the opposite - it is the art of letting go. For example in Mahayana terms, Arya (Arahant) is person coined as having completely non-conceptual and hence intuitional cognition of Four Noble truths. So, I think Four Noble truths are necessary to understand intelelctually, but do we really need more then?

I used Maths as an example of "merely reading/hearing isn't enough". Perhaps the Buddha used "playing a lute" as an example of a practice -- rather than Maths, playing the lute is another example of a skill for which intellectual learning alone is insufficient.

I think the parable of the lute is an example of the intensity of practice, not the type of it. But nonetheless, I cut on nitpicking; I get what you mean.

To revert back to the topic -- why do you say "four" instead of "three"? Is just three better, sufficient, for the practice of letting go? Do you agree that teaching "four" requires a whole lot of further doctrine? Is the anatta doctrine necessary, and, sufficiently implied by the mere mention of the clinging-aggregates in the 4NT? How about just two noble truths, i.e. "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress"?

See also e.g. this comment -- it can be challenging to try to explain, identify, summarise what's essential doctrine.

You are right, realising three or even two is enough, for the fourth is the path to it.

What is the barrier and to what extent do we need to understand things by intellect? Is it not true that just Four Noble truths, a simple teaching, can alone lead us to liberation, quoting Ajahn Brahm?

These questions are impossible to answer since any answer would involve knowledge of any persons conditions and conditionings.
I don't know what you need to know and let go of to become enlightened. Nor do I know how your mind works and in what way information should be brought to it. In my case, f.i., the way information is structured in the Abhidhamma makes more sense to me than how it is presented in the suttas.
So, a definite No to the last question. Every mind simply works differently.
Wisdom comes in three levels. The first I don't remember, I believe it was conditioning. The second kind of wisdom is gained by study and the last one is wisdom gained through experience (thus practice). All three are needed.

Is such complexity and variety of modern Dharma why there aren’t more Arahants these times? Because of “Too much Dharma” ? Is this what really sets Buddhists apart from Enlightenment? Getting attached and clinging to ideas rather the simplicity of a “very simple teaching” of Four Noble Truths?

You know how many arahants there are? I have no idea. And therefore I'm unable to say that those numbers are more or less than in the old times.
Really, who knows how many arahants there are? And also: why would the amount be in any way relevant to your own path?
I don't see the point.

Should we all study, for example Abhidharma? Buddha did not - he sat down for 49 days under a Bodhi tree, without reading anything of sorts. So, maybe abandoning reliance on sings and concepts yields greater benefit to us?

No, not everyone's mind is capable of understanding the Abhidhamma. Again, every mind works differently.
However, practice is something everyone can do. Abandoning any reliance to whatever will then be happening naturally.

Is it safe to say that a frustration of imbalance between our ideal, imagined, conceptual realisation causes suffering due to unmet expectations of the actual current experience? Is it then correct that we best incrementally broaden knowledge slowly, in tandem with progressive experience, because such balance leads to better sanity?

How about letting go of ideals and imagined realisations? Whether knowledge has to be broadend slowly or not, depends again on how the individuals mind works, and also of what kind of knowledge we speak.

What is the barrier and to what extent do we need to understand things by intellect? Is it not true that just Four Noble truths, a
  simple teaching, can alone lead us to liberation, quoting Ajahn
  Brahm?

Since Ajahn Brahm seems to believe the 4NTs are about "rebirth" or "reincarnation", obviously AB's version of the 4NTs cannot lead to liberation.

Is such complexity and variety of modern Dharma why there aren’t more Arahants these times? Because of “Too much Dharma” ?

There aren't more arahant because of genetics. The arahant gene pool becomes exhausted because arahants don't reproduce children. The lack of arahants is due to inherent ignorance of "Mara-Nature". Most beings do not have "Buddha-Nature" but have "Mara-Nature". Refer to verses 59 and 174 of the Dhammapada.

Is this what really sets Buddhists apart from Enlightenment? Getting attached and clinging to ideas rather the simplicity of a “very simple
  teaching” of Four Noble Truths?

Mara-Nature is the impediment.

Should we all study, for example Abhidharma? Buddha did not - he sat down for 49 days under a Bodhi tree, without reading anything of
  sorts. So, maybe abandoning reliance on sings and concepts yields
  greater benefit to us?

No. The Buddha did not merely abandon reliance on signs and concepts yields. This idea is Hinduism or Mahayana.

Is it safe to say that a frustration of imbalance between our ideal, imagined, conceptual realisation causes suffering due to unmet
  expectations of the actual current experience? Is it then correct that
  we best incrementally broaden knowledge slowly, in tandem with
  progressive experience, because such balance leads to better sanity?

The Buddha taught the aspirant practises like if their head/hair is on fire. What is necessary is the aspiration to end suffering. This aspiration arises from when it is discerned there is no happiness in this world. But most Western Buddhists still delight in sensuality & worldliness.

I'm not sure it's because of genetics, though -- "Not by birth", says the Dhammapada.

Dhammadhatu, could it be that sensual pleasures are of strongly pursued by humans not solely because they are 'worldly', but because spiritual happiness requires cultivation? Also, most people do not experience happiness that is independent of the senses so they have no comparison really. I personally doubt that people have an inclination towards dhamma, celibacy etc. It is mostly training. If one believes one's personality is the reason one isn't advancing then that's victim mentality.

Interesting point with Ajahn Brahm, can you provide the source of him saying that? Many thanks.


text:
If Buddhists believe that life is just suffering why don't they just kill themselves?
Can anyone give me a clear answer? What does the Buddha say?

There are several previous topics tagged [tag:suicide].

My question is particularity geared around the Buddhist view point that 'life is suffering'. It seems the only logic thing to do that if life is suffering then we need to kill ourselves to free us of this suffering.

It’s not that simple. Buddhism also teaches endless rebirths. Even if you were reborn a human again after you kill yourself, you will be doing it endlessly

Do Buddhists believe that life is only suffering?

Well what's the point in trying to kill my ego if I am just going to be endlessly rebirthed anyway? It sounds like Buddha was wrong if I get endlessly rebirthed.

Buddhist don't believe that. Your premise is flawed.

Buddhists do kill themselves, but instead of killing the body they kill the Ego -- which is much more effective.

Why are they building idols to Buddha so? It seems retarded that people who have killed their ego are building giant statues to a person.

Actually, early pictures of Buddha showed empty seat, or the footprints etc.

If suicide would have been a solution then Buddha would have said so. Buddha would have said there is no need of Dhamma, just go and kill yourself. Craving doesnt end upon comitting suicide.If craving doesnt end then the person who commits suicide will take rebirth again in good or bad realms. If you can commit suicide without any craving then you will attain Nirvana. But craving can not end without ending greed, anger and delusion. Therefore one should focus on ending greed, anger and delusion rather than on ending life.

Ending your life would get rid of all those things. Why do you think that you can achieve nirvana in this realm? No one has ever done it. If Buddha had killed his ego then he wouldn't have created a religion in his name. He would have just chilled in a forest on his own.

You were getting a lot of short answers -- I don't know whether they were meaningful to you (because I don't know how much you already understand or know about Buddhism).
If Buddhists believe that life is just suffering
I think that Buddhists don't believe that.
There's doctrine about parents' love for their children, for example -- that's not just suffering.
There's doctrine about cause-and-effect -- which says that some actions (or some intentions) lead to suffering (and are therefore unwise, unskillful, and tainted) -- and some actions don't (and so are skillful, virtuous, and "right").
Perhaps the fundamental doctrine of Buddhism is the "four noble truths" -- here is a simple translation (SN 56.11):

"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

There are topics on this site (e.g. here or here, see also here) which point out that the Buddha didn't say "life is stressful".
If I paraphrase the first noble truth (quoted above) then the (finite) list of what is stressful includes:

Birth, ageing, and death
Unhappiness and despair
Being with (associating with) what you don't love
Losing (separation from) what you love
Not getting what you want
"Clinging" (upādāna) also translated "attachment"

The second noble truth is that this stress is caused by "craving" -- for sensual pleasure, craving for "becoming" (i.e. to become something), craving for "cessation".
The third is that when craving ceases, so does suffering.
The fourth is that the Buddhist "noble eightfold way" is the path or practice which leads to that cessation.
why don't they just kill themselves?
Well "death" is stressful, killing is stressful, and so on.
It's not what the noble truths say.
A lot of Buddhists profess a doctrine of rebirth -- and use that doctrine to argue against suicide ("no point in killing yourself -- you'll just be reborn, maybe worse off than before") -- I think I've even some use the same argument as you, to explain the doctrine of rebirth, i.e. "rebirth is why you wouldn't just kill yourself".
This topic -- Secular Buddhism and Suicide -- has answers or explanations which don't depend on a doctrine of rebirth (I think that "secular" Buddhism is a form of Buddhism, especially in the West, which ignores or is agnostic about various traditional doctrines that might be understood as supernatural, including any doctrine of rebirth).
By existing you are attached to this reality
Given that you also wrote this statement I might add that another important part of the Buddhist doctrine is the doctrine on anatta or non-self.
A lot of your statements or thinking includes, for example, "I exist" or "I won't exist" and so on.
An introduction to the anatta doctrine might be here -- Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59):

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

It's not easy to understand perhaps (there are 100s of topics tagged anatta on this site), but may be fundamental. A clear explanation is maybe How is it wrong to believe that a self exists, or that it doesn't?

I think this answer was based on the first and maybe second suttas of the Pali canon -- but see also How to explain what Buddhism is? for more comprehensive descriptions.

I was less stressed before I heard what the Buddhist believe. It's a cancer of a religion. You just dance around the question of why Buddhists don't kill themselves.

You're using "cancer" as a metaphor. Whereas I think that cancer exists literally in the world, in people -- as a type of illness, of old age and death, cancer could be stressful or "suffering" -- when someone has cancer, Buddhism (not suicide) can be a liberation from that suffering ... an opportunity to be free of fear ... Buddhism (not suicide) is an opportunity to live with peace of mind, with kindness, and so on.

@nomel7 You wrongly assume that Buddhists claim that life itself is suffering. Life is not all suffering, but we suffer by attaching to grief, depression and our habitual reactions. Example, why can't someone just not be afraid of flying or spiders? Because the attachment is strong, liberation is the opposite, it letting go of these.

Well said, @ChrisW, excellent answer.

Buddhism does not "teach life is suffering". In the 1st noble truth, Buddhism teaches "attachment to life is suffering".
This said, Buddhism does teach life is essentially worthless & meaningless (SN 22.95). That is why it is reported in the scriptures that many monks did end their life after seeing its worthless nature.
However, if life is truly seen as meaningless then it is so meaningless that one would not ever bother to kill themselves.

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

Before say such, just notice this Buddha never said that everything thing in this life is makes us suffer and of course there are things makes happy, joy, pleasant feelings. but soon as we feel them we get suffer being loose it. As you say by taking our own life wont save us, wont solve any problem, instead it creates more problems.

why don't they just kill themselves?

ha..ha....ha....

If the self doesn't exist anyway then why not just kill yourself seeing as you don't even exist? I don't think Buddhism solves any problems. It's a stupid religion.

@nomel7 you are so pathetic, just because you don't understand you saying "It's a stupid religion". And " I don't think Buddhism " yes it is.

@nomel7 any way why don't you do it, then you can understand everything as you said and for your knowledge.

If Buddhists believe that life is just suffering why don't they just kill themselves? What does the Buddha say?

This is a common misunderstanding of Buddhism. While it's correct that Buddhism teaches that conditioned reality is marked by suffering, it also teaches a way to end suffering.
The answers you are looking for can be found in the teaching on The Four Noble Truths, namely The Noble Eightfold Path.

That's just dogma from an egotistic man who pretended to kill his ego.


text:
Kosher, Halal and Buddhism
If you are a meat eating buddhist, is there any support that eating in this way lessens the karmic impact of consuming meat?

OP: If you are a meat eating buddhist, is there any support that eating in this way lessens the karmic impact of consuming meat? ... I also was told that Kosher/Halal dealt with dispatching the animal in a way that minimized suffering to the animal. So if eating meat at all had a karmic effect would eating in this way minimize it.
This answer comes from the Theravada perspective, and possibly the non-East Asian Mahayana perspective too.
There are no various grades of karmic effect for eating meat.
Depriving sentient beings of their life is not allowed by the precepts and by Right Livelihood. Hence, a Buddhist who sticks faithfully to the precept will not kill animals or work as a butcher or livestock farmer. Killing animals results in negative karmic effect.
However, there is no negative karmic effect for buying and eating meat that was killed by somebody else, long before you came across this piece of meat as a frozen product in a supermarket. When you bought it, the meat was simply a frozen dead body. You did not directly participate in any aspect of the animal's killing.
Please see the questions "Why is contributing to the market demand for meat not wrong?" and "Eating meat and buying meat".
Also, see this answer which explains how the individual's intention is the most important element of karma. So, you cannot possibly have had any intention to kill an animal when you bought a frozen dead body because it was already long dead before you found it.
However, there could be various grades of karmic effect for killing an animal, not based on the killing method but based on the state of the butcher's mind and his exertion of will. This basically refers to the butcher's intention. Does the butcher do his trade because he enjoys the killing act, or does he do it because he has no other better choice than to do this trade to sustain his family?

I know you quoted two other topics ("Please see the questions"), but none of the answers in those topics are referenced. I might understand how there is a disconnect for monks: who receive whatever alms food they're offered, and who don't choose what they get and who don't pay for it -- it's less easy for me to understand the other situation. My guess (I don't know) is that there's nothing about that other situation (i.e. lay people buying meat, paying butchers) as doctrine in the Pali canon ... but I suppose that doctrine must come from somewhere.

I also was told that Kosher/Halal dealt with dispatching the animal in a way that minimized suffering to the animal. So if eating meat at all had a karmic effect would eating in this way minimize it.
I think that this (the karma of meat-eating) is a doctrine on which different schools of Buddhism differ.
I considered replying to your "dispatching the animal in a way" but remembered that Buddhism considers it:

Wrong to kill
Wrong to counsel (advise) someone else to kill

There are a few "offences" that are so grave that a monk would be expelled or "defeated" -- intentionally killing is one of these grave offenses -- and so is advising someone else to kill.
The end of page 79 of The Buddhist Monastic Code I: The Patimokkha Training Rules Translated and Explained says,

Again from the
  Vinita-vatthu: A bhikkhu tells an executioner to kill his victims mercifully with a
  single blow, rather than torturing them. The executioner follows his advice and
  the bhikkhu incurs a parajika, for the recommendation to kill mercifully is still a
  recommendation to kill.

Earlier on page 79, it says it's bad when the killer carries out your detailed instructions (what kind of weapon to use and so on).
My (this) answer is disingenuous because the Patimokkha Rule is actually/only/specifically about killing human beings -- even so I don't suppose you'll find Buddhist doctrine that recommends killing, nor how to kill.
Getting the Message says, in part,

Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.

My impression is the purpose of Kosher and Halal meat is to drain as much blood from the meat as possible so to make the meat healthier; including for storage. In other words, it is related to physical health rather than to mental karma.
In the modern world though, with refrigeration, medicine and other health technology, Kosher and Halal may have no health benefits for meat eaters.
Also, the teaching of "kamma" is not real Buddhism. MN 117 says "kamma" is a worldly doctrine for worldly people.
Buddhism teaches about the ending of kamma, namely, the Noble Eightfold Path (AN 6.63). When the world is viewed as completely void/empty of 'self', all kamma ends.

Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of kamma.
AN 6.63

I also was told that Kosher/Halal dealt with dispatching the animal in a way that minimized suffering to the animal. So if eating meat at all had a karmic effect would eating in this way minimize it.

Opposition to Kosher/Halal says it is more cruel. Obviously, killing an animal with a  gun is less cruel than cutting its throat. It sounds like what you were told is propaganda. Try this link: https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industries/farms-fishing-forestry/agriculture/livestock/animal-welfare/humane-killing/cattle


text:
Death of Moggallana
Where can I find the Tripitaka source of the Death of Ven. Moggallana? The part of him being beaten by thugs and then came to the Buddha to take permission to go into parinibbana.

My impression is this story is not from the suttas.

According to the Commentaries (J.v.125ff) his death resulted from a
  plot of the Niganthas. Moggallāna used to visit various worlds and
  return with his report that he had discovered that those who followed
  the Buddha's teaching reached happy worlds, while the followers of the
  heretics were reborn in woeful conditions. These statements diminished
  the number of the heretics and they bribed brigands to kill
  Moggallāna. They surrounded the Elder's cell in Kālasilā, but he,
  aware of their intentions, escaped through the keyhole. On six
  successive days this happened; on the seventh, they caught him and
  beat him, crushing his bones and leaving him for dead. Having
  recovered consciousness, with a great effort of will, he dragged
  himself to the Buddha in order to take his leave, and there he died,
  to the sorrow of the deva worlds. This sad death is said to have been
  the result of a sin committed by him in a previous birth. Acting on
  the instigation of his wife, he had taken his blind parents into a
  forest, where, pretending that they were attacked by thieves, he had
  beaten them to death. For this deed he suffered in hell for
  innumerable years, and in his last birth lost his life by violence.
The account in DhA.iii.65ff. differs in several details. The thieves
  tried for two months before succeeding in their plot and, in the story
  of the past, when the blind parents were being beaten, they cried out
  to the supposed thieves to spare their son. Moggallāna, very touched
  by this, did not kill them. Before passing into Nibbāna, he preached
  to the Buddha, at his request, and performed many miracles, returning
  to Kālasilā to die. According to the Jātaka account his cremation was
  performed with much honour, and the Buddha had the relics collected
  and a Thūpa erected in Veluvana.
Mahā Moggallāna Thera

Then where is it from?

What is  DhA.iii.65ff? May I have a reference for that please?

I don't know. But is sounds like Dhammapada commentary.


text:
Is the existence of life & teaching Dhamma a form of attachment?
I read the following comment on the internet (reference):

By existing you are attached to this reality. If I die then I won't exist according to Buddhism. Therefore I won't be attached to reality.
  How then does killing yourself not free yourself from attachment? How
  can I possibly be attached to reality if I am dead? How was the Buddha
  free from attachment if he wrote a book and made a religion? That
  means that he was attached to reality. You can only be not attached to
  reality if you don't exist.

Is the existence of life a form of attachment?
Is the teaching of the Dhamma (of non-attachment) a form of attachment?

may be that folk is some kind a (so called)radical free thinker, so just ignore it.

If I die then I won't exist according to Buddhism.

The above statement is wrong. Whether Tathagata exists or not after death or Nirvana is not declared by Buddha.
Is the existence of life a form of attachment?
Existence of life is conditional. One of the conditions is attachment. Therefore it is wrong to say that existence of life is form of condition. It doesnt make sense. For example seed is the condition for the existence of plant but water and earth are conditions for its existence and growth. It doesnt mean that seed is a form of earth or water.
Is the teaching of the Dhamma (of non-attachment) a form of attachment?
Teaching of Dhamma is a form of attachment which encourages you to be unattached to any kind of Dhamma. Teaching of Dhamma is a wholesome attachment. Teaching of Dhamma is like a medicine which is necessary for the sick.

By existing you are attached to this reality.

There are many logical fallacies in this comment. By existing, you are not attached to this reality, the reality of existence precedes your being here, you get emerged into this reality of existence, so you are simply here, not as an attachment but as a part of that very existence.

If I die then I won't exist according to Buddhism.

This is also wrong if you die according to Buddhism you will be reborn.

How then does killing yourself not free yourself from attachment?

Killing your self you are getting reborn in lower realms and nothing to do with attachment. The attachment might come later in that lower rebirth which will further the suffering.

How can I possibly be attached to reality if I am dead?

You were not attached to 'reality' even when you were alive, you were attached to things which were giving you pleasure.

How was the Buddha free from attachment if he wrote a book and made
  a religion?

He didn't.

That means that he was attached to reality. You can only be not attached to reality if you don't exist.

The only way you not exist is through Nibbana.
Following answers are for an instructed questioner.
Is the existence of life a form of attachment?
The existence of life is not a form of attachment, but as long as you are alive you can be attached to life. Mere existence is not an attachment. Attachment is a potential, it's not a manifestation of sheer existence. You get attached, the attachment is not a part of five aggregates. Attachment does not make a life.
Is the teaching of the Dhamma (of non-attachment) a form of attachment?
The teaching of Dhamma is not a form of attachment but there is a real possibility that you can get attached to becoming a teacher by developing an ego of a teacher. Again it lies as a potential.

By existing you are
It seems to me a confused statement -- given that it's full of assertions like "you are", "I die", "I won't be" and so on.
How can I possibly be attached to reality if I am dead?
I suppose it's "attachment" -- attachment to the aggregates, specifically -- that gives rise to this view, i.e. the OP is saying:

I am this body (or these aggregates)
I die when the aggregates dissolve
Then I will be no longer attached

How was the Buddha free from attachment if he wrote a book and made a religion?
That's different meanings of the word "attachment", possibly -- I think that, in Buddhist terms, attachment is used in two ways:

Attachment to the aggregates as a self-view
Attachment to objects of desire

I guess the OP is arguing that the Buddha was attached to (not free of attachment to):

Pride?
The Dhamma (or, views)?
The world?

Anyway, to answer the question, we're given to understand that the Buddha was free of sensual cravings, for example -- even free of tendencies towards sensual desire, let along actual attachment. And pride too, perhaps evidenced e.g. by being able to respond to insult with SN 7.2.
You might perhaps (rightly) describe him as "attached" to the Buddha-Dhamma, attached to a view (right view) -- to the view (or doctrine) of "suffering and cessation", or something like that.
Alternativey you might want to call that "wisdom" rather than "attachment" -- also, "compassion" (towards those who benefit from his teaching the Dharma he discovered) -- and I'm not sure even that is a fixed view (or an "attachment" to a view) given e.g. the "Dhamma as a raft" simile.
You can only be not attached to reality if you don't exist.
To be honest I don't see "not being attached to reality" as a virtue -- I think people may suffer and cause suffering when they're not attached to reality.

By existing you are attached to this reality. If I die then I won't
  exist according to Buddhism.

Not entirely true, existence of consciousness only ends, but energy preserves in the universe. "You" will exist in another form as a cause that will yield an effect within cycles of dependent origination.

Therefore I won't be attached to reality. How then does killing
  yourself not free yourself from attachment?

This very wish is attachment to concept of reality, existence and ending existence. Therefore, it is existence and non-existence, but both are duality - both create extremes in behaviour. If it wasn't true, result would be truly no action. Absence of attachment to concepts of existence and non-existence can neither be classified as ecstatic drive nor aversion towards life. Ultimately, identifying with neither should not produce any intent to cut-off, nor forcefully preserve anything.

How can I possibly be attached to reality if I am dead? How was the
  Buddha free from attachment if he wrote a book and made a religion?
  That means that he was attached to reality. You can only be not
  attached to reality if you don't exist.

And how can you be possibly attached to reality if you are alive? Ask yourself this question. Dead, alive are a kinds of bi-polarity, but they don't convey anything real. Existence doesn't automatically imply a concept of life within the framework of clinging, but rather, the mind itself does it. Plants don't have clinging to existence. If mind does it all, the mind can undo it, and reverse.

Is the teaching of the Dhamma (of non-attachment) a form of
  attachment?

Refraining from definitive statements - in my opinion it might be, depending on practitioner's attitude. And it might be a several obscuration in achieving peace. Calm, balanced and composed mind is the answer, whereas obsessions are an attachment, a hinderance. Non-grasping and non-aversion is non-attachment and that is what I understand by Right effort. In Right effort there is hidden Buddhism without attachments, a pure land of bliss.