text:
If you were going to explain Dharmakāya to someone who has never encountered the topic prior, where would you begin?
Dharmakāya is tricky business to explain.
If you were to explain it to someone who has never heard of the concept where would you begin?
How does it fit in with attraction and aversion?
At the same time the explainer would have to make sure to cover the different ways the word Dharmanakaya has been used.

There are several topics (including this one) to which the [tag:trikaya] tag could be added.

@ChrisW Hey, I was on the fence about the wisdom tag.  I originally encountered the topic in a book entitled Crazy Wisdom.

This is the specific book : http://www.amazon.com/Crazy-Wisdom-Dharma-Chogyam-Trungpa/dp/1570628947

Although the notion appears in all sorts of philosophical treatises, as well as in tenets, it is explained at length in texts expounding 'buddha nature' (tathagatagarbha). I would recommend in particular the study of Maitreya's
Uttaratantra Shastra (Treatise on the Sublime Continuum). Although it is called 'uttara-tantra' it is included within the perfection vehicle (sutra). Maitreya's Sublime Continuum has been commented upon by various scholars of different traditions, and so there are various interpretations.
From the point of view of the cause, the general presentation is that from the accumulation of merit, one achieves the form body (rupakaya) of a buddha that fulfill others' wishes, while one obtains the truth body (dharmakaya) from the accumulation of wisdom. The truth body fulfill one's wishes. The form body is divided into the one that is so subtle that it is not seen by ordinary beings (the enjoyment body) and a grosser one that ordinary beings can see (the emanation body). It is said that Shakyamuni Buddha was a supreme emanation body (a division of emanation body) endowed with the marks and signs. As this position no longer holds when we divide the bodies of a buddha (into three, four, or five as you will see bellow), it is merely the general presentation.
From the point of view of the result, the nature truth body (part of the dharmakya) results from the naturally abiding linage while the wisdom truth body (part of the dharmakaya) results from the developmental linage. Although we say that the nature truth body (suchness without defilements) results from the naturally abiding linage (suchness with defilements), it is not caused because suchness is permanent. Suchness with defilements is not an actual cause but a terminological division.
From the point of view of the nature, the general presentation identifies 'emptiness with defilements' to the tathagatagarbha and 'emptiness without defilements' to the dharmakaya. In this context, dharmakaya refers only to the nature truth body. Both are permanent and uncompounded. In Gyaltsab Je's commentary [to Maitreya], dharmakaya sometimes refer solely to the wisdom truth body or the nature truth body. It is where divisions are important. We can divide the bodies of a buddha in three ways:

The two bodies of a buddha
1. dharmakaya (truth body)
2. rupakaya (form body)
The three bodies of a buddha (it is referred  to as Trikaya)
1. dharmakaya
2. rupakaya divided in two:
--- 1. emanation body
--- 2. enjoyment body
The four bodies of a buddha
1. dharmakya divided into two:
--- 1. nature truth body
--- 2. wisdom truth body
2. rupakaya divided into two:
--- 1. emanation body
--- 2. enjoyment body
The five bodies of a buddha
1. dharmakaya divided into two:
--- 1. nature truth body
--- 2. wisdom truth body divided into two:
-------- 1. the omnscient mind that distinguishes conventionalities
-------- 2. the one that distinguishes the ultimate
2. the form body divided into two

Are the texts you recommend in the answer available online somewhere?  Or can you link me to a physical copy to purchase?  Or both?

I do not know where to find Gyaltsab Je's commentary to Maitreya (other than by requesting the FPMT). It is the text I studied quite in-depth (what I explain is in accordance). On the internet, you find electronic versions of Maitreya's Root-text + commentaries. I do not know of their quality (they are likely to give contrary explanations):
A Study of the Ratnagotravibhaga (by J. Takasaki);
Buddha-Nature (by Dongsar Khyentse Rinpoche); and
Buddha Nature: the Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra (by Jamgön Kongtrul).


text:
Should a Buddhist go to the gym?
I have to be honest with you, this question was already answered by an authority on Buddhism and long-time practitioner, which is the spiritual leader of the Sangha which I meditate with. And yet, I feel the need to listen to other opinions.
The question is the one in the title. His main argument was that going to the gym is not beneficial in any way and it actually worsens us by feeding our pride, thus making the schism between ourselves and vain glory more difficult to realize.
What do you think?

See also Physical Exercise as a Monk?

I think this question has already been asked and answered at, What buddhism says about bodybuilding (and weights training)? and/or at Buddhist practice and physical exercises

Thank you for the suggestions, I think I gathered enough material to make up my mind.

i think it depends on the attitude and the frame of mind
a care to keep in mind the fact that it's a business of maintaining fitness of a frail and mortal bag of bones and impurities may negate the tendency of the attachment to body and self-association with it to become stronger, which such type of activity in my opinion is prone to foster
but if one IS a Buddhist they must be able to skilfully counteract that tendency
in any case the motive for going to gym for a Buddhist should not be improvement of bodily appearance but rather health considerations in the frame of mind along the lines of the attitude to eating recommended for monks in the suttas

And how does a monk know moderation in eating? There is the case where a monk, considering it appropriately, takes his food not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for putting on bulk, nor for beautification, but simply for the survival & continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the holy life, thinking, 'I will destroy old feelings [of hunger] & not create new feelings [from overeating]. Thus I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.

Aparihaniya sutta (AN 4.37)

If the mind is pure and the intention (cetana) is wholesome, then the result will also be wholesome.
With reference to the twin verses in the Dhammapada.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
When did Shakyamuni became buddha?
We know Shakyamuni was a prince and had all the lavish life a prince should have. He was isolated from every pain and suffering as we are told. As he traveled countryside he began to feel pain and suffering in others and witnessed death. He could have been ignorant or at most have donated some of his wealth to the commoners, but he didn't. He left the life he had, and set out to seek the ultimate truth of life. At Gaya, he meditated and got enlightened and became a buddha as most of us are told.
OK, above mentioned is what we all know. Problem is, what if he had not decided to leave the prince-hood? What if he didn't have that curiosity? Isn't the first step he took by leaving his old life behind, a sign of becoming buddha? I believe that step as the sprout of enlightenment.
Please, explain if I am wrong.

When he left the lay life, he didn't have any attainment(Nibbana) yet.
Thinking to leave the lay life is called Nekkhamma Sankappa. It's a part of Samma Sankappa, the right thought of the noble eight fold path.
Even ordinary people can get Nekkhamma thoughts from time to time. But those are often not strong enough to make them give up the lay life.
The common understanding is that the Buddha attained all stages of enlightenment under the Bodhi tree on the same morning he became the Buddha.

Considering your answer, "the right thought of the noble eight fold path", I can consider the step Shakyamuni took by leaving his lavish life, as a first step towards becoming buddha. That justified my thought.

If you meant in that sense, the first step would be when he determined to become a Buddha in the future many eons ago.

Did Shakyamuni really decide to become Buddha in his previous life?

Yes, indeed! http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/F-%20Miscellaneous/Miscellaneous%20Buddhism/The%20Way%20of%20the%20Bodhisattva/The%20Way%20of%20Bodhisattva.htm

Ok, it seems every Buddha predict future Buddha, on time when people forget Dharma completely. Is it the time now for Maitri Buddha, to reincarnate, as I can feel people not believing anymore on the Dharma?

No, the Maithree Buddha won't appear for a long time. People forget about the Dhamma when the Buddha Sasana ends in another 2500 years. Even after that, you have to wait until the average human lifespan is about 80000 years for Maithree Buddha to appear.

[unconfirmed, proceed with caution] since in his previous lives he already was a bodhisatta and so a noble disciple, becoming awakened was only a matter of time since according to the Dhamma after attainment of the sotapatti noble level (the 1st of the four) nibbana is to be attained within 7 lives at the most.
thus the Buddha was predestined to become one. even he himself couldn't change that. it's only that all his previous practice and wholesome kamma ripened in that particular life 2500 years ago

until the awakening he was not a buddha, but an unawakened bodhisatta

before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta

Ariyapariyesana sutta (MN 26) by Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu

QUOTE: He didn't attain Sotapanna in a previous life. It all happened under the Bodhi tree sequentially in the same night/morning – Sankha Kulathantille 28 mins ago~~~~~
RESPONSE: @Sankha Kulathantille this is an interesting question which requires further research, unless i'm referred to doctrinal sources confirming that explicitly and unequivocally

It's technically impossible for him to be a Sothapanna and toture himself for 6 years in search of Nibbana. Because once you become Sothapanna you give up sīlabbata-parāmāsa. Which means he knows that the noble eight fold path is the only way to attain Nibbana.

i'm not sure that his austerities fall into the category of sīlabbata-parāmāsa, i'm not saying i disagree, but still in doubt

It does! He wasn't torturing himself out of boredom. He believed it would lead to end of suffering.

Isn't the person who became bodhisatta, not supposed to rebirth again, unless he wishes to?

@kiran No! Bodhisatta just means the being who is working towards the Buddhahood. Until he becomes the Buddha he is reborn due to craving.

A Bodhisatta is always a wording, never an ariyan, such is not possible. Some maybe useful questions and answers by Ven. Pa-Auk Tawya Sayadaw: Bodhisatta Path Answers of question. Atma would even go further and say that a Bodhisatta can even not be a member of Sangha on the conventional level, since to which Dhamma, primary would he take refugee, which Buddha would he take as refuge, which Sangha? A Bodhisatta is that what the words meaning is: A being searching for the path to liberation, & not like mostly thought a Buddha to be.

what i really am unsure of is that an ariyan in the next life behaves as one right from the birthday, since it could be that they need some time to kind of subconsciously 'recall' their attainment, to adjust, for the sankharas which define their aryian achievement to become active and start affecting their further life

@БаянКупи-ка Sankhara don't define Maggapala. Nibbana is unconditioned. Also, once your fetters are annihilated, rebirth can't make them return. It's a permanent change. A Sothapanna being when reborn as human learns that the name given to a person like him is 'Sothapanna'. He doesn't need to reacquire it.

authors: Баян Купи-ка

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


text:
Can one be a part-time monk?
Can one be ordained as a monk and yet take up an office job part time and be a monk part time?
In other words can one be beyond a lay practitioner yet not lead a full monastic life?

Some people become temporary monks -- I think that's a common practice in some countries.
How to become a monk? says, about "temporary bhikkhus",

Naturally, temporary bhikkhus are allowed to keep their possessions, but these must be put aside or entrusted to someone else for the duration of their monastic experience.
He takes the robe for a few days, a few weeks or a few months to dedicate one or more periods of his life to train into monastic life. He is still engaged in various activities, which he does not feel ready to renounce. However, he knows enough to distance himself from them in order to dedicate some time to a life of detachment. If he ascertains that this experience is beneficial to him, he could eventually envisage extending it until the end of his life.

There's a status called Anagarika, which isn't a monk and allows the handling of money (I don't know whether that includes earning/possessing money, or whether it is only handling monetary donations e.g. for the benefit of the monastery).

In Theravada Buddhism, an Anagarika (Pali: anāgārika/ā; lit., "homeless one") is a person who has given up most or all of his worldly possessions and responsibilities to commit full-time to Buddhist practice.

There's also an intermediate status, Maechi.

There's also being a novice monk.

Ten Precepts
The Ten Precepts refer to the precepts or training rules for śrāmaṇeras (novice monks) and śrāmaṇerīs (novice nuns). They are the same in most schools of Buddhism.

The tenth precept is, "Refrain from accepting money."

You can be a "practice monk"
Take on the practice of,  and learn the precepts of a monk, described in the other answers on this page.
Doing so without formally taking the vows is still "good karma" and doing so will allow you to get an idea of what the actual monks life is like. Taking vows is said to be "stronger" karma, if you keep them.
Figure out which vows or practices you absolutely cannot incorporate into your lay life, set aside "Monk days" to do the full commitment, and lay days, where you do not do these set aside commitments.
Being a "practice monk" is kind of like the light beer of spiritual practice, horrible metaphor I know, but here is what I mean :
You get some of the benefit without any of the risk. You won't have the potential to break any vows. Which is considered "strong bad karma."
You also get a preview of the life, and can make the decision from a more informed view point if you ever decide to take on the vows.
Also, if you do take on the vows later, the transition will be easier, as you have practiced.

Visakhuposatha Sutta was for Lady Visaka, Buddha referenced upholding the Uposatha (8 precepts) to be  following a life style of an Arahat.
quote from the Sutta

For all their lives the arahants are one-mealers, refrain from eating outside the time, desisting at night,so today I am a one-mealer, refraining from eating outside the time, desisting at night. By this practice, following after the arahants, the Uposatha will be entered on by me.'

It has all the elements you asked,

living like a monk (for lay person), and
part time.

if by being a monastic we mean observing the Vinaya, then i believe it's possible as long as Vinaya rules presupposing mandatory expulsion (parajika rules) aren't violated
there're 4 parajika rules
1. Not to have sexual intercourse.
2. Not to steal.
3. Not to commit murder.
4. Not to claim attainments of stages of pure mental concentration
 that have not been achieved.

if by being a part-time monk we mean not being fully committed to spiritual practice, while observing Vinaya nonetheless, then i again believe it's possible
to me it appears that a bhikkhu status is defined not necessarily by genuine and honest spiritual practice but by formal and mechanical observance of the Vinaya and even that may not be entirely flawless


text:
Do Buddhist monks live an ascetic life style?
Please note that my understanding of Buddhist principles may be very much influenced by popular depictions.
I have read that the eight-fold path teaches that you should strike a balance between asceticism and indulgence.
Common depictions of Buddhist monks often shows them living a very ascetic lifestyle. My sources for this are simply what I have seen in documentaries online.
My questions are:

Do Buddhist monks live such an ascetic life style? If so, then why? Is this not going against the eight-fold path?
If the depictions I have in mind are untrue then what is Buddhist monastery life like such that it balances indulgence and asceticism?

Roughly 3 categories of buddhists could be seen: the lay, the monastic, and the ascetic. Monks usually live in a monastic community but some do live in a more solitude/ascetic way.
I've never seen ascetic life condemned in the suttas. The rhinoceros sutta is commonly brought as praising ascetic life and I understand that in the Theravada vinaya there's the practice of Dhutanga. I believe it can be beneficial when the monasteries available present too much obstacles for the practice. But asceticism when living alone can be harder without community support.
Here, I am trying to differentiate the buddhist ascetic practices from ascetic practices performed by other religions (such as extreme fasting, self-mortification, etc). From the point of view of these extreme practices, a buddhist ascetic has a moderate life style. Also, english translations of the suttas have the Buddha referred to as "the ascetic Gotama", where "ascetic" translates samaṇo.
The Buddha praised a life of freedom and few belongings: a robe, something to help gathering food on alms round, and a proper location to meditate and sleep (e.g caves, under trees, etc).
I think it's problematic to reduce the eightfold path as a teaching on "balance". First, because it's a very rich and detailed system. Second, because anyone can perceive their own life as balanced. If anything, "balance" might be taught to laity because it's hard to be fully committed to the practice while also committed to normal life.
The problem of perceiving buddhism in that way (which is the way it is frequently exposed in the west) is that it leads people into think their indulgences are moderate, and that renouncing them is an extreme that should be avoided. Moreover, it has the strange effect of creating the perception of the monk's life as an extreme austerity (and, if buddhism was teaching that, no one should ever be a buddhist monk).

"Ascetic life is not condemned on the suttas." Where does Mr Thiago Sila takes that assuming from? Not to speak about "The eightfold path is not a teaching on moderation." when thinking on right resolve, the leader of actions, and the many topic (of one of the wholsesome ones) about that: Modesty, starting with: ""'This Dhamma is for one who is modest, not for one who is self-aggrandizing.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? ..."

@SamanaJohann on ascetic life: the assumption comes from never seen or heard any quote of any explicit or implicit comndenation of ascetic life in the suttas. I did attempt to differentiate "ascetism" from the practices that inflict damage to one's body. My answer indeed needs some rewording, however. Also, I'm rewriting the eightfold path part in attempt to be more careful and clear. Thank you

Its a "modern" interpretation that there should be no evidence that the eightfold path is actually not a path of an ascetic live (a live without indulging on sensual pleasures). That does not mean the other extreme has to be followed, which is torture of body, so that it would at least die without having attained anything. Ascetic (withdraw) which should be not made is the the withdraw of conditions to keep the body in a certain health condition. Even certain hard mental ascetics are actually necessary, on this level certain tortures need to be undertaken if obstacles are seen.

The word samaṇa is usually a synonym for normal but also real ascetic (one who walks the middle path between indulging and torture), and looking after it, one would see that it is ever present also in its word all over the canon.

I remember Andrei mentioned (e.g. in this answer) that some people undergo, as training, painful yet harmless exercises.

Why would asceticism have anything to do with body mortification in the first place? It seems to me that if anything this would be a kind of sensual indulgence in an extreme sense. On the topic of torture, one could argue that an ascetic lifestyle could be mental torture due to sensory deprivation.

@ThiagoSilva Your last paragraph seems to imply that while it is hard to reduce the 8-fold path into a compressed statement about balance, Buddhism tends toward asceticism (as opposed to indulgence) as a way of life if the circumstances permit it. And you imply that the perceived "extreme" asceticism of monks only seems this way because of the focus on comparing it to such a strong extreme on the other end of the spectrum. Could we say, then, that Buddhism encourages a simpler life in general (which ends up being perceived as ascetic in the modern view) or is this oversimplifying?

@syntonicC I added a link to ascetism article on wikipedia which summarizes other practices that the term "asceticism" encompasses, but are not necessarily promoted in buddhism.

@syntonicC I think so, yes; that buddhism encourages a simpler life in general.

Common depictions of Buddhist monks often shows them living a very ascetic lifestyle. My sources for this are simply what I have seen in documentaries online. Do Buddhist monks live such an ascetic life style?

That's difficult to answer, without knowing what documentaries you're talking about.
Buddhist monastic rules say that monks have no personal possessions (except their robes and alms bowl and so on), never have or handle money, subsist on donations of food, etc.
For monks who want a lifestyle that's even more austere, there are the (optional) dhutanga practices.
I suppose that, in practice (in reality), the practices may vary: for example, the booklet called The Broken Buddha (2001) says that some monks in some countries aren't as (or at least don't seem to be as) 'ascetic' as the author (himself a monk) considers proper. It might be a mistake to generalize and assume that all monks are the same. Contrast the descriptions in The Broken Buddha with this description of Lessons in the Forest (from Ajahn Cha's forest monastery, which seems more ideal).
Also details of the monastic rules may vary if only slightly from one school/tradition to another (e.g. Theravada, Zen, Tibetan), as well (I presume) from one monastery (one abbot) to another.

If so, then why? Is this not going against the eight-fold path?

Before he realized his own enlightenment, the Buddha tried various practices including for example this:

"I thought: 'Suppose I were to take only a little food at a time, only a handful at a time of bean soup, lentil soup, vetch soup, or pea soup.' So I took only a little food at a time, only a handful at a time of bean soup, lentil soup, vetch soup, or pea soup. My body became extremely emaciated. Simply from my eating so little, my limbs became like the jointed segments of vine stems or bamboo stems... My backside became like a camel's hoof... My spine stood out like a string of beads... My ribs jutted out like the jutting rafters of an old, run-down barn... The gleam of my eyes appeared to be sunk deep in my eye sockets like the gleam of water deep in a well... My scalp shriveled & withered like a green bitter gourd, shriveled & withered in the heat & the wind... The skin of my belly became so stuck to my spine that when I thought of touching my belly, I grabbed hold of my spine as well; and when I thought of touching my spine, I grabbed hold of the skin of my belly as well... If I urinated or defecated, I fell over on my face right there... Simply from my eating so little, if I tried to ease my body by rubbing my limbs with my hands, the hair — rotted at its roots — fell from my body as I rubbed, simply from eating so little.
"People on seeing me would say, 'Gotama the contemplative is black.' Other people would say, 'Gotama the contemplative isn't black, he's brown.' Others would say, 'Gotama the contemplative is neither black nor brown, he's golden-skinned.' So much had the clear, bright color of my skin deteriorated, simply from eating so little.
Maha-Saccaka Sutta

After a while he decided that starving himself wasn't the right way (though the others who were with him didn't agree):

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.'
"So when I had taken solid food and regained strength, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: etc.

What he started to teach his first audience (which consisted of those five monks) he explained it as follows:

There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

See also Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art?

If the depictions I have in mind are untrue then what is Buddhist monastery life like such that it balances indulgence and asceticism?

It is (or may be) to do with asceticism, if by "asceticism" you mean self-discipline, abstemious, etc.
But see this description of Renunciation: i.e. it's not that renunciation itself is necessarily rewarding, it's that sensual pleasures are seen to have drawbacks which a monk might want to be free of.
The kind of asceticism that's contrary to the Middle Way isn't the training to overcome sensuality-seeking, rather it's "self affliction" or (literally) "mortification of the flesh" i.e. killing your flesh.
Examples of "balancing indulgence and asceticism"

Eat before noon (or eat once a day) ... a balance between "over-eating" and "starving"
Drink non-alcoholic liquids any time ... a balance between "getting drunk" and "dehydrating"
Wear monastic robes ... a balance between "adorning the body" and "going naked"
Shaving the head ... a balance between "adorning the body" and "neglecting cleanliness"
Minimal possessions
Obeying monastic rules

An outstanding and patient explaining, by Ven. Ajahn Thanissaro:

The middles of the middle way that lie on a continuum are those
  related to the practice of moderation. Those that lie off any
  continuum are related to the practice of appropriate attention.
  Although these two practices focus on different aspects of the path,
  they have one important feature in common. They both avoid the
  extremes of commitment to pain and to sensual pleasure, not by
  avoiding pain and pleasure, but by using pain and pleasure as tools,
  whenever appropriate, to help the mind abandon its unskillful
  qualities.
  The Middles of the Middle Way


text:
Two interpretations of the three levels of suffering, Dukkha Sutta and Tibetan
There's a wrinkle in the teachings about the three levels of suffering. The Pali Canon, in SN 38.14 -- Dukkha Sutta -- has it thus (leaving things uninterpreted for the moment):

the suffering of pain (dukkha-dukkhatā)
the suffering of fabrication (sankhāra-dukkhatā)
the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā)

The Tibetan teachings typically have it in the following order (Gampopa, Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Chapter 5, has the reverse):

the suffering of suffering -- overt, obviously painful stuff.
the suffering of change -- suffering implicit in pleasure because of impermanence, so it will end
all-pervasive suffering -- suffering due to conditioned existence itself, and the aggregates which are of the nature of suffering

The Tibetan teaching is widely interpreted as I have indicated (though a lot of the descriptions of all-pervasive suffering shade into the definition of suffering of change, which they shouldn't IMHO).
A lot of commentators (such as Guenther on Gampopa) see SN 38.14 as the source of the the Tibetan teaching, and the first items of each do seem to line up nicely, as do the suffering of change in both. But after that there are problems, mainly, why did the order change.
Most pervasively, there is an interpretation (by contemporary teacher Bodhipaksa) of SN 38.14 where the two sufferings of change don't even totally line up, and maybe the whole correspondence is wrong and is more about the two-arrow teaching of SN 36.6 -- The Sallatha Sutta -- than levels of suffering, and referred to in this SE answer: that correct interpretation of SN 38.14 is roughly:

the suffering of pain (dukkha-dukkhatā) -- the initial pain -- the "first arrow"
the suffering of fabrication (sankhāra-dukkhatā) -- the constructed pain we add by resisting/resenting/etc the initial pain -- the "second arrow"
the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā) -- the suffering we get by seeking to cover the constructed pain with pleasure, which is impermanent.

The change in order, putting suffering of formations/conditioned existence in the middle, is the smoking gun, according to Bodhipaksa -- if the Tibetan interpretation of SN 38.14 were correct, then suffering of formations would absolutely have to come last.
So finally my question -- not which is "correct" but -- when did the Tibetan interpretation arise, if not an entirely new teaching, at least the change of order and interpretation of suffering of formations as universal, all-pervasive suffering rather than a personal, second-arrow kind of deal. Is is it in the Theravada anywhere?
The farthest back I can find it is Gampopa, whose Jewel Ornament of Liberation is (I believe) the first fully articulated, book-length Lam Rim text, after Atisha's Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment which is the origin of the Lam Rim, but only has 68 verses and does not go to this level of detail. Seems that those are close enough to the beginning of Buddhadharma in Tibet that the next stop back, if there is one, is probably India or maybe a Nyingma teaching.
Addendum -- Toni Bernhard, Author of How to be Sick and other books, explicates the non-Tibetan, Bodhipaksa version of three sufferings.
Addendum -- There is another sutta with the same sequence as SN 38.14, namely SN 45.165 -- The Dukkhata Sutta. Well known contemporary scholar, translator and practitioner Maurice Walshe has this translation and interpretation of SN 45.165 that accords with the Tibetan reading, despite the sequence.

The words in SN 38.14 are not even attributed to Buddha, they are Sariputra's. I don't know why Theravada took them as the basis of their analysis.
Instead, the authoritative definition of dukkha is found in SN 56.11, the first and main sutra of Buddhism, The Sutra of Setting the Wheel of Dharma in Motion:

Now this, wanderers, is the nobles' truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are dukkha; association with the unloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; unsatisfied thirst is dukkha. In short, the five heaps of fuel (upadana-skandha) are dukkha.

As I understand, in Tibetan classification "the suffering of suffering" is a generalization of the apparent dukkha such as the pains of "birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair". "The suffering of change" is a generalization of "association with the unloved / separation from the loved" aka "the unsatisfied thirst", and "the all-pervasive suffering" stands for the "In short, the five heaps of fuel are dukkha". The sequence preserves the ordering of the original Buddha's quote.

Interesting proposal. Do you have a commentarial source for that connection? Also, the inclusion of "birth" as the first element kinda complicates your interpretation. Thanissaro Bikkhu has a piece (on rebirth) in which "birth" stands for samsara in general (iirc), which would make it more like all-pervasive suffering.

No reference, sorry. I also have my own interpretation of the above, but you didn't ask for interpretation so I stayed away from that.

Actually, I am looking for references. Not to be picky, but the connection you cite -- basically a good one IMHO -- is an interpretation. ;))) It takes some parsing and reasoning to get to the desired threefold principle. And since there are two suttas with a direct connection (except for the wrinkle under discussion), I doubt if the Tibetan and (see my own answer) Theravada teachings are based directly on SN 56.11. Of course, any teacher uses all her resources to arrive at conclusions, so I'm sure the ideas behind SN 56.11 figures in, but indirectly. Also, you haven't dealt with "birth" ;-)).

I did say I wasn't looking for interpretation, but I actually am interested in yours! Shall I edit the question to say that?

I'd be happy to see a new question dedicated to detailed interpretations of the quote from SN 56.11.

I'll leave SN 56.11 to you -- it's obviously a lot more than the issue of how to interpret SN 38.14, which is my immediate concern.

Gethin, Foundations of Buddhism, footnote 4 on p. 282, lists these sources.

Visuddhimagga xvi. 34-5; Digha Nikaya iii. 216; Samyutta Nikaya iv. 259, v. 56; Nettippakarana 12.

The Visuddhimagga has them in the Tibetan order, but leaves me a little confused by

Equanimous feeling and the remaining formations of
  the three planes are called suffering due to formations because they
  are oppressed by rise and fall.

That sounds to me like impermanence, and "rise and fall" does seem to have that meaning in the Visuddhimagga. Here it is in full -- Visuddhimagga XVI:

Its characteristic is the first genesis in any [sphere of] becoming. Its function is to consign [to a sphere of becoming]. It is
  manifested as an emerging here from a past becoming; or it is
  manifested as the variedness of suffering.
But why is it suffering? Because it is the basis for many kinds of
  suffering. For there are many kinds of suffering, that is to say,
  intrinsic suffering dukkha-dukkha), suffering in change
  (vipariṇāma-dukkha), and suffering due to formations
  (sankhāra-dukkha); and then concealed suffering, exposed suffering,
  indirect suffering, and direct suffering.
Herein, bodily and mental, painful feeling are called intrinsic suffering because of their individual essence, their name, and their
  painfulness. [Bodily and mental] pleasant feeling are called suffering
  in change because they are a cause for the arising of pain when they
  change (M I 303). Equanimous feeling and the remaining formations of
  the three planes are called suffering due to formations because they
  are oppressed by rise and fall. Such bodily and mental affliction as
  earache, toothache, fever born of lust, fever born of hate, etc., is
  called concealed suffering because it can only be known by questioning
  and because the infliction is not openly evident; it is also called
  “unevident suffering.” The affliction produced by the thirty-two
  tortures,10 etc., is called exposed suffering because it can be known
  without questioning and because the infliction is openly evident; it
  is also called “evident suffering.” Except intrinsic suffering, all
  given in the exposition of the truth of suffering [in the Vibhaòga]
  (Vibh 99) beginning

In looking for the Nettippakarana I found it described as:

an extra-canonical Buddhist scripture, ascribed to the Buddha's disciple
  Kaccana.  It intends to be a manual for commentators on the Buddhist scriptures.

There is a Pali Text Society translation by Bikkhu Kanamoli, but it's not worth my time at this point to find my way around it. I am satisfied that the Tibetan interpretation does have Theravada branches, at least in the ordering. This may be hard to settle definitively.
Also, I can venture a personal interpretation like this -- it's the same dynamic at two levels. The two-arrow reading is an analysis of dukkha operating personally; the Tibetan (and now maybe Buddhaghosa) reading is more at the collective/universal level.

All conditioned phenomena has sensations associated with it. When we experience "the world" we Perceive the experience agreeable, disagreeable and neither agreeable nor disagreeable1. This in turn leads to pleasure, displeasure and neutral sensation or feelings which intern is linked to attachment, aversion and ignorance which is further linked with the suffering of change, the suffering of pain and the suffering of fabrication2. If you follow this order then it is also different from both presented. If you are looking from an intensity of pain perspective then it follows: the suffering of pain (pain), suffering of change (change from pleasure) and the suffering of fabrication (existance itself in neutral sensations).
Suffering of formation is due to ignorance which intern results in the other 2 roots and all sensations3. All your experiences of conditioned phenomena is through contact which in turn creates karma which in turn creates further experiences4. So suffering due to conditioned phenomena is universal as this create birth followed by possibility of unpleasant life experiences ending in death.

1

When a monk sees a form with the eye, (in him) the agreeable arises, the disagreeable
  arises, the agreeable-and-disagreeable [the neutral] arises
...

Source: Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta
2
Pahāna Sutta
3
Avijja Pahana Sutta 2
4
Nibbedhika (Pariyaya) Sutta


text:
How to balance samatha and vipassana practice?
Should one practice vipassana every day in a formal sitting? If so, how long should it be compared to samatha meditation, should it be practiced right before/after (not asking which comes first!) samatha or at anytime during the day?

Are you looking for answers from any particular tradition of Buddhism or all?

@AndreiVolkov I am looking for guidelines for daily practice. So it doesn't matter, as long as it is helpful.

I would like to recommend a great book:
Mindfulness in Plain English by Ven. Henepola Gunaratana:
I learned that it is good to practice various types of meditation until you are quite comfortable with them.
After that, a normal meditation session could start with Loving Kindness meditation, followed by Samadhi until you get a good concentration, then continue with Vipassana (to see the 3 marks of existence).
Enjoy your meditation.

When meditating from person to person and even from session to session the following can happen:

insight develops before calmness
calmness before insight
neither calm nor insight
both calm and insight

Calmness and insight should be balanced through personal effect and also you should seek guidance on balancing both. [(Samatha Vipassanā) Samādhi Sutta 1 - 3]
Also it is helpful if the calmness is developed through concentrating on one of the Satipatthana [Saṅkhitta Dhamma Sutta] as the object of meditation is not tainted by a Vipallasa [for more on Vipallasa see: Vipallasa Sutta].

If you can practice any form of meditation on a daily basis, that's wonderful! The key is to let it happen naturally, and not try to do more than you are ready for. Keep meditating, but also be patient with your progress.
Regarding the ratio of time spent in shamata vs vipassana: it depends on your current ability. You will find that you naturally spend more time in vipassana as you gain experience in both types of meditation. That said, some days you need (want) more shamata, sometimes you want more vipassana. It can change day to day.
By the way, it's okay (and even recommended) to mix shamata with vipassana during a given session.
Basically, do what feels right. Don't over analyze it. Just do it.
In my Buddhist lineage, it is generally taught that shamata supports vipassana, and that has been confirmed by my experiences (many years of practice).  Stable, powerful insight depends on having a strong foundation.

Should one practice vipassana every day in a formal sitting?

No, you should practice Vipassana in all of your postures. Formally, there are four meditation postures (sitting/walking/standing/lying).
You can read more about postures here: Postures for Meditation.

If so, how long should it be compared to samatha meditation, should it be practiced right before/after (not asking which comes first!) samatha or at anytime during the day?

Samatha and Vipassana are totally different.
You might want to watch this: Ask A Monk: Samatha and Vipassana.
See also: Vipassana Instructions.

You don't need Samatha to practice Vipassana. Vipassana is the one and only path to enlightment. End the suffering once and for all.
The more you do Vipassana, more you'll be closer to Nirwana. Saying that, don't try too hard. Don't try to grab Nirwana forcefully. Give up Nirwana from your mind too. Vipassana is trying while not trying.


text:
Why Shakyamuni Buddha choose Indian subcontinent as a favorable place to teach Buddhist way of living?
Current India was previously not as big and united as it is now. Multiple countries quarrel for existence. Life was not normal for people. Chaos and Imbalance was on its height.
Is that the reason, Shakyamuni Buddha choose Indian Subcontinent as a favorable place to teach Buddhist way of living?
If so, next destination for Buddha to teach may be Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan or even United States. If next Buddha is seen in some other place besides Indian Subcontinent, will he/she be recognized as Buddha? What if Jesus was a form of Buddha? What if new Buddha change the way Buddhism is what we are following, according to current situation?

(I think you know about who a Bodhisattva is....)
While a Bodhisattva is in the heavenly realm (Thauthisa) he chooses the
Best time,Best parents,Best cast,Best kingdom,Best country to be born. This is an essential process that all Bodhisattva's go through before being born as a human being.

Here are the reasons why.....

As you know democracy is really new,what existed before is a cast system with nobles and lower casts. Your name sounds Indian so i presume there is no need of explaining the difficulties that a lower cast person will have to go through to get to any higher level in anything. At the age of kings there is no better place to get accepted than being born as a prince and that's why it happened like that in this era.

I have learned that there is an auspicious place on the Human realm that all Bodhisattvas (Who are destined to be A Lord Buddha) reach nirvana and become Lord Buddhas. And this place is the same place every time even after all the destruction that can happen. This time it was India and next time maybe there will be no India, Next time it may be on an island. What we are talking about is a universal position that does not change,its geography,name and other things may change but it will always be the same place in the universe.
Another Buddha can't be born in a particular realm while there is already a previous Buddha's teaching.
(Please not that this is "Theravada Buddhism" and "Mahayana Buddhists" believe in multiple Buddhas in different realms. But even them do not believe that another Buddha can be born in a particular realm while there is already a previous Buddha's teaching.)

Can Lord Buddha be a woman....

No, As Lord Buddha explained a woman who start the life of a Bodhisattva will soon turn into a male in the most nearby life and continue to be male. Because of this reason a Lord Buddha will always be a male.
Please note that this does not mean that a woman can't be a Lord Buddha. What this means is that when she start her practice as a Bodhisattva she will soon get a life as a male and therefore a woman being a lord Buddha does not happen because of this gender change between births.

Can Jesus or any other recent teachers be a Buddha....

No, Because as far as my knowledge goes none of the schools accept that two Lord Buddhas will exist in the same planet at the same time or two  teachings would exist at the same time.

Will Buddhism change or modify to suit the time....

No, Because there is one unique thing about Buddhism. And that is....
Akalika = Timeless
As Lord Buddha said there is no need of updating or changing the teaching as it is timeless and complete.
Also Lord Buddha challenged saying that no one can add or remove a single teaching as too much or non worthy.
So there can be differences in
The Language
The explaining method
The idioms
The examples
when two Lord Buddhas teach the path. But the core will always be the same. The only difference will be Grammatical and explanatory differences.

So, in brief, a person who is dominant in any realm, where buddhist ideology is lost, can become a buddha by gaining buddhist knowledge. Who knows, some realm may have female as dominant than male. Or is it universal that the male will always be dominant than female!

@kiran , dear friend this is not a matter of Masochism or Feminism. It is more like this (If you want to race a horse on foot and win you can try your luck but it is simply not going to happen. But if you get on a Plane you can win the race.) So this is how things happen.  You might know that we as Buddhist do not recognize gender the way normal society recognize it. We believe that gender is not a solid thing (Meaning any man has been a woman and any woman has been a man). So what we value is spiritual significance not Gender based superiority......

@kiran , The dominance of a person does not matter, A person must be a Bodhisattva to become a Buddha. You and i are normal people who go on with our own lives if you or me try to be a Buddha when Buddhism is not around it will not work. Because non e of us two live the life of a Bodhisattva. And gaining Buddhist Knowledge does not make a Buddha. A Bodhisattva who alone without any help or teaching Realizes Reality and therefore is called a Lord Buddha. So gender does not matter.....

@kiran ,  As i said above in my answer without the matter of a gender (It may be a  HE,She,Transsexual) will be born as a male in the journey of a Bodhisattva and after that the gender may change according to Karma. But in the last life in which the Bodhisattva becomes a Buddha the birth will be male. This has been taught by Buddha as "A Nature of things". This has nothing to do with male dominance. If you know a female who would like to be a Buddha she can just like me (a male) can.

There's more on the subject of gender in this topic. If you want to pursue the topic of gender, you might do that by posting an answer there. "Can Lord Buddha be a woman" wasn't asked here: the question here was, "Why in India, and why 2500 years ago?"

@ChrisW , i agree that the question is not about gender and i have maintained it throughout the comments and the answer. But i had to address to comment from the user Kiran about the gender issue he had mentioned because it had a dominant gender part included in it.

The five major factors were when the Buddha chose to be born

If it is the right time to be born as a
human being in order to attain Buddha hood
The right continent
The right country or the state
The right caste
The right person chosen as the mother to give birth to

In the Indian sub continent there was many exploration of seeking for spiritual salvation during the time. No other country or time was there similar activity in seeking spiritual development and salvation. Hence this was chosen as the right time and place.
Also since the when establishing the order of monks you have to renounce you cast, i.e, what ever cast you had before is left behind and you come to the common pedestal of monkhood. Since this will not be take seriously is a low caste person preachers the set aside cast and will not gain respect of all castes the Buddha has to be born at the highest caste.
In the current situation is not ideal for a Buddha to have been born in case the Buddha to be chose this time as human life expectancy is less than 100 years. A Buddha does not appear in such times. Also back 2500 or so years ago there was no interest in meditation and meditative forms of spiritual development other than in India.
The next Buddha will be Maitreya Buddha. Depending on the time he may set Vinaya and perhaps Vinaya rules different from the current. The Vinaya is established by the Buddha and new rules do not fall into the sphere of a disciple to enact though you can have conventions or agreements, but they are not Vinaya rules. Then a new Buddha enacts his rules then they become effective. In such times the teaching of the previous Buddha would be lost to the world. The Dhamma taught by all Buddhas is the same.

What is the right caste to be a buddha?


text:
Meditation for Psychosis
I have psychosis.
I have no ability to understand reality from birth.
Can meditation give me the ability?
Or will I never be able to end my mental suffering?
Do you know how can I end my pain and fear, and get peace and happiness?

That's an open-ended (general) question. If you could add a bit more to your question, then people's answers could be more specific. How much do you know about Buddhism already? Have you already tried practising meditation? If so which forms of meditation, with what effect? Do you have a teacher? Is practice difficult, and if so why?

More details would be helpful.  Make sure to do so under the guidance of a guru,  counsiler,  therapist,  or mentor

One can interpret it as "Is it possible to heal a diagnosed Psychosis with Dhamma, and when how, by doing meditation or by developing the Noble Eightfold Path?" and for the case that others certain ingenuity lack is general assumed, one could change the question, if the underlying thought is actually this.

My advice is to find a teacher you trust and move forward from there. Meditation might work for you, it might not, chanting might work, it might not, the company of sangha might work, it might not. Have a go :)

So you say "from birth" - but odds are you don't consciously remember how things were when you were born.  Have you looked at the writings of Bankei Yōtaku on the unborn?  https://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/bankei_zen_master.html

Welcome to the site.
I can't give a complete answer; but maybe an outline of an answer in note form. Please feel welcome to ask follow-up questions (using comments or separate questions) when you want any further details.

I've looked for, but I haven't been able find, information related to your question -- i.e. I haven't found Buddhist meditation teachers saying that they have experience of teaching people with psychosis (I have found teachers who said they don't have that experience).
I don't know where you live or who you're in contact with: but I hope it might be worth your while to ask some 'professionals', for example asking ...

Your psychiatrists
Local meditation teachers

... whether they know any suitable meditation classes/programs, and/or teachers with that experience.
For example I found this video, Enlightenment, DP/DR & Falling Into the Pit of the Void.

Buddhism is also known as the threefold training:

Virtue (morality)
Mind (concentration or meditation)
Insight (wisdom)

Virtue (morality)
The first of these is virtue/morality.  In Buddhism, morality might be summarized as "harmlessness" or (in slightly more detail), the "five precepts" which are:

Avoid killing
Avoid stealing (or "taking what is not given")
Avoid sexual misconduct
Avoid lying (or "false speech")
Avoid alcohol

There are many benefits to keeping the five precepts.
Note that "keeping the precepts" was the sum total of Dean's answer, and it's not a bad answer.
There's a sutta, Kimattha Sutta: What is the Purpose?, which begins with,

... he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues?
  What is their reward?"
"Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, Ananda,
  and freedom from remorse as their reward."
"And what is the purpose of freedom from remorse? What is its reward?"
"Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward."

I recommend you read the whole thing.
My point is that that skillful virtues, i.e. "virtues" or being harmless, which is called sila, result in a "lack of remorse".
My experience is that this is very, very important. Even if psychosis means that you can do nothing else, at least knowing the difference between right and wrong, and doing no wrong, will mean that you have no reason to feel remorse, no reason to 'feel bad' about yourself. It makes a world of difference to you and to those around you.
So even if nothing else, do no harm: that's the beginning (of 'peace and happiness').

Mind (concentration or meditation)
The second part of the training includes concentration.
There are many, many types of concentration meditation. I'll mention two:

Breathing meditation ("mindfulness of breathing")
Loving-kindness meditation (called "metta bhavana" in Pali, this chant is an example)

The ability to "concentrate" might ultimately be developed into the jhanas,

Jhana is a meditative state of profound stillness and concentration in which the mind becomes fully immersed and absorbed in the chosen object of attention. It is the cornerstone in the development of Right Concentration.

Maybe this too is what you're looking for, when you're asking about how to attain "peace and happiness".

Some people warn though that it's possible to get a little lost in "concentration" meditation, and that you ought to practice "insight" meditation. I think that's what's meant in the last paragraph of Suminda's answer ("excessive concentration is not advisable").
Insight (wisdom)
Suminda advocates a form of meditation called Vipassana. I think that the purpose of this form of meditation is to observe everything (including body, mind, feelings, and ideas) and to experience the fact that they're impermanent, that they come and go, arise and disappear.
I think that's connected with the so-called "four noble truths" of Buddhism, including the 3rd truth i.e. "cessation".
You'll find more about "Vipassana" if you search for it (I won't try to explain it in this answer), and/or maybe you can find someone who teaches it in person.

Equanimity
I think that one of the states-of-mind which people try to develop using Vipassana (or to put it more impersonally, a state of mind which is developed as a result of Vipassana) is equanimity.
I think that too is related to the four noble truths.
You say, "how can I end my pain and fear" but part of the point of Buddhism is that wanting something makes it worse; for example:

"I'm feeling pain and fear, and that's so bad, I wish it would stop, but it's not stopping, I don't know how to make it stop"

... compared with ...

"Oh that's an experience of a feeling, which in the past I used to label as 'pain and fear' ... there's the feeling ... oh, there's another feeling now, the previous feeling has gone (was impermanent, has ceased)"

I suppose that (equanimity, and knowledge of impermanence) is a result of insight or wisdom.

Love
Actually equanimity is one of the four Brahmaviharas -- of which, the other three are various kinds of love (called metta, mudita, and karuna in Pali).
Here's an essay about the Brahmaviharas.
Someone like the Dalai Lama recommends these kinds of attitudes towards other people. Not only can it be a skillful way to behave with other people (it may be better to feel compassion than anger, for example), but caring about people means caring less about yourself, and/or caring about yourself in the same way that you care about other people. The Dalai Lama has said that he would feel "imprisoned" within himself if he only cared about himself, and that he prefers to see himself as "like other people".
Maybe that's why meditations like the metta gatha include equally "may I be free from suffering" and "may each and every other person be free from suffering".

Psychosis
The OP doesn't mention what the specific symptoms of psychosis are.
Here are some of them as described in Wikipedia:

Hallucinations
Delusions
Thought disorders

Here is some of what I know about these symptoms and some guesses about how Buddhist meditation might be able to help with them.

Hallucinations might include the classic "hearing voices" which means "hearing" or perceiving a thought as if it were a voice. A simple example might be, you're waiting at a bus stop, and you hear a voice saying "that bus isn't coming" but there's no-one else there. So that "voice" was just a thought.
From a mundane point of view, this might be a symptom to discuss with your psychiatrist. I take it you know that there are anti-psychotic drugs, that they're more-or-less effective, that they have unwanted side-effects, that there are many types of them, and that it's guess-work or trial-and-error to find a prescription that suits a specific patient. For some people, the right drugs can relieve symptoms such as hallucinations: so if you experience hallucinations that might be something to tell your psychiatrist, in case they're able to (more or less harmlessly) adjust your prescription.
From a Buddhist point of view, I'd like to suggest that as long as you're able to do no harm, then it doesn't matter. For example, hearing a voice is harmless, whereas hurting someone would be harmful. If you hear a voice but don't hurt people then you're doing very well (and I respect and admire you).
In other words, that may be connected with the "virtue (morality)" part of the path.
Delusions might be, for example, paranoid (believing that others want to harm you), or grandiose (believing you have special power or skills).
To counteract paranoid beliefs, I guess that metta bhavana ("cultivation of loving-kindness") might be helpful. If you don't want to hurt others then they shouldn't want to hurt you. If you see others as suffering (or being freed from suffering) you're less likely to see yourself as suffering (or being persecuted).
To counteract grandiose beliefs, well, I guess I recommend "virtue" again. For example it's alright to see yourself as virtuous if you are virtuous, and alright to see yourself as helping people if at least you are not harming them.
Thought disorders are difficult to talk about, because it means for example that your ability to understand words (speech and writing) is disorganized.
It may or may not help you to know that Buddhism identifies like 12 links in the chain of existence, and that "words" are only one of these links (i.e. sankharas or "fabrications"), and they're arguably the least important and/or the most easily misunderstood link. People tend to be deceived by their own "fabrications". If you can't follow what they say then maybe you will be seen as disabled (and I think maybe you would be 'disabled', because it's typically better if you can say things that people understand) but it's not the end of the world: there are other aspects to reality (e.g. senses, consciousness, feeling, etc.).
I think it's possible to communicate even when there are thought disorders, for example, by being kind to people.
There's a story I remember of the Dalai Lama's meeting someone in the crowd who was disturbed, and holding his hand until he calmed down and found some peace.
Again, anti-psychotic drugs might be able to alleviate the symptom of "thought disorders", which then makes other forms of communication (and/or healing, helping, employment) possible.

Finally it would be amiss to talk about Buddhism without mentioning friendship and community.
One of the Three Jewels of Buddhism is the Sangha,

Sangha is a word in Pali and Sanskrit meaning "association", "assembly," "company" or "community" and most commonly refers in Buddhism to the monastic community of ordained Buddhist monks or nuns. This community is traditionally referred to as the bhikkhu-sangha or bhikkhuni-sangha. As a separate category, those who have attained any of the four stages of enlightenment, whether or not they are members of the bhikkhu-sangha or bhikkhuni-sangha, are referred to as the ariya-sangha or "noble Sangha".

Related to that is the "noble friend", for example the Upaddha Sutta. I'll quote it in full:

Upaddha Sutta: Half (of the Holy Life)
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the
  Sakyans. Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara. There Ven. Ananda
  went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the
  Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda
  said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord:
  admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable
  camaraderie."[1]
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship,
  admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole
  of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends,
  companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the
  noble eightfold path.
"And how does a monk who has admirable people as friends, companions,
  & comrades, develop & pursue the noble eightfold path? There is the
  case where a monk develops right view dependent on seclusion,
  dependent on dispassion, dependent on cessation, resulting in
  relinquishment. He develops right resolve... right speech... right
  action... right livelihood... right effort... right mindfulness...
  right concentration dependent on seclusion, dependent on dispassion,
  dependent on cessation, resulting in relinquishment. This is how a
  monk who has admirable people as friends, companions, & colleagues,
  develops & pursues the noble eightfold path.
"And through this line of reasoning one may know how admirable
  friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually
  the whole of the holy life: It is in dependence on me as an admirable
  friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth,
  that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that
  beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings
  subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained
  release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. It is
  through this line of reasoning that one may know how admirable
  friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually
  the whole of the holy life."
Notes

As AN 8.54 points out, this means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good
  qualities.

I hope that suggests another way to "end my pain and fear, and get peace and happiness": i.e. have a friend, have several friends, be a friend, seek and be with friendly (harmless) people.
See also Kalyāṇa-mittatā or Friend who is the same in happiness and sorrow.

I think it can. We are in no different predicament than you are because we also don't know reality as it really is. We are also deluded big time. We take what is false to be the truth, what is ugly to be beautiful, what is impermanent to be permanent, what is not me or mine to be me or mine. We also have fear, pain, insecurity, anxiety.
So yes, start meditation. Start breath meditation, learn to steady the mind on the breath. Whatever appears during meditation, don't mind it, focus on the breath and let images, visions and whatever arises cease. You don't have to believe them. Just mind the breath going in, going out, going in, going out.
Learn to not cling to things, to give meaning to them.
We are born, we age, get sick and die. We are in the same boat.

Meditation can help: but there is a risk that when you are doing meditation, certain experiences will surface, and sometimes your condition may worsen temporarily. In such cases you have to be steadfastly looking at the arising and passing away of sensation in your body, scanning from head to foot. This can be any sensation: like air touching your body, cloths touching your body, an itching sensation, etc.
This meditation technique is called Vipassana. There are two main divisions in Vipassana, according to subject matter:

on Form (Rupa) - this is mainly using body (kaya) and sensation (vedana)1 as the subject
on Mind (Arupa) - this has mind (Citta) and Dhamma as the subject

When you have a psychological disorder you generally become 'affective' (see the table quoted below), so you would choose Body and Sensation for contemplation (meditation on Form). Also most likely you would be more reactive and tempered: so of the two, 'Sensations' as the subject is the more effective. In all the other satipaṭṭhāna is inter-mingled with sensation, but in such a case sensation should be your main choice: especially that arising in the body to start with, and in the mind. If you do choose to pratice mindfulness of the body it would be on postures and movement and not decay and repulsiveness.

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satipatthana_Sutta)
Also until you become better, excessive concentration is not advisable until the psychological episode subsides. You can try increasing meditation like the breath meditation as things improve, but if leads to instability concentrate on scanning the body giving importance to sensations.

1 This is also Nama or Arupa but put it under Rupa since as some pratice with an emphasis on Kaya Vedana or Bodily Sensations as subject of Vedananupassana.

If one is in a condition that prevents him to make progress in meditation or mindfulness, Buddha recommended him to hold 8 precepts on uposatha days and he will be out of that condition sooner.

In your condition meditation should be taken only with the help of a teacher who knows about your problems. Also, you should stay in touch with your therapist also.
Personally I would not recommend meditation to someone with regular psychoses. I would recommend more physical practices instead - crafting, making furniture, working in a community garden etc. Perhaps Tai Chi, aikido, boxing...
While meditation can have tremendous positive effects, it can also mess with your system pretty badly. Making sure you stay 'grounded' is going to be harder for you than for the average practitioner. So if you are going to meditate - proceed with caution.
Start VERY small. Say a minute a day for a month or so. Then two minutes for a month etc. Monitor the effects very carefully, with the help of a teacher. Feeling good is great, but it is not automatically a good sign.

I suggest that you try Jon Kabat-Zinn's "Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction".
According to this article:

As Kabat-Zinn explained, research and testimonials from patients and
  clinicians suggest that we can turn “the medication down and the
  meditation up.”
“We’ve seen this in the clinical domain for many years. People, in
  concert with their physicians... actually going off their medications
  for pain, for anxiety, for depression, as they begin to learn the
  self-regulatory elements of mindfulness,” said Kabat-Zinn. “They
  discover that the things that used to be symptomatically problematic
  for them are no longer arising at the same level.”

I have no in-depth knowledge of the possible application of buddisham to treat your condition
As a sufferer of the same condition similarly since I became self aware like you I have questioned the nature of reality and it's has been a dominant train of thought throughout my life.
I had a predetermined feeling in youth that I would end up being unable to function and would become 'mad' and I feared this eventuality of madness.
It culminated in a breakdown and I was sectioned when I was 24 as I was describing the reality I was experiencing that was not of the opinion of others family and the medical profession and I was diagnosed with schizophrenia.
Funnily enough that diagnosis removed the fear I had and helped me because then I know longer had the feeling I was on the way to psychosis an eventuality I did not want. But was there and now I could attempt to deal with it and the feelings I hid from those around me was in the open.
I am assume you have been diagnosed but if you haven't and like me have been keeping the feeling you have hidden from family and friends because you feel they will judge you negatively I understand.
If your a UK citizen then I suggest you approach your GP first they have an swear an oath to keep the things you tell them a secret and they will be able to guide you to suitable people within conventional treatment system for you to discuss how you are feeling and the anxietys and fears you have from the questions you have about the nature of reality and understanding of it
However you may have undergone this process and have been diagnosed and are currently undergoing treatment from conventual medicine and your are seeking alternative treatments because you feel they are not helping.
I am undergoing treatment from conventual medicine with medication they prescribe and it helps me, now I don't know if that treatment is actually doing the job but funnily enough I have placed some faith in it and maybee as a combination of the both it has helped me continue with life and to be able to function.
I still question the nature of reality every day and spend a lot of time questioning others perception of it with the methods they use to determine it, ie religion and its various denomination's, western science and eastern holism, and this website enables me to do this, I have said some crazy things on it in bad mental states but it's a kind of therapy for me.
The truths these methods attempt to make, may end up as unequivocal and without question.
And If your looking for truth about the nature of reality then yes Buddhism could be for you, if you do not get anything from conventual treatment.
I have always had a ponsion for physics and maths but these have limits because there dealing with the material and personally for me reality adds up to more than the physical but the interest remains
I hope you are able to find some peace of mind. As a sufferer I hope you have gained some benefit from what I have said because when I was able to discuss things it became therapy, you are not alone as you probably understand and some of the above answers by those with more knowledge of Buddhism than me are attempting to offer support.

Thank you for your answer (which by the way is lucid -- I'm glad to read that you do seem well, with medication, not psychotic). Also maybe Buddhism can be useful if you do get something from conventional treatment; my (limited) experience of psychosis is that it makes it difficult to understand any doctrine, including Buddhism. I was interested in Maths and Physics too, but find them limited; Buddhism is more about subjective experience, I think, including emotions (I beware though that not all teachers of Buddhism are good teachers).

@ChrisW thanks for your comment ultimately I hope the questioner reads this I want the them to understand affofront that they're the most important thing in this discussion I welcome your concern on a delicate subject I have worked as a prison guard and seen just about every walk of life you can imagine and I'm rounded as a result of this no attempt at determination is absolute but having said that Buddhism is a very more mature attempt than most are and does not impose any control over the subject it's down to them personally to motivate and that is what I want to express to the questioner.

I think if you have enough contact with reality to be able to post on here, you have everything necessary to develop insight into the true nature of reality. By having faith in the teachings and meditating on the four dharma seals, there is no doubt you can benefit yourself and others greatly in this life you have. Don't squander your human birth -- it is precious and rare to obtain. Even with impairments, you still have a capacity infinitely more potent than that of an animal.

The only way to end your suffering is to accept the challenge that you created before birth. You have to realize this suffering is a test you gave yourself before your life started.Endure to the end with happiness and show the world nothing can break your spirit. If you can show humbleness and love towards all while suffering this life might be your last trial of suffering or you can choose to rebirth again and help change the perspective of life to many.Once you relize this you will no longer know your suffering.

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


text:
Which are the best Thai amulets for love, job, and career?
Which are the best Thai amulets that can help to get my love back, and also help in my life, jobs, and career?

Not sure this is related to Buddhism

@Sankha Kulathantille It's Buddhism but is it the teaching of the Buddha?

Definitely isn't the word of the Buddha or Ariya Sangha! "amulets that can help to get my love back" sounds more like witchcraft! :)

Experts believe as recent as 500 years ago around south east Asia region), texts were generated about a story of King Kosala asking Buddha about anisong (good karma) for creating Buddha's image.  Some Thai Buddhist temples create amulets ever since.
If you still want to have one, just don't spend tons of money on it. Amulets are collectible just like baseball cards.  There are tons of forgery.  You may go to Thai buddhist temple near you and ask a monk for one.  Or if you live in the US, you can try writing Metta Forest Monastery in CA,and ask for one if they still have any.  wat metta
PS.  there is no way of measuring "mystical" power of an amulet, so pick one that appeals to you.  This sutta might help you further causes in love and career.  Buddha gave this lecture to the Direction Worshipers...
Sigalovada Sutta
As an employee

start work before boss
leave work after boss
taking only what is given
doing assigned work well
promoting boss' good reputation.

and if you are the boss

allocating work according to aptitude
providing wages
looking after the sick
sharing special treats (bonus)
giving reasonable time off work

As a friend (so you will be well loved)

generosity
kind words
acting for their welfare
impartiality
honesty

These will help us more than any amulets could.

+1 but I wouldn't mind if you also added any reference or citation for the opening sentence.

u bet.. since it's border line a sutta and folk legend, i will do  my best to find official account in English.   i might have heard it from a monk in person long time ago.  I'm sure you are aware that consecrating an object is one of the low arts Buddha prohibits Bhikku to do but they are doing it in some monasteries.  It is a sensitive subject.

it was anything's being "added to the pali canon" as recently as 500 years ago that was news to me.

Similar story of anisong of building Buddha's image first appeared (in written format) in Pannasa Jataka.   unfortunately i could not find online book. https://store.pariyatti.org/Pannasa-Jataka-Vol-1-Stories-1-25_p_2119.html Only hard copy available.  Stories are copied and modified into  Lan Na Canon (written format in 1824), which was rejected by King of Siam Tripitaka in  1893.  However, Thai tradition is still creating Buddha amulets til today.    I know it's a crude research paper but something to back up my statement.

For extra credit, one of Buddha's earliest image , appeared on the coin of emperor  Kanishka I, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka  120AD  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanishka#/media/File:Coin_of_Kanishka_I.jpg

Here is Buddha's take on what the translator pinned as 'protective charms & ceremonies'

"Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is an outcaste of a lay follower, a stain of a lay follower, a dregs of a lay follower. Which five? He/she does not have conviction [in the Buddha's Awakening]; is unvirtuous; is eager for protective charms & ceremonies; trusts protective charms & ceremonies, not kamma; and searches for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings there first. Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is an outcaste of a lay follower, a stain of a lay follower, a dregs of a lay follower.
"Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower. Which five? He/she has conviction; is virtuous; is not eager for protective charms & ceremonies; trusts kamma, not protective charms & ceremonies; does not search for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings here first. Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower."
AN 5.175

The quote from DN 2 below shows practices which are considered wrong livelihood for monks and contemplatives.
While the making of amulets and talismans is not listed explicitly, "casting spells for good or bad luck" is listed, which is close enough.
Furthermore, such luck amulets go along with practices like astrology, palmistry, geomancy, omen-reading, dream-interpretation, protection spells or charms and so on, which are all considered wrong livelihood for monks and contemplatives.
On the other hand, the practice of loving kindness (metta) might give you the Buddhist version of good luck with these 11 benefits:

"One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear
to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one.
Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains
concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused
and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds.
AN 11.16

Wrong livelihood for monks and contemplatives:

There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in
faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong
livelihood. This includes such fields as limb-reading, omenology,
divining celestial portents, interpreting dreams, divining bodily
marks, divining holes in cloth gnawed by mice, fire offerings, ladle
offerings, offerings of husks, rice powder, rice, ghee, or oil;
offerings from the mouth, blood sacrifices, palmistry; geomancy for
building sites, fields, and cemeteries; exorcisms, earth magic, snake
charming, poisons; the crafts of the scorpion, the rat, the bird, and
the crow; prophesying life span, chanting for protection, and animal
cries. They refrain from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such
wrong livelihood. This pertains to their ethics.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in
faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong
livelihood. This includes reading the marks of gems, cloth, clubs,
swords, spears, arrows, weapons, women, men, boys, girls, male and
female bondservants, elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats,
rams, chickens, quails, monitor lizards, rabbits, tortoises, or deer.
They refrain from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong
livelihood. This pertains to their ethics.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in
faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong
livelihood. This includes making predictions that the king will march
forth or march back; or that our king will attack and the enemy king
will retreat, or vice versa; or that our king will triumph and the
enemy king will be defeated, or vice versa; and so there will be
victory for one and defeat for the other. They refrain from such
unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong livelihood. This pertains
to their ethics.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in
faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong
livelihood. This includes making predictions that there will be an
eclipse of the moon, or sun, or stars; that the sun, moon, and stars
will be in conjunction or in opposition; that there will be a meteor
shower, a fiery sky, an earthquake, thunder; that there will be a
rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the moon, sun, and
stars. And it also includes making predictions about the results of
all such phenomena. They refrain from such unworthy branches of
knowledge, such wrong livelihood. This pertains to their ethics.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in
faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong
livelihood. This includes predicting whether there will be plenty of
rain or drought; plenty to eat or famine; an abundant harvest or a bad
harvest; security or peril; sickness or health. It also includes such
occupations as computing, accounting, calculating, poetry, and
cosmology. They refrain from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such
wrong livelihood. This pertains to their ethics.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in
faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong
livelihood. This includes making arrangements for giving and taking in
marriage; for engagement and divorce; and for scattering rice inwards
or outwards at the wedding ceremony. It also includes casting spells
for good or bad luck, curses to prevent conception, bind the tongue,
or lock the jaws; charms for the hands and ears; questioning a mirror,
a girl, or a god as an oracle; worshiping the sun, worshiping the
Great One, breathing fire, and invoking Siri, the goddess of luck.
They refrain from such unworthy branches of knowledge, such wrong
livelihood. This pertains to their ethics.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in
faith, still earn a living by unworthy branches of knowledge, by wrong
livelihood. This includes rites for propitiation, for granting wishes,
for ghosts, for the earth, for rain, for property settlement, and for
preparing and consecrating house sites, and rites involving rinsing
and bathing, and oblations. It also includes administering emetics,
purgatives, expectorants, and phlegmagogues; administering ear-oils,
eye restoratives, nasal medicine, ointments, and counter-ointments;
surgery with needle and scalpel, treating children, prescribing root
medicines, and binding on herbs. They refrain from such unworthy
branches of knowledge, such wrong livelihood. This pertains to their
ethics.
DN 2

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


text:
Conceptual reality, mettā, ignorance
According to some commentaries/abhidhamma, all unwholesome states are rooted in ignorance; that ignorance is, according to Pa Auk Sayadaw, the ignorance that sees things as concepts, e.g., a man a woman etc. However, it seems like in order to do mettā and similar practices, one must take a concept as object. My question: Since wholesome states like mettā are said to be incompatible with unwholesome states like ignorance, why does it seem like mettā is rooted in ignorance?

Enlightenment is rooted in Ignorance like the Lotus flower rises up from the mud and muck to bloom effortlessly on the surface of the water.  I cannot take credit for these words.

The important thing about metta is not the "object", but the result of the practice; it's point is so one becomes kind when kindness is not present.
Notice that Saying benevolence (metta) is rooted in ignorance if a particular practice is described in conventional terms is like saying dhamma is rooted in ignorance because it's also exposed in conventional terms.
Also, as a side note, Metta practice with a person as an object is a later development.
It would be problematic if, in this or any exercise, one nurtures and develops a wrong view (e.g. believing that a person has an eternal soul).
I'd guess the Ven. meant "seeing things as concepts" as something very specific: substituting reality for some concept. Conceptual thinking is largely intrinsic to thinking. it's problematic because it requires skill to not be confused, to not take something imagined as something real, to not develop wrong view (e.g believing an object is detached, eternal, subsisting without conditions).

Saying "That's a man" may be ignorant, but saying "that's not a sentient being" might also be wrong.
I noticed this yesterday, from Ajahn Chah,

At one point, he went to Achaan Chah and complained, noting that even Achaan Chah himself was inconsistent and seemed often to contradict him self in an unenlightened way.
Achaan Chah just laughed and pointed out how much the monk was suffering by trying to judge others around him. Then he explained that his way of teaching is very simple: "It is as though I see people walking down a road I know well. To them the way may be unclear. I look up and see someone about to fall into a ditch on the right-hand side of the road, so I call out to him, 'Go left, go left' Similarly, if I see another person about to fall into a ditch on the left, I call out, 'Go right, go right!' That is the extent of my teaching. Whatever extreme you get caught in, whatever you get attached to, I say, 'Let go of that too.' Let go on the left, let go on the right. Come back to the center, and you will arrive at the true Dharma."

I think the two views (or two "truths") you describe are called "conventional" and "ultimate" ... but another way of describing that is to say that one is one is "skillful means" and the other is "wisdom".
They are two extremes.
Seeing someone as a person (as a man or a woman, as a sentient being) is conventional ... but might it also be skillful, or perhaps related to having a skillful relationship with them?
I think that the story Nothing Exists warns against an extreme or naive version of the "a 'man' is just a concept and doesn't exist" doctrine. To the extent that suffering can exist maybe metta is appropriate.
In various ways, Metta and so on (the Brahmaviharas) are skillful.
For example, The Four Sublime States by
Nyanaponika Thera starts with,

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact.

Also we were looking into the Metta Gatha recently. In the Karaniya Metta Sutta it's only saying "may they be happy", in the commentary (in the Visuddhimagga, as well as in the above article by Nyanaponika Thera) it explains why it's right to start metta bhavana with, "may I be happy", and then extend outwards from there.
A self-centred (or informed-by-experience) practice of metta reminds me of the Dhammapada,

"All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill".

Also, the 'people' (or 'sentient beings') who need Metta, who are able to suffer, are presumably those who are not enlightened, and who are to that extent (themselves) ignorant. Perhaps it's for that reason that you could say that metta is rooted in ignorance?
Even so, compassion (teaching for the sake of 'beings' with little dust in their eyes) seems to have been the motive of the Buddha himself: I don't think compassion can be seen as rooted only in ignorance.

One more comment. I suppose that metta bhavana is (like) a 'concentration' practice, whereas Sayadaw and the Abhidhamma and so on is to do with 'insight' practice.
I'm not sure what the best quote is on that subject but here's one from Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha,

There is a lot of confusion on the differences between concentration
practices and insight practices. [...] Concentration practices (samatha or
samadhi practices) are meditation on a concept, an aggregate of many
transient sensations, whereas insight practice is meditation on the many
transient sensations just as they are. When doing concentration
practices, one purposefully tries to fix or freeze the mind in a specific
state, called an “absorption,” “jhana” or “dyana.” While reality cannot
be frozen in this way, the illusion of solidity and stability certainly can be
cultivated, and this is concentration practice.

The eight-fold way is sometimes described as a three-fold training: virtue, concentration, and wisdom.

In Abhidhamma totality of all phenomena is in 5 categories.

Ultimate realities - or realities that are atomic or do not lose meaning when broke down to lower level of abstraction

Mind states
Metal content
Materiality
Nirvana

Conventional realities - abstracted or compounded concepts which the meaning is lost when break down to lower levels of abstraction

Concepts

A person is a concept as you say which is used for Sublime meditation. But there you use this concept to break the concept of one being a dear person or being (agreeable object), a foe / dangerous being (disagreeable object) and neutral person or being (neither agreeable nor disagreeable object). When you practice Metta you break these conceptual boundaries about beings. This is discussed on page 102, Knowing and Seeing by Pa Auk Tawya Sayadaw.
Ignorance is not knowing the 4 Noble Truths and Dependent Origination (DO). If you take the 1st which is Dukkha, you experience this with beings. Meeting a loved one is a pleasure or give pleasant sensation, parting is displeasure, meeting a unloved being is a displeasure or gives unpleasant sensations, meeting someone neutral is neither pleasurable or displeasurable. All the above covers the full spectrum of Dukkha or sensations or what is felt. By being equanimous towards the sensation knowing it is impermanent and not totally controllable and breaking the Perceptions you remove Ignorance. This also related to DO through Ignorance and Feeling / Sensation link.
If you have a polarity or temperament like being hot tempered then the Sublime Meditation can help you reduce these tendencies at the conceptual or perceptual level. This is more at the surface level.
Also concept of person has the notion of beauty which also results in similar notion as beautiful (agreeable hence pleasant sensation), ugly (disagreeable hence unpleasant sensations), neither (neither agreeable nor disagreeable hence neutral sensations). Here you have to look at a person as anatomical parts, materiality, and decay to break the perception of beauty.
Concept on its own is not Ignorance but can lead to Ignorance due to Corruption of Insight (Vipallasa) which covers you from seeing the 4 Noble Truths, DO or the true characteristics of the object (change, unsatisfactoriness, non self). So if your meditation object is a concept you have to note that is it either impermanent and not in one's control hence Dukkha. Dukkha as mentioned before links up with the 4 Noble Truths and DO.
Finally, you will realise evaluating a being as friend, foe, attractive, attractive or neutral creates sensation which in himself burden and unsatisfactory as sensations are impermanent and not in one's control. The will lighten your clinging to concepts regarding beings and the associated sensations of a being as an entity with fixed attributes which will lead to breaking the fetter regarding identity view. This does not mean you will not have any concepts as they are needed to relate to other in conventional terms, it is just that you do not cling to them. Likewise, with deeper understanding you will develop revulsion towards all the aggregates as they are linked with aggregability, disagreeable, neutral disposition  hence pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensation which in term is not permanent or in one's control which means you cannot maintain them as it is agreeable to continuously experience the pleasantness associated with them you will let go of such expectation from the aggregates and the aggregates as an instrument in seeking of pleasures. What is said about the aggregates here can be extended to the world and 6 sense doors.

this is good question.  this is how i put it together.  I hope i hit the mark.
Buddha told ven. Ananda that vinnaya is concious of 4 things only.  vinnana is conscious of; rupa, vedana, sanna, and sankhara (together form 5skandha).  We only aware one of those 4 things one at time tho switching from one to another really fast.   Now, where is Metta in 5 skandha?  Metta is in one of those 4 which is sankhara.   From Pratītyasamutpāda (another way of explaining how 5 skandha comes to be).

avijja paccaya sankhara. With Avidya as condition, Samskara arise.

Metta, like everything else, is dukka subject to decay and destruction since it is in sankara.  an arahat do not see self in metta or anything in 5 skandha for that matter.

The practise of metta is not rooted in ignorance but the idea of 'beings' ('satta') is rooted in ignorance. To quote the scriptures:

Mara, why now do you assume 'a being' ('satta')? Have you grasped a view? SN 5.10

~~

'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. To what extent is one said to
  be 'a being' ('satta')? Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form,
  feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness, Radha: when one
  is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.' SN
  23.2

~~~

And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition comes...birth. And what is birth? Whatever birth...of the various beings ('satta') in this or that
  group of beings, that is called birth. SN 12.2

Therefore, when metta is practised, when it is reflected: "May all beings be happy; may all beings be free from suffering", this really means: "May all aggregates subject to ignorance be free from delusion & find happiness & peace".
If the scriptures are read with ignorance, they can be interpreted materialistically. The same as Mara, ignorance will misinterpret terms such as "beings" ('satta') to mean "people" and "worlds" ('loka') to mean "planets" or "reincarnation".
The term "beings" ("satta"), in the language of ultimate truth, means: "aggregates trapped in the delusion of attachment".
(However, in conventional language, the term "beings" can mean "people", such as when the Buddha is called a 'great being').
Similarly, the idea of 'man' & 'woman' is also what Mara believes. To quote the scriptures, again:

One to whom it might occur, 'I'm a woman' or 'I'm a man' Or 'I'm anything at all' — Is fit for Mara to address. SN 5.2

It is quite amusing when Mara attempts to teach dharma of materialism (such as 'beings', 'men', 'women', 'worlds of reincarnation') to noble disciples.