text:
For what reason did Dharmakirti argue that absences are conceptual constructions?
For what reason did Dharmakirti argue that absences are conceptual constructions? I wondered if it was because real absences would have svabhava, would be essences, because they do not change in time?
I can't find anything to cite now, but I believe he argued this. I mean everyday absences, such as a cow from a field, rather than anything technical about apoha, which I am not that familiar with.

Can you cite some work by Dharmakirti where he relates this point that you paraphrase? In lieu of that all I can say is why absences are not real or inherent according to Je Tsongkhapa, which follows from Chandrakirti, which follows from Buddhapalita, which follows from Aryadeva, which follows from Nagarjuna, which follows from Shakyamuni. Also, I take it that by abscence you mean Abhava or his theory of Apoha?

sorry that's the best i can do @YesheTenley

Say you walk into a room and look around and think to yourself, "Ah, this room has no elephant in it!"
The absence of an elephant in that very room is an object of knowledge. It can be known by a valid mind that there is - in fact - no elephant in that room. Since the absence is an object of knowledge it can be said to exist. So how does it exist? In order to answer this, back up and look at how it was known.
The absence of an elephant in that room was known merely by conception and inference on the valid basis of failing to perceive any elephant in that room and depending upon the thought which knew it. It is not a real, essential or inherent absence. How can we know this with certainty? Because if the absence of an elephant were real, essential or inherent, then everyone walking into that room would know that absence and think to themselves, "Ah, this room has no elephant in it!" which plainly does not happen. Moreover, it would be impossible for someone to - at any of the three times - walk an elephant into that room. If someone were to walk an elephant into that room, then this would annihilate the absence. But inherent things cannot be annihilated otherwise they would depend upon something else. Moreover, the absence of that elephant - were it inherent - would not depend upon anything at all.
No, the absence of an elephant in that room exists conceptually, dependently, relatively, in an illusory-like way without even a shred of inherent existence at all. In the same way, were someone to walk an elephant into that room, then that elephant would exist conceptually, dependently, relatively, in an illusory-like way without even a shred of inherent existence at all as would the "absence of the absence of an elephant."
This refutes real Abhava along the lines of what Dharmakirti might employ and is in agreement with Madhyamaka's like Nagarjuna. However, Dharmakirti was not a self-identified Madhyamaka per se and had some apparent disagreement with other points of doctrine, but on this point I think they agree.
If you are talking about Apoha, well that is related but different. That is getting into the epistemology of how nominal things are known from real and inherent - but unconceivable - entities. The upshot is that Madhayamaka's like Nagarjuna had apparent disagreement with Dharmakirti on this point in so far as Madhyamaka's like Nagarjuna did not think that anything at all was real or inherent even if inconceivable.
Hope this helps!

nicely worded etc., but i would've liked some quotes from dharmakirti... shame that i couldn't re-find what was being cited that i had just read :)

In the 3rd paragraph, are the words "real, essential or inherent" all three exact synonyms of each other (perhaps all different translations of the same word)?

In this usage, yes. Inherent and essential are nearly always used as synonyms for each other in the Madhyamaka literature on emptiness. However, "real" or "true existence" can sometimes be used as synonyms for the above and sometimes used to mean something closely related, but not synonymous. But again, here they are all used synonymous.

In the 4th paragraph, are you saying that an elephant walked into in the room wouldn't exist there in a way that's real, essential, and/or inherent ... that instead its existence is only illusory; and that the proof of that is that it's possible that someone might not notice it?

Yes, I am saying that an elephant in a room exists in the same manner as the absence of an elephant in a room. Indeed, in the same manner as all things exist: unreal, non-essential, non-inherent, but thoroughly relative, dependent, illusory-like. And there are many proofs of this not just that someone might not notice it. All things exist only nominally by merely being labeled on a valid basis without even the slightest shred of existence beyond this.

According to Tom Tillemans in his article on Dharmakīrti, this particular argument is not of Dharmakīrti’s own invention, but was rather likeley to be inherited from previous writers like Vasubandhu.
Accordingly, “Dharmakīrti has two arguments for the momentariness (kṣaṇikatva) of all that exists”, the first one being commonly known as the vināśitvānumāna:

A key underlying principle of the vināśitvānumāna is that negative facts, such as absences, are not part of the ultimate furniture of the world, but are just fictional conceptual constructions, as they are devoid of causal powers. Equally, a fiction lacking causal powers is not the effect of something else.

It is followed by some of his actual examples:

While it is obviously impossible to deny that hammers smash pots, the absence (abhāva) of the pot, i.e., the non-existent pot, is not an effect, just as other non-existent things (abhāva), like horns of rabbits, are not effects of anything either. Hammers and the like are thus not actually causes of the pot's absence but of it turning into potsherds. That idea is perhaps defensible, in that arguably the mere absence of something—a purely negative fact—might be less real and less efficacious than the presence of other things.

The other argument however, “seems to be largely Dharmakīrti's own invention”:

There is, fortunately, a much better argument for intrinsic momentariness than the problematic vināśitvānumāna. This argument is known as “the inference [of things' momentariness] from the [mere] fact of [them] existing” (sattvānumāna), and seems to be largely Dharmakīrti's own invention, first developed in the second chapter of his Pramāṇaviniścaya. If anything exists and is a specific thing rather than another, it is because of its causal efficacy (arthakriyā), or powers to produce such and such effects.

Both arguments are included in the second chapter of Dharmakīrti’s Pramāṇaviniścaya. So I suggest you look into that book. The critical edition of chapter 1 and 2 has been published, but although Amazon says its in English, I think it regards the Sanskrit/Tibetan edition.


text:
Vijñāna and Śūnyatā... How are they seen as different?
Consciousness is often used to describe Śūnyatā by some teachers but in Buddhism consciousness is one of the aggregates.

Where is consciousness used to describe emptiness? What are you basing this assertion on?

Hi. From a strictly Buddhist perspective I'm looking to define the Vijñāna and Śūnyatā as I have come to realise they are not used in the same way.

If you want an explanation of "Consciousness is often used to describe Śūnyatā", then it would be good (maybe necessary) to add some direct quotes/references of teachers saying that.

The way these relate, according to instructions I received, and my limited understanding:
In ontological reality nothing exists by itself; everything is part of some process and relationship; In fact in Mahayana Buddhism we say that delineating these processes and relationships into distinct entities is a function of the mind. Same processes and relationships can be delineated in a multitude of ways, even though most of the time we assume there is only one, or only one right way to delineate them. Entities do not have (are empty of) inherent existence and are delineations made by the mind. We call this situation "Emptiness" (Śūnyatā).
The mind itself exists as (informational) phenomenon emerging from interaction of processes and relationships. So mind itself is not something fixed that has essence - it's fluid and ephemeral. We say, mind itself is empty.
Since "entities" do not exist as anything apart from the mind, and mind itself does not exist apart from the interaction of processes and relationships, we can see that mind and entities are of the same emergent nature. In other words, the latent regularities inherent in the interaction of processes and relationships give rise to mind as reflection and representation, culminating in delineation of entities.
So mind and its delineated entities emerge as virtual aspect of regularities inherent to the ontological reality. Mind and entities are virtual. This virtuality is what we call Emptiness. In this sense we can roughly say that mind is emptiness and emptiness is mind. Or, more precisely, that the nature of mind is emptiness. So in the absolute sense they are inseparable.
However, when we speak in the conventional sense, mind refers to representation, and when we speak about vijnana we specifically mean representation that develops in the case of sentient beings. The capacity for representation is one of the five components making up the subjective realm of the so-called sentient being, along with stimuli, imprints/tendencies, concepts of entities, and feelings. Vijnana is that which emerges from imprints/tendencies in response to stimuli and underlies the process of delineation and evaluation of entities, as well as the feelings that fall out of that. So in conventional use the meaning of "Vijnana" is rather specific.
While Emptiness (Śūnyatā) is a much more broad concept. It refers to the global situation that ontological reality does not have any sort of absolute point of reference, whether local or global, and that whatever virtual stuff that emerges, emerges from relationships and interactions, and that therefore all phenomena, including the ones we deal with in our human realms do not have any sort of inherent solidity.

Thank you. So all objects (including skandhas) give the impression of being lots of seemingly separate things but originate from a process of happenings and at any point in that process they arise, abide and cease. Moreover, this is also the case with consciousness but not with emptiness? (I loved your description of defilements in another question)

More or less correct. Well, emptiness is not something that exists, either inherently or virtually - it's just a way to characterize the virtuality and relativity of emergent phenomena (which is all of them). It's a noun that should have stayed adjective (shunya, not shunyata).

Perhaps "hollowness" would be a better translation than "emptiness". It's always the emptiness of something, not just the emptiness by itself. Emptiness does not exist apart from form that is empty (of svabhava).

@AndreiVolkov  Or 'voidness'. "The voidness of one thing is the voidness of all" (Upanishads)

They are very different terms with very different meanings.
Mind (pali: viññāṇa) is that which knows something. Emptiness (pali: suññatā) is how things exist. We say the mind is empty - ie., that it lacks inherent existence. Madhyamakas say that all things lack inherent existence... ie., that they are empty of inherent existence. The question then becomes what is 'inherent existence' ;)

Thank you. If consciousness is a factor of the five skandhas, how does the emptiness you describe compare to consciousness?

In my answer above 'mind' is synonymous with consciousness. So again, consciousness exists by being empty of inherent existence because that is how all things exist.

@YesheTenley please add Pali terms to your answer for clarity.

@OyaMist done, but notice the OP used sanskrit

I often interchange between Pali and Sanskrit out of ignorance sometimes even within one sentence. It's all very new to me. Thank you for the addition: "mind is synonymous with consciousness". This was a great help.

Is it also true to say that things are (i.e. that everything is) empty, because and/or when it's sensed/perceived/conceptualised? If so is that (at least partly) because all sensations/perceptions/concepts are impermanent?

Things are empty of inherent existence because inherent existence is an impossible mode of existence. It is logically not possible for anything to have inherent existence. It is not like we render things empty by conceptualizing them and if we'd only stop conceptualizing them they'd be real and truly existent. It is not like the act of perceiving them makes them empty. It is not like we when we sense them we suddenly make them empty. They are empty of inherent existence because inherent existence is impossible by very construction like the son of a barren woman.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How does the Buddha address powerful spiritual experiences in monks?
Specifically, loss of time, distance and size. Also advanced forms of empathy and being in two locations at once. I realise this is quite vague but I hesitate at giving details. I'm more concerned with how these are addressed in Buddhism.

Any particular reason this is tagged 'Triratna'? ie., are you looking for answers that come from members of this community?

Not really. Anyone with knowledge of Buddhism may answer. I couldn't find tags related to the question. Perhaps I'm not creative enough.

Are these experiences as a result of, or during, meditation?

ChrisW. They occur outside of meditation.

These kinds of experiences are commonplace but the practice is about transcending experience so in Buddhism they are not considered important. For an ultimate view there will be a loss of time, distance and size since these are not truly real phenomena, while empathy is bound to grow as we more closely approach a state or realisation of unity and shared identity. As for being in two places at once, Buddhism teaches that there are not two places. Extension would be conceptual. Maybe you're being afflicted by intuitions and visions of truth. Lucky you.

Thank you PeterJ. It's been very helpful to obtain knowledge from these experiences. As one example, I see anatta quite a lot in other things. A car going down the road isn't a car but an ephemeral cohesion of earths components travelling over itself. Isn't this what Buddha did with his insights and experiences? Didn't he learn from them and then develop a refined knowing about reality? Aren't they important in that sense?

PeterJ - I did find a sutra in which Sharuputra and another monk conversed about this very thing. I think the experiences are called siddhi. The other monk was able to travel vast distances across the universe and Shariputra bestowed his assertion upon him to realise reality from the confines of his body. I've forgotten what the sutra is called. Perhaps someone here can inform?

Not really sure what type of answer you are looking for (sutra references about supernormal powers??), but I'll just paraphrase what I heard recently from a Theravada monk that seemed like extremely good advice which reportedly came from Ajahn Chah...
The advice was to simply be mindful and beware growing attached to any weird experiences you have while meditating. With the deep concentrations found in meditation you can have all kinds of seemingly supernatural experiences. So what. They are no more real or inherently existing (nor less!) than any thing experienced in waking life. If you have weird or seemingly supernatural experiences in waking life... again, so what. They are no more real (nor less!) than what you might experience in a dream. All things lack inherent existence and are not worthy of grasping. Grasp at them and you will incur suffering for yourself and others. So don't do it! :)
Now, the one thing you said that I think might deserve extra attention is your remark about "advanced forms of empathy." If by "empathy" you mean compassion (the wish for others to be free from suffering), then this is an unalloyed virtue that should be cultivated to perfection. To do so, I'd suggest Shantideva's Guide and loving kindness or bodhicitta meditation.
Hope this helps!

Thank you. From what you say, I see that they can become hindrances then. Whilst they are interesting they come and go. I figure that this is something the Buddha would say about them.

Yes, I think they can become hindrances if you get attached to them or develop arrogance because of them. However, I have not had these experiences so what do I know :) If you don't mind me asking... have you taken Bodhisattva vows? Please feel free to not answer if you don't wish of course!

No, I don't know what the Bodhisattva vows are.

The main vow is to generate the mind of enlightenment for the sole purpose of helping all sentient beings. ie., the supreme and completely perfect altruistic motivation.

I see. If you have a resource for the Bodhisattva vow, I'd be interested in taking a look. Thank you for your answers. :-)

I can't think of any better resource than Shantideva's Guide linked in the above answer ;)

You are very welcome. And along with reading Shantideva's Masterpiece you can follow along as HHDL explains it: https://www.amazon.com/Benefit-All-Beings-Commentary-Bodhisattva-ebook/dp/B01C64RSHK/ref=pd_sbs_351_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B01C64RSHK&pd_rd_r=5b3e9384-b77e-11e8-a6e4-7ffe77228f05&pd_rd_w=csvi1&pd_rd_wg=j6crP&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=1646818405999967777&pf_rd_r=HP53KXTHX7R3D18E9CF6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=HP53KXTHX7R3D18E9CF6

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


text:
Is it necessary to use a whole variety of meditation techniques?
I have been practicing samatha, vipassana and metta meditations for over a year.
I came frequently across articles (and questions on this site, primarly this one) describing other types of meditation, which can be rather confusing, because it is not often very clear what differenciate one from another, nor what is their purpose.
Should I worry about all the other meditation techniques out there ? How far should one expect to go by practicing only a combination of samatha, vipassana and metta ?

I would suggest not worrying. Maybe try reading Sri Ramana Maharshi who simplifies matters considerably. The task is self-enquiry, the methods are many and various. Perhaps the main thing is not to keep method-hopping.

I found experimentation helpful before I realised that some meditations require some form of mental application or you could refer to it as volitional noise. This, as I learned, became averse to me and so my practice is meditating while 'not doing'. This means I am just simply an observer of bodily phenomenon. It goes much deeper than this as one can observe with a kind of gentle organic intuitive processing which is helpful when seeing the threes marks of existence within the skandhas. Many people have given this meditation different names but I don't concern myself with that. Find your own comfortable technique but use Buddha's guidance as a framework. Here's a beautiful quote from the Diamond Sutra that illustrates this message.

Awakening does not come from a set method of teachings but an internally intuitive process which is spontaneous and part of one's own inner nature.

Here's an audio version of the Diamond Sutra...
https://youtu.be/HK9u7Jz-vNA

Well, the Buddha basically only practiced samatha.  I think it worked pretty well for him.  But like anything else, the best views are found on the highest peaks.  You only reach them with time and dedicated, directed effort.
Any genuine meditation path can lead you to enlightenment.  Just as easily, superficial dabbling in many traditions is going to drive you far from it.


text:
What does it mean to find a teacher?
I have seen people beeing adviced to find a teacher countless time.
I am interessed in the practicalities of finding a teacher, since I live in France and I have never met any buddhist in my entire life.
I assume in other countries where buddhism is more widespread things are a lot different. Please excuse the naivety of my question.
What is a teacher ?
Is it the kind of person who owns of diploma or certification and teaches for a living, like one whould teach maths, history or biology in high school ?
So finding a teacher would be like attenting a class ?
Or is it more like finding a mentor, somebody who is more exerienced and who whould guide you along the path, like a friend.
Perhaps it is a mixture of both, a person who provides advices for a living by having face to face chats with it's pupils.
I can imagine the concept beeing more abstract. A teacher can be a book, or a community on the internet.
Knowing that, where do I need to go in order to find teachers ?
Are there places buddhist like to meet, like churchs for christians ? People often mention retreats or retreat centers, what are they ?
Do I need to travel to India or Tibet ? Judging from what I've heard, it seems like a must.
Please note that I am not intersted about the question of finding the right teacher, for now I just want to find teachers.

Is it the kind of person who owns of diploma or certification and teaches for a living, like one would teach maths, history or biology in high school ?
I think that:

Traditionally, teachers are monks, who:
live in a monastery;
have studied (the doctrines) and practised (meditation and monastic discipline) before they begin to teach;
teach (groups of lay people and/or other monks);
are supported by local lay society (see e.g. Alms -- Buddhism).
Sometimes, former monks (ex-monks) are teachers.
Or, there are lay organisations.
I think it can also be studied academically (e.g. at some universities).

Are there places buddhist like to meet, like churchs for christians ?
Yes of course.

People's homes (or gardens) -- a small group of neighbours might meet in each other's homes
Temples -- a place for large groups of people: sometimes for large, scheduled (i.e. at a specific time) meetings; sometimes just open all day to visit any time; there may be things there like a library or a bookstore, a cafeteria (i.e. réfectoire) open the public, and icons -- murals, statues, maybe altars, a bell, and so on. These buildings may be purpose-built as temples, or sometimes a structure converted to a temple from a previous use (e.g. originally built as a house).
Monasteries -- maybe like a temple except that people live there; this might be a temple (i.e. mostly a temple where some people live), or it might be mostly a monastery (i.e. mostly designed for people living there, with living quarters and grounds and meeting rooms), or a bit of both (lots of people living there and lots of visitors). The number of residents might vary, from very few (perhaps in a house) to many. By "people living there", I mean monks and nuns, but maybe also lay helpers and students.
Retreats or retreat centres -- a "retreat" is where a lay-person might go to stay for a while ... a week-end, or a week, or more. So they'll have sleeping quarters and an eating hall and so on. There's probably a schedule, e.g. with time for instructions, time to meet instructors individually, time for meditation. Some of these are organised by monks (or by their lay helpers) and hosted in a monastery; there are also lay organizations, for example Vipassana as taught by S.N. Goenka

Do I need to travel to India or Tibet ?
I don't know. I'd expect something of a language barrier if you do, and that a good beginning would be to find somewhere more local (in your own country):

Andrei suggested http://www.buddhanet.info
You could also try Google, something like https://www.google.fr/search?q=bouddhisme+france or wherever you are more specifically
Or Annuaire géolocalisé des centres bouddhistes for a map, though any given directory may be incomplete or out of date, so I'd try more than one search.

Also, I just don't know whether Tibet is actually a feasible place to study Buddhism (for political reasons) -- obviously you'd want to double-check that before going! But apart from India and Tibet there are many other countries in east Asia and south Asia that are traditionally Buddhist. Different countries tend towards different schools of Buddhism. On the other hand I'd expect it's possible to find almost any/every school (or country-of-origin) represented somewhere in France.
Three more comments:

Monks (monasteries) traditionally depend on laypeople for material support. Monks may move to a new place to live (thus creating a new monastery), if or when they're invited there by the lay folk. Thus, wherever you find monasteries there's usually also some support from lay people ... and (especially in the West) there be lay Buddhists with no monastery nearby.
There are also some 'lay' organizations, of lay Buddhists which aren't organised around monks or nuns. I'm thinking of the Triratna Buddhist Community, or Soka Gakkai International.
There's a lot to be found on the internet:

Publications (e.g. translated scriptures)
Talks (e.g. YouTube videos, often called "dhamma talks")
Discussions (this site here is especially for "Questions and Answers", there are several other sites that allow more dialog or discussion)

When I say, "find a teacher" I just mean, don't rely on your understanding of books alone. Go to an actual resident Buddhist master of any denomination, like a teaching Theravada bhikkhu or a Zen Master or a Tibetan Buddhism Master (Rinpoche). They usually reside at a temple (or a private residence turned into a temple) and have little sanghas formed around them. Talk to them, hang around them, and validate your insights against theirs. More often than not they got enough realization to at least check where you are obviously mistaken and point out the blind spots.
Sometimes they do lecture, like actual teachers, or do Q&A - and at other times they build personal connections with students and become mentors. Expectedly, the depth varies.
As for diploma, a good rule of thumb is to prefer someone within a tradition, who can point out their lineage, to someone who is merely self-proclaimed (with rare exceptions). They usually have some paraphernalia and entourage, e.g. my Zen master had a scroll on the wall listing his entire lineage of teachers all the way back to the Buddha, not to mention that he had converted a barn into an actual traditional meditation hall in Korean Seon tradition.
Of course being a part of tradition does not always mean the teacher is good and has complete realization. You can never know for sure, until you are a teacher yourself - but a good rule of thumb is to see if they can cut through masks and bullshit and gently touch the student's heart.
If you search www.buddhanet.info you should be able to find someone in your locality; I see a Vajrayana temple in Ardennes.
Finally, if you don't have anyone nearby, or anyone you like and can connect with, at least find a more senior fellow practitioner that can provide some guidance and support.

Give Plum Village a try if you live in France.

This didn't  answer either of the questions which were asked, though, does it, i.e. about teachers. Also mainland France is like 1000 km across -- Plum Village likely isn't local.

@ChrisW I got the vibe he/she was asking about teachers. figured I’d drop the name of a renowned monastery in his home country which he/she could probably get to in a few hours tops via train, founded by one of the most respected zen teachers alive

Their web site is https://plumvillage.org -- it has a lot of information about visiting, for a day or for a one- or two-week retreat.


text:
Lord Buddha and Chakravartin
Are they the same person? Or a previous incarnation before the Buddha was a human?
Is there any Sutras that mentions/reference about this? (Pali Canon)

Not exactly from the Pali canon but hope it helps, since it contains comparable references to the Pali canon literature. (fyi. the Pali canon has suttas, Mahayana has Sutras)
The following dialogue provides a nice overview of the differences between them. It is an extract of the 2nd-century Maha-prajnaparamita-sastra, a key text of the Prajnaparamita literature (which was allegedly practiced by all past Buddhas and Bodhisattvas):

Chapter IV part 1: Why is the Buddha called Bhagavat?
...
Furthermore, bhāga means glory (yaśas-) and vat indicates its possession. Thus this word means “the one who possesses glory”. No-one else has as much glory as the Buddha.
The noble cakravartin kings, Indra, Brahmā, the lokapālas, are inferior to the Buddha. What then could be said of ordinary men (pṛthagjana)? Why? The noble cakravartin kings are fettered by bonds (bandhanasaṃyukta): the Buddha has broken the bonds.
– The noble cakravartin kings are sunk in the mire of birth (jāti), old age (jarā), sickness (vyādhi) and death (maraṇa); the Buddha has transcended them.
– The noble cakravartin kings are enslaved (dāsa) by their passions (anunaya); the Buddha has eliminated them.
– The noble cakravartin kings dwell in the womb of the calamities of the human jungle (lokakāntāra); the Buddha has escaped from it.
– The noble cakravartin kings dwell in the shadows of ignorance (avidyāndhakāra); the Buddha lives in the supreme light.
– The noble cakravartin kings often reign over the four continents (caturdvīpaka); the Buddha reigns over countless universes (apramāṇalokadhātu).
– The cakravartin kings have mastery over wealth (pariṣkāravaśitā); the Buddha has mastery over mind (cetovāśita).
– The noble cakravartin kings covet heavenly bliss (devasukha); the Buddha covets nothing, having reached the well-being of the summit of existence (bhavāgrasukha).
The cakravartin kings seek their happiness from others; the Buddha rejoices in his own heart. This is why the Buddha surpasses (abhibhavati) the noble cakravartin kings.
He also surpasses all the other beings, Indra, Brahmā, the lokapālas who are even inferior to the noble cakravartin kings.

That should be enough right? The note says:

Compare the explanations of the Mahāniddesa, p. 142; Cullaniddesa, p. 466; Sumaṅgala, I, p. 33–34; Visuddhimagga, I, p. 210–212; Hôbôgirin, Bagabu, p. 46.

Thanks for this. In that sense, seems the "Cakravartin kings" being referred are humans/mortals? My original concept was that they were Godly beings.

In the story (or tale or legend) of Gautama as a child, in the introduction to the Jataka Tales, it was prophesied that he might either become a Wheel-Turning Monarch, or become a Buddha -- see this answer for references.

Cakkavatti is a perfect king. Everybody, included Buddha, have been Cakkavatti before uncountable times.
Buddha doesn't has next life anymore, but Cakkavatti still reborn.

As in a human king? Or Godly being ?

As in a human king, but Cakkavatti is the greatest king. He is not deva, He use the special tools to be the great such as special-cakka, etc, but his body still be human, such as 3 meals per day, his remains after he died, etc. Deva have the special body than human, such as meal per 7 days, nothing remains after he died, etc.


text:
What to do when music gets played in the mind
I get the idea of recognizing mind states .Knowing their existence separates them from self but sometimes .I get this addictive Music like a recording in my mind that constantly restarts diverting my concretion from work .I recognize that it may come from states but dealing with it isn't as easy
.

I tried

Knowing that its just music
knowing the reason why it came (maybe when I was listening I wasn't mindful.
diverting my attention ardently away from it

All this didn't work maybe helps in understanding but it still doesn't stop it sometimes it gets even more energy.

Do you have that music with you ?

Perhaps you could try focusing closely on the music by asking what it is, where it came from, how it sounds and in particular who is hearing it. Simply trying to shut it up may make it worse. If you can figure out who is hearing it then you'll be glad you heard it. The general idea would be to make use of the music rather than fight it or worry overmuch about it, which would be like turning the volume up.

Get used to it and use it as a meditation object, like others mentioned. I had music stuck in the mind for 4,5 years continuously, night and day. It was quite hard, in the beginning I tried to get rid of it, after a while acceptance was the only thing left. Then, it stopped.

Practice Satipaṭṭhānasutta, Mindfulness Meditation. As you proceed through the stages, you will encounter the following if the tune in your head was pleasant:

It’s when a mendicant who feels a pleasant feeling knows: ‘I feel a pleasant feeling.’

Or if the music is annoying:

When they feel a painful feeling, they know: ‘I feel a painful feeling.’

Just observing the breath, the body, the feelings, they all quiet down on their own. The progression is important. Start with the breath. Don't skip ahead.

I play music. When I delight in the music it gets stuck in my head. Better to just play the music mindfully without tying one's self up in it. Oddly, music played mindfully is received better than when played lost in the delight of the music.

Music playing in the mind are mental formations. Approach in the same way as all other mental formations. Notice that it's there but try not to add feeling or thought to it. Doing so will create frustration. In the case of this happening, notice the thoughts you attach to the music in the same way and be with the feelings that occur.
You may say "this repetitive music is annoying me" then you may feel an unpleasant feeling. Notice this! Notice without judgement.
Alternatively, switch your attention to something that requires a high level of focus like creative writing. The music will stop. Become very curious about how it stopped being careful to note the change in mind state and degree of alertness. This will tell you something about your various states of mind namely lower levels and higher levels of functioning. In the lower levels mind has a tendency to do what it likes perhaps governed by the autonomics of conditioning. In the higher levels, conscious directed thought allows you to step out of this process where you can have more choice about how to use your mind.

According to the ancient therevāda buddhist tradition, the buddhist people recite > memorize > comprehend buddha's teaching. It is ears/mouth/mind-redirection from the nonsense story to the advantage story.
Actually, you can do the meditation, listening dhamma, or talking dhamma. But I think the reciting dhamma is proper to be the best enemy of singing/music-addiction.


text:
Why wouldn't one say "I am the watcher"?
Now separating self from perceptions for me is understandable. That Ego is just an illusion there is no self. But a question arises... Who is the watcher?
Can't I say that I am the watcher or is awareness the watcher and what I perceive as self is just awareness ?
Or I can just recognize "there is a watcher".

Identity view (i.e., "I am...") is the first lower fetter.

the mendicants who, with the ending of three fetters are stream-enterers

To say "I am the watcher" simply perpetuates identity view. Identity view is a conceptual tool. Like all tools, it can be put aside. When identity view is put aside, "there is watching." With identity view, there is a prioritization towards the self. Without identity view, broader consideration becomes the norm. With identity view, the self controls--there is struggle to use and impose will. Without identity view, experience unfolds effortlessly.
To see this, meditate "there is breathing" vs. "I am breathing". When "I am breathing" there comes a cascade of questions ("Am I breathing well?", "Should I exhale now?"). When "there is breathing", simple awareness follows the breath in and out. Effortlessly.
Relinquishing "I", we relinquish the first fetter. There is watching.

As I currently understand with my own experience, the one who watches is just another self. The salient feature of this part of self is that it observes with no judgement, interpretation or opinion about phenomena that arise.

Everyone can say "I am a watcher" and "There is a watcher".
But when the noble ones are saying like that, they are realizing and understanding "there are just five aggregates, which called watcher, are arising and vanishing in the dependent origination cycle".

If you look very carefully, you'll see that all there is, is experience. The watcher is merely a logical inference. It's implied. We are just so used to this idea of self that we add it, we assume that experience has the one who experiences it. But the watcher is a lie, an inferred part of the experience.
Just look at your mind very carefully and you will see. The stimuli trigger associations. Then the thoughts follow one another through the mechanism of association. When you look at your mind you simply redirect attention to a different stimulus. Instead of a sensory organ the manas takes the content of Short-Term Memory as a stimulus and sends it to Long-Term Memory to seek associations. That's it, no watcher.


text:
Is it correct to say that true compassion (not trying to be) only manifest when there is wisdom?
That is to say that wisdom must come first before compassion.

Correct. True compassion comes from being able to relate, to see things from the perspective of the object of compassion. While this may partially exist before wisdom, only complete realization of Emptiness gives unlimited insight into other perspectives. Normally, this ability is hindered by ego's attachments, biases, fixed views etc. The enlightened mind is completely free from these and can truly see from all perspectives, without distortion. This "knowledge of all modes" is what gives rise to true compassion.
Although, of course partial wisdom and partial compassion can develop together in lock-step.

If you wish to help another, you must know the solutions. Compassion is much more than empathy for & acceptance of another.


text:
Is mindfulness for quick enlightenment being exaggerated in the Sutta MN10?
I was reading about mindfulness here.  At the end I found this paragraph

Let alone seven years, anyone who develops these four kinds of
  mindfulness meditation in this way for six years … five years … four
  years … three years … two years … one year … seven months … six months
  … five months … four months … three months … two months … one month …
  a fortnight … Let alone a fortnight, anyone who develops these four
  kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for seven days can expect
  one of two results: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s
  something left over, non-return.

Here Tathagata saying one keeping that kind of mindfulness for 7 days can get enlightenment? Is it exaggeration, translation problem or understanding problem or it's true?

Is it exaggeration, translation problem or understanding problem or
  it's true?

The translation is fine, but the reader must know the environment and situation of that sutta, before read it. If the reader read it without the pre-required knowledge, it is the reader's fail.
The explanation
In atthakathā of MN 10 wrote:

Why Buddha taught mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta to Kuru-people? Because they had enough ability to study the advance teaching. It's told that Kuru-people, such as bhikkhu, bhikkhunī, lay men, and lay women,  always had the potential body and the potential mind because Kuru-country had the richness of temperature, etc. Their potential body and potential mind supported their wisdom power, so they can studied  the advance teaching.

So, most Kuru-people were diṭṭhi-cārita, who have little dust in their eyes, according to netti desanāhāravibhaṅga.
The diṭṭhi-cārita people can attain jhāna easily. So they don't have to meditate jhāna because of their pure mind. They can enlighten at the listening moment. That's why in the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta's atthakathā wrote:

30,000 people enlightened as arahanta at the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta was taught.

therefore, the end of mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta wrote:

Let alone seven years, anyone who develops these four kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for six years … five years … four years … three years … two years … one year … seven months … six months … five months … four months … three months … two months … one month … a fortnight … Let alone a fortnight, anyone who develops these four kinds of mindfulness meditation in this way for seven days can expect one of two results: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s something left over, non-return.

But for taṇhā-carita people,who have much dust in their eyes, they have to meditate jhāna, first. After they attained jhāna, they can count down for enlightenment like what buddha taught in the end of  mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta. Because jhāna can pause their five hindrances, then their "dust in eyes" state will be same little  dust as diṭṭhi-carita and they are able to count down for enlightenment.

Oh.  How can I ascertain my eligibility?

And what do you mean by little dust in eyes? Can you give some links?

The eligibility is that if you are normally no unwholesome mind arising daily, you don't need to attained jhāna.  Another, the translated link can switch directly from above given link's drop down menu. Or you can go to this link > http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/read/roman_read.php?B=15&A=3906&h=apparajakkhaj%C4%81tik%C4%81&eng=accesstoinsight_than

No exaggeration or translation problem here. A quick mundane analogy, say there's a complex quantum mechanics problem that needs to be solved, it'd be equally valid to say it could take seven years, or six years, or five years,... three months, two months, one months...or seven days for one to solve it. It all depends on where one is on the path of quantum mechanics. For a high school graduate, it sure would take at least seven years ( 4 years for a bachelor degree, 3-4 years for graduate degree), but for a professional physicist, seven days might be all s/he needs to crack it.

Great analogy of the quantum physics Path.

Here Tathagata saying one keeping that kind of mindfulness for 7 days can get enlightenment? Is it exaggeration, translation problem or understanding problem or it's true?

In order to develop these Four Kinds of Mindfulness in 7 days, one needs to have superior, fine-tuned and almost perfectly balanced faculties.
Without speculating too much on the workings of Kamma, I think it's safe to say, that this requires a lot of practice in this life and probably past lives as well.
IMO one should be careful of anything such as "quick enlightenment" or "shortcuts to enlightenment". Noone gets enlightened without putting in the work and effort it requires. People who gets enlightened from just listening to a Dhamma talk, have put in all the work in countless past lives, which is why their faculties are ripe and balanced in such a way, that it requires very little to attain Arahantship.

"Noone gets enlightened without putting in the work and effort it requires." - absolutely!

MN 10 is a fake sutta that includes the five hindrances in the 4th satipatthana. Therefore, if the meditator practises for seven days: ‘I have sensual desire in me’; they obviously will not make any progress because there cannot be any progress when the five hindrances exist.
This said, if proper satipatthana (such as described in MN 118) is practised continuously for seven days, i.e., without any hindrances for seven days and with proper samadhi based in 'letting go' (per SN 48.10 and the end of MN 118), then, yes, certainly that meditator will be a stream-enterer and certainly they can expect one of two results in their life: enlightenment in the present life, or if there’s something left over, non-return.
It is important to distinguish between 'actually practising satipatthana without hindrances' and 'attempting to practise satipatthana with hindrances'.
If a meditator sits one or many 10-day Goenka, Mahasi or IMS satipatthana meditation retreats but continues to have hindrances or uses a wrong method, then this is not actually practising satipatthana.
In order to develop these Four Kinds of Mindfulness over 7 days, one needs to have perfectly balanced faculties for the entire 7 days (which depends on one single moment of Right View).
Ajahn Buddhadasa explained:

As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi
  isn't the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than
  non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted
  samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and
  sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty
  of grasping at and clinging to 'I' and 'mine' can have the true and
  perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has
  correct samadhi.
Heart-wood from the Bo Tree

Thanks. But why do you often invite downvotes? You seem to be an ardent critic.

I said MN 10 was fake.


text:
GAUTAM -Buddha(BUDDHADEV) and The capability of having several lives for an ordinary man or hallucination?
A friend of mine said GAUTAM-Buddha(BUDDHADEV) passed through several lives(Births and Rebirths)and finally he attained NIRVANA.In present day context do the experience s feel like walking on an Astro-turf or living in mothers womb.This is my personal experience which should not be considered BLASPHEMY.I divulged my experience to my friend.So he advised me to search books.After death is such an experience possible?

In this question, I think that you are 1) Saying that you've had the experience, and/or that you remember the experience, of "walking on an space travel or living in mother's womb". Are you then 2) Asking whether that was a hallucination, and/or asking whether such an experience is possible after death, and/or asking whether that's what's meant when it's said that the Buddha passed through several lives?

I am sorry that my misinterpretation may be dueTO  BUDDHIST LITERATURES VERY OFTEN RAISE THE QUESTION OF REBIRTH AND BUDDHIST TEACHERS TEACH HOW ONE ONE CAN BE FREE FROM REBIRTH.ANOTHER QUESTION IS ABOUT AFTER DEATH EXPERIENCE,WHICH I EXPERIENCED FOR MANY YEARS.BUT I ASK IS IT EASY FOR ONE TO BE FREE FROM REBIRTH.LORD BUDDHA ADDED MANY VALUABLE ADVICES HOW AND WHEN ONE MAN BE FREE.

I have understood that my experiences  about space etc are illusion and deceptive.I apologize for that part of the question.USER-26375

the path to Nirvana is very simple logic. Here's what I learned from my teacher:
You should divide everything you do (including every word and even every thought) in two groups: whether you're doing it to feed your ego or whether it's actually useful. You have to be very precise. Very precise, with every single word and every single thought you should know why you're doing this. If it's for defending the ego or indulging in pleasure, you should not do it like that, should not think like that or say that. If you're doing it because you think it's actually useful, then you should do it.

Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me: ‘Suppose that I divide my thoughts into two classes. Then I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty. MN 19

Then, when you live like this for several years, your mind will be pure and you will be able to see the path to Nirvana by yourself.

To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas. The Dhammapada 14.183

My teacher said, this world is a magical place where everything is possible, as long as you're free in your mind - and now I know he was right.
So, divide your thoughts like that, and learn to be very very precise with that - and you will see for yourself. This is better than me telling you "Yes, All of that is real". Hope this helps.

Thanks for your valuable contribution.But how many years it will take to cross the paths to nirvana Lord BUDDHADEV took eighty years.USER26375

It doesn't matter how long it takes to finish, because every day you do it, it turns your life to better direction, and improves your overall luck and conditions, in my experience. So even if you don't finish, it's still useful - this practice of not allowing crap in your thoughts.

I marked this answer down. While I agree with most of what is written in it, this answer is opinion based because it does not include any references to Buddhist scriptures. Also, this answer refers to a teacher but does not give credit to who that teacher is. This answer is unsubstantiated.

Fair point. Is this better?

@Andrei Volkov-It will take me many years  to understand  The Buddhism site in which way it differs from other sites.The answer and comments are of very HIGH LEVEL.Thank you.

A friend of mine said GAUTAM-Buddha(BUDDHADEV) passed through several lives(Births and Rebirths)and finally he attained NIRVANA.

In original Buddhism, the word 'birth' ('jati') refers to each arising of the view of 'self-belief'. But in later Buddhism, the word 'birth' was misconstrued to refer to 'past lives'. Please refer to SN 22.79, which explains the true meaning of recollecting past births. In other words, when the Buddha said he cycled thru myriad "births" (in Dhp 153), this was the previous myriad arisings of egoism.

In present day context do the experiences feel like walking on an space travel or living in mothers womb.This is my personal experience
  which should not be considered BLASPHEMY.

Since your mind continues to have "self-belief", it is not the same experience as the Buddha. When the Buddha, in the present, recollected his "past births", he recollected how his mind's previous "self-beliefs" were ignorant illusions. Again, refer to SN 22.79.

I divulged my experience to my friend.So he advised me to search books.After death is such an experience possible?

In Buddhism, the goal is to eradicate the belief of "I", "me", "mine" and "self". When the Buddha recollected "past births", this is what occurred. The idea of "self" ended. To quote SN 22.79:

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject
  to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?
“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a
  feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When
  recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just
  perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such
  volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations
  that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in
  the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.
Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever … Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“This is called, bhikkhus, a noble disciple who dismantles and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who scatters and does
  not amass; who extinguishes and does not kindle.

@dhammadhatu-very hard to understand,I will have to go through your comment many times before I can understand.Thank you.User-26375


text:
What is the difference between mindfulness and detachment?
From Mindfulness:

Mindfulness is the psychological process of bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment, which one can develop through the practice of meditation and through other training. Followers of Buddhist teachings utilize mindfulness to develop self-knowledge and wisdom that gradually lead to what is described as enlightenment or the complete freedom from suffering.

From Detachment:

Detachment, also expressed as non-attachment, is a state in which a person overcomes his or her attachment to desire for things, people or concepts of the world and thus attains a heightened perspective. It is considered a wise virtue and is promoted in various Eastern religions, such as Taoism and Buddhism.

I see that the two terms are very related, but I'd like to understand more about the differences and the interactions between the two. As in my understanding, the answer to the question mindfulness thinking about future and past? is that as long as one is detached to the past and the future, one can mindfully examine them. Is that correct?

'Mindfulness' means 'to remember' to apply/practise the Buddhist teachings. It does not mean 'bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment' (as written by a person in Wikipedia).
For example, if I wish to stalk and assassinate (murder) another person using a rifle, I must meticulously bringing my attention to experiences occurring in the present moment. Yet murdering a person in the present moment is not practising the Buddhist teachings.
In summary, for the 'trainee' of the higher path, the mind must continuously remember to not attach to any experience. Therefore, to practise non-attachment requires mindfulness, as written in the suttas:

His mindfulness... is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, not clinging to anything in
  the world.
MN 10

huh, but the definition is backed by at least three sources, one of which is from Jon-Kabat Zinn. What do you think about this?

@Ooker There are different schools of Buddhist meditation; and "mindfulness" is taught as a non-Buddhist practice (Jon Kabat-Zinn and MBSR), as well as being (the word used to translate) a form of Buddhist meditation.

Mindfulness Leads to detachment from

wrong beliefs
Instinctual feelings or states

And it does so by making you aware of the information you receive and understanding them for what they are, thus they don't get an automatic reaction from your subconscious mind that maybe unwise.

I think that "attachment" is as explained in these topics:

Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?
What is attachment as per Buddhism?

I think that "detachment" is the non-doing (or un-doing) of attachment ... e.g. by removing the conditions in which attachment arises.
One of the definitions of how attachment arises is as described by the 12 nidanas, a.k.a. "dependent origination". I think that the doctrine (dhamma) teaches that a way to interfere with this "cycle of becoming" is a technique called "guarding the senses", which is e.g. described here.
IMO "mindfulness" in this context could include:

Remembering to guard the senses (mindful awareness of the senses)
And, remembering why you guard the senses (remembering the dhamma)
And, the resulting state of mind (e.g. not getting carried away on a flood)

Mindfulness is (more generally) sati i.e. one of the divisions of the noble eightfold path -- see e.g. the Sati (Buddhism) article on Wikipedia.

I think that (perhaps confusingly) the English word "mindfulness" is also used in a non-Buddhist context. The Sati (Buddhism) article says, in its prologue ...

This article is about Buddhist mindfulness. For information on mindfulness in psychology, see mindfulness.

... which ("mindfulness in psychology" i.e. not Buddhist) was the article you cited in the OP.
My (very limited) experience has been that it's not easy to explain Buddhist dhamma (to people who aren't already interested in it as such) -- see How to explain what Buddhism is?
When "mindfulness" is taught in the West (e.g. here) then that may be without mentioning Buddhism, or the Four Noble Truths, or anything like that.
I've no experience with Mindfulness-based stress reduction so I can't talk about it. Perhaps (I don't know) it's similar to some techniques or thought-processes described in the answers to Experiencing physical pain (perhaps even including some awareness of impermanence of sensation, but basically stripped of any overtly Buddhist references ... and of any 'foreign languages' e.g. words like sati).
One topic I have a little second-hand experience of is "mindfulness" as a therapy of Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) -- as follows. The way that might work is, imagine you're attacked one day -- so someone cuts an artery, your blood sprayed across the walls and so on. Years, decades later, you still think of that incident ... and have "panic attacks", and flashbacks:

The term is used particularly when the memory is recalled involuntarily, and/or when it is so intense that the person "relives" the experience, unable to fully recognize it as memory and not something that is happening in "real time".

Mindfulness might teach you to be aware of what's happening now, what actually you're sensing now -- when you're taking a shower, for example, the noise and feel of the water, the sight of clean (bloodless) bathroom tiles, the knowledge (thought) of having locked doors and no-one but friends around and so on -- as an antidote to, a replacement for, a detachment from the flashback you were previously experiencing.
I think that's worthwhile, if it's effective (to relieve suffering caused by being attached to some traumatic past experience).
I think you might see or say, though, that that's not quite like Buddhist mindfulness -- which if anything might be trying to keep you from becoming overly emotionally invested in present sensations -- and the desires (or cravings), not just aversions, occasioned by past experiences.

Reading the question again, I see you wrote ...

a state in which a person overcomes his or her attachment to desire for things, people or concepts of the world

... which I read as "detaching from views" (and so, perhaps including "self-views" for example)..
I think Andrei often mentions something like that, e.g. in this answer:

While this may partially exist before wisdom, only complete realization of Emptiness gives unlimited insight into other perspectives. Normally, this ability is hindered by ego's attachments, biases, fixed views etc. The enlightened mind is completely free from these and can truly see from all perspectives, without distortion.

I'm inclined to agree, but I don't know many references in the Pali canon to support this. Instead a lot of the suttas (and the beginning of the Noble Eightfold Path) concentrate on distinguishing "right view" from "wrong view".
Some of the examples of suttas which may teach "detachment from concepts" include the simile of "dhamma as a raft", and the simile of the "blind sectarians and the elephant".


text:
How did my soul end up in the cycle of samsara?
I experienced ego death today. Sorry if my terminology is wrong. But i saw the way. I just want to understand now

This is not a Hindu site

I guess Sankha might be saying that because Buddhism doesn't teach that there is a "my soul" (see the "anatta" docrtine).

Soul is perhaps mistaken for the continuation of the six sense doors. There is a stream of sensory information that you possess that is not confined to your own sensory experience. It's a collective of many sensate events from previous six sense doors and is often confused for harbouring a static nature, for example: a soul.

In Buddhism, to have realisation, what must be experienced is ego death = peace. Sometimes ego death is not peaceful. If it is experienced ego death = peace then the way is known and continued.
As for the word "samsara", it means for the mind to "cycle" around in egoism. It is not related to "reincarnation", as explained below:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "Monks, from an inconstruable beginning comes samsara. A beginning point is not
evident, although beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving
are running around & wandering on.
Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way,
an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble
ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no
regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in
their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing
form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He assumes feeling to be the self...
"He assumes perception to be the self...
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
consciousness.
"He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications...
that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose
from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose
from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death;
from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not
set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
But a well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has
regard for people of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their
Dhamma — doesn't assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing
form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He doesn't assume feeling to be the self...
"He doesn't assume perception to be the self...
"He doesn't assume fabrications to be the self...
"He doesn't assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self
as in consciousness.
"He doesn't run around or circle around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that
very consciousness. He is set loose from form, set loose from
feeling... from perception... from fabrications... set loose from
consciousness. He is set loose from birth, aging, & death; from
sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is set loose,
I tell you, from suffering & stress.
SN 22.99


text:
Delusion,fear and panic and shame
After facing death,I passed through a period of more than six months in delusion,fear and panic associated with shame.I was very much frightened and the experience was horrifying .After so many years my personality has completely changed,I don't know for better or for worse Although I have been occupying the Same body for 64 years.How to describe different stages and passing through different states In my mortal life? can it be termed as different rebirths(any kind of) for an ordinary man In Buddhist terms.May I add that Before twenty years I took a CANCER CAPSULE and went into deep and continuous sleep without interruption for 4/5 months, I woke up for one day and went into deep undisturbed and uninterrupted sleep for another three months. finally I woke up as a normal man.I could not come to a conclusion how to describe such experience.

can it be termed as different rebirths(any kind of) for an ordinary man In Buddhist terms. No it wouldn't be nothing there's only change by Buddhist's perspective. It always patient go through such experience cause it affect mind. And may you had have depression and when you finally woke up as a normal man you was cured. Thank you.

Welcome. It's always pleasurable to tell Dhamma.

How to describe different stages and passing through different states In my mortal life?

This is most certainly the case with myself. In fact, after 12 months of diligently observing myself, I notice my mind states shift all the time, even from moment to moment. The governor for these shifting states could be our conditioned self. Unfamiliar arising conditions such as the one you describe can allow for a huge shift in consciousness and perhaps one reason for this transition is because they don't conform to our conditioned state, that being: there's no previous blueprint to overlay it with. The self (or conditioned state) has been shook up. My point is, that these changes are occurring all of the time but for the most part they go unnoticed; they are quite subtle. They can indeed be seen as a death and rebirth regardless of their magnitude.
The Tibetan Book of The Dead is an interesting read and can be applied within the finer constituents of life itself. SEE HERE. Carl Jung has an interesting interpretation of this book.
In a strictly Buddhist sense, one could learn massively from this experience.

can it be termed as different rebirths(any kind of) for an ordinary man In Buddhist terms.

I'm not sure what you're asking here.

@user 14082 -Thank you for yourValuable  comment.I am a newcomer for this site,so the comment is not easily understandable.It will take time.Thank you -user-26375

@USER-14082-After experiencing "TRUTH" ,is it his destiny to scientifically return to his old state mysticism[scientifically bound for his previous state}.,giving up" TRUTH" which he found after martyrdom[when he searched FOR the'TRUTH',AND EXPERIENCED IT]  .AFTER LONG YEARS OF MONOTONY,IS IT THAT MYSTICISM GIVES HIM "PEACE" if he can attain it  over again?when he will find  many things mysterious,full of mysteries.again.Can the state  be called "supreme peace".?


text:
Difference Between Walking and Sitting Meditation
I wonder simply what the difference is between walking and sitting meditation in terms of value on the path. I have been practicing walking meditation for some time without any seeming result.
Is it necessary to practice sitting meditation to see results, or for walking meditation to be truly effective? If formal sitting meditation is important, then why is that so?

Walking meditation is great to developp awareness in everyday life. The setting is more likely to reproduce what you will experience throughout your day.
While in sitting meditation, there are usually much less distractions occuring.
So, from my point of view of a relative beginner, sitting meditation is effective to empty your mind and experience higher levels of concentration, and walking meditation is effective to help you carry this concentration into your daily life.
Walking meditation is also very convenient when you lack energy, you will usually feel much less sleepy walking than sitting.
In addition, if you already seat all day at work and meditate for long periods of time, alternating between sitting and walking meditation might be a good idea to maintain a healthy life style.

Walking meditation brings weak results unless practised with empty mind of letting go. The Cankama Sutta says the samadhi developed with walking meditation is "long lasting" (samādhi ciraṭṭhitiko); thus of comparable worth to sitting meditation. However, for this to occur, the walking meditation must be done properly, with supramundane empty mind of letting go.
For meditators that practise common walking meditation of: "lifting, placing, touching, etc"; their sitting meditation is generally much better than their walking meditation because their walking meditation method is too stiff & contrived. It does not allow clear consciousness to fluidly flow.
But for those expert in empty mind, the walking meditation is seamless with sitting. A proper supramundane walker can walk very close to jhana because their samadhi is lofty; floating unhindered towards the heavens.

"The suttas teach (somewhere)..." - I'd be very interested in reading the source of this information. If you could track this down I'd be very appreciative. :-)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.029.agku.html

Thank you. I notice another translation here... https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.029.than.html

also https://suttacentral.net/an5.29/en/sujato and https://suttacentral.net/an5.29/en/bodhi

Simple explanation for term Meditation is awareness on mind, basically we can Meditate at theses three position,

Sitting
Walking
Lay down

Is it necessary to practice sitting meditation to see results, or for walking meditation to be truly effective? If formal sitting meditation is important, then why is that so?

Sitting meditation is not necessary, we can do meditate our day to day life, when we are walking we can focus on our mind and walk,
when we are Sitting and do something focus on the work,
even lay down for get some rest (not sleep) we can focus on our mind. Like so we can always aware about what we are doing now, and that way we can sharp our mind, then only we can see through the everything, following the VIDHARSHANA meditation. Hope you could understand.


text:
How to Determine Meditation Object
I have practised previously with the breath, but I feel my eyes fall automatically when setting attention on the breath, and inversely, focusing on objects makes my mind alert. Is this sufficient to switch meditation object?
Q1: What are the best ways, or the best way, to determine proper meditation objects?
Q2 : Is there any real drawbacks of meditation with a physical object or mental image as compared to the breath?

Personally I prefer the objectless method. So first you might like to consider whether you even need an object. The answers to these sorts of questions are always the same - horses for courses. Only a close teacher could tell you what's best for you.

Noticing, observing and watching are greatly facilitated by an alert mind. If eyes fall then notice this as bodily phenomena. When you notice the falling of the eyes, what thoughts accompany that action? Watch carefully. You may find that mind is making something out of nothing or that it’s wanting something. An alert mind is sufficient; remaining alert for the duration of the session is quite another thing. Moreover, eyes will move. Let them so.

Q1: What are the best ways, or the best way, to determine proper meditation objects?

There is your attention... and there is your meditation object. If anything comes between the two then attention has been removed from the object. This might include thoughts about bodily phenomena. In fact, thoughts are the number one culprit for derailing ones attention from the object. You can observe bodily phenomena without thought.

Q2 : Is there any real drawbacks of meditation with a physical object or mental image as compared to the breath?

This is personal preference which can be understood further by experimentation.
As further reading I’d strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with the five hindrances.
The Five Hindrances

Traditionally, meditation object is picked to be an antidote for the biggest remaining emotional problem.
For example:

The person whose mind is dominated by desire, should meditate on ugly aspects of the desired,
For someone whose mind is dominated by aversion, should meditate on lovable qualities of the object of aversion,
Someone whose mind is dominated by conflict between "right" and "wrong", should meditate on Emptiness,
Someone whose mind is dominated by inner chatter, should meditate on the inhalations and exhalations.
Someone whose mind is dominated by doubts, should meditate on basic concepts of dharma: four noble truths, four right efforts etc.
Someone whose mind is dominated by negative self-esteem, should meditate on one's good qualities.

And so on - I think it's easy enough to see the pattern.
I don't think your problem is lack of concentration. All modern people who can read and have finished the high school have enough concentration to be able to skip the kasina stage (meditation on physical objects) and get straight to meditation on mental objects. If I can venture to guess, it sounds like your meditation is too contrived. You are trying to do something synthetic, with no connection to your actual situation. Instead try to look directly at your real-life problems, stay with them enough to face and admit the facts,  then try to come up with an antidote for the emotional disbalance.

So what would be examples of mental objects, or even a mental object suited for my situation?

What is your situation?

The breath is faint, the mental images are faint. I would say mostly doubts and speculation are my problem outside of meditation. The thoughts are absent in meditation, but there is no great alertness or energy perhaps.

If your kleshas are mostly conceptual and not emotional, I think you should do analytical meditation (with thinking). For example, there is a topc of meditation called "possible and impossible". This is when you think about causes and conditions affecting the life states.

Is this because it implies I'm more cognitive and so I should attempt to use that in terms of meditation?

Yes, specifically since you said you had doubts and speculations.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The Pali suttas teach to stay with the breath (MN 118). However, it is not necessary to look directly at the breath. Observing the empty mind uses the mind as the meditation object yet awareness of breathing will still occur.


text:
Buddhist Jhanas, how best to describe them?
I’m conducting research into the phenomena of Buddhist Jhanas/Dhyanas, and am looking for a good place to start.
In addition to primary sources that discuss what this phenomena is, how would you describe what the Jhanas are to a person unfamiliar with any sort of meditation practice? How do they differ across different sects/schools? How are they viewed sociologically or philosophically from OUTSIDE the lens of a practitioner or one who believes in the concept of enlightenment to begin with?
TL; DR seeking primary source information on Jhanas/Dhyanas. What is their history? How do they differ across schools/sects? How would an outsider or an academic understand them?
Thank you for your time.

I would say that Jhanas are the final stages of the progressive development of the state of inner harmony, that is the Buddhist path.
The entire Buddhist path is based on one principle, that psychological discomfort comes from inner conflict and that therefore eliminating inner conflict leads to inner harmony. Secondarily, outer conflict leads to inner conflict, and ethical behavior is defined as that which prevents outer conflict.
The prerequisite to Jhanas, therefore, is to eliminate all coarse conflicts that serve as obstacles to the attainment of harmony, such as external entanglements and various real life sources of personal drama and regret. Hence the emphasis on ethics, non-attachment, and non-egoism for beginners.
Once the life of an individual is more or less peaceful on a day to day basis, the student can focus solely on their mind and attain Complete Harmony. This is the role of Jhanas.
Jhanas are generally divided into two stages. On the first stage, student uses emotional intelligence techniques to generate a state of happiness. On the second stage, the student contemplates the way things work and perfects the state of harmony, culminating in what's known as suchness. The premise here is that harmony is a refinement of happiness, and suchness is perfectly refined harmony.
The particular techniques used to generate happiness vary between schools. In early Buddhism, the main technique was to review one's own ethical purity,  one's philosophical realizations (insights), and one's peaceful lifestyle, comparing that with regular people, and by congratulating oneself on actually measuring up very well, generate the sought state of euphoria.
In conservative descendants (Theravada) this technique was preserved as part of the so-called anussati (recollection meditation), but divorced from the practice of jhana proper. In fact Silanussati, Caganussati, Buddhanussati, Dhammanussati, and Devatanussati are perfect themes for the first jhana. See e.g. this explanation for details on each. Since connection between positive recollection and the first jhana has been lost in Theravada, for them jhana became an exercise in brute-force one-pointed concentration, which eventually leads to a similar state of joy but requires much more time and effort.
In Tibetan schools, the technique was largely retained but shifted from recalling ones actual achievements, to substituting one's self-image with that of a deity ("yidam"). I imagine this so-called "generation-stage meditation" to be a development of the Devatanussati technique. This is thought to have a better effect, since the imaginary self has no limits to its perfect qualities and can be optimized to counteract particular student's emotional hangups. Naturally, this goes at the expense of no longer having one's ethical achievements be the necessary basis of meditation, which Tibetan schools compensate by greatly emphasizing compassion.
The second phase of jhanas is perfection of harmony. This is when the student realizes that the contrived state of happiness cannot be perfectly sustainable and instead learns to accept the natural uncontrived moment by moment state as the basis for the absence of inner conflict. This deepest acceptance of whatever arises at every moment, inwardly and outwardly, is known as suchness and is the summum bonum of Buddhist path.
Again, the original technique underwent mutation in historical schools. In Theravada they say that upon contemplating Three Marks of Existence seeing impermanence of all contrived states and inevitably of occasional suffering, the student must go through catharsis of accepting the existential failure, and emerge having completely lost all grasping to any experience. Reference "Sixteen Stages of Insight".
In most of the meditating Mahayana (such as various types of Chan/Zen), a state of non-judgmental awareness (don't accept, don't reject, just watch) is practiced as a straightforward way of cultivating suchness (following the beginner's breath meditation, therefore skipping the generation phase), but it's place in the big scheme of things is not usually explained, other than mysteriously stating that this is the very state of the Buddha.
Finally, in Tibetan schools, this phase is practiced in conjunction with study of emptiness. For philosophically inclined students, analytical meditation on emptiness serves to dispell doubts that any contrived state cannot be It. What follows from that is staying in a wordless realization of this profound groundlessness, which serves as an entry into suchness. For students of less intellectual bent, the practice takes form of so called meditation of no-meditation, which is a name given to cultivation of appreciation of suchness as the primordially natural state.
In any case, the path usually starts with removal of coarse obstacles, following by cultivation of the seemingly perfectly conflictless state, followed by realization that any contrived state is inherently unsustainable and conflict-ridden, followed by contemplation of the implications of this realization, followed by direct cultivation of suchness and complete liberation. The Jhanas symbolically refer to the non-preliminary stages of this sequence.
I'm necessarily glossing over many nuances and simplifying a bit, but I think this covers most of what you asked, let me know if you have further questions.

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

In addition to primary sources that discuss what this phenomena is, how would you describe what the Jhanas are to a person unfamiliar with any sort of meditation practice?

Jhanas are the practice to pause the present unwholesome mind. While jhāna mind are arising, there are no any unwholesome mind can arise, whole hours or whole day. Jhāna is basis of insight meditation.

How do they differ across different sects/schools?

They are same in meditation. It just difference in a few detail.

How are they viewed sociologically or philosophically from OUTSIDE the lens of a practitioner or one who believes in the concept of enlightenment to begin with?

The jhāna practitioner looks very judicious, worshipful.

TL; DR seeking primary source information on Jhanas/Dhyanas. What is their history? How do they differ across schools/sects? How would an outsider or an academic understand them?

Path of Purification  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf
Path of Freedom
http://urbandharma.org/pdf1/Path_of_Freedom_Vimuttimagga.pdf
Pa-Auk tawya Monastery
http://122.155.190.19/revata/index.php?option=com_sectionex&view=category&id=6&Itemid=108#catid8

If you don't ascribe any Buddhist overhead to them, then they'd just be blissful states of mind comparable (though entirely distinct) to orgasm in the following ways:

First jhana - approaching orgasm.  Arising of a something that isn't a part of normal cognition.  Mind and body both working toward climax - thrusting in sex, changes in breathing patterns, etc (applied thought; vitakka).  Loss of awareness of what is going outside of the sex, mind directed solely to the act etc. (one-pointedness; ekaggata).  Full mental participation in the act (sustained attention; vicara,).  Bliss, enjoyment, rapture (sukkha, piti).
Second jhana - explosion of actual climax.  No longer requires thrusting or bodily application (applied thought - vitakka - no longer required).  The body just orgasms.  Bliss so powerful that it becomes an inevitable object of attention (effortful sustained attention - vicara - no longer required).  One pointedness is maintained.  (Seriously, how easy is it to distract someone from the height of orgasm!).
Third jhana - rapture tapers off (piti fades).  The sweetness of the experience remains (sukkha).  Unlike post coitus, the mind remains completely collected (ekaggata remains).  Feelings of bliss.  Not a care in the world; nothing can bother you (equanimity begins to emerge; upekkha).
Fourth jhana - This is where things really depart from our sexual metaphor.
Partner disappears, world is still absent from awareness, but the mind remains one pointed (ekaggata).  The sweetness of the experience subsides (sukkha fades).  Mind is unshakable.  Equanimity is most prominent (upekkha).

Words don't really do jhanic experiences any justice. In the grand scheme of things, words are like tiny particles of sediment in the vast ocean of a jhanic experience. This is further compounded by the experience of formless jhanas.
Yes, they can be described and quite creatively too. My first wakeful jhana happened last year. It spanned a period of 5 hours and it changed my whole lifestyle. They can be life changing, powerful and perhaps mystical but jhanas come and go and so not worth attaching oneself to them. No sect or school can claim any exclusivity over these wakeful states.
Below is a description which was written last year after the event.

The temporary awakening was devoid of any kind of grand entrance. I was out with my 7 year old who was playing. It seemed to happen whilst I was looking at the foliage in the park. The plantation took on a whole new aliveness and vibrancy. This was when I sensed an undertone that something had shifted in my consciousness. My thoughts no longer existed. Instead, they were replaced by a deep intuitive 'knowing' about the things I observed in my environment. Nothing seemed to matter because everything had a relationship through a very odd unification. When I looked at people a knowing arose in me of their discontent but at the very same time I could recognise their immense potential. From the fusion of those two seeming poles grew a deep and warm compassion for human beings. Quite a beautiful way to view people!
The experience completely shredded my mental concepts of who I thought I had been and the structure of the world around me seems drastically different henceforth. Smaller jhanas occurred afterwards. I look at a tree stretching towards its ultimate creator - the mysterious darkness of the cosmos, the totality of consciousness itself - and it gently sways as if joyously waving at other passing lifeforms, inviting them to join in its moment of presence and symphonic rhythm of interconnectedness. Previously it was just a tree. I hardly gave them a second glance.

In addition to primary sources that discuss what this phenomena is, how would you describe what the Jhanas are to a person unfamiliar with
any sort of meditation practice?

The obvious primary source is the Pali suttas, which have the following standard formula found in many suttas:

Unflagging persistence was aroused in me, and unmuddled mindfulness established. My body was calm & unaroused, my mind concentrated &
single. Quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful
mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture &
pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought &
evaluation. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, I
entered & remained in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of
composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought &
evaluation — internal assurance. With the fading of rapture I remained
in equanimity, mindful & alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure.
I entered & remained in the third jhana, of which the noble ones
declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.' With the
abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of
elation & distress — I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity
of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain.
MN 4

The 1st reference to the experience of jhana is found in MN 36, where the Buddha recollected how as a child his mind spontaneously entered jhana under the rose apple tree:

I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite
secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities —
I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from
seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be
the path to Awakening?' Then following on that memory came the
realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I
afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality,
nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no
longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality,
nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, but that pleasure is
not easy to achieve with a body so extremely emaciated. Suppose I were
to take some solid food: some rice & porridge.' So I took some solid
food: some rice & porridge. Now five monks had been attending on me,
thinking, 'If Gotama, our contemplative, achieves some higher state,
he will tell us.' But when they saw me taking some solid food — some
rice & porridge — they were disgusted and left me, thinking, 'Gotama
the contemplative is living luxuriously. He has abandoned his exertion
and is backsliding into abundance.'
MN 36

How do they differ across different sects/schools?

The jhana of the Buddha is called "noble" "("ariya") "supramundane" ("lokuttara"), per MN 117, because it is developed by using "letting go" ("vossagga") of craving and ego the meditation object, as described in SN 48.10:

And what is the faculty of concentration? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, making it his object to let go (vossagga),
attains concentration, attains singleness of mind. Quite withdrawn
from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, he enters
& remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal,
accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of
directed thoughts & evaluations, he enters & remains in the second
jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness
free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. With the
fading of rapture, he remains equanimous, mindful, & alert, and senses
pleasure with the body. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of
which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant
abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier
disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the
fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor
pain. This is called the faculty of concentration.
SN 48.10

The above quality of "letting go" is what distinguishes the jhana of the Buddha from other sects, including so-called Buddhist sects, which refer to false ideas such as "suppression" and use "yogic" ("Hindu") techniques such as counting, fixing and mental application (fueled by craving). Some of the false heretical jhana sects are listed below:

Path of Purification  https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/PathofPurification2011.pdf

Path of Freedom
http://urbandharma.org/pdf1/Path_of_Freedom_Vimuttimagga.pdf

Pa-Auk tawya Monastery
http://122.155.190.19/revata/index.php?option=com_sectionex&view=category&id=6&Itemid=108#catid8

How are they viewed sociologically or philosophically from OUTSIDE the lens of a practitioner or one who believes in the concept of
enlightenment to begin with?

Like most religions, OUTSIDERS view jhana in very superstitious (magical) & egoistic ways. The internet is replete with particularly Westerners who claim they (as a self or ego) have experienced jhana when they have not.

TL; DR seeking primary source information on Jhanas/Dhyanas. What is their history? How do they differ across schools/sects? How would an
outsider or an academic understand them?

Academics can read books of other academics, such as A History of Mindfulness by Bhikkhu Sujato. I recommend to start with this book. Simply type "jhana" into the find function. For example:

This psychology also emerges in the usage of the word dhī, familiar as the root of the Buddhist term ‘jhāna’. Dhī is used early on in the
sense of ‘thought’, and has a special connection with the ‘visioning’
of the Vedic poetry: dhī is the intuitive awareness as the poet/priest
‘sees’ the verses. This ‘thought’ (dhī) or ‘mind’ (manas) is
disciplined (yoga) by the reciters.  ‘The priests of him the divine
Savitr well-skilled in hymns Harness their mind, yea, harness their
holy thoughts.’
But jhāna did not develop its meaning of ‘deep absorption’ until the
Buddha. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, jhāna is contrasted with the stillness
of the True Self.
‘Which is the Self? ‘That person here made of cognition among the senses [breaths], the light within the heart. He, remaining the same,
wanders about the two worlds as if thinking (dhyāyati), as if playing
(lelāyati).’
The Upaniṣads constantly remind us to preserve the correct mental attitude; to perform the rituals with one’s whole being, contemplating
the significance of each aspect as one carriesit out. Even the earlier
Brahmanas allow that if a ritual cannot be carried out physically it
may be performed by ‘faith’, i.e. as a purely mental act. In this
immersion of awareness in one’s actions we can discern a precursor to
the Buddhist emphasis on mindfulness through all one’s activities.
It is a curious thing that when we look at the sources most likely to be contemporary with the Buddha—namely the Bṛhadāraṇyaka and the
Chāndogya—we find that these well-known meditative terms are used
less frequently, and a word apparently foreign to Buddhist meditation
is found far more often. This word is upāsana. Edward Crangle,
following Velkar, has studied this term in detail, and lists the
frequency of occurrence. In the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, upāsana occurs 63
times, jhāna thrice, and yoga twice. In the Chāndogya, upāsana occurs
115 times, jhāna twelve times, and yoga again twice.