text:
What does pari-mukha mean in 16 APS anapana sati?
https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/what-does-pari-mukha-mean-exactly-in-16.html
excerpt:
Translation (from pali)
I've chosen the literal translation of near-the-mouth. In Theravada Pali Vinaya, pari-mukha is used in the context of facial hair or chest hair being in front of you.
But what does it actually mean?
To have 'sati' established 'near the mouth', or 'in front of you'?
Three logical possibilities
1) spatial coordinates only  (in front of you, near mouth, face, chest)
2) figurative only, not a literal interpretation of spatial coordinates, like "focusing on task at hand"
3) both one and two (it's possible the Buddha meant both, just like if you're using a cel phone, you're literally and figuratively focusing on the task in your hand)

Also see: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/2518/

There's an article discussing the use of that word here -- parimukhaṃ -- which interprets it literally, as you did, by referring to its being used literally in other texts like the Vinaya, the Abhidhamma, the Khuddaka Nikāya, and a Commentary.
Piya Tan disagrees, in his introduction to MN 118 he writes,

2.4 PARIMUKHA
  2.4.1 Abhidhamma interpretation.
  Unlike in Hatha Yoga, in breath meditation the breath is not
  deliberately regulated, but a sustained effort is made to fix one’s awareness on the breath as it moves in and
  out in its natural rhythm. Those who follow the Abhidhamma and Commentarial traditions, teach that mindfulness should be focused at the nostril or the upper lip, wherever the contact of the breath is felt most distinctly. This tradition is mainly based on the Patisambhida,magga and Vibhanga interpretation of parimukham as being “at the tip of the nose or at the centre of the upper lip.”
Parimukha literally means
  “around (pari) the entrance (mukha),” here always used idiomatically and as an adverb, meaning “in front.”
  This is the interpretation followed by U Thittila, Maurice Walshe, Soma Thera, and Ñānamoli & Bodhi.

... and he includes a half a dozen footnotes as references for that last sentence.
He also wrote,

In this connection, the Tiantai master, Zhìyǐ 智顗 (538-597), in his Tóngméng zhǐguān 童蒙止觀
  (Samatha and Vipasyana for Beginners), gives this advice for dealing with two kinds of distractions:

What is a sinking mind? If during the meditation the mind is dull, confused or unrecordable,
    while the head drops, this shows a sinking mind. In such a case, it should be fixed on the tip of the
    nose to nail it there and to prevent it from wandering elsewhere. This is the way to regulate a sinking
    mind.
What is a floating mind? If during the meditation, it drifts about and is uneasy, while thoughts
    follow externals, this shows a floating mind. In such a case, it should be pushed down and fixed on
    the navel to prevent thoughts from rising; thus the mind will be stabilized and will be easily quieted.
Therefore, the absence of the sinking or floating state shows a regulated mind.
    (Zhìyǐ, Tóngmén Zhǐguān 童蒙止觀 in Lu K’uan Yü, 1964:126;41)

That latter reminds me of the little I was taught about Daoist meditation, incidentally.

It's best take if using it's meaning also mental "bringing it into the front", "focus on it", "make it as target direct for one" in all it's aspects.
"bringing it in foreground"
...reading the options given in the question now, good householder Frank, the third is good when taking the coordiants just one-dimensional, as direction, straight forward, in front, as supporting perception for the mental part of it.
(This "calibration" works good (just as one tool one could try) to perceive such as a robe between ones "bottom" firm on the ground fixed and the crown, taking the breat (strong hand), and pulling the robe straight upward, making the body straight, upright, and with it an even view and focus as well, mental at the same time.)
(note that this Gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)

https://notesonthedhamma.blogspot.com/2019/07/parimukha-57-occurrences-in-pali-suttas.html
excerpt:
parimukha: 57 occurrences in the pali suttas
If you want to be sure of what a pali word means, you need to look at every reference in the suttas and make sure it's coherent and consistent throughout.
The conclusion of this study, is that pari-mukha can not mean the physical spatial location "around the mouth", as late Theravada interprets it.
In the sitting meditation context, pari-mukha is not about the spatial location "in front" at all. The spatial interpretation just happens to work for 16 APS (breath meditation). But it doesn't work for all of the other Buddhist meditations designated which are non-breath related.
conclusion: Pari-mukha is a figure of speech.
Similar to these English figures of speech:
1. Focus on the task at hand
2. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
3. Follow your nose
Pari-mukha is a figure of speech that means, "main priority".
pari-mukhaṃ satiṃ upaṭṭhapetvā  = Make sati establishment your "main priority".

If practicing one would find out that mind, speech and body, if right made, always walk together. Others than broad western, scholar believes, householder Frank, or does he believe that the Arahats ever studied, knew, the whole collection?


text:
Suppose World War 3 occurs and manages to wipe out all humans and animals. Is the cycle of death and rebirth broken?
Or will human beings be magically reborn again in order to continue their journey to Nirvana?

Your questions includes "magically", which appears to be the basis of beliefs. In most religion, "Believing" is just trusting, without substantial evidence. Most evidences there are often just anecdotes, but we must realize the human mind is susceptible to filter disconfirming data out & even to illusionate. There is no real evidence to believe literal rebirth & afaik, the Buddha suggested not to blindly believe, but to question & see whether it's for your long term welfare.

'Humans' are people who have a moral conscience & are humane.
'Animals' are people driven by instinct (such as survivalism, tribalism & terroritalism), emotion, without reflective wisdom.
'Human' & 'animal' are states of mind rather than physical qualities.
For example, the 'human state' is described as follows:

Sooner, I say, would that blind turtle, coming to the surface once every hundred years, insert its neck into that yoke with a single hole than the fool who has gone once to the nether world would regain the human state. For what reason? Because here, bhikkhus, there is no conduct guided by the Dhamma, no righteous conduct, no wholesome activity, no meritorious activity. Here there prevails mutual devouring, the devouring of the weak. For what reason? Because, bhikkhus, they have not seen the Four Noble Truths. What four? The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering.
SN 56.47

AN 6.39 says:

Bhikkhus, a god, a human or any other good state would not be evident from actions born of greed, hate and delusion. Yet, bhikkhus, from actions born of greed, hate and delusion a hellish being, an animal birth a ghostly birth or some other bad state would be evident.
AN 6.39

As for Nirvana, the suttas described it as the here-&-now end of greed, hatred & delusion. There is no 'journey' to 'Nirvana'. To 'journey' is to 'wander & roam'. 'Wandering & roaming' is called 'samsara'. 'Nirvana' is found in the present. 'Samsara' is not 'Nirvana' and 'Nirvana' is not 'samara'.

In Buddhism, there are 31 planes of existence (“The Thirty-One Planes of Existence” by Venerable. Bhante Suvanno Mahathera) which make a universe. There are such infinite universes. (Page 27, Abhidharma Pradeepika, volume 1 by Mr. Amaradasa Rathanapala)
Also, there are multiple humanoid planets.
If the world gets destroyed then everyone is born somewhere else, either in a different humanoid planet in the same of a different universe, a different plane in the same of a different universe, or inter-dimensional hell which belong to any universe. The cycle will not be broken.
Also, see Buddhist cosmology of the Theravada school.

What if another war ended all human and animal lives in all planes of existence?

There is no war powerful enough to wipe 1000s of planets in a single universe let alone any parallel universes.

Also, this answer might be of interest: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/13087/295

How would you know if there is no such war capable of such destruction?

It's simple math, if you toss 1,000 coins and hoping for the odds that all 1,000 of them show heads, it'd be exceedingly exceedingly low, though not completely zero. Similarly, with countless number of planets in an infinite universe, the odds that every single human planet have a totally completely catastrophic war that wipes out all life would be infinitely infinitely low, though technically not at zero. That's why Samsara was, is, and will be going on forever.

From SN 15.3:

"From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A
  beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance
  and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have
  you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss,
  swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all
  fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be
  released."

From MN 9:

From the origination of fermentation comes the origination of
  ignorance. From the cessation of fermentation comes the cessation of
  ignorance. .....
From the origination of ignorance comes the origination of
  fermentation. From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of
  fermentation.

From DN 15:

"Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes
  consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes
  name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes
  contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From
  feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a
  requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite
  condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes
  birth. From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the
  origination of this entire mass of stress.

As you can see above, the Buddha says that a beginning point for samsara is not seen.
There are also cyclic relationships like between ignorance and fermentation (or effluents), and also between consciousness and name-and-form.
This is like the case of chicken and egg - which came first? A beginning point is not evident.

Whoa! Really, if there is a particular set of cause& conditions  capable of doing such thing then the same would again make it because Energy remains preserved.
We are not merely body, rather a particular set of causes&conditions known as subcouncious mind state(citta).
2 cases arise::
1.)  Every citta is being wiped out.
2.) Citta is preserved.
1st one only possible when everyone attains Nibbana, which is not destruction.
If 2nd one occurs then just like life generated out of chemicals on earth(which came into existence through sun), same way it would generate again.
It seems that by thinking such amount of mass destruction, there is a lack of love, compassion in your life. So,
May you be free from this evil idea of wiping-out every life from everywhere.
Along with this, metta in song form too, let me love you(bieber).

Does this mean that all karmic life is back at square one on this game of snakes and ladders? Maybe we all need a second chance after all. Rest assured that World War 3 ended with a decisive victory for the living late last year.

No, preserved cittas will continue journey in (name-form)less realms. Rest assured @SinglemindedCompass , not just 2nd rather infinite chances are there till citta is being wiped-out. Yes, still recent even b/w usa & iran increased heart-beats.

I’m just working with the logical conclusions of canonical theories. WW3 ended with the word “gaslighting”. If you can analyse, you will see forces everywhere coming together that were at odds once.

Be happy-- do as you wish. Stay enthusiastic-- hope is must. You have come a long way in motivating self and others through songs. And @SinglemindedCompass, Last comment:: Namo Buddhaya.

‘There comes a time, Vasettha, when, sooner or later after a long period, this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly born in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious — and they stay like that for a very long time.  (Aggana Sutta)

If a fantastic war occured, such that would make the world  unfit for human and animal life; nothing special would happen and beings would be in the unaffected realms.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
I had a no-self experience, why is it a good state?
I've been meditating for about 4 months without (seemingly) getting somewhere up till about 2 weeks ago when something clicked for me after watching some interviews and talks from Gary Weber and thinking carefully about what was preventing me from really meditating.
I became pretty obsessed with really seeing things clearly with the over two consecutive weekends with the "goal" of reaching the first samatha jhana (of which I already had a previous encounter).
In the first weekend I really tried to calm down the whole day and medidate the most I could take. Reaching high concentration was easier that day but still not sufficient for full blown jhana.
In the second weekend I began working on it more and reaching something like 60% there. The next day I tried to reach it again and failed because of the attachment to reach there. After learning about the practice that Gary Weber and Ramana Maharshi reccomend (who is thinking? Who is hearing? Etc..) I tried it and immidietly found it extremely potent, much more potent than regular vipassana. I soaked myself in this kind of meditation all remaining day until I got to sleep.
After I fell asleep I had a visualization of me seeing thoughts come in and physically putting them on the shelf, one by one. Also focusing on the feeling of 'I' there.
After about an hour of sleep, I suddenly found myself in the middle of switching pillows bu my whole perception completely changed. I noticed the following things:

The sense of an 'I' was gone. I continued to search for it but it was no longer there.
Experience seemed to flow one moment after another by itself without any intervention or will. Each moment kind of forces the next to nesserally, logically happen.
There was a sense of complete detachment, no will to be in this state nor to not be in it. There was just an analytic curiosity about what happens in the moment. I knew at that moment that there could not be any suffering.

So I guess I had a glipse of how it is to be awakened. And what is called "the arising and passing away" or "dependent origination". But that's just empty language.
Since then I find it much easier to slip into mindfulness, sense an attachment, automatically see the suffering in it and let it go.
When mindfulness is present the world seems to be completely neutral and analytic. There's no suffering but no joy either. I can see the benefit of removing suffering, but I dont see the joy of this analytic neutral state. I think there's something I'm missing or failing to notice.
What is the joy or bliss that supposedly arises by being mindful and present?

missing the joy?

Yes, pretty much. I end up at a completely neutral place.

well, the bliss of 'enlightenment is often called beauty or happiness. it is often said that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and that happiness is not hedonistic

"but I dont see the joy of this analytic neutral state." ?

http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.than_en.html

When I told my Zen Roshi that "I didn't exist," he simply tapped my leg and said, "What's that?" I was completely baffled and tongue-tied.
Welcome to the stream.

“Mendicants, all those who have experiential confidence in me have entered the stream. --AN10.64

If the "world seems to be completely neutral and analytic", this can be due to indifference (i.e., lay equanimity) or renunuciate equanimity. The difference is subtle and warrants further practice and study.

Therein, by relying on the six kinds of renunciate equanimity, give up the six kinds of lay equanimity. --MN137

Regarding your question about joy or bliss, you might be interested to read about the eight liberations. In particular, the third liberation involves beauty. Indifference cannot see beauty.

They’re focused only on beauty. This is the third liberation. --AN8.66

The challenge provided by being just neutral and analytic is that one is still beset by choices, and those choices become more and more difficult with greater insight. Here, precepts become increasingly important along with further practice.
Also study the brahmaviharas.

Interesting. I also suspected that myself (pun intended). There may be some rejection of experience in the form of subtle indifference to sensations. What practice would you recommend in order to let go of that rejection?

also about "Welcome to the stream." - this was a one time (although very recent) experience. I would definitely consider it progress but not a "stage". I also tend to shun away from these sorts of labels and maps, better to investigate yourself rather then rely on an external source for understanding.

In my own experience, I had to explore areas of strong emotion that broke through the neutral and analytic. For example, I took up rock climbing as a form of moving meditation to deal with Fear and Dread as described in MN4 since it was more effective than meditating in charnel grounds at night. I've omitted that detail from the answer in an attempt to keep the answer of general use to others hoping that this commentary might help.

"Welcome to the stream" does not actually say anything about entry or non-entry. :D
But you certainly have glimpsed non-self!

How did those feelings manifested themselves? We're you just meditating and a sudden burst of intense fear appeared? What was the fear from?

If you ask me, I'd argue that "experiencing not-self" does not have to do that much with an specific feeling or sensation, but rather with a change in our paradigms, mental schemes and world-views. The internalization born from reflection, analysis and meditation allows the mind to change the way it interprets the world and sense-experience. You gradually stop identifying with things and states, and the possessive habit of seeing things as "mine" or "me" gets weaker and weaker in its influence over time.
The experiences you described might act as a guide to start to understand how the three characteristics (not-self, impermanence and unsatisfactoriness) are an intrinsic part of conditioned phenomena, but the goal of the Dhamma are not such experiences in themselves, because they are transcient in nature, just like any other feeling. When a sensation arises, one starts seeing it for what it is: just a sensation, with some specific conditions that made it arise in the first place, and which does not have anything to be called "I", "me" o "mine". These "unusual" experiences are something that might go as fast as it came, and so, getting attached to them or seeing them as an end in itself will only bring more insatisfaction.
The joy and peace arises naturally when the mind is free from pollutions, false expectations, anxiety and craving for conditioned and impermanent things. Life starts to feel good for what it is, and the habitual desire for controlling the world and its conditions gets substantially diminished with enough time and practice. Such peace and joy in the here-&-now is a different kind of peace and joy that the one we're used to, because it does not come from specific conditions, but from the wisdom the learns to let go a release the mind from attachments born out of ignorance.
Kind regards!

Self doctrine leads to craving [(Vicarita) Tanha Sutta], latent tendencies [Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta], pervertions [Vipallasa Sutta] and misery [Alagaddûpama Sutta].
Abandoning these negative states make one better as they would be replaced by positive states.

Do the 108 thought courses all correspond to the tanha portion in dependent origination? I'm trying to get the classifications right...

Yes. This is related to DO craving. Self part is in Madhupindika Sutta. 108 though causes this these 2 with respect to self conceiving.

If you ask this as a question I can give you a detailed answer comments limit how much you can write. I am busy next few days. Ping me with a question over the weekend.

I think some people experience "states" as dukkha -- e.g. states are unpleasant ... or pleasant but impermanent ... or nice enough but not what you wanted.
So you get comments in the suttas like this,

But it’s only suffering that comes to be,
lasts a while, then disappears.
Naught but suffering comes to be,
naught but suffering ceases.

Or observations like "sabbe sankhara dukkha".
Also I think we're warned that people delight in or are attracted towards (intend to acquire) pleasant feelings, have aversion to unpleasant feeling, and (importantly) are ignorant in the event of neutral (neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant) feelings.
So maybe it's a matter of developing wisdom towards "neutral" feelings.
For example there's a recommendation in this sutta about eating:

There is the case, sister, where a monk, considering it thoughtfully, takes 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,]

'Thus will I destroy old feelings [of hunger] and not create new feelings [from overeating]. I will maintain myself, be blameless, & live in comfort.'

I think that's an example of a neutral feeling (or even "no feeling") being understood to be preferable -- with "feelings" being ultimately viewed as a burden.
I think a purpose of the "non-self" view is that any and every type of self-view is unsatisfactory too and results in suffering:

Bhikshus, you may well cling to the self-doctrine that would not cause sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair to arise in one who clings to it. But do you see any such possession, bhikshus?”
“No, bhante.”
“Good, bhikshus. I, too, do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair in one who clings to it.

According to this sutta, actual "joy" is instead associated with or resulting from a "lack of remorse" -- which comes from skilful "virtue" or ethics (i.e. "kusalāni" "sīlāni").

Maybe its that there's still clinging to the notion that there should be some joy or bliss in that state that prevents it from being. I will try to examine it more and see if letting this feeling go and just experiencing without an expectation brings a joy by itself.

To get into samadhi, you do that:

"For a person endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue, there is no
  need for an act of will, 'May freedom from remorse arise in me.' It is
  in the nature of things that freedom from remorse arises in a person
  endowed with virtue, consummate in virtue.
"For a person free from remorse, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May joy arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that joy arises
  in a person free from remorse.
"For a joyful person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May
  rapture arise in me.' It is in the nature of things that rapture
  arises in a joyful person.
"For a rapturous person, there is no need for an act of will, 'May my
  body be serene.' It is in the nature of things that a rapturous person
  grows serene in body.
"For a person serene in body, there is no need for an act of will,
  'May I experience pleasure.' It is in the nature of things that a
  person serene in body experiences pleasure.
"For a person experiencing pleasure, there is no need for an act of
  will, 'May my mind grow concentrated.' It is in the nature of things
  that the mind of a person experiencing pleasure grows concentrated.

or even

Not content with those virtues pleasing to the noble ones, he exerts
  himself further in solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him,
  living thus heedfully, joy arises. In one who has joy, rapture arises.
  In one who has rapture, the body becomes serene. When the body is
  serene, one feels pleasure. Feeling pleasure, the mind becomes
  centered. When the mind is centered, phenomena become manifest. When
  phenomena are manifest, he is reckoned as one who dwells heedfully.

ie with this sutta https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.040.than.html,  which means fewer objects cognized, then it is mano which has piti and the kaya has passambhati then sukhaṃ vediyati, and the citta has sukhha then samadhi.
If you did that, you did good.
The biggest problem people have is that

first they think that any samadhi is good samadhi, but Ananda says the opposite https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html
they confuse the proper way to judge their samadhi with some idiotic judgement about having thoughts or not, or being able to watch   some kasina for several hours, or following some objects, like the breath, ''without distractions''.

The way to judge whether you had good satipatthana, good samadhi   is with the ''abandonment of the defilements'', which are this stuf

"And what, monks, are the defilements of the mind?[2] (1) Covetousness and unrighteous greed are a defilement of the mind; (2)
  ill will is a defilement of the mind; (3) anger is a defilement of the
  mind; (4) hostility...(5) denigration...(6) domineering...(7)
  envy...(8) jealousy...(9) hypocrisy...(10) fraud...(11)
  obstinacy...(12) presumption...(13) conceit...(14) arrogance...(15)
  vanity...(16) negligence is a defilement of the mind.[3]

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.007.nypo.html
and knowing about it,

"In the same way, there are cases where a foolish, inexperienced,
  unskillful monk remains focused on the body in and of itself — ardent,
  alert, and mindful — putting aside greed and distress with reference
  to the world. As he remains thus focused on the body in and of
  itself, his mind does not become concentrated, his defilements [Comm:
  the five Hindrances] are not abandoned. He does not take note of that
  fact (does not pick up on that theme). He remains focused on
  feelings in and of themselves... the mind in and of itself... mental
  qualities in and of themselves — ardent, alert, and mindful — putting
  aside greed and distress with reference to the world. As he remains
  thus focused on mental qualities in and of themselves, his mind does
  not become concentrated, his defilements are not abandoned. He does
  not take note of that fact. As a result, he is not rewarded with a
  pleasant abiding here and now, nor with mindfulness and alertness. Why
  is that? Because the foolish, inexperienced, unskillful monk does not
  take note of his own mind (does not pick up on the theme of his own
  mind).

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.008.than.html
not knowing whether the mind is defiled or not is the biggest mistake anybody can do (that plus saying that a defiled mind is not a defiled mind)
but when the defilements are indeed weakened, like above from MN7

"He knows: 'I have given up, renounced, let go, abandoned and relinquished [the defilements] in part'; and he gains enthusiasm for
  the goal, gains enthusiasm for the Dhamma, gains gladness connected
  with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened, joy is born in him; being
  joyous in mind, his body becomes tranquil; when his body is tranquil,
  he feels happiness; and the mind of him who is happy becomes
  concentrated.

they also believe that they get the good satipatthana  by sitting and ''watching the mind'' and doing nothing prior to that, whereas the good satipatthana and good samadhi is rooted in the " purified ethics and correct view."
https://suttacentral.net/sn47.3/en/sujato

but people prefer to live their life which has nothing to do with the dhamma, then decide to meditate so they sit for 1h ''watching the mind'', then they get nowhere and they go back to their life which has nothing to do with the dhamma.
When it comes to ''retreats'' they jump to the retreat from their life which has nothing to with the dhamma, they spend 13 days trying to purify their thoughts, and on the last they get some frail positive result. Then they go back home to live their life which has nothing to do with the dhamma and they notice they lose the few positive results they had on the retreat. Then they ask ''how do I get back the positive results I had in the retreat? I do not understand why  when I meditate at home I do not get any result. please help me''.
Whereas the proper way to have good satipatthana and good samadhi is to filter the thoughts way before the ''formal sit'' so that when there is formal sitting, most of the thoughts are already good and there can be purification of vedana and sanna, ie piti and so on. Sitting is mostly for samadhi, with vitakka already mostly good, whereas sati sampajanna is done way before ''sitting''.
To get insights into the lack of self and the awfulness of craving, you have to know, see things the proper way:

Form, bhikkhus, is not-self. What is not-self is to be seen as it
  really is with right discernment thus: 'This is not mine, I am not
  this, this is not my self'. Feeling is not-self... Perception is
  not-self... Constructions are not-self... Consciousness is not-self.
  What is not-self is to be seen as it really is with right discernment
  thus: 'This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self'.  Seeing
  thus, an instructed noble disciple is disenchanted with Form,
  disenchanted with Feeling, disenchanted with Perception, disenchanted
  with Constructions, disenchanted with Consciousness. Being
  disenchanted, he is dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is
  liberated. With liberation, there is the knowledge: 'I am liberated.'
  He undersrands: 'Birth is destroyed, the brahmic life has been
  fulfilled, what had to be done has been done. There is nothing else
  for this world.'

https://www.buddha-vacana.org/misc.html
even with samadhi, just like it was done with satipatthana

‘The first absorption is a basis for ending the defilements.’ That’s
  what I said, but why did I say it? Take a mendicant who, quite
  secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities,
  enters and remains in the first absorption. They contemplate the
  phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and
  consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an
  abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling
  apart, as empty, as not-self. They turn their mind away from those
  things, and apply it to the deathless: ‘This is peaceful; this is
  sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all
  attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation,
  extinguishment.’ Abiding in that they attain the ending of
  defilements. If they don’t attain the ending of defilements, with the
  ending of the five lower fetters they’re reborn spontaneously, because
  of their passion and love for that meditation. They are extinguished
  there, and are not liable to return from that world.

https://suttacentral.net/an9.36/en/sujato

What you experienced is the state of mushin or no-mind.  It's actually exceptionally common to sort of fall into it accidentally upon waking.  In Zen, we call this the silver valleys and iron cliffs of practice.  Picture yourself walking among those metallic peaks and valleys.  How does that feel?  When you imagine yourself there, do those feature conjure a feeling of heaviness or fullness?  Do they exude a kind weighty "something" within the context of your mind?  Are they stark?  Are you keenly aware of the lack of things on those metallic surfaces?  Like there's nothing growing - no trees, no grass, etc?  Is there a compelling blandness like the one that fills a house cleared of furniture?  Is there an oppressiveness like that in a room full of steam heat?  There is no happiness here, but nor is there sadness.  The mind is full, but lacks everything.
The state of mushin is important, but it's not all there is.  Instead, it's the state that allows you to access all of what comes next.  Your mind is clear and everything else is cast aside.  And it's from the perspective no-mind that real insight into no-self becomes possible.

I've found that in my meditation up till now there always was a sense of expectation from the moment, a kind of "if only I could be intense enough and concentrate, I will reach the state everyone is talking about".
Although this was very helpful motivation for me to investigate things and see the nature of suffering, this expectation is an illusion. Real happiness comes at the moment you don't expect anything from the moment. You just let things come and go without any expectation. When this is done and no thoughts interfere, you become content with just watching and being and a smile rises on your face :).
I tried it by repeating to myself "there's nothing better than right now", "this sensation is beautiful by itself" whenever a desire for something else arose. It was very easy for me to stay that way for a long period. Whenever a desire to run away and do something else came up, I simply reasserted this phrases and returned to the present.
I guess the work now is to deepen and integrate this state into daily life. Which shouldn't be very difficult because its pretty delightful.

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


text:
Breaking of five precept
Breaking of five precept would generate bad consequences from the evil deeds or from being not able to keep the precepts itself? The so called breaking of the body of precepts? some traditions say that if one break the 5 precepts one observes, one will not only has to face the evil consequences of bad deeds, but has to suffer even more severe from breaking of the body of sila. He suffers doubles?

Devadaha Sutta: At Devadaha might be useful for release.

E.g. you are a thief.

you get punishment from the law - this can be karma (dittadhammavedeniya) or sometimes not
karmic consequences results after one dies - breakup of the body

So 1 results in this life and another in the next.
Thereforeyou get 2 results.
What is mentioned is the break up of the body and not body of sila.

From AN 11.1:

Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed
  down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there 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."

The five precepts are the most basic training rules for cultivation of skillful virtues. The next level is Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood.
So, if you don't keep the five precepts, you may experience remorse from your lack of virtues, for e.g. remorse from telling a lie, remorse from stealing etc.
What's more? If you committed yourself to undertaking the training rules of the five precepts and you don't keep to it heedfully, you may get additional remorse.
So, it's about double remorse, and the rest of the sutta shows how freedom from remorse leads to liberation from suffering.

Householder sunanda, interested
Breaking of five precept would generate bad consequences from the evil deeds or from being not able to keep the precepts itself?
Both, yes.
(although the possible misunderstanding of 'breack up of the body', explained by Upasaka Sirinath, might have been the reason of the question; standing alone, it's a good question, actually)
One thing is that one as given condition for a future bad experience by intentional harm. Something one can no more change but only work to be able to bear the consequences.
But one can not progress in mind training when the precepts are broken. What does it mean that the precepts are broken? One does not recognize the fault, or if, denies responsibility for it. So one makes no amend. One does not resolve to abstain from this wrong doing in further after amend.
This is called "fallen into a transgression", which is like having fallen into a hole. One is not capable to escape and caught by blatant or subtle remorse.
One having undertaken the ritual of cleaning by making amend, renew ones asking for precepts and resolve to keep them, one becomes rehabilitated, "pure" again.
While monks have detail procedure and ritual for "Uposatha", cleaning, there are non formal given to lay people. But traditional lay people do such likewise in, if possible, approaching monks, "having in mind their faults", ask for forgiveness and to renew the precepts.
One more in training would speak with ones teacher, make amend and renew ones precepts. Good Householder therefore approach weekly the monasteries and renew their refuge (ask for forgiviness and for refuge) and their precepts (asking for them).
The amend and renew of resolve should be alway made toward someone pure and never toward someone who has fallen into the same transgression. That is why householder do not approach other householder, since there are really less who have no broken Silas. If not finding someone without same fault, good to seek for, or at least resolve to make amend once meeting a pure one in this regard.
So in this way the breaking of the precepts has two impacts. One that it blocks one from going on and progress, and one that the action will bear it's fruits as effect of the action.
Worthy to read also the different between the Jains idea of Kamma and that of the Buddha in the Devadaha Sutta: At Devadaha
And at least, precepts are observed for freedom of remorse and with it the possibility to escape from the bond of suffering, not for the sake of themselves, but as a means. Once reached the path, pure conduct becomes natural till perfection at Arahatship and ending of kamma at all.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)


text:
How is the exterior suffering?
How is the exterior suffering?
In this Sutta series from SN 35.144 it says the following.
Eye etc. and its objects are impermanence, not-self, and suffering.
I understand all except that eye etc and its objects are suffering. For instance, if my eye arises as a result of a physical object, how is the physical object suffering?
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.144/en/sujato

I'm not sure you quoted accurately, in case that matters -- I don't see "eye" in that sutta, nor "impermanance" or "non-self".

Hi Chris. There are 9 Suttas in this series. Please see some of the comments made in Dhamma Wheel. https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=34853 and Sutta central. https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/how-is-the-exterior-suffering/13347/11

Also see the post on Dhamma Wheel.https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=34863

Look around. Don't you see suffering?

I see that the translation in your link interprets the Pali word dukkha as "suffering". Other translations have it as "painful" or "stressful" or "unsatisfactory". Whatever word we use, the point being made about external phenomena is that they are not going to make us happy. The gorgeous potential romantic or sexual partner, the object my eye rests upon, may inspire in me a pleasurable feeling, but that happiness is not going to last. That happiness is not a support for the freedom from suffering that the Buddha is teaching us about.
Because they are notself, because they are impermanent, they cannot provide lasting happiness, though we tend to think they will. Instead, we'll end up discovering the things we see (hear, touch, smell, taste, think of) will disappoint us. They'll change, or disappear, causing us to suffer.

Excellent answer Linda. Good to see you posting here.

It is the sensation created by the touch of the object which is suffering regardless of whether it is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. The whole sphere of sensations is unsatisfactory.
External objects are not suffering until you come in contact and it creates a sensation. Anything physical object you have not experienced is not unsatisfactory to you. You don't know about it and not registered in your mental model of the world. For someone who experiences it, it will be unsatisfactory. To experience an object you need contact: the object, faculty and attention to the faculty.
Your mental model of the world is all that you have experienced. So everything you have experienced is unsatisfactory hence the world at large is unsatisfactory.
Also, the world is the 5 aggregates. Past experiences leave an impression in sanna and what is experienced now is registered through consciousness and recognised though sanna - which essentially builds your mental model of the world. Physical objects which are in your world is what is unsatisfactory to you. Objects in another's world unsatisfactory to them. External objects on their own are not unsatisfactory.
Essentially what is know wold to a being is unsatisfactory. Everything in the known world is unsatisfactory. Anything which is unknow becomes unsatisfactory then it is experienced, until then it is not known hence neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory. What you crave for is also unsatisfactory as you might not get it.

The faculty (e.g. eye) itself is not suffering. It is the sensation produced which lead to suffering.
If there are an eye and an external object and attention which gives rise to eye consciousness. This results in a sensation due to contact.

"The faculty (e.g. eye) itself is not suffering",  huch? Sounds like Brahma Baka or Mara. Eye-faculty is lasting, real not subject to decay. Better to cite the Buddha, Upasaka. Otherwise much danger.

It is the vedana in the new body due to the eye which is suffering. The eye in the already dead body doesn't give suffering, as it doesn't cause vedana to any body.

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

This is very well explained in MN 38:

"On seeing a form with the eye, he is infatuated with pleasing forms,
  and gets upset over unpleasing forms. He dwells with body-mindfulness
  unestablished, with limited awareness. He doesn't discern, as it
  has come to be, the awareness-release & discernment-release where
  those evil, unskillful qualities cease without remainder. Engaged thus
  in compliance & opposition, he relishes any feeling he feels —
  pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — welcomes it, & remains
  fastened to it. As he relishes that feeling, welcomes it, & remains
  fastened to it, delight arises. Now, any delight in feeling is
  clinging/sustenance. From his clinging/sustenance as a requisite
  condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes
  birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging-&-death,
  sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such
  is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
"On hearing a sound with the ear...
"On smelling an aroma with the nose...
"On tasting a flavor with the tongue...
"On sensing a tactile sensation with the body...
"On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he is infatuated with
  pleasing ideas, and gets upset over unpleasing ideas. He dwells with
  body-mindfulness unestablished, with limited awareness. He doesn't
  discern, as it has come to be, the awareness-release &
  discernment-release where those evil, unskillful qualities cease
  without remainder. Engaged thus in compliance & opposition, he
  relishes any feeling he feels — pleasure, pain,
  neither-pleasure-nor-pain — welcomes it, & remains fastened to it. As
  he relishes that feeling, welcomes it, & remains fastened to it,
  delight arises. Now, any delight in feeling is clinging/sustenance.
  From his clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
  From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a
  requisite condition, then aging-&-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this
  entire mass of stress & suffering.

The word 'dukkha' here means 'unsatisfactory' or 'cannot bring happiness'. It does not mean 'suffering', as translated by Sri Lankan N.K.G. Mendis, Indian Acharya Buddharakkhita and Thai Bhikkhu Buddhadasa:

"What do you think of this, O monks? Is form permanent or
  impermanent?"
"Impermanent, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, is it unsatisfactory or
  satisfactory?"
"Unsatisfactory, O Lord."
"Now, that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is
  it proper to regard that as: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my
  self'?"
"Indeed, not that, O Lord."
SN 22.59

"All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification.
"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to
  purification.
"All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Dhammapada

"Vipassana" means "seeing clearly," having direct insight into the
  truth of aniccam (impermanence), dukkham (unsatisfactoriness) and
  anatta (not self).
Buddhadasa

The Buddha said:

Open are the doors to the Deathless to those with ears.
MN 26

Answer to this query is related to birth-time or the causes&conditions(old action) which results in the the formation of eye. Answer is already in the link you have given
Reference
And what is old action?
The eye is old action. It should be seen as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt.
Sutta goes on saying
And what is the cessation of action?
When you experience freedom due to the cessation of deeds by body, speech, and mind.
Furthermore,
And what’s the practice that leads to the cessation of action?
It is simply this noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right immersion.
This is called the practice that leads to the cessation of action.

The buddha says jivhā, rasā, jivhāviññāṇaṃ, jivhāsamphasso, vedayitaṃ and all the other sensual stuff are afflicted with bad things

The tongue, brethren, is afflicted, savours are afflicted,
  tongue-conseiousness, is afflicted, tongue-contact, is afflicted, that
  weal or woe or neutral state experienced, which arises owing to
  tongue-contact,- that also is afflicted.
Afflicted with what?
Afflicted with birth, decay and death, sorrow and grief, woe,
  lamentation and despair.
So I declare.

http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/sn/04_salv/sn04.35.029.wood.pts.htm#p1


text:
How to Proceed By Right Effort
I understand and have understood what in Buddhism is linked to right effort, which involves aspiring to what is skillful and abandoning what is unskillful.
Yet, I wonder:
How do practitioners proceed in terms of order or in terms of determining what to do next? How does one determine what is most important?
Thank you

Not just my own understanding, but a standard teaching is to approach things gradually, from coarse to subtle.
First, we have to stop creating major sources of trouble for ourselves. How do we do that? By following five precepts. Then, we stop creating medium-sized issues, by following the behavioral parts of the Eightfold Path. Then we stop creating subtler types of problems, by learning to control our emotions. Then, we get to subtle problems, by engaging in Samatha meditation to learn to stop compulsory thinking and inner dialog. Then, very subtle problems, by getting rid of egoistic perspectives. Then, ultrasubtle problems, by letting go of attachment to perfection and spirituality. Then extremely ultrasubtle problems, by practicing groundless suchness. These are just examples, you get the idea.
This is taught in many schools, and by many teachers. One thing at a time, by size, do the bigger stuff first. Stop creating large problems first.

The order is in the 3 fold training is

sila
samadhi
panna

Having said that dana proceeds sila. The 3 main merits are

dana
sila
bavana

Bavana incudes samadhi and panna.
So do,

dana
sila
samadhi
panna

This is a gradual training starting from simpler like dana to more advanced like panna. This is like building a house. What you want is a roof above your head (panna). Do do that one has to have walls to support (samadhi). Walls need to be on a strong foundation (Sila).
Right effect is to prevent unwholesome and develop wholesome my guarding the sense doors.
After right effort come right mindfulness. Order of practice is given here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path. Namely, items 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2
The stating from panna is for the very intelligent out of the  4 types of people.

There's a non-Buddhist saying, "Put the big rocks in first".
I understood that to mean "duty first", i.e. don't neglect what it might be immoral or unwise to neglect.
There's a Zen story, Wash your bowl -- that I suppose is meant to be instructive. Or maybe Zen people will stereo-typically "sweep the floor" or something like that. Is that aspirational, perhaps you might want to reach a stage of simplicity (of other-duties-having-been-finished) in life that there is no more to do than to "sweep the floor"? Is that an aspect of "liberation"?
I don't know but I get the impression that life in a monastery is regulated, i.e. that there are rules about what to do when, and how (e.g. rules to follow if you're a monk newly-arrived in a monastery).

When you first learn to drive a car, do you learn how to start the car on one day, how to accelerate on the second day, how to brake on the third day, how to turn the steering wheel to the left on the fourth day and how to turn the steering wheel to the right on the fifth day? No. It doesn't make sense. You have to learn and develop these steps altogether in tandem, and practise them together.
Another example is this. When you learn to cook, would you learn to cut vegetables on one day, then learn how to wash ingredients on another day, then learn to boil on another day, then learn to simmer on another day and so on? No. Instead, you learn and practise them altogether at once by trying to cook a certain recipe. By practising them together, you slowly deepen your cooking skills. You would then expand to add frying, broiling, baking, steaming, poaching, sauteeing etc. to your techniques, but you would practise them together in one recipe.
Similarly, in the case of the Noble Eightfold Path, you would have to first cultivate Right View (the forerunner of the path) by learning the Buddha's teachings (the Dhamma). Then you would start developing Right Resolve, and decide to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, and practise the five precepts (which form the core part of the virtues - Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood).
As you deepen your progress into Right View by studying more of the Dhamma, you then increase your knowledge of the virtues (Right Action, Right Speech and Right Livelihood) and try to practise them with more fervour. That's more of Right Resolve and Right Effort being applied.
As you deepen your contemplation of the teachings, you start cultivating Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, and then go into the meditation practices. These meditation practices would then lead you to better understanding of the Dhamma through first hand experience, which is improving the Right View once again. If you stumble into the five hindrances during meditation, you may need to deepen your practice of the virtues once again. This of course again is applying Right Resolve and Right Effort towards making progress in meditation and cultivation of wisdom.
So, every step helps the other. You can't practise only one of them at a time. But of course, learning the Dhamma and practising virtues tend to come before meditation, in general. This is just as in the case where you need to start a car and accelerate, before braking, but you would anyway do them in one session of driving, with repetition of all the steps as needed, to take you to your destination.
Even if you have not tried to meditate, if you continually reflect and ponder upon the teachings (that you have studied) and see how they match your experiences in life, you would still begin to understand the teachings from first hand experience. Then meditation could still progressively come later.

I understand and have understood what in Buddhism is linked to right effort
Sure?
What next to do?
No next to do, homework fist, householder, just this and the rest comes by it's causes. Samadhi come by/on that cause. Understanding comes by/on that cause. If not perfect now, no change to progress:
Right effort:

1. "One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...->
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...->
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...->
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...->
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."->

-> and back to 1.
And what is right view, metta?

"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action."

Could one go on if still having debts?? No. If he runs away it's just a matter of time that he will be caught up again.
Only once the home-task has been done, one can leave the own made prison and progress. No ways to do such for one holding, bound on a house, stand.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)


text:
Re-orientation in my practice from Advaita to Buddhism
I have been studying Advaita Vedanta for some time now. I never really understood that Everything was conciousness and that consciousness is not a by product of my brain nor inside my mind and could not get it, I had doubts all the time. When I found out about the Buddhist principle of consciousness arising dependently I directly said yes this is how it is. Now to my question as a new Buddhist practitioner, I have been hearing Rupert spira saying " Time and space are ilusions existing only from the point of view of the observer observing changes in other words it is a kind of metaphysical idealism where the "I" is ultimately true and everything else including time,space,objects (even time and space of physics is considered mind made and not really existing in the universe) which to me also was hard to believe. I asked my self how can the world depend on me? (even though I may not witness something happening outside my house it does not mean that it didnt happen) (while writing this I saw Nagarjunas theory which seems to be idealism like Advaita??? (he says that time and space of physics does not have independent existence of our mind and that everything is mind???)  Do you agree that the time and space of physics is an ilusion ? If not could you elaborate what the logic behind the Buddhist position of time and space is (both in regards to mental time and the time oh physics, I will change my view to the view of Buddhism which I found really helpful and logical with "Conciousness arising dependently".
Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

Amazing! I have a similar background.
I too was once upon a time leaning towards Advaita. I initially thought this idea of a Cosmic Consciousness where everyone has the same "I" is interesting. This Cosmic Consciousness is the Self (Atman) in Advaita, which is identical with Brahman, the unchanging substratum of the universe, the Transcendental Ultimate Reality. The Atman is an eternal indestructible core of one's being.
However, when I read the Buddha's explanation of consciousness being dependent on the six sense media, I realized that this is the only explanation that matched my experience. There was never a time when consciousness was cognizant of anything, except through the six sense media (eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aroma, tongue and taste, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas).
The Buddha made it very clear that consciousness is dependently originated and is impermanent. Just as a flowing river appearing as one stream, but in reality is constantly changing in content, similarly, consciousness too may appear like one constant permanent thing, when it isn't.
It is very clear that Buddhism and Advaita are completely far apart.
There's no Cosmic Consciousness in Buddhism. In all phenomena, there's no such thing as a self, as in something like an eternal core of being - in Buddhism. And therefore, no Eternal God. There is no Transcendental Ultimate Reality, which is a substratum for the cosmos in Buddhism. Everything is impermanent except Nirvana. Nirvana is not any kind of reality or self. Nirvana is simply the highest bliss and peace that is cognized with complete liberation from suffering.
There's more - the Bhagavad Gita 2.17 says that the eternal soul pervades the body while Buddhism says that all phenomena is not self, and the self is simply an impermanent mental idea that arises from the inter-operation of the five aggregates (form, feelings, perception, mental formations and consciousness). How they inter-operate is described by Dependent Origination.
This will be clear to you, if you dig deep into (what I consider to be) the Buddha's original teachings in the Sutta Pitaka, of the Pali Canon, which belongs to Theravada. Mahayana preserves these same teachings in the Sanskrit Agamas.
Mahayana, at first glance, appears to look more like Advaita than Theravada. But as I dug deeper into Mahayana, I found that it overdoses on metaphors and poetic language, making it appear to look like Advaita, but in reality it's not. For e.g. Mahayana has the Eternal Buddha that sounds like Eternal Brahman. But actually, this refers to the Buddha's Dharmakaya (body of teachings) that originates from his statement that when you see his teachings, you see him, and vice versa (i.e. pay attention to his teachings and not his form or personality, to know what's special about him). In my opinion, Mahayana is a victim of its own poetic genius, resulting in its historical disappearance from the land of its birth.
Now back to your question ...
Advaita seems similar to objective idealism, while Mahayana seems similar to subjective idealism, if we were to compare them to ideas in western philosophy. Both ideas are subset of idealism.
Is Mahayana really subjective idealism?
Nagarjuna taught that all things are empty of inherent essence or "own being" (svabhava) including emptiness itself. Somebody tried to say that just like people are empty of a self of people, the chair is empty of a self of chairs.
What does that mean? And how is it related to the mind?
In our minds, we have the idea of "I am the thinker" i.e. the idea of the self. That's the primary object in existence in our reality. We also have the idea of non-self objects i.e. everything else. We objectify and classify everything around us, into non-self objects, according to their relationship to the self. For e.g. my hand, my car, not my friend, not my country.
When you look at the waters of the sea from up close in a boat, you may feel fear and insecurity, especially if you don't know how to swim and have motion sickness. To the sailor, it's a source of joy and adventure. To the fisherman, it's a source of livelihood and he sees it like a mine or oil field. To fish deep in the sea that has never left the waters, the concept of water doesn't occur to it at all, as it does not know any other reality.
Another example - a piece of cooked meat appears like delicious food to the meat eater, and it appears repulsive to the vegan. To a honey bee, it appears like dirt because it's not its food.
These examples go to show that objects do not have the inherent essence given to it by the mind.
What's a body of water to me is nothing at all (or perhaps everything) to the fish. The waters of the great sea, as a place to sail and swim, and as a body of liquid, doesn't really exist, except in my mind. It certainly doesn't exist in that way to the fish.
What's delicious food to me, is dirt to the honey bee. So, the delicious food doesn't really exist, except in my mind. The dirt doesn't really exist, except in the honey bee's mind.
This concept is called papanca in Theravada, which is objectification plus classification, also known as reification. And it's related to anatta (the teaching that all phenomena is not self), because papanca is when non-self things are reified into objects and they are classified relative to the self. The idea of the self is also papanca.
So, in my opinion, Mahayana and Theravada are very much the same in spirit although different in form, while Advaita appears similar in form to Mahayana but is completely different in spirit.

Householder, interested,
the view of the "Noble Ones" which I found really helpful and logical with "Conciousness arising dependently".
Stick just with this, no further should be of hindreance to gain the unconditioned.
once there was a monk, approaching the Buddha, raising certain questions whether certain things exist or not, telling the Buddha "when you answer this, I will continue the practice, if not, I will renouce the holy life", seeking to pressure on an answer the Buddha rejected always to give.
Hearing that the Buddha hardly rebuked the monk, asking him whether he has gone forth, whether he has given the going forth for such, calling him worthless man.
In same way, householder should be clear that he would never really become one practicing and follow this path, neither the right attitude, aspiration, nor the right attitude.
This Noble way, the Buddha, teaches suffering and the end of suffering.
And everyone seeing reasons that such is worthy to follow for ones long term happiness and that of the others, will always be welcome to make use of the heritage of the sages. This teachings are for those with less dust in the eyes, ready to be tamed.
Only this right view has to be hold dear and becomes ones "own" as soon as reaching the path, of which householder, as wanderer of those believing in kamma, shouldn't have much problems to bear:

"And how is one made pure in three ways by mental action? There is the case where a certain person is not covetous. He does not covet the belongings of others, thinking, 'O, that what belongs to others would be mine!' He bears no ill will and is not corrupt in the resolves of his heart. [He thinks,] 'May these beings be free from animosity, free from oppression, free from trouble, and may they look after themselves with ease!' He has right view and is not warped in the way he sees things: 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are brahmans & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is how one is made pure in three ways by mental action." (right resolve)

May householder go on as he feels fit.
(note that this Gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)

Neither Advaita nor Buddhism is Idealism. Rather, both are non-dualism.
For Mahayanists nothing really exists. All, including time and space, would be conceptual imputations. What is real would transcend the existence/non-existence distinction.
You ask about the logic behind this view. It is made clear by Nagarjuna in his Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. He demonstrates that all views other than the non-dual view are logically indefensible. All other metaphysical views are extreme or positive and fail under analysis.
This is just what most philosophers discover, and it is the reason why there is no metaphysical theory that works in the whole of 'Western' or scholastic philosophy. The result is confusion, since the solution offered by Nagarjuna, mysticism and the Perennial philosophy is off-limits.
As a logical issue this is a big topic. The philosophical problem Nagarjuna addresses is encapsulated in 'Russell's Paradox'. A fundamental theory must solve this, and the only global theory that can do his is non-dualism. Thus Nagarjuna is able to reduce all other views to absurdity.
In respect of practice and various practical matters there are differences between Middle Way Buddhism and Advaita, but in metaphysics there are none. Rupert Spira speaks for both. The genuine nature of Reality would be beyond conceptual fabrication and all extreme or positive metaphysical theories would be both logically incoherent and false.
EDIT: The seemingly different description of consciousness in Advaita and Buddhism is to do with different uses of the word, not signs of a different doctrine, and also to do with variations in teachings in Buddhism. The teachings of Advaita are the teaching of Mahayana and Spira speaks for both.
The idea that two groups of practioners could discover different truths doesn't make sense, but it makes sense that there are many approaches to teaching and the use of terms.
Do you agree that the time and space of physics is an illusion?
Yes. Nothing would really exists and nothing would ever really happen.
'Conciousness arising dependently' would describe consciousness that arises. This would be 'intentional' or subject-object consciousness. The consciousness of 'Being, Consciousness, Bliss' would be something else.

+1 for "The seemingly different description of consciousness in Advaita and Buddhism is to do with different uses of the word, not signs of a different doctrine, and also to do with variations in teachings in Buddhism." :) ... You got it right. Certain terms or concepts lose their meaning & connotations the moment they cross peripherry of their systems.

I never really understood that Everything was consciousness and that consciousness is not a by-product of my brain nor inside my mind and could not get it, I had doubts all the time. When I found out about the Buddhist principle of consciousness arising dependently I directly said yes this is how it is.

You are incorrect here while connecting Advaitin consciousness with Buddhist consciousnesses. Both are different! Advaiting consciousness is not an ego-substance or some individual self-like structure. It's a common ground from which everything has arisen including that Buddhists' sense-consciousness. While reading Zen or Mahayana scriptures, I tend to believe Mahayana Buddha-nature, tathagatgarbha, etc. corresponds to the consciousness of Advait Vedanta. Advait Vedanta calls it consciousness just to maintain that's it's a sentient instead of some insentient entity like stone.
Buddha says -

There is, bhikkhus, that base (ayatana) where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering. Ud 8.1

Upanishads says -

This verily, Gārgī, is what brahmans refer to as the Imperishable.
  It is not coarse, not fine; not short, not long; without
  blood, without fat; without shadow, without darkness; without wind,
  without ether; without contact, without touch, without smell, without
  taste, without sight, without hearing, without speech, without
  thought-organ, without heat; without breath, without mouth; without
  name, without family; ageless, deathless, fearless, immortal; without
  dust, without sound; not opened, not closed; without first, without
  last; without inside, without outside; it consumes no one, no one
  consumes it. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8

Let me be more clear by stating that the Brahman or Consciousness described in Advaita Vedanta is the end destination - end of the cycle of birth & death. Its attainment is not a pseudo-enlightenment state.

BG 15.6: Neither the sun nor the moon, nor fire can illumine that Supreme Abode of Mine. Having gone There, one does not return to this material world again.

Now, coming to your next question -

I asked my self how can the world depend on me?

Calling the world is unreal or dependent on your usually means that concepts are dependent on you & are conditioned. For example, as in a famous Koan, a waving of a flag isn't waving at all. You have build concepts of waving, flag, etc. Through the conditioning of those concepts you either agree or disagree with the fact of waving of a flag. Similarly, there are no directions, mountains, etc. all are naming & concepts. The aim is always to get rid of concepts or understand their limitations. Even Sherlock holmes once approximated that on the beauty that's nothing more than a concept-

Beauty is a construct based entirely on childhood impressions, influences and role models.

Also, Bodhidharma says in two entrances and four practices that,

Language and behavior, perception and conception are all
  functions of the moving mind. All motion is the mind's motion.

+1. I feel the OP may benefit from taking time to try to reconcile Buddhism and Advaita and keeping going until the differences start to seem superficial, in particular the various uses  of 'consciousness' need not be a problem once they're untangled. .  . .

If you cherry pick verses, both Advaita and Buddhism can look very similar. But if you study them carefully, you'll find them to be very different. For e.g. BG 13.14 - "Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes and faces, and He hears everything. In this way the Supersoul exists". Now that's Cosmic Consciousness of Vedanta that is completely opposite to what the Buddha taught. And there are more like BG 2.17.

@ruben2020 State of enlightenment can't be fathomed by the mind and Mahayana scriptures are subject to Advait interpretations & vice versa. So, an efficient way to validate truth is by experiencing only, starting with some initial faiths. And "Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes and faces, and He hears everything. In this way the Supersoul exists" - It's not talking about literal hands, faces, etc.

@ruben2020 And at the best, Zen or some Mahayana scriptures don't add any romantic elements like of devotions, etc. to the unconditioned entity which is one of the differences it makes against Advait Vedanta that I agree. I agree there are differences in approach to the same thing.

The Buddha taught sabbe dhamma anatta (all phenomena is not self, including Nirvana). He taught to eradicate the false view of self-view and the false view of eternalism. Vedanta taught aham brahmasmi i.e. I am the eternal Brahman. Vedanta also taught tat tvam asi i.e. you are that (eternal Brahman). Both teachings are completely opposite.

@ruben2020 - We cannot deal with this issue here but I see no difficulty in reconciling the two traditions. In fact I'd say that learning to reconcile them is a great way of grasping what they are. I know this view is not popular here, but it is not falsifiable. All roads lead to Rome, as long as the map was drawn by someone who has been there.

It may be prudent to respond to this question through the medium of Quantum Physics (energies) and the Higher Doctrine(Abhidhamma). Firstly, we may need to research on whether everything in the universe is ultimately energy and not matter. The 'String Theory' of quantum physics (utube) goes even beyond this to demonstrate that fundamentally energy is information. Information in the universe is stored somewhat like the zero's and one's that go to form the fundamental building blocks of all the wonderful things we see through the internet on our computer screen. The Dhammas of Buddhism (see pdf version "Dhamma Theory' by Prof. Y. Karunadasa) also appear to be the fundamental building blocks, utilized by consciousness, to construct this wonderful world we see around us.                                                                             The famous 'Double Slit Experiment' (utube) in Quantum Physics, demonstrates that indeed human consciousness converts energy to matter (energy is information). We need to note that the consciousness demonstrated in this experiment is mundane. The consciousness referred to in the doctrine of dependent origination is also mundane. The Buddha employed this doctrine to explain that mundane consciousness leads only to suffering. He gave us the Noble Eightfold Path as a means to rise above the mundane level to reach the supramundane level of consciousness i.e. Nibbana. Therefore, a state of consciousness which rises above the mundane duality of subject and object needs to exist. If not, how does one experience or cognize Nibbana?                                                              The mundane consciousness is able to exercise volition through the five senses and the mind. A Nibbanic State of Mind, can exercise volition at all levels of consciousness and is not limited to the subject and object (Dual) level of consciousness, in which we human beings operate. NIbbana is therefore Non Dual. Hope this helps.


text:
Is Buddhism Free will or Determinism
What is the position of Buddhism in regards to free will and Determinism? What would be the correct position of Buddhism and could you use an analogy  to describe to me the correct view of Buddhism
Sadhu Sadhu Sadhu

also see What's Buddhism view on choice, choicelesness and causality?

In my opinion, the Dhamma is in-between those two extremes. The Dhamma teaches us Dependent Co-arising.
One's mind is not free from the influence of past conditions. What affects the aggregates in the present will influence its future state (or the state of the next group of aggregates causally derived from and connected to a past group of aggregates). In that sense, the mind is not free, at least not in an absolute sense.
On the other hand, is not only the past what influence the way the aggregates are or present themselves; the present, "external conditions" (external to the aggregates) also play a part in determining the state of the mind and the body. When we say "external conditions", we mainly refer to sensory stimuli and sense information, including thoughts (which are the stimuli of the mind, the sixth sense door in buddhism). That's why I think "external" is not a precise word for what I'm trying to say; maybe a better word could be "sense objects". In sum, sense objects contacting with sense organs/doors influence the aggregates, so we cannot say that only the past is responsable for present conditions; and so, we are not determined only by the past, at least not in the absolute sense.
The aggregates are conditioned by both past and present events, and this is precisely what allows us to change and to overcome and eradicate past kamma, to create new habits and tendencies leading to liberation.
Kind regards, and welcome to the site!

When I asked my teacher, he said "both". Why?  Because these are two different perspectives on the same reality, one is looking objectively (determinism) and one is looking from the subjective perspective of a sentient being (free will).
From Wikipedia:

Causal determinism [...] in physics is known as cause-and-effect. It is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely determined by prior states.

Imagine a Robotic Vacuum, the kind that builds a map of the house internally and then orients itself by the map. It runs according to program, right? This program is deterministic, it works according to rules, correct?
And yet, from the perspective of the robot (or rather its software program), it receives inputs from its "sensory organs", it "knows" where it is at the moment, and "makes decisions" about where to go next.
Now, imagine if we said, "Since the world is deterministic, the robot does not need the software. Everything is  predestined, so we can just leave it unprogrammed and everything will happen as it should. We don't even need to charge the battery. If it is destiny, it will get charged somehow..." Funny, right? Thinking like this you will end up with a dirty house. Even though the robot's behavior is completely deterministic, it still needs the right software and the right sensory information in order to build the right map, so it can make the right decisions (where to turn etc.)
Same with people. Even though the world is actually deterministic, each of us learns, thinks, and makes decisions. If we don't understand what's good, what's bad, and which actions lead to what results, if we simply let it all happen by itself, how can we get any results?
This is why the Buddha basically said, yes, the world operates according to Law, and the results of our actions are deterministic, but each of us has responsibility to build "the map of the house", evaluate our "inputs", and decide where to go next. We can't just sit there and expect Enlightenment to happen automatically - exactly because the world is deterministic.
The world is deterministic and this is why Nirvana is possible. If we don't create a cause, the result will not follow.
This includes me answering this question. If I tell you that there is no free-will and you believe my authority and stop trying, then I will create bad causes for you. However, if I tell you that even though the world is deterministic, you are still responsible for your (local) decision-making, then I will create good causes for you. In this case, again, your future behavior is influenced by me, it is a result of the causes I create. This is why the Buddha was so much against the no-free-will teachers - because by denying free-will they create causes that lead to people giving up and surrendering to the hopeless suffering! But when we say that people are creators of their own destiny we create causes for the Right Effort, which quite deterministically leads in the right direction.
Now, in real life the relationships between events are complex. It's never as simple as the abstract billiard balls, one pushing another. Instead, something I say to you is added to the mix of other things you hear, and the final result is a complex formula aggregating all of these. Many past causes taken together shape the future results. This is why it is usually impossible to trace one future event to one past event, but in general none of the future events happen without some influence from the past events. In other words, the world is temporally continuous, it does not have gaps with something appearing out of absolute nothing. Everything develops continuously, mixing and changing shapes like the drifting clouds.
So the world is deterministic and this is why we must create good causes and not create bad causes. The world is deterministic and this is exactly why our choices matter. The world is deterministic and this is why karma works. The world is deterministic and this is why Teaching works.
Like those Robotic Vacuums, once our battery is charged with good karma and our software is updated with the wisdom of Dharma, we can build the right map of the house and make the right decisions, each one of us acting from their unique perspective and making the best decisions possible with the information we have.
Some people call this view "compatibilism". Meaning, this is a view that determinism is compatible with personal agency and decision-making; determinism is compatible with Right Effort - and not only compatible, determinism is what makes karma and Right Effort work.

Hi @Andrei Volkov, this is a good answer. I read and re-read it few times. I am feeling that you have some how employed circular reasoning. After reading the answer one can again ask, 'do we have a choice to create a cause in the first place?' What if the causes get created in deterministic way based on current state of aggregates and present moment sensory input. That leaves us with no-free will. Am I right or I am missing something or not understood u rightly.

When your mind is agitated, your heart beats faster. When your mind calms down, your heart rate slow down. When you consume caffeine, your heart beats faster and your mind becomes agitated. If you take some medication that causes drowsiness, your heart rate slows down and also affects your mind. Does the mind control the body or does the body control the mind? It's in between.
Similarly, there is no 100% free will and no 100% determinism in Buddhism. It's in between.
We all know that the circumstances of one's birth - in which country, in which family, with which level of affluence and character - will affect how one turns out. Bill Gates wouldn't be Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, if he was born in Kazakhstan. That's determinism.
However, two identical twins with identical genetics and upbringing may turn out to be two completely different individuals. Let's say they attended the same school. Due to free will, one twin gave in to bad company and eventually became a criminal. Due to free will, the other twin decided to choose different company, and eventually became a Buddhist monk after being exposed to Buddhism. His criminal brother heard about Buddhism but thinks it's nonsense.
There is free will. That's why the twins can make their own choices.
But if no one introduced the second twin to Buddhism, would he have chosen to become a Buddhist monk? No. There's some element of determinism there.
To follow the five precepts, practise virtues and learn the Dhamma, is completely within your free will. But how and when did you first come to know of the five precepts, virtues and the Dhamma? That's determinism. But would all people who hear the Dhamma practise the teachings of Buddhism? No. Some instead choose to become Christians or Muslims. That's free will.
There's no perfect free will and there's no perfect determinism.
Free will and determinism are two sides of the same coin. That's the coin of impermanence.

You say, 'There is free will. That's why the twins can make their own choices.' How can you be sure of free will here. What if the choices are determined by past life karma or what if the choice is determined by interacting aggregates. How can you be sure about the choice at hand.

@TheWhiteCloud That's what I meant by "Similarly, there is no 100% free will and no 100% determinism in Buddhism. It's in between."  Indeed, all phenomena is not self, and not everything is under your control. But you do have some free will which is why you can have the desire to  practise the Dhamma, observe the five precepts and make better decisions regarding your future conduct.

What if that free will you are talking itself  is an illusion. To clear my point, Siddhart Gotama was already destined and predicted to become the Buddha but after his enlightenment he as not sure should he teach or not after intervention from Brahma he made a choice to trach the dhamma. So did he had a choice? When it was already determind that he will be a Buddha. So his making a chouce to teach was merely an illusion.

@TheWhiteCloud Yes. Free will is actually an illusion, but conventionally it is real and it is also skillful means (upaya) to employ free will to direct oneself towards the practice of the Dhamma. This is also included in Right Resolve (samma sankappa) of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Probably a combo. of both. Sorta like a combination of nature and nurture. For example, 2 kids in 5th grade sitting in the same class would have different levels of mental acuity. One can learn things much faster than the other. And the Buddhist explanation would attribute the kid's mental sharpness to certain wholesome kamma from his previous lives (wholesome kamma of past lives). That's the "nature" side of the equation. However, the bright kid due to his intelligence might becomes over-confident and starts slacking off in his study, while his average-intelligent friend puts lots of time and effort into his study. And the end result is that the bright kid ended up getting an average grade for his final exam, while the average kid aced the test. This is the "nurture" side of the equation, or in Buddhist term, the wholesome kamma in the present life. There're many other examples in life, like a man who was born into a very wealthy family but squandered all of his inheritance through drugs and sex, versus another man born into a modest household but became wealthy later on in life due to his hard work and abstaining from those debaucheries, etc.

Householder, interested,

...-ism isn't/doesn't do (or) intend anything, since it has no will. But in regard of what the Buddha taught, if such is asked:
Householder wouldn't be here if not wished to come here. Such is not possible. So ever intention, going after what ever, is ones choice, good or bad.
The position of the Buddha is clear, although the stream of past actions pushing hard toward old habits and leave one often to think that there is no escape, seeing the essence and what has no and no essence in what has.

Kusala Sutta: Skillful
"Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.'
"Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'"

In regard of approaches from sects who held the view of "all is caused by the past", MN56, aside of many other rebukes, may be of help to abound such views.
See also in regard of the most dangerous views of sectarians, who reject responsibility in various forms for their actions and if not doing much wrongs on them, waste themselves of in in-action:
AN 3.61: Tittha Sutta — Sectarians
A generous talk on this matter by Ven Thanissaro Maha Thera: Did the Buddha Teach Free Will? will be surely of help for all who have gained some good amout of free-will or strong Upanissaya toward the Tripple Gems.
(note that this Gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)

Both are extreme or positive views rejected by Mahayana. For this view we require a form of Compatabilism for all metaphysical dichotomies.
On freewill Ramesh Balsekar writes this in his book The Ultimate Understanding, giving the meaning of ‘Wu Wei’, or non-volitional living.
"Living volitionally, with volition, with a sense of personal doership, is the bondage. Would, therefore, living non-volitionally be the way in which the sage lives? But the doing and the not-doing - the positive doing and the negative not-doing - are both aspects of ‘doing’.
How then can the sage be said to be living non-volitionally? Perhaps the more accurate description would be that the sage is totally aware that he does not live his life (either volitionally or non-volitionally) but that his life - and everyone else’s life - is being lived.
What this means is that no one can live volitionally or otherwise; that, indeed, ‘volition’ is the essence of the ‘ego’, an expression of the ‘me’ concept, created by ‘divine hypnosis’ so that the ‘lila’ of life can happen. It is this ‘volition’ or sense of personal doership in the subjective chain of cause-and-effect which produces satisfaction or frustration in the conceptual individual.
Again, what this means is that it is a joke to believe that you are supposed to give up volition as an act of volition! ‘Let go’ - who is to let go? The ‘letting-go’ can only happen as a result of the clear understanding of the difference between what-we-are and what-we-appear-to-be. And then, non-volitional life or being-lived naturally becomes wu wei, spontaneous living, living without the unnecessary burden of volition. Why carry your luggage when you are being transported in a vehicle?
To be enlightened is to be able to accept with equanimity anything in life at any moment as God’s will."
Here's Gurdjieff on the topic.
“I asked G. what a man had to do to assimilate this teaching.
“What to do?” asked G. as though surprised. “It is impossible to do anything. A man must first of all understand certain things. He has thousands of false ideas and false conceptions, chiefly about himself, and he must get rid of some of them before beginning to acquire anything new. Otherwise the new will be built on a wrong foundation and the result will be worse than before.”
““How can one get rid of false ideas?” I asked. “We depend on the form of our perceptions. False ideas are produced by the forms of our perception.”
G shook his head. “Again you speak of something different,” he said. “You speak of errors arising from perceptions but I am not speaking of these. Within the limits of given perceptions man can err more or err less. As I have said before, man’s chief delusion is his conviction that he can do. All people think that they can do, and the first question all people ask is what they are to do. But actually nobody does anything and nobody can do anything. This is the first thing that must be understood. Everything happens. All that befalls a man, all that is done by him, all that comes from him - all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as rain falls as a result of a change in the temperature in the higher regions of the atmosphere or the surrounding clouds, as snow melts under the rays of the sun, as dust rises with the wind.
Everyone finds that nothing is being done in the way it ought to be done. Actually everything is being done in the only way that it can be done. If one thing could be different everything could be different. … Try to understand what I am saying. Everything is dependent on everything else, everything is connected, nothing is separate. Therefore everything is going in the only way it can go. If people were different everything would be different. They are what they are, so everything is as it is.”
This was very difficult to swallow.
“Is there nothing, absolutely nothing, that can be done?” I asked.
“Absolutely nothing”.
“And can nobody do anything?”
“That is another question. In order to do it is necessary to be. And it is necessary first to understand what to be means.”
P.D.Ouspensky
Conversation with Gurdjieff
In Search of the Miraculous - Fragments of
an Unknown Teaching (1949)

If we choose the right path of our own free will, the outcome is pre-determined.

Right view gives rise to right thought. Right thought gives rise to right speech. Right speech gives rise to right action. Right action gives rise to right livelihood. Right livelihood gives rise to right effort. Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right mindfulness gives rise to right immersion. Right immersion gives rise to right knowledge. Right knowledge gives rise to right freedom.
MN117

But do we have a choice to choose the right path. What if the choice we make that itself is an illusion? What if we are on auto pilot mode and volition is an illusion.


text:
Temporary Influences on Meditation
I was wondering, in the case of a beginner in meditation, how much having eaten sugar might affect meditation quality? Also, I wonder what else -- in terms of states altering the mind like tiredness or sexual arousal -- might affect meditation quality. What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality?

The vinaya probably talks more about food. In the suttas the stock phrasing is ''moderation in eating'' is associated to good condition with minduflness, like that
https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-037.html

"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.' This is how a monk knows moderation in eating.

https://www.buddha-vacana.org/formulae/bhojan.html

Householer, interested,
althought already knowing, heard and read often... => there is no way around, no short cut for "lazy".
Keeping 8 precepts, the Brahmacariya, is needed, otherwise meditation on lack of precepts, holding wrong views, would never arise, at least not for right liberation. Once Sila section, based on right view is complete, Samadhi comes alone by it's given causes.
To get possible some access to right view, practice of generosity of all kinds will be needed to train at first place as well.
What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality?
unskillful things. See right effort.

"One tries to abandon wrong view & to enter into right view: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong speech & to enter into right speech: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong action & to enter into right action: This is one's right effort...
"One tries to abandon wrong livelihood & to enter into right livelihood: This is one's right effort."

(note that this Gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)

how much having eaten sugar might affect meditation quality?

That depends on how much/little (blood) sugar you're starting with. Too low blood sugar levels is equally detrimental to meditation as excessive sugar intake can be.
A rule of thumb for determining what is too much is probably to stick to what's necessary for your body/concentration to function to an acceptable degree, but no more than that as it will bring you into sensory desire territory (kāma-taṇhā).
What fits your physiology best is probably a matter of trial-and-error.

What are the things to avoid to preserve meditation quality?

Generally speaking, according to satipaṭṭhāna sutta the hinders to meditation are described as:

Sensory desire (kāmacchanda)
Ill-will (vyāpāda/byāpāda)
Sloth-and-torpor (thīna-middha)
Restlessness-and-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca)
Doubt (vicikicchā)

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html
The sutta also goes into detail on how to counter the hindrances. I personally find these advice for countering hindrances good starting pointers, but also a bit generic. Again, you might need to explore what counters fits you best, personally.
Also, this is a huge topic, since pretty much every aspect of the eightfold path contributes to preserving meditation quality, meaning that everything we do according to the eightfold path inbetween actual sessions of meditation is conducive to fruitful meditation practice, and vice versa.
Also, continuous meditation will strenghten itself as you go from coarse examination to finer insights. The message here is to be patient and compassionate about your struggle for elaborating concentration. Don't give up!