text:
If I download illegal material for my education and if the material is not in my reach in my country, is it still bad karma?
I downloaded a lot of things for 16 years I guess.I now understood this is a form of stealing.And i decided to delete my downloaded content.But some material is not found in my country,or if i order them it takes too much hassle to get here or the material is for educational or self improvement purposes.And i never intended to steal.But still it was not respecting other people's work.With those intentions is it still bad karma?Is it still wrong if it is really really essential?
It's actually about the NEED to the material.Like i want to learn speaking english and i need a book or a listening material which is not found in my country.And i really need it.And if I learn english or other things it will be beneficial to me and my environment
 EDIT : Look what I found. Totally coincidence. Synchronisity ☺. https://youtu.be/xMj_P_6H69g

This question is very similar to Does illegal downloading or viewing of copyright material violate the second precept?. Perhaps this ought to be closed as a duplicate, if the answers to that question answer this question? The main difference is that that question asks whether it's "stealing", whereas this question asks whether it's "bad karma".

I could'nt write a comment under that question because i am a new member.

Even though it is very similar to the other question I would like to see this remain open. The downloading for education gives it another dimension. The other question was broader and also took in downloading for entertainment

@positivist83 my understanding of Karma is that it's based on intent.  As such, asking about the karmic consequences of an act is missing the point.  The question should be tied to the intention behind the act.

Legally, unlawful downloads would probably be more akin to trespassing than stealing, as nothing was taken, but the legal rights to control property was infringed upon.
Considering the precepts, however, the issue isn't really about theft but about "undertaking the training to avoid taking things not given". Thus, it's a little more broad than theft. Instead, one should avoid even the perception of theft. Think of it like in a store where the "free samples" box is behind the counter and not easy to reach. To follow the precept, one should ask first and take if allowed.

There're lots of free legit. contents on the internet. If it's software, there're lots of high quality free open source programs at GNU, Apache. If it's educational material, there're lots of free education sites like Khan Academy, Coursera, Udacity, etc. When all else fail, there're always wikipedia and youtube, which are also legit. and free..

Yer the ones I found are better how about that

Well then you'd have to make choice: download high quality but illegal contents and facing potentially negative kamma OR download decent quality and legit. contents and thus free of negative kamma. As the saying goes, you can't have it all..

Downloading someone else's hard work and using it for your benefit without compensating them to me is a form of stealing in my opinion. Some other Buddhists think its only 'copying' and hence not stealing. That's a discussion which is continuing on another thread.
For arguments sake, lets consider it stealing for now. We then realize that people are sometimes compelled to steal. Does a war prisoner who is starving commit negative kamma by 'stealing' an apple from his well fed prison guard?
Sometimes in samsara people end up in dangerous places and situations, where people have to break the precepts just to survive. In such instances someone who has come into contact with the dhamma has to accept that they are doing is unskillful, reflect on the dangers of that unskillful act, as well as the dangers of coming into existence which led one to such a situation. If we justify the wrong doing and say that it is right, we then fall into even graver negative situation of perpetuating wrong view. For the Buddha says that all that who have attained to the path leading to Nibbana do so with right view.
So understand why you are doing it, what compels you to do it. Are there alternatives? Can you prevent doing it in the future? Can you 'cover up' the wrong deed by doing good deeds? Say once you learn English and improve yourself, use that knowledge to help others. Perhaps later once you are able make a donation to the company or person from whose material you benefited from.
I also highly recommend the Sankha Sutta which explains how positive skillful kamma can negate past negative unskillful kamma.
Hope this helps.

Don't talk to me like ordering.you don't have any right to punish me

It was not my intention to order or punish you. I have amended my reply.

@KaveengaWijayasekara the analogy to stealing a physical object is flawed.  For instance, let's say X steals bread from a store.  The store loses what it paid for the bread along with potential profit.  Now let's say X illegally downloads an image of bread. There's no physical product being taken and as such, no loss except for potential profit. Even that loss only exists if X would have bought the product had the piracy avenue not been open.  I'm not endorsing piracy, just pointing out that it's a different phenomena than physical theft.

@R.Barzell. I understand what you are trying to say. However, copying software, books, etc, should not be done with impunity and taken lightly. IMO one should not justify and rationalize such acts, and know that someone somewhere has put time, effort, spent money to put that material together. Stealing in Buddhism is 'taking something which was not given'. At the very least one must acknowledge one's predicament to having to steal, and be grateful for those who made that object available.

@KaveengaWijayasekara I'm not justifying piracy, just pointing out that the moral status of piracy should be argued based on the facts of piracy and not based on traditional theft, since piracy does not share a key feature with traditional theft, a key feature that implies a great deal of the immorality of the act.

@R.Barzell. You do not justify piracy, yet do not consider it immoral. If you do not consider it immoral why are you hesitent to justify it? Perhaps to help me understand your point, according to you does the act of SW/Book piracy contain elements which can be considered immoral, or is it amoral? If it is immoral why is it? Why can't you justify piracy?

@KaveengaWijayasekara I never said piracy was not immoral, I just said  that your analogy was flawed. To answer your question: if X downloaded a book that X would have otherwise paid for (had the download not been available), then that act is immoral because it deprives the owner of potential profit.  That is my point; the morality of piracy lies in the loss of potential profit and not in the loss of a paid-for good, as in a physical product.  That is why I criticized your analogy.

Your desire is what makes the difference. If you learn for the sake of learning but not to make a living nothing is wrong in it. Stealing implies that you have taken something that belong to others. Knowledge is collective and therefore should be free for all. It is just that we live in capitalist era where people try to monopolies and tend to make profits disproportionate to their efforts. If you earn some bucks you can pay them later too. There is kamma involved if your intentions are bad. Do it if you have to but intentions should be to give it back to the guy at some point.

I've seen the arguments that copying it isn't wrong because it's not a physical product or that it harms no-one. This simply isn't true. If an author of an e-book spent 150 hours of their time creating a guide to learning English, they need to sell a substantial number of copies of their eBook to enable them to pay their bills. By downloading such an eBook illegally, it robs the author of the value of the sale. If the e-book was $5, then illegally downloading it is effectively stealing $5 from the author.
Perhaps providing good quality training for free from your own expertise could help to balance the bad karma accrued through such actions?


text:
What is the Antidote for a Hateful Temperament?
What kind of practices can one do to neutralise a hateful temperament?
Can i please have specific techniques.Thank you.
Edit:
By temperament i mean a character or habit.

If a 'hateful temperament' means like 'ill-will', one source says that an antidote is metta meditation.
Ill will (vyapada) says,

The antidote to the hindrance of ill will (vyapada) is meditation on loving kindness (metta). Ajahn Brahmavamso states:[web 2]

Ill will is overcome by applying Metta, loving kindness. When it is ill will towards a person, Metta teaches one to see more [etc.]

Alternatively, "hatred" might be seen as a subtype of aversion, i.e. one of the three poisons.
Dvesha (Buddhism) says,

Dvesha (Sanskrit, also dveṣa; Pali: dosa; Tibetan: zhe sdang) - is a Buddhist term that is translated as "aversion", "aggression", "anger", etc. It can be defined as a fear of getting what we don't want, or not getting what we do want.[1] Dvesha (dosa) is identified in the following contexts within the Buddhist teachings:

One of the three poisons within the Mahayana Buddhist tradition.
One of the three unwholesome roots within the Theravada Buddhist tradition
One of the fourteen unwholesome mental factors within the Theravada Abhidharma teachings

Overcoming the kleshas says (or at least, it claims that),

All Buddhist schools teach that through Tranquility (Samatha) meditation the kilesas are pacified, though not eradicated, and through Insight (Vipassana) the true nature of the kilesas and the mind itself is understood. When the empty nature of the Self and the Mind is fully understood, there is no longer a root for the disturbing emotions to be attached to, and the disturbing emotions lose their power to distract the mind.

So if 'metta' doesn't seem to work then perhaps samatha or vipassana might. But I think you've said that you have mostly been practicing samatha, already, in the past?

Apart from these three (metta, samatha, and vipasanna) the only other approach I know of is non-hatred.
Sometimes Buddhism seems to be about, not replacing this with that (e.g. replacing hatred with loving-kindness), but letting go of this and that.
Opposite wholesome qualities lists two opposite qualities, not just one,

adveṣa (non-aggression, lack of hatred); mettā (loving-kindness)

Advesha says,

Advesha (Sanskrit; Pali: adosa; Tibetan Wylie: zhes sdang med pa) is a Buddhist term translated as "non-aggression" or "non-hatred". It is defined as the absence of an aggressive attitude towards someone or something that causes pain.[1][2] It is one of the mental factors within the Abhidharma teachings.
The Abhidharma-samuccaya states:

What is advesha? It is the absence of the intention to harm sentient beings, to quarrel with frustrating situations, and to inflict suffering on those who are the cause of frustration. It functions as a basis for not getting involved with unwholesome behavior.[1]

This version of verse 5 from the start of the Dhammapada says,

Hatred is, indeed, never appeased by hatred in this world. It is appeased only by loving-kindness. This is an ancient law.

The commentary ends with,

They were made to see that hatred could only cause more hatred, and that it could only cease through friendship, understanding and goodwill.

The Pali version though is,

Na hi verena verani
  sammantidha kudacanam
  averena ca sammanti
  esa dhammo sanantano.

There's a word in the first line (verani) meaning 'hatred', and one in the third (averena) which is the opposite or more specifically the negation, 'non-hatred' (the prefix a- seems to mean 'not-' or 'non-' in Pali, as it does also in English).
Some of more literal and less poetic translations of the Dhammapada for example this one say "non-hatred" rather than "loving-kindness".
You might find it easier (or better) to feel non-hatred or rather to not feel hatred: to not 'feel'; or to aim for emptiness and transience (not constructing a self who feels hateful, not holding on to hate if it arises), than to aim for artificial loving-kindness.
I think that goes with some of the other Buddhist teaching (especially the early and non-explicitly-altruistic teaching) which seem IMO to describe other concepts too such as 'nirvana' for example (or the third noble truth) as a bit of negation or a zero, for example as an "unbinding"

A detailed and precise answer filled with methods and background information. Thank you +1.

I prefer the translation "this is eternal law" as in, "it's always been and will always be this way".  The use of the word "ancient" here might imply the law is old and isn't still in effect, or that there was a time when this was not true.

@JoshKodroff Well yes, I agree: the version I remember is This is a law eternal. Nevertheless, 'ancient' seems to be a fair translation. There's a word ancien in French which can mean either 'old' or 'former'. The reason why I reference that version of the Dhammapada, is when I want to look at the Pali and/or at the story associated with each verse.

It also claims, in the Preface, "This translation of verses is from Pali into English. The Pali text used is the Dhammapada Pali approved by the Sixth International Buddhist Synod. We have tried to make the translation as close to the text as possible ..."

Another possible "antidote" that's missing from my answer is suggested by the next verse: "6. There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels."

The solution is to use Metta (loving kindness). For canonical description of Metta, please see the Karaniya Metta Sutta, Metta Sutta and the Mettanisamsa Sutta.
Information on how to practise Metta can be found here and here. These are quite specific and written by Ven. Dhammarakkhita and Ven. Buddharakkhita. These are too long to quote here.
Hateful temperament is part of "ill will", one of the five hindrances (also here) to meditation and practice. Ajahn Brahmavamso explains in this essay:

Ill will refers to the desire to punish, hurt or destroy. It includes
  sheer hatred of a person, or even a situation, and it can generate so
  much energy that it is both seductive and addictive. At the time, it
  always appears justified for such is its power that it easily corrupts
  our ability to judge fairly. It also includes ill will towards
  oneself, otherwise known as guilt, which denies oneself any
  possibility of happiness. In meditation, ill will can appear as
  dislike towards the meditation object itself, rejecting it so that
  one's attention is forced to wander elsewhere.
The Lord Buddha likened ill will to being sick. Just as sickness
  denies one the freedom and happiness of health, so ill will denies one
  the freedom and happiness of peace.
Ill will is overcome by applying Metta, loving kindness. When it is
  ill will towards a person, Metta teaches one to see more in that
  person than all that which hurts you, to understand why that person
  hurt you (often because they were hurting intensely themselves), and
  encourages one to put aside one's own pain to look with compassion on
  the other. But if this is more than one can do, Metta to oneself leads
  one to refuse to dwell in ill will to that person, so as to stop them
  from hurting you further with the memory of those deeds. Similarly, if
  it is ill will towards oneself, Metta sees more than one's own faults,
  can understand one's own faults, and finds the courage to forgive
  them, learn from their lesson and let them go.

The OP (Orion) previously asked, for example, Why is Metta Practice so Hard? So answering "The solution is to use Metta" might be too generic as an answer? This question asks for specific techniques and practices.

I've edited to included two very good links on how to practise Metta by two different monks.

The root of this is in the perception:

you have perception of something which does not hold which you react to. You deluded by the perception and react with aversion or attachment

If this is directed at a person:

you have a perception of your self as an entity and another person as an entity
in you entity view you attach or associate certain attributes with the entity, which you perceive positively or negatively and react to your perception
you have an entity view of your self and the other person to which you attach certain attributes, you measure what these attributes are favourably or unfavourably using some perceived yard stick and hence react to the measurement

Then temperament arises as you do more of the above this becomes dominating habit.
So what need to be done is to address the above:

Break the habit

When something negative happens, realise it, if it is intense and overpowering try to replace it with the opposite perception or view, if not ignore it by paying attention to something else like the breath, then try to calm the fabrication by looking at the sensation (passive approach) or by calming the breath and creating pleasant sensation in the body (active approach - faster), if it does not work brining you attention to the upper palate touching it with the tongue
Make it a habit to cultivate Metta

Changing the polarity of perception

You mental reaction will always associated with some sensation so do not cling or react to the sensation or generating reinforcing thoughts and views which might strengthen the perception (opposite thoughts are OK if it is over powering)

Getting rid of perception altogether

Through insight meditation, especially by strengthening your awareness of what ever that comes to your consciousness, diluting your perception and views, cultivating conducive view and perception aimed at reducing the polarity leading to the cessation of perception and the aggregates, calming the fabrications by not creating new fabrication and / or actively reducing them, etc.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Rebirth in regard to AI
First time poster here. I am very new to buddhism, so my understanding is very basic. My previous world views were very materialistic and deterministic. It might not be surprising that the most confusing concept I find so far is rebirth.
Lets take this theoretical situation: We created AI that is indistinguishable from a human, capable of superior understanding of all the scientific concepts known to human and beyond.

Will something have to be rebirth into it?
Imagine this AI starts to multiplicate unstoppably, from where will we source all the consciousness to get rebirth into it?

Thank you for your help!

Well to Buddhism SE. Interesting questions. However you will get a better response with a more focussed question. Would you consider splitting you question in two - one for each bullet point.

Crab, thank you for suggestion. I will do that.

Can an AI examine itself and make decisions to improve its "thinking" to align with Buddist ideals? YES, of course! Can an AI meditate and produce the same results that a human can? It can achieve some insight and improve its logic towards right thought and right action, but cannot achieve much else. Can an AI become enlightened? I am not qualified to answer that. Great thought provoker of a question!

AI no matter how sophisticated, is still just a sophisticated computer. It can even be 100% "human-like" but it's still not "human". See John Searle's Chinese room experiment for more details.

This is the exact argument I was looking for.

AI is a concept. Not a reality. AI in essence is simply electrified hardware.
A computer is Rupa. Electricity is Rupa. There has to be Nama involved to talk about rebirth or having a consciousness. A computer might beat a man in Chess. But it's still just matter. No mind involved.

I am talking about human like AI. AI will get to the point where it might be indistinguishable from a human, what then? Theoretically: imagine AI capable of creativity and understanding of a human.

A computer can be intelligent and smarter than a human. Isn't that how a computer beats you at chess? :)  One can also make a computer emulate human emotions. But it doesn't matter as long as there's no Nama.

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


text:
Rebirth and brain death
I am very new to buddhism, so my understanding is very basic. My previous world views were very materialistic and deterministic. It might not be surprising that the most confusing concept I find so far is rebirth.
Lets take this theoretical situation: Somebody is declared brain dead.

Does this person gets reborn?
What if medicine improved and we would bring this person back to life?
What if this person would be left in this condition forever by keeping that person alive with medical resources?

Thank you for your help!

The common stock phrase the Buddha used to describe rebirth process in many suttas:

"...because of performing and undertaking such action, on the dissolution of the body, after death, s/he reappears in a happy/unhappy destination..

A brain-dead person is not dead yet. When the body is officially dead, there'd be the full departure of 3 things: vitality, body heat, and consciousness (MN 43).
So, does this person gets reborn? No, since s/he's not dead yet. What if medicine brings him back to life? That'd be great. What if this person would be left in this condition forever by keeping that person alive with medical resources? S/he is still who s/he is, but just like taking a long deep sleep..

Even if there's no brain activity? (i.e., consciousness) @santa100


text:
Can meditation help me in my academics?
As a student, is it beneficial for me to take the practice of Buddhist meditation? If so what type of meditation should I incline myself into improving my concentration(tone down distraction) and dealing with stress?
I am however familiar with the breathing meditation and have practiced it for some time. However, I call myself a beginner of this meditation and haven't reached any considerable depths in this technique. I would also like to know the benefits of using such method in a situation like this, if you are familiar with anapanasati.
I understand that their is another question related to 'exams'. However, I am not narrowing on just exams, but university life in general. And please don't hesitate to give any type of meditation within Buddhism that you would see somewhat useful for me, I am very pleased to hear such.

Maybe related to: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/5716/can-following-buddhist-practices-help-me-in-my-studies

The negative affects on studies and overcoming them:

Distraction when you study means you cannot learn something properly - meditation can help keep focus.
Memory may lapse if you are scatter-brained - when doing exams you might not be able to recall something. Focus by meditation will help you remember things.
Time spent on studies - by pursuing other pleasure activities you lose time for studies. Meditation helps by taming your senses so you can study more.

One of the biggest benefits of meditation is reducing your stress reaction, partly by letting go of your attachment to certain words and situations.
For instance, if a professor suddenly requires a 4 page essay on the macro economic effects of Britain's full entry into the EU and gives you only 24 hours to complete it, that may generate a stress response. And that stress grows as you think about the impossibility of the task and the ever approaching deadline. You're still going to do the paper, but your stress response makes it more difficult to do a good job.
However, with consistent meditation, you eventually develop a habit of letting go, faster. Instead of saying "A 4 paper by tomorrow!!!", your response becomes, "oh, a 4 page paper. Let's Google it.". It's like the Zen proverb "Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water.  After enlightenment chop wood, carry water." Life itself may not change with meditation, but your approach to life does.
As for the type of meditation, you may enjoy a lecture, "We Create Our Reality", by Dr. Fred Travis (Director of the Stanford Center for Brain, Consciousness and Cognition), where he describes how different forms of meditation affect the brain. Note where he talks about "neural plasticity" and how the brain changes its response to stress with a consistent meditation practice.


text:
How to not slip into Nihilism from Vipassana?
I am sensing this disenchantment from letting go. Meditating on impermanence feels like nihilism to me. There is a fleeting moment of joy from the liberation and just watching emotions go by. And I also notice the joy of it but I let it be and not cling. Then suddenly comes this pointlessness feeling. Something like nihilism. I also don't cling to that but it worries me I may lose control and just do things carelessly.
Any guidance on this?

Related question: Shamata and vipassana - loss of willpower

If you have a teacher, get some guidance on vipassana stages maps. NIbbida-nana (contemplation of disenchantment/misery/depression, depending on translator) is one of them. Acknowledge the feeling and let it go.

life is a bardo - right ??

There are the five hindrances (also here) to meditation and practice.
Your question can be part of restlessness-worry and also doubt. But it sounds to me more like doubt.
You can read more from the essay of Ajahn Brahmavamso:

Doubt refers to the disturbing inner questions at a time when one should be silently moving deeper. Doubt can question one's own
  ability "Can I do This?", or question the method "Is this the right
  way?", or even question the meaning "What is this?". It should be
  remembered that such questions are obstacles to meditation because
  they are asked at the wrong time and thus become an intrusion,
  obscuring one's clarity.
The Lord Buddha likened doubt to being lost in a desert, not
  recognising any landmarks.
Such doubt is overcome by gathering clear instruction, having a
  good map, so that one can recognise the subtle landmarks in the
  unfamiliar territory of deep meditation and so know which way to go.
  Doubt in one's ability is overcome by nurturing self confidence with a good teacher. A meditation teacher is like a coach who convinces
  the sports team that they can succeed. The Lord Buddha stated that one
  can, one will, reach Jhana and Enlightenment if one carefully and
  patiently follows the instructions. The only uncertainty is 'when'!
  Experience also overcomes doubt about one's ability and also doubt
  whether this is the right path. As one realised for oneself the
  beautiful stages of the path, one discovers that one is indeed capable
  of the very highest, and that this is the path that leads one there.
The doubt that takes the form of constant assessing "Is this Jhana?"
  "How am I going?", is overcome by realising that such questions are
  best left to the end, to the final couple of minutes of the
  meditation. A jury only makes its judgement at the end of the trial,
  when all the evidence has been presented. Similarly, a skilful
  meditator pursues a silent gathering of evidence, reviewing it only at
  the end to uncover its meaning.
The end of doubt, in meditation, is described by a mind which has full trust in the silence, and so doesn't interfere with any inner
  speech. Like having a good chauffeur, one sits silently on the journey
  out of trust in the driver.

This is a great elaboration of the various kinds of Doubt. The sentence "As one realised for oneself the beautiful stages of the path..." and the last paragraph are So Beautiful!

It's perfectly normal.
The point is to accept that you have little to no control.
It leads you to the "I do things carelessly" zone, or even "I don't care" zone.
You cared because you thought through permanence, so you're simply crossing an incomfort zone where you have to redefine what is relevant to YOU knowing that you have little to no control.
Embrace uncomfort. If you're in an uncomfortable zone, then it means you're asking the right questions, even though it changes you.
After this period, you'll start caring again, but you'll know why, and it won't be because you assumed so.

It is only within the narrow focus of the ego that it fears 'nihilism'. Let it be there, and you may reveal that you truly 'do' favor spiritual purposes, and you do maintain an intention for the good; pointlessness cannot lie there.
What it is likely to be is fear of boredom. Your mind is looking to cling to something, when you are still capable of letting go of that feeling. 'Slipping' into something in the future or becoming stuck are fears of what may come.
The mind is looking for amusements and novelty, and is clever to keep itself entertained. However, you may find yourself readjusting and moving through discomforts, which can be normal phases of growth. By letting the feeling be there for a while and decide for surrender, the feeling will dissolve.
The permanence of impermanence needs no purpose; it is abundantly fulfilled. Within that fulfillment is constant movement. It be help to also contemplate these dualities.

The answer depends on the polarity of the person.
If you ego centric and think you have a mission or role in the the world a bit of nihilism would be of help but (sans any beliefs that action do not have consequences)
If that is not the case then there are two out looks of the world.

The world and being are made of "solid building blocks" of which some elements persist. As for entities they have a core which you can identify the individual across rebirths
The world is a process and life it self a process which has certain events. In the case of the physical make up of a person or anything else the process takes the form of solids, liquid, gaseous and heat which are always changing. Life is a process also (with no core) which takes different forms, and events, stages along the way which is conditioned and driven by the process of Dependent Origination.

So what is in the world does have meaning but not conventionally accepted meaning. Like there is solidity, there is a permanent entity driving the whole process, there is and entity in one self which is permanent, there is no entity in one self and not process (everything is random and chaotic),
the world is random and chaotic and lacking a driving process which brings about cosmic order, etc.
The meaning is:

There is cosmic order of things
There is a process that ovens life

But in a sense again it is not worthy to attach any value as in absolute terms it is beyond ones control. Trying to control is misery and attaching temperament attribute perception something which will change is also misery.

There're many categories of nihilism: metaphysical, epistemological, mereological, existential, moral nihilism, etc. The kind of nihilism the Buddha advises us to avoid is a kind of philosophical materialism which believes that life ends in death and that actions do not bring results in future lives. This type of nihilism is also called the doctrine of non-existence since it denies existence of afterlife and of kammic retribution taught by Ajita Kesakambali, one of the Six Samana during the Buddha's time. So from what you described, you shouldn't worry too much about falling into this kind of nihilism. Just make sure to add a bit more Virya into the practice and you'll do fine. Also should check out SN 46.53 where the Buddha taught the right and wrong times to cultivate the various enlightenment factors:

...Monks, when the mind is sluggish, that is the right time to cultivate the enlightenment-factor of investigation-of-states, the enlightenment-factor of energy, the enlightenment-factor of rapture. What is the reason? A sluggish mind is easy to arouse by these factors.


text:
If the literal truth causes confusion, but a lie portrays the truth via a careful misunderstanding, is it really a lie?
Sometimes during everyday conversation, you can notice based on someone's subtle feedback, that they may be misinterpreting something you are telling them. For the sake of the question, please suspend doubt in the premise itself:
This literal truth causes confusion and ignorance for them, but our hypothetical lie communicates the truth effectively and even helps gently erode away the delusions they suffer from. (Because our words were exactly what they needed to hear, so that when their delusions distort their understanding, it lands on the truth.)
Is this really a lie, or is it perfect language? (Is it a corrupted compromise between them?)

EDIT: More specifically, is it breaking the precept of false speech?

I undertake the training rule to abstain from false speech.

Is a lie still false if it communicates the truth?

Hello Selfless Psychopath and welcome to Buddhism.SE. Your question does not appear to be directly related to Buddhism. You may wish to clarify how this relates to Buddhism (wrong speech, breaking precept) or the question may be closed as off topic. Be well.

Noted, and done. Is the edited question now in a more appropriate form?

As a counter to the other answer, Wikipedia's article on upāya ('skillful means') describes the Parable of the burning house:

The Lotus Sutra contains a famous upaya story about using the expedient means of white lies to rescue children from a burning building.

There's a similar, modern. non-Buddhist term for this called Lie-to-children:

Because some topics can be extremely difficult to understand without experience, introducing a full level of complexity to a student or child all at once can be overwhelming. Hence elementary explanations are simplified in a way that makes the lesson more understandable, though technically wrong. A lie-to-children is meant to be eventually replaced with a more sophisticated explanation which is closer to the truth.

Some lineages also apparently have secrets which may be similar to this.

I wonder whether to deduce that it's OK as long there is no intent to deceive. But saying "there are toys" (in the 'Parable of the burning house') seems like an actual deception. It's beneficial/compassionate, at least. And skillful/necessary. Maybe it's not even deceptive (it's hard to tell when it's a parable or metaphor).
So, yes: "portraying the truth via a careful miunderstanding" seems to have a basis in literature (Mahayana and Vajrayāna, even if not Theravada). Upāya is apparently a Mahayana concept.
Havig said this I hope you won't use it as an excuse to deceive people. I think there's some justification for saying that ignorance is a cause of suffering, and that deception goes with ignorance, so I hope you won't be deceiving people.

So, intentions are important.

@ruben2020 People sometimes say that intention is very important. Buddhist understanding of karma says, "The Buddha defined karma as intention" however "How this emphasis on intention was to be interpreted became a matter of debate in and between the various Buddhist schools". I think that, in order to qualify as "skillful", the 'effect' as well as the intention is also important. For example your answer said that words must be "beneficial" which means that they do/make/create good.

The answer comes in the Abhaya Sutta from the Buddha himself, on the topic of Right Speech:

[1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing &
  disagreeable to others, he does not say them.
[2] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual,
  true, unbeneficial, unendearing & disagreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual,
  true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a
  sense of the proper time for saying them.
[4] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual,
  untrue, unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not
  say them.
[5] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  unbeneficial, but endearing & agreeable to others, he does not say
  them.
[6] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true,
  beneficial, and endearing & agreeable to others, he has a sense of the
  proper time for saying them. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has
  sympathy for living beings."

But what about the case: "unfactual, untrue" but "beneficial" and "endearing & agreeable to others" ?

Wherever it is unfactual and untrue, we should never say it. You can read here for more info on Right Speech.

Isn't an intention to deceive required for untruth to be a lie? The dictionary defines it both ways with "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive;" and "an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood." It's very hard to decipher here.

It depends on whether you believe statements have a power to transform your consciousness.
For instance, assume two statements -- X and Y.  Now assume that you utter X and later utter Y, with identical intentions.  If X impacts you differently than Y, then you are making a claim that the statements themselves have causal power over you -- apart from your own reactions to them.
Now whether this is a problem or not depends on a few things:

Do you believe that your personal development is driven by
intention?
Do you subscribe to a modern, scientific worldview?

If the answer to either of the above is true, then the idea that a statement in and of itself would affect you in such a way is clearly absurd.
I believe one of the key criticisms the Buddha had with Brahmanism was in Brahmanism's focus on rituals as acts, whereas the Buddha stressed the intention behind the act as the causal principle.  I don't recall where this critique occurred sadly, so I can't give a reference.  Still, it seems to support this reading, and leads to the implicit critique of anyone who clings to actions in and of themselves as missing a key point of Buddhism.
In fact, Buddhism's atheistic or non-theistic stance can be read as an implicit critique of this clinging to acts as having causality.  For if your own intentions play no role in an action, then clearly you are calling upon a higher power to reward or punish you for this act, even if you don't explicitly hold belief in such.  In this sense, Buddhism's stance is not one of rejecting a particular cosmology, but in attempting to bring people back to bearing responsibility for their actions and putting their focus where it belongs: on intentions.

Part of the answer to your question is already provided in your post. To your standards, there is nothing inherently wrong about your choice; you've even acknowledged why you must say what you have to, and that you are concerned about lying.
Truth depends on context, but your question is subtly attempting to mix levels. To them, your words may be understood as truth, but to yourself, you are knowingly communicating limited information, and between you there is a seeming paradox. It is an unfair criticism on yourself to expect a 'perfect language' to use, which must arise out of idealism and the hypothetical. Or on the other hand, no better to think you are deceptive, when you've opted for the most suitable exchange (at the time). If the truth is communicated effectively, then perhaps there is no need at all for further reconciliation.
Language itself is limited and prone to reinterpretation and revision. If you had asked for your message to be translated, it may be subject to error, but you cannot expect the 'same message' to remain the same once it is changed. Overall, it is inevitable that judgement and compromise must come into play for effective communication. Otherwise you would be uttering dull phrases, and not reading those signals that once registered something within you.

A lie is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive, what you describe is not actually a lie at all.


text:
How is catharsis different to gossiping in Buddhism?
Catharsis is described as "providing psychological relief through the open expression of strong emotions; causing catharsis"
An online resource mentions "The Buddha has thus presented the principles of the catharsis of emotions..."
It is my understanding that gossip is not looked upon favorably in Buddhism. I am unsure why though.
Rightly or wrongly, i practice catharsis through open dialogue with others. This may be in relation to others or myself. For example, if i am faced with a challenge which i am aware and mindful gives rise to emotions such as frustration, anger, helplessness, etc, i often discuss these with close family.
Working with a real-world example, currently i am faced with someone who simply does not wish to work with others in a meaningful way nor takes proactive steps to work with others. Often this is seen as being a roadblock of sorts and more than often, there is little trust in working with the person. I have attempted on multiple occasions to work with this person in a way to go beyond the trifles and historical 'negative' experiences which has been less than successful. Now i undertake catharsis by discussing the concept of 'how it blows my mind" that someone is not willing to work in meaningful ways.

catharsis may not have easy parallels in Buddhist terminology. Skimming the paper, it feels as if the author is not writing in a technical sense but rather in order to impress the reader. Could I suggest a better question, "why is gossip frowned upon in Buddhism?"

for starters, though, I might suggest reading about "Right Speech" to help define what you are trying to ask.

After reading Catharsis it's not clear to me what "catharsis" means. Also according to Sigmund Freud catharsis is a good thing, but I don't know whether Buddhism would agree (that catharsis is good), nor modern therapists.

I believe catharsis in your definition to be acceptable in Buddhism, only if the intention is purely wholesome. Recall that intention is karma, depending on whether it’s good or bad.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
  - AN 6.63
It is my understanding that gossip is not looked upon favorably in Buddhism. I am unsure why though.

Gossiping is not part of Right Speech because it's considered to be not useful for the path and it tends to lead to a negative environment, because most people find it unacceptable.

…Now i undertake catharsis by discussing the concept of 'how it blows my mind" that someone is not willing to work in meaningful ways.

If your intention is to acknowledge them of their unacceptable behaviour, and it contains no ill will towards them personally, then the intention is considered wholesome. Because the intention harbors no such greed, hatred or delusion.

…which i am aware and mindful gives rise to emotions such as frustration, anger, helplessness

As for this, you must be mindful of the emotions. If you cling to these, it will make you more frustrated, angry, etc, and stress accumulates. The act of clinging and the act of observing (mindfulness) are two different things, your emotions don't identify you, but you reactions does.

A couple of reasons why your practice of catharsis, as described above, might not be considered a favorable thing to do in Buddhism even if you believe it's different enough from gossip to not be considered wrong speech.
It brings you out of the present moment and has you re-living or clinging to the past.

Let one not trace back the past
Or yearn for the future-yet-to-come.
That which is past is left behind
Unattained is the "yet-to-come."
But that which is present he discerns —
With insight as and when it comes.
The Immovable — the-non-irritable.
In that state should the wise one grow
Today itself should one bestir
Tomorrow death may come — who knows?
For no bargain can we strike
With Death who has his mighty hosts.
But one who dwells thus ardently
By day, by night, untiringly
Him the Tranquil Sage has called
The Ideal Lover of Solitude.
MN 131

Also, it's the opposite of Equanimity
which is prized as the 4th brahmavihāra, the 7th Factor of Enlightenment, and the 10th pāramī.
Lastly, spending time blowing off steam about another person comes close to gossip, ridicule, and other types of speech which are not considered Right Speech and could easily cross the line. As Anthony suggested above, reading up on Right Speech might help to make sense of all this. Best wishes.

Thanks. It may rightfully be a question in its own right, however if you 'blowing off steam' is deemed to be wrong speech, how do deal with a situation or situations, whereby you know there is a train wreck ahead and if you don't do anything it may very well end bad. There is a possibility that things may turn around to be otherwise. I use the means of catharsis to get another viewpoint so that i am not limited by my own views and projections.

Meditation works wonders for me. :)

Meditation to me is a means to contemplate or to evaluate. If we are not actively seeking to improve for the greater good, is that not bad?

I originally began meditation to help me deal with work situations that were quite similar to what you described above and which I found very stressful. My regular practice has helped me to feel far less of a need to be in control or clinging to views that things must be such and such a way. I'm not good at explaining it. But it's definitely helped. :)

Thanks Robin111. I do understand where you are coming from. I am however unable to bridge meditation and not doing something. For example, i personally use catharsis to destress, get another view, reflect on my own actions and views, etc. I also use it as a means to improve a situation. I am continually faced with a situation at the moment that a particular person i interact with fails to see the forest for the trees, places himself as above others (passively), etc.

Now if i were to simply meditate, it doesn't allow me to 'improve' the situation. If i practice catharsis, it allows me to do 'something'.

Meditation helps me to accept things as they are.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

A theory of mind/body therapy is that negative emotions make us tense up and we fail to release the physical tension. There is a psychological effect of negativity which is repressed emotion / neurosis. Meditation can trigger a psychophysical release of the tension/neurosis. That is catharsis. It can be triggered by thinking over and talking about situations but often this is just 'reliving the past' or 'blowing off steam'. When a person has released all there is to be released they are 'enlightened' with no neurotic component in their ego. Empty - of hang ups, prejudices, false fears etc. Modern people are very stressed with high muscle tension so this catharsis can be quite dramatic - it frightens some people. Others embrace it as the more you release the happier you get. When the processes of speedy catharsis start many meditators move or let their mind take them away from it.

Hello and welcome to Buddhism.SE. We've put together some information to help you get started here


text:
Sleep and meditation
I'm a spiritual and somewhat crazy person, and have been taught both zen and samatha meditation, though I rarely practice either.
I just underwent a series of short micros sleeps, which were accompanied by musical hypnagogic hallucinations. I've had both experiences many times, but never together - and it was the closest thing I can imagine to the "sound of one hand clapping".
I felt sleepier, stopped fighting, right after I closed my eyes would hear someone singing, and then immediately seem to wake up again. This process repeated itself some four or five times, until I stopped being amazed by it (see the first paragraph) and just fell asleep (- until now).
Do any sleep experiences, like hypnagogic hallucinations, micro sleeps, or even sleep paralysis, or anything else, have anything to do with meditation? It strikes me as one way that science might come to terms with the states associated with meditation.

Hi user. There is an example of question to avoid asking here in the help center, something like "I’m curious if other people feel like I do". Perhaps this question could be turned into a more "objective" one (at least, a question whose answers, in general, are not equally valid and that readers are able to do something close of an objective comparison).

The point to remember is that this is a site primarily for receiving informative answers to questions relating to Buddhist study and practice. It is not an open forum - the format doesn't lend well to discussion. For this type of question, one of the many online dharma forums would be more suitable.

Agreed. I could easily "like" and discuss this on my facebook feed. On SE, however, this kind of question is not a great fit.

@ThiagoSilva but i didn't ask about my feelings - let alone if anyone agreed with them ?

@user3293056 the point is the rationale, the example is illustrative. But rephrasing "I'm curious if other people feel like I do" to "I'm curious if other people experienced like I did" yield the same result, the same type of question: namely, one that surveys whether or not people experienced something, not a question that puts forward an inquiry inviting answers that clarify buddhist practice or doctrine (or asks for a clarification of an experience through the lens of buddhism).

@ThiagoSilva ok i may change the question !

@user3293056 I think a problem with a question that is phrased like, "Has anyone ever experienced anyone like this?" is that it could attract an unlimited number of people each answering "Yes, me!". Each new answer would be a bit new (different from previous answers) and as valid as any previous answer. There's no obvious way to select any best answer to that question, no way for any answer to finish answering or to provide a complete answer to the question. And it doesn't seem to describe any practical problem you have, so there's no way for anyone to help to answer/fix that problem.

Next time, try rephrasing your question as does _____ have anything to do with Buddhism?
Hypnogogic imagery DOES have something to do with mastering the lucid dreaming process in Tibetan Buddhism. Basically you have to master it and not get swept up in the process.

The question that crab bucket has asked recently is just the modified form of this question. This question do not deserve to be put on hold.

@jitin Crab bucket's question is modified, in particular it identifies a problem to be solved, and it asks for advice (on how to deal with this problem).

I have.  The hypnagogic/hypnaponic state is known for the interesting and even intense phenomena that can arise.  Here's my most vivid experience:

I woke up one morning, paralyzed.  This happened before (sleep paralysis), and I knew it was a symptom of the hypnagogic/hypnaponic state. Well, I had recently read a book on out-of-body experiences (OBE), and it stated that I should simply will myself to lift out of my body.  So I did.
I then felt a buzzing sensation up and down my body that grew to a
  fevered pitch.  It was INTENSE.  Then I felt myself lifting out of my
  body, with a static-electricity-like sensation at every point I exited. Then I
  saw the ceiling coming closer through CLOSED EYELIDS.
I was terrified, so terrified I wanted back in.  I ended up
  snapping back in, and literally shivered myself to sleep.
Then I woke up again, and heard strange music.  I never heard this song
  before, but the voice sounded like Sinead O'Connor's.  I then felt the
  buzzing again, like it was a spontaneous OBE.  I fought it hard, and
  it stopped.

The above was very vivid, more vivid than my waking experiences.  I chalk it up to the hallucinations (or lucid dreams) possible from this state.

hey that's interesting, i think i've had sleep paralysis before - but mostly try not to think about the nightmarish qualities of sleep


text:
How do you tell the difference between review of a path and the next path?
In the same way the buddha referred to those who wander through Jhana as foolish cows, can individuals wander and get lost within the cycles of insight?

When the meditator has thus become skilled in achieving the fruition attainment, he should resolutely set his mind upon the task of attaining to the higher paths and fruitions. What should now be done by one who has set himself that task? Just as before, he should carry out the practice of noticing (anything occurring) at the six sense doors.

Can next path start without being skilled in fruition attainment?
For example, if I am able to advert to A&P but not able to advert to fruition, is that proof I am still reviewing the last path, or can it be that I moved on too soon?
Sorry if this is convoluted, I am looking for an actual answer as opposed to a non answer.

Do you mean the view on what the path is and the actual path?

Some useful teachings by Ajaan Fuang on this topic below.
Ajaan Fuang teaches not to plan how the meditation would go, or deliberately look out for signs to determine what stage you're at, or to be obsessed about what the next steps should be. Instead, he teaches to go on practising by oneself to find out how things will turn out.
From my understanding, one should not just reach one stage and then rush over to the next. One should instead master one stage, then go on to master the next.
In my opinion, it is also useful to have such a teacher to guide the student when he finds that the student has reached an impasse or is going on the wrong path. Otherwise, if the teacher finds that the student is progressing on the right path, he should allow the student to discover the next steps on his own.
Quote:

§ When Ajaan Fuang taught meditation, he didn't like to map things out
  in advance. As soon as he had explained the beginning steps, he'd have
  the student start sitting right in his presence, and then take the
  steps back home to work on there. If anything came up in the course of
  the practice, he'd explain how to deal with it and then go on to the
  next step.
Once a layman who had known more than his share of meditation teachers
  came to discuss the Dhamma with Ajaan Fuang, asking him many questions
  of an advanced nature as a way of testing his level of attainment.
  Ajaan Fuang asked him in return, "Have you had these experiences in
  your own meditation yet?"
"No, not yet."
"Then in that case I'd rather not discuss them, because if we discuss
  them when they're not yet a reality for you, they'll just be theories,
  and not the real Dhamma."
§ One meditator noticed that his practice under Ajaan Fuang was making
  quick progress, and so he asked what the next step would be. "I'm not
  going to tell you," Ajaan Fuang said. "Otherwise you'll become the
  sort of amazing marvel who knows everything before he meets with it,
  and masters everything before he's tried his hand. Just keep
  practicing and you'll find out on your own."
§ "You can't plan the way your practice is going to go. The mind has
  its own steps and stages, and you have to let the practice follow in
  line with them. That's the only way you'll get genuine results.
  Otherwise you'll turn into a half-baked arahant."
§ "Don't make a journal of your meditation experiences. If you do,
  you'll start meditating in order to have this or that thing happen, so
  that you can write it down in your journal. And as a result, you'll
  end up with nothing but the things you've fabricated."

I'm not sure how this answers the question. One way of reading it is that it seems to be saying, "Ajaan Fuang says you shouldn't be asking questions". Can you explain more clearly how it relates to the OP's question?

@ChrisW Updated for clarity.


text:
Why is Budai often associated with the future Buddha Maitreya?
Many times I've heard of Budai (pictured below) being associated with Maitreya, the future Buddha. Why is this so and how widespread is this belief? Wikipedia lists a short verse uttered before Budai's death:

Maitreya, the true Maitreya
  has billions of incarnations.
  Often he is shown to people at the time;
  other times they do not recognize him.

Is there more to this association or was the simple utterance of that verse so long ago the sole reason for believing that Budai was the bodhisatta?

I've just asked a somewhat related question How did Maitreya become so large and rich?.

Here is a reference to the Japanese Miroku Bodhisatva.
Another reference says that Hotei was Kaishi Zen priest and a Boddhisattva, the future Maitreya:

Hotei stands out from the other six Lucky Gods because he is the only one known to have been a real person, rather than a mythical being. According to Chiba, his Chinese name was Kaishi. His birth date is unknown, but his date of death was in March of the year 916. He was a Zen priest who could quote Buddhist text verses almost nonstop. Some sources affirm that he was an  incarnation of the Bodhisattva Miroku (Maitreya in Sanskrit), the Buddhist Savior of the Future (Giraud 404). However, some of his actions would not be  considered particularly saintly. For example, he would beg for meat and fish  even though they were foods forbidden to priests.

Bits of details about claims to Maitreya and where references of it could be found in the pali canon.

Thank you for your answer. In many SE sites this would be considered a link-only answer, as the answer is not here, but can only be found in links, which like everything else, are impermanent. ;-) I've just asked a somewhat related question How did Maitreya become so large and rich?, you may be able help there as well.

In Chinese history there was a monk that appeared in the Zhejiang province (I believe it might have been during Tang Dynasty or Song Dynasty). No one knew the name of the monk nor did anyone know where he came from. He always carried a large bag and when people would give him offerings, he would throw it into his bag and continue on his way. It is to teach us to not be discriminate about materials. Since his signature thing was his big bag (bu dai)people referred to him as Budai monk. Before disappearing he gave a riddle (not really a riddle but can't really think of an equivalent. Basically one way a master would judge if a student has understood the teachings would be to have the student provide a phrase or poem that encapsulates all that he has learned). It was agreed upon by all the monk masters during that time period that what Budai monk said completely coincides with Maitreya's life and experiences (Mi le pu sa). That is why China has always used Budai monk as a representation of Maitreya- because it was a reincarnation of the Boddhisattva.

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


text:
Stopping Tanha or craving
If one of the goals to becoming enlightened is to lose all craving, desire or Tanha how is one to do that without the craving, desire or tanha to do just that. In other words, is wanting to eradicate all craving and desires a craving or desire itself?

Possible duplicate of Isnt the desire for giving up the desires, a desire?

This is a very common misreading of the four noble truths.  Don't feel bad; you've got a lot of company!  The Buddha never actually said that all craving is bad.  In the 2nd noble truth, he is very specific about the kind of craving his path seeks to eradicate.

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

The third noble truth is the extinction of that kind of craving -

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

The desire that truly seeks liberation is not the same mind that craves for sensual pleasure, becoming, or not becoming.  Sure, there are people who begin practice because they believe that enlightenment will add something to their personality - as if nirvana will bring about something they are otherwise lacking.  Perhaps they crave for the pleasure of meditative absorption or believe that the wisdom that the path generates will give them a sense of personal power.  Perhaps they believe that the Buddhist path will lead to some sort of Schopenhauer paradise of pure nothingness.  Those lesser desires  for liberation need to be given up if one is to proceed past a certain point.  But the desire to put a final end to suffering?  If it's pure, there's nothing wrong with that.

Answer implies that there is kind of craving that is not needing to be abandoned. Which is wrong.

As dean mentioned, there is a sutta which seems to match your question.
In the Brahmana Sutta: To Unnabha the Brahman, Venerable Ananda says,

"Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire."

I guess that "founded on desire" might refer to what is called "Right intention" or "right aspiration" or "the exertion of our own will to change"; although it (i.e. the second of the eightfold path) is also translated as 'Right Resolve'.
Also, "fabrications of exertion" is Right effort, etc.
Given that explanation, the Brahman says that seems like a contradiction,

"If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end, for it's impossible that one could abandon desire by means of desire."

According to the Sutta the answer is that the 'desire' ends when the goal is reached,

"In that case, brahman, let me question you on this matter. Answer as
you see fit. What do you think: Didn't you first have desire,
thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park,
wasn't that particular desire allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have persistence, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,'
and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular persistence
allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have the intent, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,'
and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular intent
allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"Didn't you first have [an act of] discrimination, thinking, 'I'll go
to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that
particular act of discrimination allayed?"
"Yes, sir."
"So it is with an arahant whose mental effluents are ended, who has
reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the
true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is
released through right gnosis. Whatever desire he first had for the
attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
desire is allayed. Whatever persistence he first had for the
attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
persistence is allayed. Whatever intent he first had for the
attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
intent is allayed. Whatever discrimination he first had for the
attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular
discrimination is allayed. So what do you think, brahman? Is this an
endless path, or one with an end?"
"You're right, Master Ananda. This is a path with an end, and not an
endless one.

The "path with an end" is I think a reference to the 3rd noble truth, and to nirvana or arahantship as an escape from samsara.

Also, Taṇhā is desire (or thirst) but not all desire is Taṇhā.
Wikipedia's Contrast to wholesome desire (chanda) says,

The Buddhist teachings contrast the reflexive, self-centered desire of taṇhā with wholesome types of desire, such as the desire to benefit others or the desire to follow the Buddhist path.[c] Wholesome types of desire are traditionally identified as chanda.[20][21][d]
Ajahn Sucitto states:

Sometimes taṇhā is translated as “desire,” but that gives rise to some crucial misinterpretations with reference to the way of Liberation. As we shall see, some form of desire is essential in order to aspire to, and persist in, cultivating the path out of dukkha. Desire as an eagerness to offer, to commit, to apply oneself to meditation, is called chanda. It’s a psychological “yes,” a choice, not a pathology. In fact, you could summarize Dhamma training as the transformation of taṇhā into chanda. It’s a process whereby we guide volition, grab and hold on to the steering wheel, and travel with clarity toward our deeper well-being. So we’re not trying to get rid of desire (which would take another kind of desire, wouldn’t it). Instead, we are trying to transmute it, take it out of the shadow of gratification and need, and use its aspiration and vigor to bring us into light and clarity.[20]

This is great!!

All chanda is tanha.

@catpnosis The Wikipedia section I quoted has been rewritten. Maybe you could expand your comment into an answer of your own?

All chanda is not tanha. Iddhipada is not tanha. It is Right Aspiration, 2nd factor of 8 fold path. For example, a Buddha has destroyed all tanha. Yet the Buddha said in the Mahaparibbana Sutta that for one, such as him, that has developed the Four Iddhipapada, which include Chandha Iddhipada, they can extend their life. Regards

@Dhammadhatu Aforementioned Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15) speak exactly about chandha iddhipada. And it does not say that this chanda is different from that chanda. It implies that these both chandas are of same nature, and they are not contradict because of completely other reason.

I agree with enenalan.
i dont remember from what sutta.  it was something like, when one wants to be somewhere,  The desire to get there is ceased once you have reached your destination.
Interestingly, in Buddha's first sermon, one of the causes of suffering (or stress -dhukka) is  "craving for non-becoming or vibhava-tanha"  .
in all pali cannons, Buddha mentioned  "craving for non-becoming"  only once in his 40+ years of teaching.  this, i suspect,  is the last cause for suffering one has to abandon to become enlightened.   Those who reached this point is called anagami.
Please let me know if anyone ever heard " craving for non-becoming  or vibhava tanha"  mentioned in any other sutta besides the Dhammacakkappavattana. I would greatly appreciate it.

This sutta: Brahmana Sutta: To Unnabha the Brahman

Your questions about vibhava-tanha could be good as a new/separate question.

The Mahasatipatthana Sutta (DN 22:19) is just one example.  It comes up in the capacity of the four noble truths fairly regularly.  You can also find something similar in the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1:84-92), although this deals with ucchedavada or "annihilationism" and is treated as a teaching, not a craving.

thanks enenalan.  I should have put it as bhava-tanha and vibhava tanha  mentioned in pali canons as context of four noble truths.  unlike 5 sensual pleasures, Buddha or other disciples (which later confirmed by Buddha) mentioned them many times in many different ways.  vibhava tanha seldomly mentioned as craving.   my thought is once one eliminate karma-tanha, then there is no special instruction besides 8 fold path for those who still have bhava-tanha or vibhava tanha left.  thanks ChrisW.  good idea to open a new thread for Vibhava Tanha.

If one of the goals to becoming enlightened is to lose all craving, desire or Tanha how is one to do that without the craving, desire or tanha to do just that.

It's not supposed to be that way. Tanha is neutral factor (in a sense that it will not necessarily cause evil deeds). Tanha is also always and everywhere present factor in non-englihtened beings. And tanha is quite complicated notion to define, so, it's rarely used directly as is (in the Abhidhamma). Instead, it's used in derived terms, like lobha, raga, etc. But, tanha could present itself not just as unwholesome roots (lobha, desa, moha), but also as factor of enlightenment (chanda).

In other words, is wanting to eradicate all craving and desires a craving or desire itself?

It is. Tanha, in the form of chanda, is conductive to exertion. With wisdom you could direct it on the right way.

Nettipakarana p.87: There are two types of tanha, skilful and
  unskilful. Unskilful tanha leads to samsara, skilful tanha is
  abandonment, it leads to diminution.

(Implied question) Is it contradictory to stop tanha with tanha? No, as already mentioned, Brahmana Sutta confirms. Tanha is stoppable factor, if it's done in proper way. Cause of tanha is ignorance (avijja) which is stoppable factor either.
Additional quotes from R. Morrison article:

In the Anguttara Nikaaya we have the statement: 'he abandons tanhaa by means of tanhaa'.[A ii. 146] [...] commentary [adds]:

Based on the present craving [tanhaa] (i. e., desire for becoming an Arahant), he gives up previous craving that was the root-cause of (one's involvement in) the cycle of rebirth. Now (it may be asked) whether such present craving (for Arahantship) is wholesome [kusala] or unwholesome [akusala]? — It is unwholesome. — Should it be pursued or not? — It should be pursued [sevitabbaa]. — Does it drag one into rebirth [patisandhim aakaddhati] or not? — It does not drag one into rebirth.

As Nyanaponika adds at the end of this quote, 'Such permissible (sevitabbaa) craving is abandoned when its object is attained'.

On the other hand, how Enlightenment is not producible by tanha? Function of tanha is to drag us into next birth. Thus, relying on tanha we can not expect next birth to be Enlightenment, we can not rebirth into arhats.

It is chanda that can be regarded as a neutral factor. The Nettipakarana is obviously not Buddha Vaca (words of Buddha) nor is A ii. 146 (AN 4.159), which is attributed to Ananda, who was not enlightened. For example, Ananda's explanation of 'nutriment' in A ii. 146 is not exactly correct. In attempting to enter to path, there many be forms of 'craving to be'. But when the path is actually entered (in stream entry), it is from the abandoning of craving rather than from the use of craving. Regards. –

@Dhammadhatu This sounds like Theravada revisionism. Nettipakarana is included into the Tipitaka and sutta is still sutta.

To stop craving you have to be equanimous to pleasant and unpleasant sensation and contemplate impermanence of pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations.

(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings

Pahāna Sutta

“And what is that one thing, venerable sir?” “Ignorance, monk, is the one thing through whose
  abandoning ignorance is abandoned by a monk, and true knowledge arises.”
“But, venerable sir, how should a monk know, how should he see, for ignorance to be abandoned
  by him, and for true knowledge to arise?”
“Here, bhikshu, the monk has learned [heard] that nothing is worth clinging to. And a monk
  has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things. Having directly understood
  all things, he fully understands all things.
Having fully understood everything, he sees all signs differently:
He sees the eye differently; he sees forms differently; he sees eye-consciousness differently; he sees
  eye-contact differently. Whatever that is pleasant, or painful, or neutral, that arises on account of eye contact
  as condition, that, too, he sees differently.
...

Avijja Pahana Sutta 2
"Nothing worth clinging to" means being equanimous.

Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful
  or neither painful nor pleasant.
As regards to those feelings,
he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;
he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;
he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;
he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).
When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating
  ending in them, contemplating letting go,
  he does not cling to anything in the world.
Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.
He understands,
  "Birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, done what is to be done, there is no more for this state
  of being."

Pacalā Sutta
Letting go is what is discussed in the Pahana Suttas above. What is discussed in this extract is knowing impermanence of arising and passing nature and being equanimous.


text:
Hard to understand becoming in paticca samupadda
It is said that dependent on becoming birth arises.
How can I understand becoming? What is becoming? Can you give me a simile by which I can understand it?
For example it is very easy to understand that dependent on birth, death arises because these two concepts are like the two faces of the same coin. You can't have one without the other.
How to see becoming to make it clear?

In Theravada Buddhism, there are two kinds of bhava:

kamma-bhava - the becoming that is kamma
upapatti-bhava - the becoming that is coming-to-be

The former is what is directly understood to be referred to in the teaching on dependent origination. It refers to the wholesome or unwholesome mental formation that constitutes volitional activity. It is the result of clinging, since clinging leads directly to acting on one's intense desire.
The second type of becoming is a by-product of kamma-bhava and is actually more or less synonymous with rebirth.

As it is said, "Bhava paccaya jāti," rebirth occurs in the human and deva worlds or in the lower worlds because of good or evil kamma-process. So rebirth stems from kammas which result from clinging (upādāna) and craving that is rooted in the contact between the six sense-objects and the corresponding sense-organs (āyatana).
In other words, there arise viññāna, nāmarūpa, salhāyatana, phassa and vedanā in the present life as the avijjā saṅkhāra, etc in a previous existence and now on top of that, taṇhā and upādāna give rise to new rebirth. The situation is like that of a man who has committed a crime while he is in prison for a previous conviction, or that of a man who has incurred new debt before he has fully settled his old debt.
Such new kammas accumulate by the thousands in a single lifetime. Under certain conditions one of these kammas becomes a death-bed vision and leads to rebirth while other kammas will create rebirth at other times in the life-cycle. If there are residual kammas from the previous lives that possess great force, they take precedence over present kamma, appear as death-bed visions and create rebirth in the lower or higher worlds. The post-mortem destiny of the person in such cases is determined by the nature of kamma.
-- Mahasi Sayadaw, Paticcasamuppada

As a simile, upadana is like the heat of rubbing two sticks together, bhava is like the igniting of the spark, and jati is like the flame and smoke that arise based on the ignition.

The idea of "I" is becoming.
The questions "How can I understand becoming?" and  "Can you give me a simile by which I can understand it?" are becoming because they are born of attachment & craving, as follows:

The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &
  delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual
  pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend
  Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the
  Blessed One.
MN 44

Paticcasamuppāda is loop.
(past:) having kilesa (especially avijja&taṇha) > do kamma (saṅkhāra/kamma-bhava) > (present:) becoming/born (suffering/uppatti-bhava/jāti) > having kilesa  > do kamma > (future:) becoming/born > (infinity loop).
Why buddha splits paticcasamuppāda to 3 periods?
Because  periods  make the practitioner notice 3 characterizes (anicca-characterize, dukkha-characterize, and anattā-characterize) through every time, so nowhere secure, every where is suffered by 3 characterizes. And the suffering can arise because of kilesa (especially avijjā&taṇhā). So stop the loop by destroy avijjā&taṇhā is one-way path to vanish the whole suffering.
See more information in tipitaka-pali S.N. nidānavagga, M.N. rathavinītasutta,
 paṭisambhidāmagga dhmmaṭṭhitiñāṇaniddesa, visuddhimagga kaṅkhāvitaraṇavisuddhi, saṅgaha chapter 8 and 9.


text:
Did the Buddha talk about "out of body" experiences?
Does there exists records of the Buddha talking about something that could be interpreted as an "out of body" experience?
Wikipedia defines this as,

An out-of-body experience (OBE or sometimes OOBE) is an experience
  that typically involves a sensation of floating outside one's body
  and, in some cases, perceiving one's physical body from a place
  outside one's body.

A related, but different, question: Buddhist view on out of body experience (OBE)

According to DN 2, the Samaññaphala Sutta, it seems that OOBEs are possible:

"With his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, he directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been drawn out from the sheath.' Or as if a man were to draw a sword from its scabbard. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the sword, this is the scabbard. The sword is one thing, the scabbard another, but the sword has been drawn out from the scabbard.' Or as if a man were to pull a snake out from its slough. The thought would occur to him: 'This is the snake, this is the slough. The snake is one thing, the slough another, but the snake has been pulled out from the slough.' In the same way — with his mind thus concentrated, purified, and bright, unblemished, free from defects, pliant, malleable, steady, and attained to imperturbability, the monk directs and inclines it to creating a mind-made body. From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties.This, too, great king, is a fruit of the contemplative life, visible here and now, more excellent than the previous ones and more sublime.

In the Translator's Introduction to the Potthapada Sutta, Thanissaro Bhikku identifies the mind-made body as the astral body:

The mind-made acquisition can result from an experience of the mind-made body — the "astral body" — that constitutes one of the powers that can be developed through concentration practice.

The mind-made body is a body that is made out of, composed of mind. Seems you can probably OOB with it.

OBE implies that something has to be "out".  it would contradict every Buddha's teaching about none-self or none permanent soul.  First four jhannas focus on form from five skandhas .  (BTW jannha litterally means focus, or single pointed attention).
the next four jhannas (which Buddha no longer attached word Jhanna to their names, IMO because it is longer single pointed attention); infinite space, infinite consciousness, neither perception nor non-perception.  Meditatator is no longer direct his consciousness to a form (breathing in most cases) but to one of the other 3 names ( sensation, perception, and mental formation). Meditator would be released from "form". its the closest to OBE i can think off.  However, almost all the time, when someone is having "OBE", his mental construct would build another body and cling to it, so it gives feeling of having another body looking at old one.  thats how deities or being in lower realms got their form.  Buddha said, they build their new form from a mental construction.
in short, when you are not clinging to your current body, you mental construct builds another one and cling to that new body is as yours.

Would an enlightened person not need to use a mental construct of a body because she would not cling to anything? (I apprieciate your answer btw)

absolute.  thus stop the cycle of rebirth.  Buddha said animals and human are achieved by elements.   A consciousness latch on it and claim as self until the elements of body no longer hold it together and then we will latch on a new one.  either another elements  to be born again as human or animals, or mental construction to be born in hell , ghost domain, or heaven.  that feeling of self is the reason why we continue to build another existence.  you are absolutely correct.  enlightened one would not have self, there for , no-constructing.

just to be clear, consciousness is not permanent. it is also a series of raises and falls (IMO like a combustion of a flame.  it will continues to burn as long as there is fuel) .  In Buddhism,  permanent soul or  permanent consciousness is one of the worst wrong views.   thanks


text:
Saṃvega or something else? Integrating sammuti sacca with paramattha sacca
I've dropped out of three stable relationships back to back in 4 years, even though the women involved were very much in love with me, and were in quite a lot of misery when I left.
Rather than get the motivation to put my back into making things work by relocating or changing my life or whatever was required, each time, I took it to the point where firm commitment was needed and then backed out because I didn't see why it is worth it.
A voice inevitably rings in my head that such effort is better expended in meditation and a life of service and purity rather than on silly selfish samsaric satisfaction. Anyway, I'd also see exactly how the relationship would fail a few years down the line, or where the cracks would appear and lose my energy.
I have had at least one very stable shift in my consciousness since at least 3 years now, which has reduced my mental/emotional chatter to nearly 0-5% of what it was, and I don't get attached to anything including partners the same way anymore. I've been almost coldly unemotional about victory or loss in love and death, and most other things that would make people ride emotional highs and lows.
I don't really care to define this change as an awakening or as a kensho/satori or whatever - I think these are useless definitions that don't matter -- still, it is a change whose vast effects on my life I can't deny.
I can feel an all encompassing love and compassion for everyone yet a detachment from everyone. Which kind of complicates romantic life - do I really love my current partner any more than the rest of the world including exes etc. Confiding these feelings with the partner has never helped of course. Worse, they would very soon sense that I am not really bound down by anything, and resulting insecurity would lead to conflict.
Sure, I can still get angry but it is a powerless anger, and if I reflect on the anger or whatever mental feeling I have even for a moment, it will vanish instantly. If I choose to, I can always see the pure heart in anyone and fall in love.
There was a period of intense thoughtless equanimity in my life, about 6-8 months after the awakening that lasted for several weeks. My mind had a vastness that left me in awe. At this point a bomb could have exploded next to me, and I would have observed it without a flutter, as if it was very normal. There were several other brilliant characteristics to this period, but the most important was a profound sense of balance I had between the ultimate truth and conventional truth. I could perfectly balance my inner life and my outer life without conflict no matter how heavy the samsaric context. There was an ever present wisdom that enabled this.
I didn't really care what I did with my life, there was no "I" - I did whatever was appropriate, I reacted to life perfectly yet effortlessly, as if I wasn't there, life just flowed and I with it exercising only the gentlest of effort to produce the wisest action possible.
This seemed like a stable reality until it ended, and since then I've really yoyo-ed between ultimate truth and conventional truth. One moment wanting a relationship and the next day or week wanting to be a monk.
My ability to lapse into universal love means I have even strayed to infidelity, due to deeply loving several people, and continuing to love to this moment everyone who has entered my life.
Without the perfect wisdom that I had for those few weeks relationships feel like an accident waiting to happen, so I've now sworn off all relationships until I figure out what exactly to do.
Any ideas?

Philosophical thoughts can come to the mind at anytime. You shouldn't get too excited about them as that can lead to complacency, ego and false self assessments. Simply note them rising and passing away. If you are not enlightened, you are not safe no matter how deep you feel or think.
Don't focus much on love. Usually Patikulamanasikara meditation is recommended to people with lust issues. The details are in the Visuddhimagga. You can also do Silanussati and try to perfect your virtue. One suggestion is to stay in a forest monastery for a while, stay away from women and work on taming the mind.

Although you put a lot of detail into it I don't really understand the question.
Normally if all I can say is "I don't understand the question" then that's not really an answer and ought to be posted as a comment instead, if it's even posted at all.
In this case I'm hoping that the problem might be that you don't fully understand the question either; so if I explain where it's ambiguous that might give you some insight.

You use the word "stable relationship" a lot.

In what sense are they "stable" if you keep dropping out?
What's a "relationship"? Do you talk? Groom each other? Play together? Share friends? Share money? Share ethics? Work together on the same projects?

You said, "I took it to the point where firm commitment was needed"

Who "needed" the firm commitment: you? Your 'partner'? Your 'society' or families? The relationship itself, somehow?
Is "firm commitment" meant to be understood as a euphemism for "marriage"?
"I took it" sounds very active/dominating/manly. Do the women take it somewhere too or is the relating all quite one-sided?

You said, "silly selfish samsaric satisfaction". Is that an accurate summary of how you view your relationship? Your intention for having a relationship?
You might possibly enjoy the book which I described in this answer. It's meant to describe what the Buddha said a good/ideal relationship might be. You might prefer that as a way between extremes, i.e. not just "silly selfish samsaric satisfaction".
Perhaps a "relationship" shouldn't be entirely "selfish", and should at least include your partner, and benefit other people (perhaps including for example your friends, parents, children, and any teachers, subordinates, bosses, etc.) too.
If it's true that you can "also see exactly how the relationship would fail a few years down the line" then you're more prescient than I am: I doubt I can predict how people will be (the same and or different) in a few years
You say "all encompassing love and compassion for everyone". What's "love" here: does it mean "desire" to have someone? Desire to please or flatter someone? Do you literally feel that for everyone, or only for potential "partners"?
You say "do I really love my current partner any more than the rest of the world". I don't know but is "love" all-important? You might know your partner, cooperate, and have negotiated agreements with your partner that you haven't with anyone else.
You say, "Confiding these feelings with the partner has never helped of course." That's a big topic all of it's own: how to confide feelings with a partner. Maybe a relationship counsellor? Maybe confide potential feelings early in a relationship, perhaps while you're 'dating' e.g. selecting a future partner?
And, "Worse, they would very soon sense that I am not really bound down by anything, and resulting insecurity would lead to conflict." Are your partners expected to find security in your being really bound down by something?

I'm going to skip (not address) the second half of your question.
"Lapse into universal love" is an odd turn of phrase, as if "universal love" is a flaw. Maybe there's some misunderstanding there, and something doesn't really mean what you think it means?

You mentioned the "Two truths doctrine" in the title but don't say which school of Buddhism you might be from or practising.
If I can say so without being insulting, and not knowing where you're from or what your 'morals' are, your question slightly reminded me of Macho Buddhism: Gender and Sexualities in the Diamond Way (a school/form of Buddhism which I otherwise know nearly nothing about).

One more thing:

One moment wanting a relationship and the next day or week wanting to be a monk.

There are many monks, many types of monk's life in different places; but the choice between 'relationship' and 'being a monk' might be a 'false dichotomy': i.e. perhaps you could be a monk and have loving relationships, it's not an "either-or" choice. Now I don't mean sexual relationships, but if you read something like Becoming Buddha’s Disciple or look at some of the photos on that web site or read other blog entries it appears that monks have relationships and opportunities to "love" -- there's a monastic community (a Sangha) and relationships with the lay communities.

Also your section title is about "integrating" the two truths: does that imply that you're interested in the slightly later lineages of Buddhism?
Finally "figuring out exactly what to do" might be difficult in a vacuum: because what you do and what you can do are conditioned by environment, and by inter-personal relationships. Might a slightly different perspective help: thinking about who you want to be, or how you want to practice?
If you want to think about relationships (or a relationship), can you work  out what you expect? Whether that's a realistic expectation? As I wrote earlier I didn't understand what you wrote about love and relationships, so I don't know. But you said, "were in quite a lot of misery when I left" so that's cause for concern?
If "relationships" are a problem might that have anything to do with 'right speech': saying too much, too little, at the wrong time?
Or, again trying to avoid a false dichotomy between "silly selfish samsara" and "wanting to be a monk" have you considered trying to be a "good" (or a better) lay-buddhist aka 'householder'? For example there's an article here on Theravada Housholder ethics which says, "the Buddha defines an upāsaka in terms of faith (śraddhā), morality (śīla), liberality (tyāga), and wisdom (prajñā)". And later on the same Wikipedia page there's a tiny paragraph about "Vajrayana perspectives" too.


text:
Working with hallucinogenic images during meditation
I often experience hallucinogenic images during meditation. I don't believe they are caused by lack of sleep as they occur irrespective of my state of tiredness. Typically the sequence goes

Meditating with a lot of discursive thoughts
Discursive thoughts settling down
Commencement of strange dream like images
If i go through this then thought drops away and it the start of a calmer more focused meditation

I don't always get the images but if I do then they are very difficult to work with. They are more dominating than the discursive thoughts and more difficult to see them for what they are. However I know that if I can go through this stage then meditation really becomes a lot easier and more pleasurable afterwards (fourth stage above).
Has anyone got any advice about working with these kind of hallucinogenic images? Is there any advice either from traditional texts or contemporary teachers about them? Is it just me?

I once read a physiological explanation for this which is that when one closes the eyes the body begin producing the sleep hormone melatonin because the body thinks its going to sleep. This could maybe bring about the imagery you experience. Is it the same hypnagogic imagery that happens before one falls asleep at night or is it a different kind? Its good you know how to overcome them.

These sound like nimittas, often a precursor to jhanas. They can be deeply immersive, often you can interact with them, direct them, but as said elsewhere, they are akin to meditative dreams.
Day 7 Morning Talk on Nimittas - Nov 2013 Ajahn B…: http://youtu.be/4tYf8ijMsxk
YouTube has several talks by Ajhan Brahm, his retreat series listened in entirety is beneficial. He also has a book on jhanas that deals with nimittas.

There is an interesting section on Visions and Signs in the teachings of Ajaan Fuang.

§ "Don't be amazed by people with visions. Visions are nothing else
  but dreams. There are true ones and false ones. You can't really trust
  them."
§ A Bangkok housewife who was practicing meditation with Ajaan Fuang
  heard some of his other students say that meditation without visions
  was the straight path. It so happened that she had frequent visions in
  her meditation, and so hearing this made her wonder why her path was
  so winding and convoluted. When she asked Ajaan Fuang about this, he
  told her: "Having visions in your meditation is like having lots of
  lush wild greens growing along the side of your path. You can gather
  them as you go along, so that you'll have something to eat along the
  way, and you'll reach the end of the path just like everyone else. As
  for other people, they might see the greens without gathering them, or
  may not even see them at all — because their path goes through arid
  land."
§ "Visions — or whatever things appear in the course of your
  meditation: It's not the case that you shouldn't pay any attention to
  them, for some kinds of visions have important messages. So when
  things like this appear, you have to look into how they're appearing,
  why they're appearing, and for what purpose."
§ "There are true visions and false visions. So whenever you see one,
  just sit still and watch it. Don't get pulled into following it."
§ "You should watch visions the same way you watch TV: Just watch it,
  without getting pulled inside the tube."
§ "If you can't let go of your visions, you'll never gain release."
§ One of Ajaan Fuang's students asked him, "When you see something in
  a vision, how can you know whether it's true or false?"
His answer: "Even when it's true, it's true only in terms of
  convention. You have to get your mind beyond both true and false."
§ "The purpose of the practice is to make the heart pure. All these
  other things are just games and entertainment."

As ruben2020 wrote, "Visions are nothing else but dreams".
I suspect that such might be happening all the time, like the air pump in an aquarium that's permanently blowing bubbles; but that usually there's so much other noise (sensory input including sight, sound, and haptic; and discursive thought) that we're not aware of it.
When other turbulence (senses and thoughts) in the aquarium (brain) calms down, then you may become aware of the stream of bubbles (hallucinogenic images).
If you (I use the word "you" here but what I mean is, "in my experience, if I") delight in such an image, "what a delightful image!", then it's possible to keep the image in sight, to pursue the vision: the image becomes replaced with another image, your awareness is filled/taken over by images, and, that's like an ordinary dream-sequence. Maybe I guess doing that (delighting and pursuing) encourages your brain to dream, opens some kind of door or path between the image-bubble-producing part of the brain and the rest of the brain, and allows the images to take over. I imagine that if viewed with an EEG a doctor would see sleep-type or dream-type brain waves taking over.
I think the way I try to 'work with' (i.e. overcome) these hallucinations is:

Recognize them (e.g. think "Ah yes, that vision of that image is the beginning of a dream")
Try to remember something else instead, perhaps remember Right View i.e. reason for meditating instead of for 'hallucinating'.

IMO the hallucinogenic images are conditioned and therefore impermanent, unsatisfactory, and anatta.
If it's true that image-bubbles are generated in a continual stream by a mechanism in the brain, why doesn't it dominate our awareness all the time i.e. how do you ever make it go away again?
Imagine it's like a waterfall, making a permanent noise: how would you make that go away? The answer is that you'd move yourself away from it, put some distance or close some doors between you and it.
I think my answer to that is that we learn to control, for example, our hands: you can open and close your hand if you want to: make a fist, make an open palm. There are connections (like paths or currents) between different parts of the brain.
Ideally, when you want to go to sleep for example, then you go to sleep. Your brain reconfigures itself for sleep. Your brain and body begin to go to sleep, you experience symptoms of beginning to sleep, you recognize those symptoms, you like those experiences/symptoms (because you want to go to sleep), you don't resist/discourage/reverse those incremental changes, the changes remain and are added to, and so you move (are moved) into deeper sleep.
I suppose that if you don't like/pursue the images, if you don't encourage (using your will) and therefore reinforce (perhaps by subconscious neurochemical feedback) the state of mind in which they're generated, then they will go away again (being impermanent).
If you're eventually no longer conscious of it, and if the image-bubble machine is nevertheless still ticking away somewhere in the brain, then at least its signals have become more insulated/disconnected from whatever part[s] of the brain my conscious/attention/awareness/self is at. Perhaps you could say I learned to "shut the door" through which those/its images had been manifesting to 'my consciousness'.
I don't have a good answer a) because I don't have a good answer for myself b) because it's difficult to describe. I think it's a difficult question to answer: like asking, "how do you see? how do you open your fist when you want to?" I think it's a good and important question and I hope I've at least added to a description of the problem.

I may have synesthesia (I asked a scientist and he says that it sounds like it, anyway). When I e.g. get more tired, the colours and shapes get more vivid, more like the real thing (though very rarely quite the same). I suggest that you treat them like anything else which comes up in meditation, be that a belief, a thought, or whatever...
PS I suffered from psychosis.