text:
Are chakra's used in Buddhism?
I think that in the hindoestic yogi there are using chakra's very common. But are they also used in buddhism? If not, why not? Or what is similar to chakra's in buddhism?

see also, Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings?

You are correct in say that in the Hindu Meditation practices the Chakra is used. Especially in types of Yoga practice such as ‘Lama Yoga’ they get you to energize your chakras, and fire up the kundalini using a type of breathing exercise. They refer to kundalini as a very transforming flame of raw sexual energy, and energizing the chakras is done by breathing exercises that requires excellent physical and cardiovascular health.
To me Buddhism is Theravada Buddhism, and there is absolutely no mention in the Doctrine of the use of chakras.  In fact the only place that I came of a mention of a chakra is regarding Supreme Buddha’s chief disciple, Moggallana. The other chief disciple was Ven. Sariputta who died half a year before the Final Passing Away of the Awakened One.
Soon after the death of Sariputta, Mara, the embodiment of evil and the Lord of Death, claimed Moggallana's mortal frame, by entering his bowels. He could not make him possessed by entering his head, because he had access only to the lowest Chakra. Moggallana, however, told him calmly to get out and away as he had well recognized him. Mara was very surprised that he had been found out so soon, and in his delusion he thought that even the Buddha would not have recognized him so quickly. But Moggallana read his thoughts and ordered him again to get away. So this is the only place that I found any mention of this.
Concentrating and calming the mind by breathing in and breathing out, mindfully with full awareness, is known as Anapanasati.   How mindfulness of in and out breathing brings the contemplation of body and contemplation of feeling to their culmination is explained very differently in the Buddhist Doctrine. In reading Ananda Sutta, Girimananda Sutta, Anapanasati Sutta etc. it will be obvious that this meditation needs to be developed and pursued ardently with thorough understanding and awareness as per the scriptures. At the same time be aware not to mix it that of Hindu meditation practices. Hindus advice you to first be aware of breathing by first fixing attention on the feeling of the breath at the nose palate (roof of the mouth) and then progress to places like the one located either in the middle of the chest or the solar plexus.

Buddha did not devise breath watching as it is a common practise amongst yogis. Infact Shiv who is considered first yogi and author of Bhairav Tantra has listed breath watching in his 108 meditation techniques. There is nothing Hinduism in it nor buddhism as Buddha learnt it from yogis/brahmans. Trivial details like watching breath on tip of the nose to solar plexus is not important. What is important is concentration power which along with breath watching is a potent method of mediation. If you watch breath with high concentration over a long period of time it slows down breathing to zero.

Shashank Khare what are you even talking about

But are they also used in buddhism?

There are some references to chakra in certain types of Buddhism. E.g. see Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings?

Or what is similar to chakra's in buddhism?

In Theravada Buddhism the closest is the places to fix attention or resting places of attention. See my answer to: Are the Chakras present in the original Buddha's teachings?

The Tibetans have a chakra system similar to the Hindu system, but based on four, five, seven or even ten chakras instead of the familiar seven. The specific symbols of the individual chakras also differ somewhat, and the Hindu concept of kundalini is replaced by the notion of "airs" or "drops." The 32 marks of the Buddha also seem to include some nascent references to the chakras, especially the 1000-spoke wheel sign on the feet, golden-hued body, ten-foot aura, long and broad tongue, the white urna curl that emits light between the eyebrows, and the protuberance at the crown of the head.

The Chakras corresponds to major energy exchange points between metaphysical and physical body. There are many exchange points other than seven major. Accupuncture talks about 600 plus points. Tantra Buddhism followed in Tibet talks about four chakras. Buddha remained silent because these Chakras are associated with psychic powers which are distractions in disciple path.
Best answer can be obtained by asking a living Buddha.


text:
Can Dukkha be considered as the consequence of a psychological allergic reaction?
An physical allergic reaction happens when the immune system is activated when it is not really necessary and harms more than it helps.
Dukkha can perhaps be the result of activity of the ego against things which actionally doens't harm you.
So can you say suffering is due to an allergic ego?

dukkha is due to tanha (craving). dependent origination states, that craving is conditioned by feeling, contact ... ignorance. What do you mean by 'ego'?

@OidaOudenEidos I think that "ego" refers to notions of "self" and/or "identity" -- for example including "I", "me", and "mine".

Dukkha can perhaps be the result of activity of the ego against things which actionally doens't harm you.

When you experience a contract, the reaction of consciousness is to give a sensation of pleasantness, unpleasantness or neutral sensation. Another habitual response that follows is craving or aversion to this. [Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta, Titth’ayatana Sutta, Sal-āyatana Vibhanga Sutta] This is not necessarily the ego going against anything but habitual reaction. Ego is created due to thought patterns which follow, due to craving. [Tanhā Jālinī Sutta, (Vicarita) Tanha Sutta]. The main thing is not to react to sensations, being completely equanimous and knowing their arising and passing nature. [Pahāna Sutta] If you react - with aversion, craving or ignorance - then only it becomes harmful, as this will create fabrication, which result in future karmic manifestations. Also, in the present, if they are pleasant and change then disappointment follows. [Cula Vedalla Sutta]

So can you say suffering is due to an allergic ego?

You can say it is due to allergic reaction to sense experiences with craving and aversion.

As already explained, in Buddhism, all suffering arises from craving & clinging. Therefore physical illness, while generating unpleasant feelings (sensations), does not in itself create suffering. For example, when the Buddha was dying, he experienced vicious physical pain but did not suffer. Mentally distinguishing between unpleasant sensations & mental suffering is part of the Buddhist training.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to develop compassion while avoiding attachment?
The Buddha stressed compassion in his teachings. It seems that the more one tries to be compassionate towards people, a natural tendency of attachment develops. For example, it seems that if I try to practice compassion towards my close family (and focus my mind on helping them), then I develop more attachment for them, and I feel closer to them and the pain of separation increases. Is it wrong that I want to feel closer to them? Did the Buddha have any advice about developing compassion while avoiding attachment (and other side effects like pride) ?

In case it matters, when you wrote "family" did you mean "parents and siblings", or did you mean "spouse and children"?

@ChrisW I mostly meant parents and siblings. This is family that I was born with and feel like it is my duty to take care of them.

A related topic (a topic with related answers): What's the aim of avoiding attachment?

Thank you for the related topic @ChrisW. This is very relevant to my question!

Are you certain that this is attachment, or concern for your parents well being? Sexual attachment, selfish attachment due to some sort of dependency needs to be distinguished from concern and wanting to take care of one's parents. Remember Ven. Ananda greatly loved and cared for the Buddha, and is said to have wept during the Buddha's parinibbana. The Buddha too deeply cared about all beings and strove to help them cross over from samsara.

I am personally not aware of any direct advice the Buddha gave about developing compassion without attachment since the majority of the Buddha's teachings are about developing non-attachment & the minority of teachings are about developing compassion. In general, the compassion teachings are generally related to cultivating non-harming, non-hatred & non-cruelty and also about teaching the dhamma to others. In other words, the compassion teachings are generally not about how to help others in more worldly or mundane ways.
The teachings of the Buddha are generally separated as: (1) teachings for monks; and (2) teachings for laypeople. The teachings for monks focus on non-attachment where as the teachings for laypeople rarely mention non-attachment.
In general, the Buddha encouraged laypeople to do good so they develop personal pride or self-respect in relation to their good actions (eg. Anana Sutta & Samajivina Sutta).
For example, in With Brahma (Itivuttaka 4.7) and in the Sigalovada Sutta, the Buddha discusses the compassionate role & duties of parents & family members but does not mention non-attachment. In the Piyajatika Sutta, the Buddha says to a man his grief towards his dead son comes from his love but does not teach non-attachment.
In SN 42.12, the Buddha eventually refers to a man who uses his wealth to help his family without being attached to it, "seeing the danger in it, understanding the escape" but does not go into any details. That said, "seeing the danger & understanding the escape" are a stock teaching for monks in the suttas, where the "danger" (ādīnava) is attachment & the "escape" (nissaraṇa) is the non-attachment of the eightfold path.
Therefore, I think non-attachment can be developed by comprehending the danger or suffering of attachment. As the Buddha taught about the 1st noble truth: "This suffering (of attaching to the five aggregates) is to be comprehended".
In the Udayi Sutta, it is mentioned teaching others with compassion & without harming oneself.
In the Attavagga in the Dhammapada, it is again mentioned doing good without hurting oneself.
The Attavagga holds the principle that each individual must help themself. The Maggavagga has the phrase: " You yourselves must strive; the Buddhas only point the way".
These accord with the practise of equanimity (upeka), where it is reflected each individual is the owner of their actions.
Compassion (karuna) is one of the 4 brahma vihara, which also include metta, mudita & equanimity (upeka). Here, helping others (compassion) is balanced with the understanding (upeka) that we try to help others to help themselves; thus ultimately, others are responsible for their lives.
This old booklet may be helpful for you:
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/4sublime_states.pdf
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel006.html

Use Upekkha(Equanimity) to straighten Karuna(compassion) when it strays into sadness.

Karuna is characterized as promoting the aspect of allaying suffering.
  Its function resides in not bearing others’ suffering. It is manifested as non-cruelty.
  Its proximate cause is to see helplessness in those overwhelmed by
  suffering. It succeeds when it makes cruelty subside and it fails when it produces sorrow.
Uppekkha is characterized as promoting the aspect of neutrality
  towards beings. Its function is to see equality in beings. It is
  manifested as the quieting of resentment and approval. Its proximate
  cause is seeing ownership of deeds (kamma) thus: “Beings are owners of
  their deeds. Whose [if not theirs] is the choice by which they will
  become happy, or will get free from suffering, or will not fall away
  from the success they have reached? It succeeds when it makes
  resentment and approval subside, and it fails when it produces the equanimity
  of unknowing, which is that [worldly-minded indifference of ignorance] based
  on the house life. -Visuddhimagga

So observe the mind to see what is happening as you practice Karuna. If it subdues cruelty, continue. As soon as it turns into sadness, practice Uppekkha until it goes away. Again switch back to Karuna and so on.

When developing compassion do not use a specific person of the opposite sex. This will lead to attachment. Also a person you are too attached to or averse to.
When you think of someone, you get a pleasant or emotional feeling in your mind sense door, then this is what is reinforcing the to attachment to the person. [Cha Chakka Sutta] So in these cases be equanimous of the feeling, knowing its arising and passing nature. [Pahāna Sutta] This will help reduce attachment towards other people. Attachment towards other people is misery, perhaps this in you motivation to avoid it, and by overcoming this attachment towards other people, you can overcome misery such attachment. [Bhadraka Sutta also called Gandhabhaka Sutta] See: Brahmavihara and Upekkha
If you are developing pride, this is since you are measuring yourself against the other and evaluating yourself superior. (Māna) Soṇa Sutta The way to get over this is though Karuṇā and Mudita, as Karuṇā pose as an antidote when you evaluate someone inferior, lower, bad situation in comparison to what you would evaluate as medium or average as Karuṇā develops thoughts to uplift someone from and undesirable predicament or wish for him betterment, and similarly Mudita when you evaluate that someone is better off or in a positive situation you wish that this is maintained you overcome inferiority.

Did the Buddha have any advice about developing compassion while avoiding attachment (and other side effects like pride)?

From the Visuddhi-Magga (I added in [...] what is 'etc.' in the PDF)

One who wants to develop compassion should begin his task by reviewing
  the  danger  in  lack  of  compassion  and  the  advantage  in  compassion.
And when he begins it, he should not direct it at first towards a dear person, [a
  very dear companion, a neutral person or an antipathetic/hostile person];  for  one  who  is  dear  simply  retains  the  position  of  one  who  is  dear,  a
  very dear companion retains the position of a very dear companion, one who is
  neutral retains the position of one who is neutral, one who is antipathetic retains
  the position of one who is antipathetic, and one who is hostile retains the position
  of one who is hostile. One of the opposite sex and one who is dead are also not
  the field for it.

According to this, in meditation one should:

Consider the advantage of compassion/ danger in lack of compassion
Develop compassion by picturing/think about a being that is in great suffering and making the wish: "May he/she be free from suffering"

Just  as  he  would  feel
  compassion on seeing an unlucky, unfortunate person, so he pervades all beings
  with  compassion”  (Vibh  273).  Therefore  first  of  all,  on  seeing  a  wretched  man,
  unlucky, unfortunate, in every way a fit object for compassion, unsightly, reduced
  to utter misery, with hands and feet cut off, sitting in the shelter for the helpless
  with a pot placed before him, with a mass of maggots oozing from his arms and
  legs,  and  moaning,  compassion  should  be  felt  for  him  in  this  way:  “This  being
  has indeed been reduced to misery; if only he could be freed from this suffering!”

If you don't know about such a person, towards an evil-doing person

But  if  he  does  not  encounter  such  a  person,  then  he  can  arouse  compassion
  for  an  evil-doing  person,  even  though  he  is  happy,  by  comparing  him  to  one
  about to be executed. How?
[...] So  too  a  bhikkhu  whose  meditation  subject  is
  compassion  should  arouse  compassion  for  an  [evil-doing]  person  even  if  he  is
  happy:  “Though  this  poor  wretch  is  now  happy,  cheerful,  enjoying  his  wealth,
  still for want of even one good deed done now in any one of the three doors [of
  body, speech and mind] he can come to experience untold suffering in the states
  of  loss.”

Now in the same way develop compassion for a dear person
... a neutral person
... a hostile  person

In case resentment arises towards the hostile person, one should focus on metta instead
After this section in the Visuddhimagga, there is a comment about different ways of practicing compassion. (Towards yourself or first a hostile person then a unlucky)

Does this explain what the Buddha said about how to avoid becoming attached to ones family (e.g. parents) while at the same time having compassion for them?

It's not the word of the Buddha, but the instruction from the Visuddhimagga state very clear, that in karuna-meditation you shouldn't start with your closest loved ones as an object, but rather come to them, after the feeling of compassion is strong enough to overcome the attachement. What the OP describes, is exactly the danger described in the Visuddhimagga (' for one who is dear simply retains the position of one who is dear')

this is what i gathered from many suttas.  Start with 5 precepts because it is a foundation of peace. then you set up your mind that you will not kill, harm, harsh words..etc. others.
Set it in your mind that others beings around you have no reason to fear you because you will not do anything to hurt them or destroy their benefit or well being.  you start with beings right next to you first and then spread out the circle or radiate compassion and kindness outward.

This is to try to add to the other answers:

What about compassion?
What about attachment?
What about parents?

Introduction
The question started with, "The Buddha stressed compassion in his teachings" but I'm not sure that's so.
For example the answers to questions like, Is Anatman the most important concept in Buddhism? and How to explain what Buddhism is? suggest that maybe "compassion" isn't the most important concept?
On the other hand, some of the writing of the Dalai Lama, and maybe of other teachers too, suggest that perhaps it is a most important concept?
Perhaps there's a difference between what the Buddha emphasized in the Theravada canon, versus the emphasis in the Mahayana tradition (in which "compassion" might be portrayed as more central)?
So I think that sentence is both right and wrong: i.e. he did emphasize compassion, but then again he emphasized a lot of other topics as well.
FYI I'll try to answer based on what I've learned of the Theravada canon.

What about compassion?
On the subject of compassion: compassion is one of the four Brahma-viharas (see for example these two essays: Head & Heart Together, and The Four Sublime States).
I'm not completely sure what the difference is between "compassion" and "loving-kindness" (karuṇā and mettā). Wikipedia says,

The Pali commentaries distinguish between karuṇā and mettā in the following complementary manner: Karuna is the desire to remove harm and suffering (ahita-dukkha-apanaya-kāmatā) from others; while mettā is the desire to bring about the well-being and happiness (hita-sukha-upanaya-kāmatā) of others.

However they seem to me to be two sides of the same coin (i.e. removing dukkha versus promoting sukha), and so they seem to me to be more-or-less interchangeable.
Also I think that Theravada Buddhism, at least, seems to promote or advertise the development of mettā more than it does karuṇā. When your question asked about "developing compassion", I think that some of the other answers are based on "developing loving-kindness", which is a practice called metta-bhavana (where bhavana is a word which can be translated as something like, "becoming").
For example, Suminda's answer ...

When developing compassion do not use a specific person of the opposite sex.

... is I think probably based on these instructions.
Anyway maybe that helps to explain some of the other answers to your question: I think they saw "develop compassion" in the title, and are therefore quoting metta-bhavana instructions.
This essay on metta-bhavana, The Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love, talks about metta as a "universal" love -- there, I think, not a love that is restricted/exclusive to parents, but a love which includes parents ... so already, by including other people, perhaps it tends towards some kind of non-attachment towards own family. And there's this essay, The Practice of Loving-Kindness (Metta), which has the advantage of being "As Taught by the Buddha in the Pali Canon" i.e. it's principally a collection of relevant quotes from the suttas.
I was going to say or started to write that there is more written about metta than there is about karuna, but on reflection maybe that's not true -- because, I think that the ethical precepts (rules of behaviour, about which a lot is said) are at least partly for the purpose of compassion or harmlessness:

Furthermore, abandoning [the behaviour forbidden by each of the five precepts], the disciple of the noble ones abstains from [that behaviour]. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings.

So part of the "compassion" that you rightly show to family (if you're asking, "how to show compassion?") includes simply keeping the precepts: for example abstaining from incorrect speech, and so on.

What about attachment?
I'm not sure how to summarize what the Buddha said about avoiding attachment.
For a start, there's a slight difference between "attachment" (see Upādāna) and "craving" (see Taṇhā).
I think that the Buddha said more about "craving" than about "attachment": for example, the second noble truth is about "craving".
The difference between "craving" and "attachment", I think, is that I think of "craving" as being a kind of blind thirst or lust or desire ... which, is a habit inherent in (a property of) 'me' ... whereas "attachment" is when I subsequently attach that desire to a particular thing (or particular person) because I think it can satisfy that desire ... so attachment is my projecting my desire onto something else; for example:

Imagine that I'm thirsty -- that "thirst" is probably a craving
I want something, anything, to drink -- maybe that's still a craving but it's starting to become an attachment, because maybe I think I want something in particular i.e. a drink, that a drink will satisfy my thirst
I get a drink and I think, "This is the best drink ever: it saved my life, it quenched my thirst ... now I want to keep this drink, forever!" -- that's definitely become an attachment

According to doctrine, attachment is conditioned by craving (i.e. "as a result of craving attachment arises" or "the existence of craving is the condition in which attachment arises") so a way to avoid attachment might be to avoid or reduce craving, or maybe (I'm guessing) at least to be aware of craving and not allowing it to become attachment (e.g. to think "ok so I was thirsty before but that's not a good reason to become attached to and to try to keep this specific glass of water", or to think, "that thirst was impermanent, arises and ceases, and so was the water and the sensation of drinking it").
You started by saying that "the Buddha stressed compassion" but it seems to be that a lot of what the Buddha stressed is that it's not appropriate to become attached to things because things are impermanent. It's especially "compound things" or "things put together" that are impermanent (or 'disappointing' or 'subject to decay', for example as explained in the last words of the Buddha).
In summary I guess it's something like:

When you become aware that attachment has arisen, see that it's inappropriate
Stay mindful that things (e.g. sense-impressions) arise and cease so it's not worth becoming attached to them

I think I agree with Dhammadhatu's answer:

I think non-attachment can be developed by comprehending the danger or suffering of attachment.

You can read a further introduction to attachment e.g. here on Wikipedia. I might be worth noting there are two types of attachment are identified:

Sense-pleasures (e.g. the comforts of home)
Ideas (e.g. a view of self as specific person within specific family)

What about parents?
That's a little difficult to answer: IMO the answer isn't straightforward, and/because the answer may be a "middle way between extremes".
For example, apparently (if I remember correctly) you need (you're expected to obtain) your parents' permission before you ordain as a monk. I think that someone, on this site, once suggested that maybe that's so that the Sangha (community of monks) wouldn't develop a bad reputation with lay society (which they would if people's children started leaving home without permission). On the other hand, there's a story of a son whose parents refused permission, and who replied that he'd simply stop eating until either he died or they gave him permission (and after a few days, seeing that he was determined, the parents gave permission).
Buddhism teaches that one owes to parents an enormous debt of gratitude (see e.g. this essay, The Lessons of Gratitude).
I think that maybe monks may be released from their ordinary obligations and restrictions in order to physically look after their own parents if and when they need it -- depending on the tradition, either while still a monk, or by disrobing temporarily.
There are also teachings about how to be a good member of lay society, including to one's family: sober, hard working, frugal, kind, and so (see for example the Sigalovada Sutta).
One thing though, the Kataññu Suttas end by saying,

But anyone who rouses his unbelieving mother & father, settles & establishes them in conviction; rouses his unvirtuous mother & father, settles & establishes them in virtue; rouses his stingy mother & father, settles & establishes them in generosity; rouses his foolish mother & father, settles & establishes them in discernment: To this extent one pays & repays one's mother & father.

So, helping/teaching/enabling your family to "avoid attachment", if you can, might be a good way to show them compassion.

Conclusion
To some extent you're asking a difficult question. The type of "attachment" which you seem to be talking about is maybe part of the ordinary or 'healthy' development of infants, so it's something we're all born with and/or acquire in early childhood development, and either keep or have to un-learn somehow. The couter-measures might be insight and wisdom.
As if wisdom and insight aren't already plenty to learn, Mahayana further introduces the concept of skillfulness: so your (compassionate) behaviour should be wise (to avoid negative consequences such as attachment) but also skillful.
Although maybe I don't have a good, canonical understanding of what "skillful" means, I think of it as meaning, partly, an ability to keep to a middle way between extremes (e.g. maybe neither an extreme attachment nor an extreme indifference is appropriate).
Finally it might help to remember that both you and they must find your/their own ways towards enlightenment: though you might help (help yourself, them, and others), maybe attachment is counterproductive to that goal.

Karuna requires the other to be in a state of suffering. You can offer snacks to your friends or invite them for dinner. That's Metta. They don't suffer, even if you didn't. You can be impolite and rude to your neighbor. That is lack of Metta. But if he gets a heart attack, you might be moved to take him to a hospital. That's Karuna.

Being thirsty is not craving. It's simply a feeling.
Tanha is liking of the sensation. Upadana is wanting what was liked. Tanha always endsup with Upadana.

"Being thirsty is not craving" -- Yes, thirst meant to be an analogy for craving. Craving (tanha) is like being thirsty or greedy, typically greedy for a sensation ... it's "wanting" (desiring) something.

Compassion and creativity are by-product of consciousness. The more you are aware of metaphysical nature of your being more compassionate you will be.  For example if you witness your past births you will understand that people are transient phenomenon.
The problem is compassion is being cultivated in all religions of the world including Buddhism. It is not an intellectual affair. It is experience of higher states of being which brings in compassion. You cannot preach/teach compassion.
Karuna meditation helps in attaining compassion but to become truly compassionate one needs to be enlightened. Otherwise there will always be some element of attachment.

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


text:
I was wondering about deep meditation and out of body experiences
I am very sick and as such I have tried meditating a lot, and reading about the heart mantra, as far as studying meditation. When I was meditating I was going into a trance like state for about 3-4 hours, my first question was, is 3-4 hours, deep meditation or beginners meditation? My second  question was, in at least one trance state I suddenly looked down and saw myself sitting, I was out of my body,
I tried to look around and I saw what I can only describe as many beautiful places/doors, Could this be any beginning to becoming realized, maybe a step in the right direction or not? Please excuse me if these questions are stupid.

I suddenly looked down and saw myself sitting, I was out of my body, I
  tried to look around and I saw what I can only describe as many beautiful places/doors

This is an effect of certain Samatha meditations. It is called out of body experience. I remember reading something similar in a book by venerable Ananda Maithriya thero. He would start the meditation(Samatha) while lying on the bed and after sometime he'd be standing next to the bed looking at his body.
At one time he wandered out of the room and started exploring. Then he came to a gate/door that was guarded by a huge demon like figure. It told him something like "What are you doing here? Go back!". So he went back to the body. Later he discussed this experience with the head monk of the monastery. The head monk advised the Thero not to do that without proper preparation. Because if something else gets in while you are out, you will be locked out of your own body. People have died trying to do that.
Venerable Yuttadhammo also speaks about a similar experience in this video

is 3-4 hours, deep meditation or beginners meditation? Could this be any beginning to becoming realized

No, this has nothing to do with Nibbana. You have to do Vipassana meditation for insight knowledge. But being able to sit for 3 hours and focus on one object is good progress in terms of Samatha meditation. Also, having such focus is a good starting point for Vipassana.

What you're describing is one of the many superpowers you can develop when practicing meditation.
In the Kevatta sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html the Buddha describes the superpowers:

And what is the miracle of psychic power? There is the case where a
  monk wields manifold psychic powers. Having been one he becomes many;
  having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes
  unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space.
  He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on
  water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he
  flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and
  strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises
  influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds

Try it yourself. Go out of your body and do everything the Buddha described. Have fun.
What you're experiencing can be the beginning of becoming realized. But, on the other hand, it can also be a big distraction for becoming realized - the Buddha confirms it:

Seeing this drawback to the miracle of psychic power, Kevatta, I feel
  horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of psychic
  power.

What the Buddha meant by this statement is that superpowers are not the fastest way for becoming realized. They are usually (but not always!) a distraction that propels beings on a longer path towards realization.
This doesn't mean that you should stop cultivating your superpowers. Cultivating superpowers can sometimes be the fastest way towards realization. What is this way?
Firstly, explore your superpowers thoroughly. Play with them. Find out how they work. Be a little kid. Be curious. Be extremely curious.
This is very important: forget about your fear. If fear is present, this is not the right way towards realization! If you can be curious about your superpowers without fear, then do it - explore them. A little fear is ok, but if it's too much, be wiser and stop. Such experiences can have a really big impact on your life, to the point where you can't function normally in your daily life. Be smart and know your limits.
Once you know you're safe and curiosity is the main theme when exploring your superpowers, strive to have complete control of your superpowers. Sooner or later you'll come to the following realization:

"In order to access my superpowers and have control over them I have to be in the right state of mind"

With the above realization you'll realize that your mind plays the most important role in accessing your superpowers. From this realization, you'll naturally want to explore your mind and you'll start to ask yourself the right questions:

"How does my mind work? What is my mind? How can I know my mind?"

When asking yourself these questions, meditation will come naturally as this is the only way to correctly answer such questions. You'll start looking at your mind. Dissecting the inner workings of your mind. Analyzing every little nuance of your mind. You'll go deeper and deeper.
New questions will arise:

"What is the first cause of everything in my mind?"

You'll try to search for this first cause, but no matter how deep you'll search, you'll see the following:

"The cause of the first cause is always the same cause, but more subtle."

It will be like you're searching for the bottom of an infinitely deep ocean.
Then, one day, when you'll search long enough and ask yourself the right question, you'll find the bottom: ignorance. You'll realize dependent origination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da . You'll go beyond your superpowers and you'll become fully realized.
See, with your superpowers you can't become realized. But you can use them to motivate you to start exploring your mind. This is the way of becoming realized with the help of superpowers.
The proper way, preached by the Buddha, is to let go of the superpowers and ignore them. What are you going to do? Can you let go of your superpowers and ignore them? If so, then do it and go into meditation with the right questions to explore your mind. If you can't, then you can follow the way I described. Once you explore every corner of your superpowers, meditation with the right questions will come naturally and the rest will follow.

is 3-4 hours, deep meditation or beginners meditation?

It can be deep meditation or beginners meditation. The important factor is the quality of meditation. That's what differentiates beginners from advanced meditators.


text:
Tiredness and Meditation
I decided to meditate continuously, no matter what occurs within meditation. I will attempt to do as best I can.
However, the only circumstance when I feel like meditation would be difficult would be when experiencing lethargy or fatigue.
I noticed that some things usually occur while particularly tired:

Meditation becomes difficult as the mind tends to drift or wander.
Rather than generate insight or focus the mind will create aimless and incoherent thoughts.
The body will slacken and it becomes easier to drift off.

Hence, does anyone have tips to generate more energy for meditation, be it in terms of lifestyle or immediate antidotes? And should I try to meditate despite these feelings of tiredness and fatigue or should I merely abstain or distract myself until I am more alert?
Thank you.

Story about Ven Moggallana might be interesting to you.  He was struggling with sleepiness (or tiredness) on his path to liberation.  Buddha gave him specific set of instructions.  Per Buddha, Last step to fight sleepiness is to actually sleep.  Maha-Moggallana

Wow, sounds like a good practice but nobody ever said it would be %100 easy.
As long as I practice continuously I try to be mindful of my reactions to how the practice is going. The more mindfulness the better the faculties become balanced. Sometimes we are more mindful than other times. Sometimes it seems like we can't get into it, we don't have enough runway clearance to get the mindfulness off the ground.
One is less likely to become lethargic while doing walking meditation and also it gives one added concentration so one could do sitting meditation immediately after with a more balanced concentration.

@Eggman… have you ever tried ‘Walking Meditation’? ; It’s an essential part of the meditation. It develops an added skill, the skill to be centered in the body not only while the body is still, but also while the body is moving. Walking meditation teaches you to be still in the midst of movement, to get a stronger sense of the mind as the observer that doesn’t move along with the things it observes.  The ability to observe the mind in action and yet not get caught up in the action is important. And this is why walking meditation is so important, because it helps give you practice in perfecting that ability.
If you’re feeling tired, try to breathe in a way that gives you more energy. If you’re feeling tense, try to breathe in a way that’s more relaxing. You want to be friends with your wise qualities inside, the thoughts that help you, that point you in the right direction. You want to learn how to encourage them. After all, meditation is not simply a matter of driving thoughts out of the mind. You first have to learn how to think skillfully. Just listen to all the conversations going on in the mind: Should I meditate? Should I not meditate? Notice all the voices that say, No, I’m too tired, I need my rest, I want to do something else. Ask yourself: Are those your true friends? Where are they going to take you? Learn how to encourage the voices that take you where you really want to go. This is one of the most basic skills in meditation. If you can’t master this one, you can’t do anything else basic, like sticking with the breath.

I find it easiest to meditate first thing in the morning. I have a half cup or a cup of coffee first as part of my morning ritual, then meditate for an hour. The best thing you can do is to get a good night's sleep so you are rested in the morning.


text:
During Anapana, why does the breathing become slower and slower as we progress?
I've been practicing mindfulness of breath (Anapanasati) lately and noticed this phenomena. During the initial few minutes, the breathing is generally short, but as the mind starts concentrating and gets still, the breathing becomes slower and slower. In fact, some times, I feel like one in/outer breath is taking like minutes. What actually causes this phenomena?

At least two things cause this phenomena: (1) the mind not desiring & not thinking, which results in the restless energy of desire & thinking not making the breathing restless & agitated; and (2) what Buddhism calls the 'Nirvana element' ('nirodha dhatu'), i.e., what science calls 'homeostasis', which, like the force of 'gravity', moves the breath towards the equilibrium or peace/stillness of Nirvana.
Whenever the mind is free from craving, clinging & desiring, the mind & the breath will enter into the 'stream' to Nirvana. It is the same as when a drug addict enters into 'cold turkey'. Natural forces purge the body of the drug addict of its toxins. Similarly, the 'cold turkey' of meditation dissolves the agitations of conditioned mental formations stored in the mind, body & breath, making the breath more calm & pure.

Your breathing is normally an autonomic function. Controlled by your brain and generally involuntary. That way we can sleep at night and not die.
But when we actually focus on it we take over that function. So what was a rate previously controlled by the brain automatically now becomes a rate we have more control over.
Of course what's being controlled is the amount of oxygen getting to the blood and the brain. It doesn't take much of a variance in that percentage of oxygen in the body to change how we feel - be it sluggish or excited. Our body automatically keeps us a little "hopped up" on oxygen so we have a little reserve to flee in case a sabretooth tiger approaches. When WE take over the breathing we tend to be more relaxed about it and lower that oxygen percentage a bit which increases the CO2 level and further relaxes our body.
This is why anapanasati meditation is so simple and so effective. It works right along with our body in relaxing.

Breathing is connected to your three centers - mind, body and heart. Watching breathing slows down breathing a bit which slows down thoughts/emotions. As a result your senses cool down. Your mind, body, and heart are in perfect balance which further slows down your breathing. This virtuous cycle results in stopping of breath which culminates in nirbana. You are no longer connected to your mind, body and heart. You have gone beyond your senses.


text:
What is the buddhist conception of light?
How do buddhists regard light? In their statues the eyes of Buddha are most times closed. Do they consider light a low worthy thing or something else. Newton showed gravity to be a powerful competitor of light. Hindi poetry considers the sun a selfish object despite the sun is supporting life. From this a doubt came to my mind that maybe buddhist regard light as a lowly?
Light has cleansing and illumination quality, Islam stress upon physical cleaning before praying. Does buddhism consider bodily cleansing a high virtue?

The Buddha was a psychologist rather than a physicist or house cleaner. The Buddha is called the 'Spiritual Doctor'. For the Buddha, the most important light was the 'light' of wisdom.
Also, the Buddha mostly enjoyed living in the forest or jungle therefore was not overly concerned with keeping marble temples clean; similar to how Muḥammad (PBUH) formerly enjoyed meditating in a cave & would wrap himself in blankets when giving a revelation.
Therefore, the Buddha's eyes are closed so the mind can be understood internally, in particular, how the mind generates sufferings & how the mind frees itself from suffering.
That said, the Buddha was also a mystic and taught one meditation called the 'perception of light', which can be used to develop psychic powers. The Buddha had the 'Eye of God' (dibba-cakkhu) therefore could see, hear & know what people were doing from within his mind. That is why his eyes are closed. The Buddha did not have to open his eyes to know what was going on the world.

And what is the development of mind using concentration that, when developed &
  pursued, leads to the attainment of knowing & seeing? There is the
  case where a monk attends to the perception of light and is resolved
  on the perception of daytime [at any hour of the day]. Day [for him]
  is the same as night, night is the same as day. By means of an
  awareness open & unhampered, he develops a brightened mind. This is
  the development of mind using concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowing & seeing.
Samadhi Sutta

According to the suttas, contemplation of light is said to and does lead to wakefulness. This contemplation can be done in the dark or with eyes closed by recollecting a bright light.  There is also a key Buddhist meditation upon light "aloha kasina", this requires the eyes to be open, even partially, until the counter part sign is established. (This is a very elementary description, so please Google the term for more details)
Physical cleanliness and hygiene are highly regarded in Buddhism. However morality, generosity, compassion and wisdom are even more highly regarded.
In Buddhsim, material objects or phenomenon,  like light, are not considered lowly or holy per se. Instead it the actions of beings that are classified as lowly or holy.


text:
How much should i try while meditating?
I have just started meditating and was wondering how much effort should I put  into not getting distracted ?
As I have noticed while practicing there are varying degrees of trying I can use the more I use the more focused I am but I also feel like my mind is working harder and kind of less relaxed .
Should I even be trying at all ?
Because when I am not trying at all mostly the wave of thoughts easily sweep me away from the meditation.
Or is it like finding the balance between trying really hard and not trying ?
If the last one is the case how can I find the balance ?

There is an interesting zen quote that speaks to this Meditate for an hour every day unless you are too busy. In that case meditate for two hours though it might not be zen or even Buddhist. Still makes me smile

Buddha compared it to holding a live bird: too hard you would kill it, too light it would fly away.
The following book is a collection of about 30 suttas in which the Buddha talks about Anapanasati:
Buddhawajana
Anapanasati

I recalled a dharma talk by Ajahn Thanissaro Bhikku on Youtube. In it he compared mindfulness and meditation to a skill. And like anything else in life you need to practice to become good at that skill.
At the beginning your mind is full of its habitual mess of cravings, frustrations, anger, hate, distractions, torpor, conceit, because you never experience anything else you don't even realize its a problem. Maybe you dull your constant mental irritation with alcohol, media or computer games.
As you started to meditate you experience immediate withdrawal from the senses, you want to check your phone, play with computer, go watch tv. It's agonizing.
However as you push through the practice, and the mind begin to settle, things become clearer, your mind feels lighter, there are moments where you feel like your heart has opened up and great peace and joy occur and its wonderful. You even made some realizations about your life and habits. It's like a fog has lifted. And you become horribly aware of the bad things you do that keep you in a state of constant confusion, craving and anger. This is mindful concentration.
Unfortunately this happy state won't last, back into the world and you realize your personal annoyances and irritation is still with you, but meditation becomes your safe space to let go of the annoyances.
So you work hard to get better at this process. If your mind was a glass of cloudy muddy water before, meditation was letting it becomes settled and clear. What you need to do next is fish out the sediments, and you do this through the application of wisdom, for example using compassion to let go of hate, using generosity (Dana) to let go of greed. Awareness of impermanence and selflessness become your arsenal.
Of course meditation is only one branch of the Noble Eightfold Path - concentration. You need to follow up with the rest, with better wisdom and ethics which will allow you to have better concentration.
Keep practicing.

I recently started doing meditation myself and I've had similar problems to you. You begin meditating and floods of thoughts pop through and you find yourself following them and it's really hard to get back to focusing on whatever the objective of your meditation is supposed to be.
The main piece of advice I can give you is to find something you can focus on consistently, I use my breathing for example. When your mind wonders it's OK to have the thought, but you should always acknowledge that you're beginning to flow away from your meditation and you should go back to the consistent object you are focusing on. You shouldn't be harsh on yourself during meditation, especially if you're new to doing it. Even the most trained mediators find themselves wondering sometimes, it's natural.
In regards to feeling like it's hard to meditate, it should be something you can relax into and not something to struggle to do. It seems like you're trying to avoid the thoughts altogether, but they are something you should acknowledge, follow if you believe it is important, and drift back to meditating once you have acknowledged that you are slipping.
When I did my first group practice meditation the ordained member who was leading the session gave some advice on how to maintain focus during the meditation, I find that advice was very useful for me and has helped me ease into meditation, I will roughly quote him below.

Focus on your breathing, focus on the different aspects of each breath. Is it coarse? Is it smooth? focus on how much you are breathing in, can you take a lot of air? is there only a little? these aspects can be ever changing, follow them and do not try to control them. If you flow away from your focus, acknowledge the thought, acknowledge your aspirations for meditation, and come back to your breath, is it coarse? is it smooth?

I unfortunately forgot the members name but I'm going back this week and will add it here.
I'm not sure if there are different methods of focus, I'm new to Buddhism in general, but this is the way that I started it and I hope it helps with your en-devours too.

Get distracted, but be aware of distraction.

Ajahn Chah gave this simile in Food for the Heart (chapter: steady practice; There is also an audio version online, read by Ajahn Amaro):

Suppose we went to buy some coconuts in the market, and
  while we were carrying them back someone asked:
  “What did you buy those coconuts for?”
“I bought them to eat.”
“Are you going to eat the shells as well?”
“No.”
“I don’t believe you. If you’re not going to eat the shells then
  why did you buy them also?”
Well what do you say? How are you going to answer their
  question? We practice with desire. If we didn’t have desire we
  wouldn’t practice. Practicing with desire is tanha. Contemplating
  in this way can give rise to wisdom, you know. For example,
  those coconuts: Are you going to eat the shells as well? Of course
  not. Then why do you take them? Because the time hasn’t yet
  come for you to throw them away. They’re useful for wrapping
  up the coconut in. If, after eating the coconut, you throw the
  shells away, there is no problem.

Also, this simile by the Buddha might help:

"Now what do you think, Sona. Before, when you were a house-dweller, were you skilled at playing the vina?" "Yes, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too taut, was your vina in tune & playable?" "No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too loose, was your vina in tune & playable?" "No, lord."
"And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were neither too taut nor too loose, but tuned (lit: 'established') to be right on pitch, was your vina in tune & playable?" "Yes, lord."
"In the same way, Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to restlessness, overly slack persistence leads to laziness. Thus you should determine the right pitch for your persistence, attune ('penetrate,' 'ferret out') the pitch of the [five] faculties [to that], and there pick up your theme." -- AN 6.55

Meditation is about effortlessness. If you are trying it implies effort which is not meditative. Making changes in your lifestyle like noncompetitiveness has to be part of practise. Just meditation technique alone will not give results. Also try some detox therapies especially herbal which brings about balance and thereby cool down your senses.


text:
What to do when a thought comes up while meditating
From the meditation podcasts I have heard when a thought comes up acknowledge it by saying "thinking" and then try to gently return back to your breath.
There is something else I tried experimentally. In this case I was not noticing my breath, but was noticing my thoughts. I did this by asking, "what's the next thought" and tried to observe my thoughts mindfully. Obviously more thoughts arose, but it felt like I was still practicing mindfulness. And it seems easier to do this type of mindfulness while in an environment with a lot of distractions. (Walking, running, etc.)
I wanted to know if it is ok to do this?
Also, are there other methods for handling my thoughts?

Good question. sometime ago, someone once told me to do as the buddha did himself to his own mind. If mind goes out of concentration for one time then bring it back for one time. If mind goes out concentration ten times then bring it back ten times. If mind slips a thousand times then bring it back a thousand times. If mind is keep on slipping then you please keep on bringing it back until it become an obedient one. Thank you & Regards.

It is important to understand what is meant by 'right view' (samma ditti) which covers the origination of thoughts, the causal arising of thoughts, and the non-self nature of thoughts and the entire thinking apparatus.
This understanding will help one to be mindful of the arising and passing away of thoughts during meditation without identifying with them. The default view that a thought is mine, created by myself naturally causes one to pursue them. While the right view of the true nature of thoughts eventually leads one to be unbounded from thinking.

The thing I've learned from meditation so far: Don't try to be clever, just follow the instructions!
Anapanasati (meditation on the breath) works just the way it should be. It was highly recommended by the Buddha himself and successfully used for the last ~2500 years now. It's really simple: When you breath out, know you breath out.
If you want to develop samadhi (concentration is a misleading term, let's just call it peaceful stillness), then the best way is to choose an mediation object (breath, metta, walking, ...) and follow the instructions.

In this case I was not noticing my breath but was noticing my thoughts I did it by asking "what's the next thought " and tried to observe my thoughts mindfully

Don't do this. You will eventually get caught up in thinking and emotions. In meditation (samatha) thoughts are a distraction. They pull you away from your object of meditation. So dropping your meditation object will pretty much end your meditation.
Dealing with distracting thoughts
I guess half of all questions in this SE relate to that topic, so I'm just gonna link some instructions. In general, you have to find out by trying what works and what doesn't. What makes you (your breath) more peaceful and what makes it more stressful.
https://youtu.be/oeJ2LaFaDCY?t=53
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL603BD0B03E12F5A1 (you probably heard this)

And it seems it is easier to do this type of mindfulness when in an environment with a lot of distraction . (Walking or running etc.)

I myself noticed that in such a environment it's very beneficial to 'sort' those distraction in regards to the six senses. This is seeing, hearing, thinking, tasting, feeling, smelling.

Bring your attention to your hand (any) and to the middle of your forehead. Do it simultaneously. The first will keep you in the moment. The second will enable you to observe your thoughts. Any time you find your attention wandering and you are being caught up in a daydream, just become aware of your hand in the present moment. The hand will tingle and become warm when you turn your attention to it; each finger in turn – with your mind’s eye, look at your thumb until it tingles and becomes warm, then to the next finger and so on, until your hand tingles and becomes warm. Be very aware of the warmth and be in the present moment. At the same time, with your mind’s eye, look through the middle of your forehead at the thoughts rising and let them pass without being captivated by them. Focus on your being (via your hand, which holds you as an anchor in the present) and the middle of your forehead (through your mind's eye; don't move your physical eyes). This way, you won't wander away with the thought or be captivated by it.


text:
What is the school of Buddhism that believes in God?
I am a Westerner raised in the Christian faith but have left it in search of a path that fits with my beliefs and philosophy.  Over the past few years, I have studied, prayed, researched, etc of the different schools of Buddhism.  In my readings, a type popped up that was more of a Buddhist/Hindu mix - it was a long word that started with an "A" and that is all I can remember.  Can anyone help?  Thank you!

Buddhist/Hindu mix? Sounds like you are looking for a Mahayana branch.

Could it be "Advaita"? I think that's Hindu rather than Buddhist but mentioned several times on this site. Otherwise I don't see anything begining with "A" in Wikipedia's Schools of Buddhism topic. Are you sure about "begins with A"? Can you give any alternative hint about what you're looking for? Might you be thinking of Ambedkar who founded a Dalit Buddhist movement (which, apparently, doesn't have faith in various Gods)?

A long word for advaita is 'advaitavada'. But in contrairy to christianity the concept of God is not an external entity but your self (atman) is no separate God soul (Brahman)

Vajrayana is a whole branch of Buddhism that is devoted to Gods, deities, occult powers (siddhis) and paranormal stuff.

Thank you so much! I am very appreciative that you all have taken the time to answer my question.....

I believe you are thinking of the Amitabha Buddha - which is the principal - or rather the most popular Buddha in Pure Land Buddhism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit%C4%81bha
He's represented with the attribute Infinite Life and Infinite Light (of Wisdom) presiding over the Pure Land of Supreme Bliss (Sukhavati).
I am from a Chinese Buddhist organization which holds Chan lineage, but is non denominational, and devotion to Amitabha is one of the fundamental practices through the chanting of the Amitabha Sutra.
I will repeat what I have said else where about him:
After more than a year of chanting the sutra, my conclusion is that it is a metaphor for the Dharma! Remember that Pure Land Buddhism is an outgrowth of Mahayana Buddhism and therefore one of the highest goals is the Perfection of Skillful Means (Upaya Paramita). Mahayana texts utilize fantastical imageries and stories to bring across the difficult to understand technical concepts and teachings in early Buddhism, preserved in the Pali Canon and the Sanskrit Agama.
Imagine your average person being told about the Four Noble Truths, Suffering, Cause of suffering, End of Suffering and the Noble Eightfold Path. It doesn't interest him - "Give up my desires? That's ridiculous! And end of suffering doesn't sound exciting at all! Impermanence sounds so depressing!"
So this is where Pure Land Buddhism comes in. "What if we tell you that there is a place called the World of Supreme Bliss better than any worldly pleasures? And to reach there you need chant this sutra everyday, and I promise you Amitabha Buddha will appear before you". If you didn't realize, chanting is actually a very powerful form of meditation, in fact for the novice, it is faster and more effective than sitting meditation and trying to watch your breath. Here your attention and focus is on the sutra, attaining Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration. With that it is possible to experiences the mental factors of the Jhana, joy, happiness, peace, and realizations.
Further more the description of the Pure Land has peppered references throughout to the numbers four, seven and eight. Referring to the Four Noble Truths, Seven Factor of Enlightenment, Noble Eightfold Path.
There are many other messages within. For example, the name of Amitabha himself is Infinite Life and Infinite Light, referring to the Deathless Truth and Wisdom of the Dharma, reminding people that ultimately the goal of Buddhism is Eternal Life, and that the buddhas are ultimately immortal.
Further more it is stated in sutra that in the Pure Land of Amitabha, even lower realms (hell, hungry ghost, and animals) do not exist, this is a Mahayana message that ultimately the goal is not only to save yourself, but purify the whole world. Pure Land Buddhists vow to turn this very world into a paradise. And have a Pure Land in their hearts wherever they maybe.
At the end of the Amitabha sutra, the theme of perfection of skillful means repeats, It said that to attain enlightenment is difficult, but what is even more difficult is to teach it.
There are many other messages which I am slowly absorbing as I encounter them, but I hope this clarify the intentions of Pure Land Buddhism.

Thank you very much for your response!   Loads of questions but I am loving learning ❤

@Stacy Please ask more questions! I will try to answer them if I can!


text:
If there's no "self" then why should I care about the future lives and nirvana?
English is my second language.
If there's no "self', and "I am" is just a "flow" or "mix" of information (dharma, karma, etc.); and if, when I die, "I" (body, illusory self, soul) will die but this informational flow will keep going into another being, and then I no longer exist, think, feel or I will be different being, so this being will be living but not me, then why should I care about his life if I will no longer exist?
Or is it that there is a some kind of eternal selfless "self", the "watcher", that experiences this (and the next) existence and can think, feel?
How does this "informational flow" ("soul"), a conglomerate of functions, get into someone's body?
Is nirvana an "informational" suicide?
In short, please tell me, why should I care about the next "life" or "going to nirvana" if there's no self, no core and "I", "myself" will disappear after death? Maybe I would stop caring about it because "I" will stop being exist and I will stop feel, think, care straight after death?

PS:
And if the reincarnation is like an ocean water been poured into glasses and back, and there's no core self and individuality is just a mix of informational patters, then maybe it's pointless to try to stop existance, to go to nirvana, because someone will always remain here.
And if this Samsara is eternal then there can be eternal number of Buddhas, beings and they will be trying to get out of this Samsara eternally, then all their actions are pointless.
Thanks.

Imagine a person who speaks ill of others and harms others. Everywhere he goes he is not liked, not welcome, is received with hostility. Another person speaks kindly of people, generous. Everywhere she goes she is liked, welcome, and received as a friend. Now that information about those two people, is it stored within them or without them?

If there is an eternal self in you - then I think it will be bad karma if you care for the future only because of that...

Whether you believe in a 'self' or not, suffering is very real. You experience it on a daily basis. It is this suffering that makes beings look for an end to it. There's only one permanent end to suffering and that is Nibbana. That is why you should care about striving for it. Craving is what prevents you from accomplishing this. Ignorance is what causes craving to arise. The belief of a self is just one form of ignorance that you have to get rid of in order cut off craving.
Ignorance means not seeing things as they really are. So you cannot get rid of it just by changing your opinion or reasoning it out. You need to start seeing things as they really are.

If there is no 'self', who is suffering ??

@JohnFonseka. There is suffering but ultimately no sufferer can be found. There is doing but no doer can be found. This can only be understood through insight meditation.

@Lanka, I think you and the answer-er of this question is falling in to Uccheda Ditthi. (Which is opposite of "Sakkaya Ditthi"). Lord Budhdha never preaches there is nor self nor there is self. Isn't it the correct way?

@John Ucceda Ditti is believing that it all ends at death

@SankhaKulathantille, my bad. I wanted to tell that Lord Buddha rejected both "there is a person" and "there is no person" views. Am I in a wrong understanding ?

@JohnFonseka he didn't answer such questions because they are based on an incorrect understanding of reality. The  reality is made of experiences rising and ceasing. There are no entities in reality. So such questions are invalid to begin with. But the Buddha did say that the five aggregates are not self. Read the Anatta Lakkhana sutta

The questions are illogical. It was asked: If there's no "self'" then why should I care about his life if I will no longer exist?
The question is loaded with 'self', even though it claims there is no self. Just the small part of the question I quoted refers to a 'self' or 'I' twice.
If the mind actually has no self, there will be no motivation to either care or not care. All "I" thoughts have ended. Therefore, there is no "I" that wishes to live; there is also no "I" that wishes to die; there is no "I" to attain Nirvana. If there remains any belief in "I", this cannot be Nirvana.
What experiences Nirvana is the mind rather than a 'self'.
That is why 'liberation' in Buddhism is called 'liberation of mind' (rather than liberation of self).
In Buddhism, the belief "I will continue after death" is 'eternalism' & the belief "I will die at death" is 'nihilism'. Eternalism & nihilism, the same as the questions, are wrong views, because they all contain views about 'self'.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean in one part:"If the mind actually has no self"? Shouldn't it be, "If not-self is understood"? Doesnt the mind always have not-self? :)

Thanks. I was simply saying if the mind does not have any 'self' thoughts then why would it think about "my future life". The questioner keeps asking: "why should I care?". If there were no thoughts of "I", the issue about "I" or ""me" caring becomes redundant or illogical.

@Dhammadhatu: I can understand what you trying to say in general. But not in deep. So, if you can send me this answer in Sinhala, that would be a great help. mail me: rsoft.ramesh@gmx.com

Sorry. English is my only language. Regards

Good question. Buddhism does not talk about existance or non-existance of self(objectively). When the appropriate causes arise, belief of existence(self/world) arises. When the causes secede, everything secede. But the worldly/samsaric beings do not see this truth.
Whatever existence or thing that arises which is dependent on conditions is subject to cessation. This is the most fundamental law that the Buddha realized ("Yan kinchi samudaya Dhammam sabbantham niridha Dhammam"). This is known as Pratītyasamutpāda- the core of Buddhism. Start exploring from this perspective, and you will find the complete answer to your question; oneday.

Here is a canonical reference at Ananda Sutta SN 44.10 :

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
"Then is there no self?"
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"
"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"
"No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'"

I enjoyed your excellent post but for information sake, "Yan kinchi samudaya Dhammam sabbantham niridha Dhammam". This is known as "Anicca".  Pratītyasamutpāda is known as - dependent origination - itself thus: ‘When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases. "iti imasmiṃ sati idaṃ hoti, imassuppādā idaṃ uppajjati; imasmiṃ asati idaṃ na hoti, imassa nirodhā idaṃ nirujjhati"Natumhasutta

I find it really hard to segregate. It's all interconnected. Anicca, Dukka, Anatta are characteristics of existence(Loka). These Three marks of existence which are inter-related as Yada niccam tam dukkam- yam dukkam tada natta

...when I die, "I" (body, illusory self, soul) will die but this informational flow will keep going into another being, and then I no longer exist, think, feel or I will be different being, so this being will be living but not me, then why should I care about his life if I will no longer exist?
We die many times in a second as the "informational" flow keeps going into another being. We are not the same being  we were a fraction of a second ago. That being has died.
Do you see how experience goes on and on, moment by moment? We are always changing, moment by moment. We are always dying, moment by moment. It's the same thing. When the physical body dies, that is just another change. After that body dies we will see how experience goes on and on, moment by moment.
We don't really need to worry about nirvana as long as we are continuously practicing although we should care about nirvana as far as nirvana is Dhamma, if we care about our own freedom from suffering.

There is no substantial self.
Buddhism is not nihilist.
It is always said that there is not self, nor no-self.
There is still a "self" so-to-speak--a collection of factors that is migrating from life to life with no core.
It would not be inaccurate to say that you are that core and you have that responsibility of waking up to the truths and powers of Buddhism so that you can save the "others"--who are also not self nor non-self.
It would be more accurate to say that we are that core--we the universe are experiencing you.
Nothing is forgiven, all that is done (and not done) has weight and trying one's enlightened best is in the best interest.

I believe a good reference for this question is Stephen Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening". He has spoken in many places of Buddhism without rebirth or reincarnation. I agree with him that Buddhism is about the here and now. Worries about an afterlife are evidence of a failure to come to grips with what Ernest Becker refers to as "The Denial of Death" (ISBN-13: 978-0684832401). A little over twenty years ago (1995) I did a simple meditation where i convinced myself that the mechanistic materialists were correct and that when I died there would be nothing left. Total annihilation was my inevitable outcome after death. It was frightening at first but eventually I went through all five of Kubler Ross' stages of grief as I attended my own mechanistic materialism funeral. I believe that all fear must be met head on if it is to be conquered. I decided to post this note because no one was doing the head on confrontation. Death as annihilation is a concept and from a Buddhist perspective(imho) has no independent reality. But the catch is that we all have our folk epistemology where death as annihilation seems to make commonsense. After all why should humans be so privileged but cockroaches and spiders have no hope of reincarnation(in Hinduism we have a different story). If you approach Buddhism as an "opiate of the masses" that is going to give you an "all life sucker" then you are really barking up the wrong tree(Bodhi Tree?). Take Ernest Becker's advice and grow up to the reality that annihilation is not all that bad. After all, think about never having to live in a world where George Bush could spend eight years as the president of the most militarily powerful nation on the planet. Think of nirvana as blowing out the candle as the reward of many lifetimes of diligent study merely to not be reborn then death as annihilation gives you nirvana for free. You don't have to do a damn thing to get it except die.

I enjoyed your excellent post but for information sake, in Buddhism, Nirvana occurs while living & a peaceful death is not called "annihilation". In Buddhism, "annihilation" refers to the wrong view that "I am" going to end at death. It is wrong view not because of the impermanence but because the idea or sense of "I" remains. In enlightenment, there is no "I" or "me" or "person" that dies or is annihilated. All that happens is the five aggregates (i.e., body-&-mind) end.

I was contrasting what I refer to as the "mechanistic materialist" view with two versions of Buddhism. The mechanistic materialism view states that any events of import take place within a causally closed material framework. My intention was to point out that the original meaning of nirvana referred of a cessation of karma that would lead to rebirth and another cycle of suffering. The mechanistic materialists say that denial of rebirth comes for free except that you pay the price of nihilism, ie of total denial of any purpose to life and its logical consequence that there is no right or wrong.

The question still remains. if Nirvana can only be achieve in state of mind than that means we don't have much time then. Because there is no guarantee that the person in this present life will get the same understanding (having the given answers) in the next birth.
yet the mind of a buddha still exist in writings and not exist coz the body had return to universe or perhaps mixed with other beings. This is confusing because of "I" or self ???
Seems like Nirvana is like a blank screen in the mind or an illusory escape, a prescription on how not to be controlled by suffering which is life each self . A prescription for one lifetime at a time consider if we know
or to get to know our past life through practicing jhanas is just a mitos
or Perhaps all religions are the same, spreading indoctrination with each own platform just to bring order in the community ....

In Buddhism Anatta contrasts with Ātman:

In Buddism, a being dependently arises with cause and effect.
In contemporary views,

there is an essence which is either unchanging and receiver of all experiences or essence which controls the being.
or materialistic view that there is no self which also implies there is no interrelationship current state of existence and the future states are rebirths

The more correct translation of Anatta is not-self, i.e.,

any experience is not self or not worthy of been taken to be me or mine
one's corporal body and senses are not self or not worthy of been taken to be me or mine
etc.

Now, why you should seek liberation? Though there is no essence which receives all your experiences of pain and unsatisfactoriness there is a process which still results in unsatisfactoriness starting from birth to death cycling through eternity until it is broken. So the liberation is to break the cycle of dependent arising and cause and effect. Nirvana is beyond both dependent arising and cause and effect.
So even in theory, there is no essence which experiences in the process of dependent arising one feels pain, pleasantness and neutral feeling which are all unsatisfactory. So one should be motivated to get out of this process. The view that the essence within merging with some eternal being state which is pleasant, in the Buddhist perspective is the wrong view. Also, the future state of oneself arises from the current state. This is neither completely different nor the same, but related dependent arising and cause and effect. Also since the future self is not completely different this is motivation to liberate oneself. The view that the future self is totally unrelated or different, there is no future existence, the future person is the same as the current person is also a wrong view. Also taking the view there is no self or underlying dependently arisen process is also a wrong view.

This builds upon this answer by this user

Let's try to keep this simple. Buddhism encourages no-self or no-ego. This does not mean that "I" do not exist, but rather that "selfless" requires that I think of that which benefits all sentient beings as driving force in life. It is a process of diminishing selfishness. Samsara is suffering, and Nirvana is happiness. We are surrounded by both. However, Buddhism seeks not temporary happiness, but the attainment of permanent happiness by following the path. When we die, a reincarnation brings forward our mind consciousness into a new body, so that in truth we never die. However, the current life that we lead will determine the manner of our rebirth, so lead a good life. When viewed properly all of the above can be a genuine basis for joy.

The short answer is that you should care because, unlike human beings and animals, hell beings, ghosts, asuras, and devas do remember their past lives (this is clear from the suttas). Since it is not automatic that you will be reborn as a human being, there is a real chance that you will end up as a suffering being with full memory of your past lives. Therefore it is not quite true to say that "you" will disappear. This "you" of course is not a permanent thing, but rather a continuity of conscious states. Nonetheless, the memory of your past lives will give you an "identity" which will include your current identity (but also larger, clearly). You should also care because karma does not merely affect your future rebirth. Your karma affects you right now, right here, depending on your circumstances. This is the Buddha's argument  called the Four Assurances.

"Hell beings, ghosts, asuras, and devas do remember their past lives (this is clear from the suttas)." Could you kindly provide references for some of these suttas? Thank you

I haven't collected these. Let me see if I can find some examples.

Example: In DN 18, the yaksha Janavasabha says that he remembers his last 14 rebirths. Janavasabha is Bimbisara, king of Magadha, reborn in the realm of the Four Great Kings. This establishes that devas remember their past lives, and that their memory is contingent on the level of their spiritual development. The Buddha, of course, remembers all of his past lives. Still checking for examples of asuras, ghosts, and hell beings.

With respect to ghosts, the Peta-Vatthu, found in the Khuddaka Nikaya of the Pali Canon, contains descriptions of petas or pretas (ghosts, sometimes referred to as "hungry ghosts") who recount the evil deeds in their previous lives that led to them being reborn as a ghost.  This implies memory of at least one previous rebirth by petas.

"All scholars who have examined the Petavatthu – Rhys Davids, H. S. Gehman and Prof. Abhayanayaka – ascribe to it a late date. Winternitz wrote that it ‘probably belongs to the latest stratum of literature assembled in the Pali Canon.’ " In other words, like most of the DN & similar suttas such as MN 49 & 50, not the words of the Buddha. http://sdhammika.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/petavatthu_05.html

Translation in verse 2 at link of Petavatthu of kiṃ kammamakari pūreti = "What have you done in your previous life?" I cannot discern the term "in your previous life" in the Pali. To me, the Pali reads: "What filthy actions have you completed". http://mahamevnawa.ca/publications/PetavatthuPali_V1%20.pdf

Buddha does not appear to remember "his past lives" since the Pali term "pubbe nivesa" does not mean "past lives". "Nivesa" literally means "homes". The recollection of "past homes, dwelling or adherences" appears to be explained in the Khajjaniya Sutta & Haliddakani Sutta, appearing to simply means each time in the past when the mind clung to one of the five aggregates as "I", "me" & "mine".

For all practical purposes, any question about the Buddhavacana is a question about the Pali Canon, since no one can ask the Buddha or identify what the Buddha said and did apart from the suttas. The Petavatthu is part of the Pali Canon. The Pali Canon is the Buddhavacana. Therefore the Petavatthu is Buddhavacana. Anyone can redefine the canonical suttas in any way they please, but such a decision goes beyond the purview of the question. Without a textus receptus, there is no basis for coming to any sort of conclusion about anything. Without common ground, there is no basis for discussion.

My rep is not enough to comment. I've no reference, So this answer may not be good for you.
I can confirm you that your feeling, memory, thinking in next life still there.
But your exist body today are void.
Even you reached Nirvana your memory, thinking also still there.
But that's the feeling of Arahant. You can talk or go to everywhere even in this earth with Nirvana's divine body but no more greediness, angriness, sensuality.
When ever you are in this rebirth circle. You've a possibility to go to hell.
That's the only problem that we have to reach Nirvana.

If there's no "self', and "I am" is just a "flow" or "mix" of information (dharma, karma, etc.); and if, when I die, "I" (body, illusory self, soul) will die but this informational flow will keep going into another being, and then I no longer exist, think, feel or I will be different being, so this being will be living but not me, then why should I care about his life if I will no longer exist?

There are truths that are deep and hard to understand.
What are these truths?
You are everywhere.
You are everything.
You are deathless.
You are neither perfection, nor imperfection, nor anything in between.
That's pure bliss.
That's the "real you".
In order to be this "real you", your future "I"ies must cease to become.
In complete cessation of becoming, future "I"ies will not be born.
When "I" is not born, this "real you" remains.
And what is it that remains?
Undefined is the answer.
As soon as you give an answer, "I" arises and this "real you" becomes tainted with "I".
And what is the "I"?
It's limited with a body.
It's limited in space.
It's limited with death.
It's limited with imperfections.
That's the "I".
It's because of these truths that your current "I" should strive to realize these truths so that no future "I"ies will ever arise.

Or is it that there is a some kind of eternal selfless "self", the "watcher", that experiences this (and the next) existence and can think, feel?

The "real self" is the eternal selfless "self". The "watching", experiences, existence, senses, knowledge and everything else arise because of ignorance - not knowing this "real self".

How does this "informational flow" ("soul"), a conglomerate of functions, get into someone's body?

As long as "I" arises, the view that a "soul" gets into a body can arise.
Does a "soul" get into a body?
Given the right conditions, it does.
Does a "soul" not get into a body?
Given the right conditions, it does not.
Does a "soul" exist?
Given the right conditions, it exists.
Does a "soul" not exist?
Given the right conditions, it does not exist.
Does a "soul" exist and not exist?
Given the right conditions, it does exist and does not exist.
...
There are many views. Neither of them lead to nirvana.
The letting go of all views is the path towards nirvana.

Is nirvana an "informational" suicide?

There is neither suicide nor no suicide nor both nor not both in nirvana.

And if the reincarnation is like an ocean water been poured into glasses and back, and there's no core self and individuality is just a mix of informational patters, then maybe it's pointless to try to stop existance, to go to nirvana, because someone will always remain here.

There are many views:
Nobody is here.
Somebody is here.
Nobody remains here.
Somebody remains here.
There are no "I"ies or "selfs" or "souls".
There are "I"ies or "selfs" or "souls".
...
All views, given the right conditions, can be true or not true or both.
All these views are just your "real you" tainted with ignorance.
The letting go of all views is the path towards nirvana.

And if this Samsara is eternal then there can be eternal number of Buddhas, beings and they will be trying to get out of this Samsara eternally, then all their actions are pointless.

Samsara and its beings can be eternal or not eternal or both. All these views, given the right conditions, are correct.
No action is pointless. They all lead to nirvana.
Every action has good, bad or neutral consequences.
Every consequence, can give rise to new knowledge.
Every future "I" is reborn based on the knowledge the current "I" has.
It's because of these truths that every "I", on a long term, consistently increases his knowledge.
When knowledge increases enough, the truths are realized and future births are stopped.
No action is pointless. They all lead to nirvana.

I think in Buddhism, all beings are in reality one infinite  being  which has been shattered into infinite number of pieces
So even if one piece( your physical being) out of infinite pieces of you)  ceases to exist , other uncountable beings
(Pieces of yourself) continue to exist and new ones keep being created and so your goal is thru Nirvana, you as one piece out of infinite pieces can come back and help all other pieces to reach nirvana since all of you needs to be liberated from existence, not just one small shattered piece that you think is you that attained nirvana

Of course,  our purpose here in reality is impossible to explain in words but since we see life is suffering, we must meditate and that will give us the answer to everything one seeks. So no questions since no one alive can explain it, thus meditate as Buddha taught and get your answers yourself

"reality one infinite being which has been shattered into infinite number of pieces", it's not so good to answer if not informed, knowing, householder.

Samana, it seems all you have done is read other people’s  thoughts and since mine don’t agree with them, you call mine uninformed. Surprising you and me are one being but still so different, like buddha is from you

Go on and inform yourself, householder Rob. It's not of any's benefit to spread nonsense.

I'm not sure I've heard Buddhism described in quite that way before ("all beings are in reality one infinite being"). It's said that a "good answer" on this site is based on something: based a "reference" (to scripture) or based on experience ("something that happened to you personally"). This answer might be better if you e.g. added a reference to scripture. It's vaguely familiar e.g. it's like the Matta Sutta but other bits (e.g. "infinite pieces of you") sound quite unfamiliar, even contrary to what seems usual to me.

Very good and logical question, If I try to summarize your question,

Why should I care about my next life, as when I die there's no more I to worry about, though that information flow will continue.

The main point misunderstood in buddhism is I or self view. In buddhism it's said that don't glue your self to one end. So when someone think that I exist or I don't exist it's going to stick to one end. If I doesn't exist how buddha said about his previous life, how he met previous buddhas and stories.
So everyone who has not attain arhanth has this self view or I. This view is get uprooted when attaining arhanth, as it's a one of fetters called māna. (Note: Please note the first fetter called sakkāya-diṭṭhi is translated as belief in a self which is not correct, correct meaning is thinking external-world is worth) Until that everyone has the self view and that's why we should worry about that.
Practically when you face suffering you feel the suffer as it affects your self right? So this will continue in the next life as well. Going to next life happens as a flow (paticcasamuppada) but it has an owner which is you.
Ant until you are not arhant you will get a life after a life as a result of what you have done (good and bad). All these happens according to the paticcasamuppada.

"thinking out world is worth" ? maybe "thinking on/about world is worth", Upasaka?

@SamanaJohann that's also correct what I wanted to say is outer world, updated that with the word external-world Thanks

Surely better, Upasaka. What about ideas and intellect, mostly regarded as inwardly, is this aspect of "world" included here?

it's a going deeper and deeper. I gave the light answer as world here. If we explain the world, it's five clinging aggregates. And based on the enjoyment we get from those we attached to the external world thinking those are worth. That's a bit deeper level of it.

Granted there's no persistent identity one can label "self," and granted that there is no continuity of experience beyond death, the importance of narratives about becoming other things, contributing energies toward other lives, or being something else is as a metaphor for this life's experiences.
The best referent for nirvana is related to craving, clinging, and anguish. What is terminated is only a dysfunctional connection to the world.
A "next life" is the next transformation of consciousness in THIS life. We should care about this because experiential quality is real and changeable; decisions today about what we shall do in the present affect how we perceive and engage the world in subsequent present moments.
It is pointless to try to stop existence, to go anywhere other than to the present, to the now, because there is no persistent identity which may "go" anywhere, except to return to oneself and improve awareness.
There is nothing which is eternal (endless, outside of time); samsara is simply experience and existence without nirvana's arrival. The importance of sentient beings is that they, like us, experience samsara, and that a number of us are dedicated to moving beyond this condition out of compassion, bringing about experience without anguish, as this is optimizing. Insofar as these names (such as 'buddhas') have meaning, they merely help us to focus our attention on actions and principles of value.

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


text:
What does Buddhism say about the existence of a self?
Anatta and Sunyata doctrines from the Tripitaka and later Mahayana/Parjnaparimata sutras both have mentioned "not-self" or "empty of self" doctrines. I am still a bit confused, though, even after extensive reading and practice. Does Buddhism, in general, ever deny the fundamental existence of a self...or does it simply state to not identify with it?
And if the "not-self" or "emptiness of inherent existence" doctrines stress non-identification with the aggregates (name and form)...then who would be the one or the "I" doing the non-identification? Would the aggregates not be identifying with themselves if there was no actual "I?" Or would there be someone/something deeper than the aggregates?
Thank you to all~.

It sounds like you're asking two questions on the nature of the ego and the self-observer. The "Lankavatara Sutra" should cover your two questions in greater depth. http://lirs.ru/do/lanka_eng/lanka-nondiacritical.htm

The 'self' is a temporary & changing 'idea' or 'assumption' the ignorant mind makes in relation to different experiences. Each separate idea of 'self' is formed by the process of becoming.
For example, a young child first develops ideas of self, such as "my mother; my father" & "I like this food". As the child gets older, it develops ideas of self such as: "I am American"; "I am Buddhist"; "I do not understand anatta"; " I disgree with anatta", etc. Before any experience of Buddhist teachings occurred, there was never the self-view of: "I do not understand anatta". The idea "I don't understand anatta" only occurred after having a sense experience of Buddhist literature.
All things are not a 'self' because any idea of 'self' is an 'assumption' and is 'suffering'. Thus, the scriptures have the saying: 'there is no self to be found; all there is is suffering arising & suffering ceasing'. This is because the arising of self-view is considered to be, in reality, the arising of suffering.
This is why there is no real self or even a temporary self because what unenlightened people call a 'self', the enlightened mind views as 'suffering'.
When enlightened minds use the words "I" and "mine", they regard such words as mere worldly social conventions rather than a temporary self.
People will refer to the Ananda Sutta about Vacchagotta to answer your question but this is invalid since here the Buddha refused to comment on the matter of self because Vacchagotta was confused & bewildered and incapable of understanding.
Some quotes below:

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who
  has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the
  self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is
  the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence
  of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person,
  touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving
  arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that fabrication is
  inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That craving... That
  feeling... That contact... That ignorance is inconstant, fabricated,
  dependently co-arisen.
Parileyyaka Sutta

~~~

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
  away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.
Vajira Sutta

~~~~

Bonds are gone for him without conceits, All delusion's chains are
  cast aside: Truly wise, he's gone beyond such thoughts. That monk
  still might use such words as "I," Still perchance might say: "They
  call this mine." Well aware of common worldly speech, He would speak
  conforming to such use.
Araha.m Sutta

~~~

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
  self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
  to have now not exist?'"
Ananda Sutta SN 44

So why is 'self' viewed as 'suffering' or as a 'disease' rather than viewed as a 'self', even as a 'temporary self'?
This is because each arising & creation of 'self' is based in craving and craving is suffering.
For example, once a child's mind is developed enough to manufacturer ideas of 'self', it manufacturers ideas of 'self' based on what it craves. These cravings are suffering or frustrations.
For example, the five aggregates of the child crave for food due to hunger, so the child manufacturers the thought: "I want food" which leads to habitual thoughts: "I like this food".
Or the child feels the fear & terror of loneliness and manufacturers the thought: "I want my mother", which leads to habitual thoughts: "I love my mother".
When the child grows older, it craves to succeed at school or sport, due to the fear of social failure. It manufactures the ideas: "I must succeed" or "I am good at sport". The child now views itself as "I am sportsman", "I am a student".
Then later the young adult has sexual craving, which is suffering & frustration. The young adult, pushed by the suffering of sexual craving, obtains a partner and develops the self-view: "I am a boyfriend"; "This is my girlfriend", "I am a husband", "This is my wife".
This is why each idea of self is considered to be, in reality, merely suffering. All ideas of 'self' are produced by some form of craving, however gross or subtle.