text:
Why are there so many different paths?
I will admit I am just starting to look into buddhism and such. I am confused because so far I understand that the Satipatthana sutta provides everything anyone needs to become 'enlightened'.
If that is the case, then why is there so many different forms of buddhism (including the tantric one) each with various meditation techniques etc? If the Satipatthana sutta (or Anapanasati sutta) are the 'bread and butter' of buddhism, why would anyone need anything else/different to achieve their enlightenment?
Its like, if something works then why even bother changing it up?

"Its like, if something works then why even bother changing it up?": see Rubbing Fire Sticks, in Simple terms and First Things First

This problem is not only with buddhism ,rather with almost every religion.
During his time , Buddha never taught any tantra , mantra or yantra. Although his teachings vary from person to person but with common as 5 Percepts , cycle of suffering , impermanence & eight fold noble path. Satipatthana sutta came later for intelligent beings. There were people who wouldn't understand any meditation, buddha used to teach them karma path, eg.,  'truth' is  to be loved - for newly married couples  ,...
Even during buddha's time , few people didn't need any meditation as they remain aware every moment residing nearby him ,like Ananda. Even animals used to move towards awareness ,eg., drunk elephant bowed in front of buddha , lion wouldn't kill anyone near enlightened one.
Rise of tantra , mantra , yantra in buddhism was due to incapability(less power) of truth_seekers after buddha to remove bad omen from atmosphere just by upadesh(lessons) via voice & hence leading to basic teachings to be insufficient ,especially in Himalayas where to keep body warm , people were dependent on alcoholic_foods making them completely ineligible for basic teachings. That's where , Hindu Aghori teaching of tantra , mantra & yantra was mixed with basic teachings to generate a new teaching of Mahayana ,Vajrayana ,Tantrayana etc. with common as 5 Percepts , 8 fold noble path , cycle of suffering & impermanence.
Why buddha didn't teach tantra ,mantra or yantra?
     Because , these come under powers(Siddhis) and powers are merely used for fulfilling one's desire. This increases & gives more space for Ignorance.
When you are stuck in problem and haven't won your fear , you will definitely try to use powers to get out of that problem. This is the main reason behind power in buddhism , hinduism , Christian(white magic) etc...

I don't know where you got this idea that one "Satipatthana sutta provides everything anyone needs to become 'enlightened'". Like, how can it provide everything if it doesn't even give an idea what problem we are trying to solve,  what enlightenment is about, and what principles are at play either for- or against- either direction (towards more problem or towards enlightenment)?
And without understanding that, how can everyone achieve enlightenment, just by watching stuff? Okay, I watch my body, thoughts etc. - now what?
The reason Buddha taught for so many years, and the reason his successors taught for 2600 years, instead of just handing Satipatthana Sutta to everyone, is because people need to get unconfused from their confusions first so they can start listening, then they need to get the basic context or "what the hell we are talking about", then they can hopefully get the key points of the teaching, only then their practice becomes methodical, vs. guesswork or mere trial and error. And then they still have questions about how the teaching should be implemented in some of the more complicated of their real life situations.
This is why all those numberless suttas captured from Buddha's words and numberless Mahayana texts written by students to capture and carry on their understanding of the teaching.

Mahayana is the "greater vehicle", which means a greater scope/variety of teachings for a broader range of different personal dispositions.
Even in Theravada, we find different practices, particularly over time.
Since the suttas report the Buddha originally said not all beings could follow his Noble Path, obviously as Buddhism increased in social popularity & reach, the amount of 'paths/practices' (possibly created & offered by the Buddha and certainly by later monks & teachers) increased.
As for Satipatthana, it might sound easy to practise, based on the sutta. Anapanasati, based on the sutta, is more difficult or subtle to practise. If the mind cannot let go of self, ultimately, higher Buddhism cannot be practised. 'Self' is a 'survival instinct' and many people cannot free the mind of self. That is why there are practises other than Satipatthana/Anapanasati however it is unlikely these other other practises can reach the Buddha's completely selfless enlightenment.
If "you" personally discover Satipatthana/Anapanasati doesn't work for "you", "you" might eventually answer your own question.

"In the same way, monk, however those intelligent men of integrity were focused when their vision became well purified is the way in which they answered.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.204.than.html#fnt-1

Not everyone has heard of the Satipatthana sutta.
Just because there are other paths does not nessasarily mean the other paths are not in alignment with Satipatthana.
Just because there are other paths does not nessasarily mean the other paths aren't in alignment with going towards wellbeing and wisdom.
Satipatthana might not be appropriate for someone who would get more wisdom out of another path than they would Satipatthana.
Some other paths or practices  may also  compliment the Satipatthana path like metta. Those who just practice dry Satipatthana often find metta very heart opening.

Satipatthana is the bread and butter.
Yes, in dhamma it says to be enlightened, follow satipattana. Then why there are other ways, methods are told by buddha?
We should agree that enlightenment is one unique thing which is the only place a mind can reach the ultimate happiness and that also makes the end of rebirth, because by that time that person has cleared all the causes which could result him to born again.
Then why there are many methods and paths told for the one same thing? If you think this from science side,
String theory had different flavors initially and now all those are converged to M-Theory saying all initial flavors are the different angles of the same theory.
Like wise, in buddhism there are many paths told to follow which leads to the same place. The problem is the majority of present followers don’t see this. They tries to stick to one method. Or they just read about one method and says that’s the only path, which is not true. When it is said uprooting ignorance is the path, most people don’t understand the same thing get addressed when u follow the satipattanaya.
If you think about all these mahayana, theravada flavors of buddhism. What’s the point of rebranding the original buddhism?
Think, after 100 years of Pythagora’s theorem presented, Chinese (not to offense) rebrand it as ABC theorem and say if you draw squares on each side of a right triangle it will result in => A2 + B2 = C2.
Meanwhile USA (not to offense) rebrand it as XYZ theorem and says just get the square vale of the length of each side of a right angle and you will get => X2 + Y2 = Z2.
What you feel? Bit hilarious right?
The same thing has happened to Dhamma preached by buddha as well. But don’t blame or be upset, because that’s how it supposed to happened. That’s the nature. (Once you realized the truth you will understand why that has happened as well).
I explained the above part, just to make it clear, how far the real path to enlightenment is deviated from the true and correct path.
To answer your question, yes you can get satipattanaya as the bread and butter, it doesn’t mean that the other roots are false or other roots are going to some other places.
The only thing we should understand is, all of these roots are going to the same destination which is the enlightenment. It can be uprooting ignorance, it can be understanding 4 noble truth or it can be satipattanaya. Just don’t forget all these are different angles / views / methods / paths which takes us to the one and only destination which is The Enlightenment or the Nirvana..!

But isn't right view what makes the different to all other paths not leading beyoun, good householder?

""There is the case where a 'homeless beggar, having left home under the Buddha, seeing the danger in the world' remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.... DN22

Yes right view is “the compass” to identify the “North” (the direction to Nirvana). But now a days right view is hidden and people’s interpretations to the right view are being spread not the real meaning.


text:
Meditation on a concept
Is samatha concentration meditation's object always an idea, concept or something else?
Why meditate on a concept and what else besides concepts are  there to meditate on?

There are 40 meditation objects are prescribed in Visuudhimagga.
https://dhammawiki.com/index.php/40_meditation_subjects

Samarha means tranquillity state of the mind. Keeping this state for the considerable time is the result of the meditation.
There are many ways you can do it, there are many meditation techniques to do this which are not advised in buddhism.
Meditation can be done concentrating on something like air, fire, soil etc.
But in buddhism you may concentrate on insatiable state of the world.
When mind is thinking about something it goes to neutral/calm state, where it won't react to inputs but just read them as it is.

At its best, samatha meditation almost never involves an idea, concept, etc.  Apart from the brahmaviharas, meditations on the foulness of the body, and a handful of other techniques, samatha almost by definition can't involved any kind of discursive thinking.  It would simply be impossible to enter into higher states of concentration with this kind of mental content in place.  In fact, the Visuddhimagga and other texts make a point of saying that while the 1st jhana can be reached by any number of techniques, in order for it to be exceeded discursive content has to be abdonded (and frankly, I'd argue that the 1st jhana can only be approached by conceptual techniques; there's just no "room" for conceptual thought when one attains absorption).  Even in Rinzai Zen, where we work with koans, you aren't brooding or ruminating on the huatou (i.e. the part of the koan that you say over and over again in seated meditation).  Rather, the word becomes an object of focus - no different than the tip of your nose, the breath, a kasina, the dan tien, etc.  What you are really aiming for is a mental energy that is applied and sustained.  The less discursive that mental energy is, the easier it will be for your concentration to stabilize and mature.  It's why it's often better to stick with objects like the breath.  You can direct your mental energy there in a way that doesn't give rise to extraneous mental content.
So much of samatha involves letting go (vossagga).  As your concentration deepens, it will become exceedingly apparent just how riling and disruptive even the slightest thought object actually is.  If what you are after is pure concentration, it seems counterproductive to enter into any practice relies on the production of mental content no matter how refined or virtuous that content might seem.

To do samatha means to still something. In first jhana unwholesome perception is stilled/tranquilized, in first arupa jhana the perception of form has been stilled, with the attainment of 'cessation of perception & feeling' perception and feeling is stilled. This is clearly explained in Patisambhidamagga.
The modernist expression of to samatha meaning to meditate on a concept unlike doing vipassana whereas one meditates on 'an ultimate reality', is foreign to the pali canon. It is to me a disagreeable expression with a disagreeable meaning.
The 'vipassanists' who use this framework will usually tell you that the way they present the teaching is quite different to the canon but they do go on to justify their way loosely drawing from various commentaries and works produced in the last century.
It is very sectarian way of teaching and is imo one shade off chakra and kundalini frameworks.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
When will a Buddhist accept doing analysis?
As the core goal of Buddhism is to cease sufferings, any task that not relevant to it will be unawarely ignored, and any task that hindering it will be strongly rejected. Analysis/intellect can either be irrelevant to the goal (as in, don't forget that the finger is not the moon), or an obstacle that Buddhists have spent all their life to fight (as in, it's the source of proliferation). However, in some cases where analysis is necessary to remove an attachment, automatically rejecting intellect means (1) the attachment is not removed, and (2) they don't think they have attachment at all. Or as someone puts it, they seem to have anti-thought bias, and I think anything they say would be thought-terminating clichés at that point.
How to fight this bias? How to make them realize that before you see the moon, as least you should have the finger? How to present them an analysis and they accept to read it as it is, rather than questioning anything irrelevant?
Related:

intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?
How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
How does philosophy not fall into the confirmation bias?

analysis is done during chittanupashyana .

@TempoItan what does "chittanupashyana" mean? I google it and they have only two links, and none of them works

It is one of the 4 meditation :: 1. Kayanupashyana (Body awareness) 2. Vednanupashyana (Sensation Awareness) 3. Chittanupashyana (Mind Awareness) 4. Dhammanupashyana (awareness of worldly concerns & it's relation at atomic level). This(Chittanupashyana) is usually taught in China. 2nd one is usually taught by various Vipassana Teachers .Read Satipatthana Sutta to know about it. In short( just a glimpse) ,Chittanupashyana :: To be conscious of good or bad tendencies of mind and their nature, characteristics, etc.

If I had not taken up metaphysics as a process of analysis I never would have discovered Buddhism, so for me analysis seems crucial. But it may be more important for sceptics than practitioners, since it allows us to work out that Buddhist teachings are the only workable solution for metaphysical problems, thus rendering them eminently plausible.or even a 'no-brainer'. .   . .

In the Hindu tradition they talk about four different yogas, or spiritual learning styles (the following adapted from the Vedanta Society, of whom I am fond):

Bhakti Yoga: the path of love and devotion. This path emphasizes practices such as prayer, chanting, and meditation on the loving presence in our lives.
Jnana Yoga: the path of knowledge. This path uses reason and discernment to discover the divine nature within by casting off all that is false, or unreal.
Karma Yoga: the path of selfless work. Those who follow this path do work as an offering and expect nothing personal in return, practicing detachment and equanimity.
Raja Yoga: the path of meditation. This path allows us to experience higher states of consciousness where we achieve a deeper understanding.

The Hindu tradition sees these as equally valid and non-exclusive, and while this can cause some confusion and consternation at times, it rarely leads to outright disputes.
The Buddhist path focuses on what the Hindus would call raja yoga. There are many examples of the other modes — e.g. the Bodhisattva vow, which is karma yoga; metta practices, which are bhakti; and studying the precepts and teachings, which is jnana — but since Buddhism has always been (to coin a term) 'anagnostic' (rising up out of innate knowledge), the other modes have always held a lesser place in its worldview.
All of which is to say: you cannot expect everyone to follow your path, or to agree with you that it is correct, and if you wish to challenge a dominant paradigm you must first respect that paradigm and the people who practice it.
I see you have a bee in your bonnet on this issue. You want to 'fight' a 'bias', and that attitude is itself problematic. The best way you can serve others is by understanding what they are trying to offer you. When you understand them, then you will be in a position to change their minds; not before.

So it seems that while Buddhism doesn't underestimate analysis, its emphasis on the inner state of the person explains why people are so quickly to put down analyzing a problem, especially when it seems complicated and contradict to their previous understanding of the teachings

You keep making this about other people. I frequently have the same experience that you do, but I never feel 'put down' by it. I simply try to find a way to interact with them that's more in their comfort zone. Dharma is transmitted more by showing than by telling, anyway, so there's no reason to make a stink about it.

And please be careful not to make the wrong generalizations. There are a lot of 'hidebound' buddhists who are quite rigid when they discuss the path, but they are only that way because they are deeply worried about leading people astray. You don't have to agree with them, but you ought to respect them for that dedication and concern for others. Most of them would be far more responsive if you talked to them in person, but on a public forum like this they are going to stick to brass tacks.

yes, I can say without shame that I respect them. I just want them to read my premise carefully and not assume that I haven't practice meditation. Many of them, after rejecting me initially, realize that they miss my point

Also, if they are going to stick to brass tacks, wouldn't that be a kind of bias?

Is it a bias when a teacher insists that students learn the basics of a subject? Is it a bias when a group demands that certain standards be followed to protect the well-being of others? If people recognize that they miss your point, that's good: that means that they are taking your position seriously. But taking your position seriously and agreeing with it are two separate matters.

so it is a bias or not depends on when the teacher actually knows the students haven't learnt the basics enough or not. Likewise, it is a bias or not depends on whether the group actually knows the newcomer is safe or not. But actually know and think that you know is two separate matters. I wonder why they assume that I am not ready for that when they just know me on the internet. At least they should ask me rather before insisting that position

Look, I can't answer your last question because it requires you to see things from the perspective of the people you are criticizing, which you seem unwilling to do. If you look at it from their perspective you will understand; if you don't, you won't. Apologies, but that is your due diligence.

How do you know that I didn't look from their perspective before asking this question?

Because I've read what you've written here, and see no evidence of that perspective shift.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

As I said in other answers, in Mahayana there's plenty of analysis. No need to convince them. Perhaps the only correction necessary is to your own attitude, to realize there were lots of smart people before you, and to try and learn from them.

I didn't mention this because I don't think it's necessary to the problem, but the person I'm trying to convince actually has a psychological disorder, and they use Buddhism as a mean to protect them.

That, I think, is actually much more relevant and sounds like the core of the issue.

Avoiding conceptual thought and eschewing analysis isn’t necessarily exclusive of self reflection.  In fact, conceptual thought is often responsible for keeping us at one remove from our neuroses, hang ups, and obstacles (one common one, at least in Zen, is the devaluing of the intellect!)  The less we rely on the conceptual mind, the clearer we can see ourselves.  Buddhist practice, in a nut shell, is the suspension of our ordinary minds, a looking into emptiness, and then the turning of that empty mind back to the realm of form.  Everything then becomes an opportunity for insight - especially our own psychological shortcomings.
Any Buddhist practice that isn’t self reflective is ultimately disingenuous.  You needn’t use intellectual analysis.  In fact it’s better if you don’t.  But if you aren’t honestly confronting your hangups and attachments over and over again, you’re using your practice to protect your ego rather than uproot it.  Walking the great way is a constant discovery of failings we never knew we even had.  Unless you are in a constant state of discovering your own stupidity, you aren’t really practicing.

yes the usual word for proliferation of thoughts is papanca and the buddha says that this is bad. The way for intellectuals to stop  the proliferation of their fantasies is to see that thoughts are just objects, like the objects of the 5 senses, instead of deifying them and claiming that thoughts are a gateway to truth, knowledge and what not.
however rationalists are precisely people infatuated with thoughts, so they become very upset when they hear that thoughts are pretty much worthless to directly reach peace and truth.
In fact all puthujjanas base their life on thoughts, ideas, dreams, fantasies ,speculations, and the first thing to do for those people is to discriminate between ''imbued with sensuality, thinking imbued with ill will, & thinking imbued with harmfulness one sort, and thinking imbued with renunciation, thinking imbued with non-ill will, & thinking imbued with harmlessness''
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html
And then the buddha says that when people base their life on good thoughts, they manage to get into right samadhi which is the basis for wisdom, ie ''to see things as they really are''.

how does this answer the question, except reaffirm what I say?

Afaik;
Dhamma is easily grasped when there is sufficient predisposition. Otherwise one should have faith in the Buddha's awakening and focus on mastering the expression of the teaching to think about so that one may penetrate the meaning and otherwise develop the faculties, factors of awakening and the four frames of mindfulness.
Dealing with ignorant people is not going to be pleasant but the supposed intellectual one has only himself to blame and being more intelligent one is usually quite responsible for being in that situation for a fool doesn't know better.
Avoid them for the most part.

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


text:
In the doctrine of no arising does the past and future still exist?
In the doctrine of no arising does the past and future still exist, and if so do they exist in the same way as the present does?
And if not, why?
From Dogen's Genjo-koan:

Firewood becomes ash. Ash cannot turn back into firewood again. However, we should not view ash as after and firewood as before. We should know that firewood dwells in the dharma position of firewood and it has its own before and after. Although there is before and after, past and future are cut off. Ash stays at the position of ash and it has its own before and after. As firewood never becomes firewood again after it is burned and becomes ash, after person dies, there is no return to living. However, in buddha dharma, it is a never-changing tradition not to say that life becomes death. Therefore we call it no-arising. It is the laid-down way of buddha's turning the dharma wheel not to say that death becomes life. Therefore, we call it no-perishing. Life is a position at one time; death is also a position at one time. For instance, this is like winter and spring. We don't think that winter becomes spring, and we don't say that spring becomes summer.

I wondered whether Dogen is saying that there is a before and after and these are the same as the past and future that are cut off -- from the present: so that anything that occurs only does so in the past or future.

The Sarvastivadins were the main school that thought the past and future exist in some sense. But even here the past and future do so differently from the present: as causality is what makes something real.
Most other Buddhists, while agreeing on the Sarvastivadins about causality, claimed that, since the past and future are not presently causing anything, they are unreal and imaginary.

I do not know of any school that claimed or claims that this imaginary existence in particular -- of the past and future -- is all that is, so that the present is nothing whatsoever.

Dogen is saying that from Buddhist perspective, a dharma does not "become" another dharma. Each dharma is a "presence" at its time, static in its own quality, followed by another "presence-quality" and so on.
So wood is wood and ash is ash, it's not the same "thing" changing while moving from point A in time to point B.
To this I can add that the temporal succession of dharmas is similar to a set of real numbers - each individual dharma is a generalization, and we can infinitely "zoom in" on a particular moment between "wood" and "ash" to see a some-level-of-burning-in-progress-dharma.
Wood and ash are connected as cause and effect. Ash exists due to wood (among other things).
Similarly, it's not like a living person dies. They exist in succession, first life, then death. Life and death are connected like cause and effect. Death exists due to life (among other things). Therefore, there is no perishing of the living.
Correspondingly, there is no arising. It's not like the newborn was dead before it was born. Nor is it like the mother turned into the newborn, nor mother's egg, nor the sperm. Instead, these dharmas exist in causal succession.
Now, if you think about it, it's not like any given dharma has exactly one dharma as its predecessor - not at all. Instead, most if not all dharmas have many, many "causing" or "conditioning" dharmas. Which one we consider "the main" cause is entirely up to us.
In this sense, someone who lives now is a "dharma" that has quadrillions of other dharmas as its "inputs" - going up the infinitely forking chains of physical ancestry, informational ancestry, circumstantial conditionality and who knows what else.
This is why there is no arising, because it's an infinitely spanning network of static  non-discrete dharmas causing and conditioning each other. The whole thing is like a multidimensional vector space, without one global time dimension.

So, to answer your question,
Past and future are something observed relative to a particular dharma. Past is the transitive closure of all its causes, and future is the superset of dharmas directly or indirectly conditioned by a given dharma.
Ontologically, there is no becoming, no objects moving through time, nor one global time dimension.

The knowledge of non-arising is referenced in the following two Early Buddhist Texts:

dn34: knowledge of ending, and knowledge of non-arising.
dn33: Knowledge of ending and knowledge of non-arising.

The knowledge of ending is the knowledge of the ending of defilements, the end of even the conceit "I am". With that knowledge comes, in parallel, the knowledge that the perceived continuity of existence (i.e., "firewood becomes ash") is just an illusion. Firewood is just firewood and ash is just ash. Although they may be conditionally related via combustion, there is no common identity that joins them. Firewood does not seek to be ash. Ash does not miss being firewood. Firewood is firewood. And ash is ash.


text:
Can the change due to impermanence be considered intelligent?
What is the nature of the change due to impermanence ,is it just a random change or intelligent change ?,are the actions resulting from it considered right action or that depends on the degree of identification that the impermanent person/thing is having towards another person/thing?.
The more I watch it I see that sometimes this change or flux is not just random and is intelligent.All the changes happening inside the body and mind do not require a doer but are intelligent.Can the nature or the behavior of the change be also recognized ?.

This ,"will guiding the breath" is called Ignorance in buddhism. Enlightened one doesnot depend on any type of food ( material or wave ) ,so there is 'No will' inside an enlightened one but force(of ignorance) remains contributing to age .Even without food/water/air , enlightened one remain in peace till force remains.

I tried to clear the question a bit more ,check it out again please.This is important question for me

In and out-breath is considered bodily fabrication. That means it is not automatic. It is done by the mind or thought.

What does "will" mean? Does it mean the same thing as "somebody's desire"? Are you suggesting that everything happens because God wants it to happen? And are you asking whether that (i.e. "everything happens because God wants it to happen") is Buddhist doctrine?

Nothing has a will of it's own. From ur meditation experience , ..., sit again :: behind every sensation there is a particular series of thoughts ,eg. if hungry , check ur mind & reason will be one of the defilements(lust , ,anger etc.) ;behind these thoughts , check subconscious state , worldly concerns will be there , now check age of such concerns , it would seem permanent due to every bit of energy in body is being consumed by these concerns & this energy keeps on coming back through eating but this is Ignorance . Don't get delusions of permanence & universal_will.

@ChrisW to be specific ,Iam asking about the nature of impermanence ,weather the actions resulting from it are considered right action or that depends on the degree of identification that the impermanent person/thing is having to another person/thing?.

Please check the update guys ,the update is the question.

@Omar Boshra  ,now keep doing this meditation in circle & reach at atomic level , where no intellect(which is impermanent too & is confusing you) is used , sankharas will be realized , keep going into more calmness through anapaan ,now turn back to worldly concern , a relation between sankhara & concern is seen ... sankhara arises concern in mind , again this concern needs more sankharas , due to Ignorance now,  that need is fulfilled ... when no Ignorance , behaviour will be refined & noble ,leading to Right Action. U r confusing ... no dependencies b/w Ignorance & Right Action.

@Omar Boshra  Awareness is required till force of Ignorance. Everything is impermanent.

So much time it took to put up a correct question ... ÷) ÷).
Impermanence : It is defined at atomic level for tiniest possible energy particle which shows dual nature :: matter(as existence) and wave(as non-existence or Maya or Delusion).
Whatever happens due to this dual nature , is called as change.
Change seems to be intelligent to a human till it makes one happy ,otherwise it seems to be a curse. Change is intelligent upto what seems to be good. But ,my friend , what seems to be good is ,in itself, a biggest hinderance than not-good. Pain, actually ,is a pleasure in early form. When one gets used to this pain , it becomes pleasure and seems to be intelligent.
Fruits of change in living beings is due to Ignorance and in non-living beings is due to chemical reactions. Now unless you are a believer in God or something like that , it won't create a confusion otherwise you might think who is causing these chemical reactions. Such questions are hindrances to meditation. Sit again and try to analyze that seems to be intelligent to you , it's just a pleasure feeling. Otherwise ,when you see it WISELY , it becomes merely cause and conditions passing by while Ignorance as stand-by...÷)

The time I took was also based on causes and conditions :).What I tried to clear out is the changes based on the causes and conditions are constructive ,the reaction to the causes and conditions was't compulsive but in line with causes and conditions so due to the sun,the flower opened up ,that was good for the flower ,no other reaction would have been more constructive .So its the quality of the reaction to causes & conditions that is intelligent. Iam not saying there is God but what I felt experientially that there is a quality of intelligence.

During past time , this reaction towards cause and conditions was not same , because during evolution , that flower might have damaged a lot of times because of excessive heat from sun . In Future also , that flower might be destroyed due to radioactive rays due to Ozone layer depletion. This constructive reaction is only for present time , as it is constructive in present and fruitful to you ,it seems to be intelligent to you. Remain calm ,it(this process of constructiveness) will also pass-by.

Exactly ,just like how my question progressed .Its ok for the bird to not able to fly first ,this in itself is indication to an intelligent quality ,that there is a learning curve and progress ,its not just random impermanence ,but constructive impermanence .Karma also cannot be a linear rule ,but also is fundamentally, just & good for all beings ,that also is an intelligent quality..

But , Omar , this is not a permanent intelligence , bird is able to fly now but not a master ,when becomes a master , then not a king of sky , even king of sky can be caught by someone else.If this intelligence is permanently being acquired by anything/anyone ,till now all the beings would have been perfect. This time , you used a word ,'good' , which is for Ignorance to Awareness ,can be  intelligence ,still is a process ,not quality. Try to understand , your intellect is confusing you from looking in past & future consequences which might not be intelligent.

I didn't say the intelligence is permanent ,the existence of intelligence is an existential reality ,just like impermanence is.It can vary in degree and develop over time ,but it exists fundamentally in all things and beings ,you can recognize it from meditation without being concerned about recognizing something specific.

Permanent intelligence is :: u r saying that everything that's happening is intelligent in nature. Answer is NO. This confusion is making you unable to see past&future consequence. It's the process of Ignorance to Awareness. Where is the intelligence in murder ,rape ,steal etc? How can you define,' being' to be intelligent doing bad karmas , in future that being might change to a good one or might become a very bad one. Ultimately , that has to move towards awareness ,with this I agree ,still Brahma is a state with endless happiness without Enlightenment ,here it's not Intelligent.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Buddhism isn't overly concerned with the source or cause of impermanence. The Buddhist problematic is that the mind fixates on permanence — on wanting things to be a certain way, always — and that fixation causes misery of various sorts when things do change (as they inevitably will).
I'm not certain what thought or insight is bubbling around behind this question (perhaps it hasn't made itself clear even to you, yet), but you should be aware that fixating on impermanence can be just as problematic as fixating on anything else. Who or what are you trying to ascribe intelligence to?

To impermanence itself.....out of watching impermanence that quality is recognized,a quality of impermanence  ,I find that the changes inside the body or in the heavens for example ,are intelligent changes,, the changes that result due to impermanence seem wise .

Impermanence is not a 'thing' that you can ascribe qualities (like intelligence) to. Impermanence is merely a quality. If impermanence were a 'thing' it too would be impermanent...

What I mean just like Impermanence was recognized as a quality of a thing also the result that occurred due to this quality was intelligent ,so intelligence was also recognized as a quality of a thing due to impermanence,that goes in line with dependent origination ,because of that, this showed up  .

I don't even know what that means. How is a result 'intelligent'?

Its like an animal adapting to its environment ,the change that occurred in it was not merely random but led to a result that solved a problem for the animal ,thus the change due to impermanence of the state of the cells was not random but intelligent..if you didn't recognize the quality by experiencing it ,I cannot explain it to you.

As Ted says, impermanence is not a 'thing' so the question seems quite odd. .

First (pardon the pedantic moment), animals don't adapt, species adapt. And that kind of adaptation is not 'intelligent' except in hindsight: there is no foresight involved in it, just a gradual shift as some adaptations prove more successful. For instance, there's no particular reason why humans have five fingers rather than four or six, and if we had evolved to have four fingers we would think that design was just as intelligent as we currently think five fingers is. That process is neither random nor intelligent.

Yes , I only  speak of it as insight ,when something reacts to causes and conditions in a constructive way ,the quality felt is intelligence.So due to the sun the flower opened its peatels ,that change was good for the flower ,that change has an intelligent quality..This is exactly what I wanted to say

Yes I meant to say the change due to impermenance has intelligent quality not impermenance itself

What is the nature of the impermanence ,is it just a random change or intelligent change ?

Impermanence is a characteristic of conditioned existence, ie. of Samsara. All compounded and conditioned things are tainted by this characteristic. It is an impersonal law with no known origin. It should be thoroughly contemplated and observed mindfully as it is part of the Triple Gateway to Liberation, signs that lead to the outlet of this world.

I think the "intelligence" is a projection -- i.e. that it is your saying, "that's clever, that fits, that's purposeful, that make sense to me."
I think impermanence happens because of causes -- e.g. a cup is made from clay, later the cup is broken.
I don't see it's useful to apply the word "intelligent" -- maybe the cup being broken is "negligent" rather than "intelligent", or maybe it's "natural".
It may be a human tendency to ascribe intelligence -- see animism.
I don't remember suttas which support the view that "impermanence is intelligent", although of course it says a lot of other things.

Yes so the quality of the reaction to the causes and conditions is what I felt as intelligent.The very fact that I felt that must also be because of causes and conditions

I don't know if I'm following your point but impermanence in Buddhism isn't intelligent or a belief but is merely what one notices objectivly when not distracted by habits & beliefs.

yes it is noticed ,from that noticing also the change that is occurring,is it just a random change or intelligent ?

Are you talking about the insight that arises from witnessing impermanance? Insight may seem random but really it is just a matter of the right conditions arising for insight to arise. It's like wandering through a labyrinth and being fortunate  enough to find the way out. The more we make the right conditions arise, the higher the chance of accidentally  discovering  insight. Nothing is random in samsara as everything in existence has causes and conditions that are never random but because we don't know the underlying causes and conditions things may appear random.

Yes thats what I mean .The change due to impermanence itself I noticed is good for all beings ,so it isn't just a ruthless rule but has intelligent quality because all the causes and conditions you talked about make sense together, they fit and thats smart.

The Oxford dictionary defines intelligence as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills." The nature of impermanence is that what is born also dies, and what is acquired is lost. And this applies to knowledge and skills, which are also acquired and lost. Intelligence itself is impermanent--it waxes and wanes as well.

dn16: ‘Conditions are impermanent. How could it possibly be otherwise?’”

Buddhism addresses the end of suffering. And that would require an end to grasping at impermanence:

an10.93: “Sirs, anything that is created, conditioned, chosen, and dependently originated is impermanent.
an10.93: And what’s impermanent is suffering.

Specifically, what is important about impermanence is that, intelligent or random, impermanence is just ...
... unsatisfactory.


text:
What puts together composites according to Buddhism?
I believe that the word for composite or compounded dharma is sankhara. What puts sankhara together, according to Theravada or Mahayana Buddhism?
I'd especially like an explanation that contrasts the answer to Hinduism.

The word 'sankhara' has many different meanings. It can mean:

"conditioned thing' (something made from causes & conditions; AN 3.134; Dhp 277; SN 22.90)
"conditioner' (a condition that conditions/creates another conditioned thing; SN 41.6; MN 44).
"conditioning" (the process of conditioning; SN 22.79)
aggregate of mental formations (sankhara khandha; SN 22.79; SN 22.48)
mental conditioning (i.e., mental proliferation, psychobabble or papanca; Dhp 203; SN 38.14).

Therefore what puts together a conditioned thing (sankhara; sankhata) is the conditioning (saṅkharonti) of other conditioned things (sankhara).
In the context of mental formations (sankhara khandha), SN 22.79 says:

Kiñca, bhikkhave, saṅkhāre [plural] vadetha?
And why do you call them 'fabrications'?
Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati.
Because they fabricate [saṅkharontī; verb] fabricated things
  [saṅkhatam], thus they are called 'fabrications'[saṅkhārā]
Kiñca saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti?
What do they fabricate [saṅkharonti] as fabricated thing [saṅkhatam]?
Rūpaṃ rūpattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, vedanaṃ vedanattāya
  saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, saññaṃ saññattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti,
  saṅkhāre saṅkhārattāya saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti, viññāṇaṃ viññāṇattāya
  saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharonti.
For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing.
  For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated
  thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of
  fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate
  consciousness as a fabricated thing.
Saṅkhatamabhisaṅkharontīti kho, bhikkhave, tasmā ‘saṅkhārā’ti vuccati.
Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called
  fabrications.

In the context of intentional kamma (action), AN 3.23 says:

A certain person makes/generates/puts together
  (abhisaṅkharoti) hurtful (sabyābajjhaṃ) body
  choices/intentions/activities (kaya-sankhara), speech
  choices/intentions/activities (vaci-sankhara) and mental
  choices/intentions/activities (mano-sankhara).
Saṅkhāra Sutta

good theravadin answer, thanks

In theravada it is that element which creates that which is created; it creates, therefore it is called the element which creates. As it is thus objectified, it is know as a requisite for other elements so that which forms the formations is classified as formation element forming consciousness as consciousness, formation element forming form as form etc
The classes of past, present & future creating elements are called sankhara aggregate. Sankhara (aggregate) is translated as mental formations or fabrications. Pali discourses explain that fabrications there are intentions, the six classes of intention.
In the Pali texts mind preceeds all created things, it creates them and that which is called mind, consciousness or intellect arises as one thing and ceases as another. Many of the discernable elements are named and known as their coming into play is understood and are named as to their particular function, therefore even tho it is possible to delineate the difference between some elements it would not be possible to take them apart as they are conjoined.

Fabrications
  "And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.
"In-&-out breaths are bodily; these are things tied up with the body. That's why in-&-out breaths are bodily fabrications.
  Having first directed one's thoughts and made an evaluation, one then breaks out into speech. That's why directed thought & evaluation are verbal fabrications.
  Perceptions & feelings are mental; these are things tied up with the mind. That's why perceptions & feelings are mental fabrications."
‘Whatever fabrications , bhikkhus, has passed, ceased, changed: the term, label, and description ‘was’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or the term ‘will be.’
  "And what are fabrications? These six classes of intention — intention with regard to form, intention with regard to sound, intention with regard to smell, intention with regard to taste, intention with regard to tactile sensation, intention with regard to ideas: these are called fabrications. From the origination of contact comes the origination of fabrications. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of fabrications. And just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of fabrications... The fact that pleasure & happiness arises in dependence on fabrications: that is the allure of fabrications. The fact that fabrications are inconstant, stressful, subject to change: that is the drawback of fabrications. The subduing of desire & passion for fabrications, the abandoning of desire & passion for fabrications: that is the escape from fabrications...
“And why, bhikkhus, do you call them fabrications? ‘They fabricate the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called fabrications.
  Mind precedes fabricated things; Mind directs them, they are mind-made.
  And what is the conditioned that they fabrications?
They fabricate conditioned form as form;
  they fabricate conditioned feeling as feeling;
  they fabricate conditioned perception as perception;
  they fabricate conditioned fabrications as fabrications;
  they fabricate conditioned consciousness as consciousness.
‘They fabricate the conditioned,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called fabrications.
Conditioned Element
  There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.
  Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned. What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned.
  The born, come-to-be, produced,
  The made, the conditioned, the transient,
  Conjoined with decay and death,
  A nest of disease, perishable,
  Sprung from nutriment and craving's cord —
  That is not fit to take delight in.

Excerpts from sutta and abhidhamma


text:
Who propounded "All doesn't exist" in the Buddha's time?
SN 12.15 says,

'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle

We know that by the Buddha's time, the early Upanishads propounded some sort of "everything is existence" or "everything is the Self" doctrine.
But who propounded the latter doctrine ("Everything doesn't exist") in the Buddha's time? Certainly not Carvakas or Lokayatas, who were simply materialists. So who exactly was propounding this during the Buddha's time?

Although , I have no proof & knowledge regarding ,"who propounded" , in brief ,SN 12.15 is about right view which comes when Meditator or truth seeker knows food(aahaar) ,pain(dukh), thirst(tanha) , ... Sankhara (Samskara) ,Ignorance(avidya) , Their Origin , Their End and Path to End .In this way , Truth-Seeker knows everything can never Exist and Everything can never be in non-existence because it originates and end. Kindly read Sammaditthi Sutta of Majjhima Nikaya ( सम्मादिट्ठी सुत्त , मज्झिम निकाय ) to understand SN 12.15 in detail.

@TempoItan Please don't post a comment as an answer to a question -- post an answer instead. Post a comment if (for example) you don't understand the question. Please see this help section, which includes "When to comment" and "When not to comment".

@ChrisW ok! But above comment is not an answer to question , just a foot note for questionnaire.

Perhaps it's a bit too frank, I think the OP asked an invalid question. A doctrine of everything doesn't exist cannot be uttered. It's like, a dead man cannot say "I'm dead", or you tell someone in the face "I'm not here". Making up such question is just an indication the questioner trapped by the trick of the mind - we called intellectual capacity.
This is the same trick for making up the phrase like the "groundless ground", the "egg-less egg", or the "valueless value"... the list can go on and on. You are simply making up another seemingly wisdom-infused phrase "non-existing existence". The Buddha has vivid and fun examples to dismiss, said, these people are talking about and debating on the "horns of a rabbit" and "hair of the tortoise". These things are mere constructs, the mind's game (戲論).
Let me make it more prominent: how can a question be made if all doesn't exist? What is to be discussed about since everything doesn't exist?
In ancient India, at Buddha's time, the study of Hetu-vidya and Catuṣkoṭi are prerequisites of establishing any doctrine. With all doesn't exist the whole proposition simply cannot be established, no learnt master would propound it.

Note:
I have great doubt on the OP's quoted Pali Sutta SN 12.15, the accuracy of the translated wording "everything exists" + "everything doesn't exist". Perhaps due to this misleading wording the OP asked the unnecessary question.
The corresponding Agama read as this (excerpt):

...尊者陀迦旃延...：「...云何正見？...」
佛告陀迦旃延：「世間有二種依，若有、若無，為取所觸；取所觸故，或依有、或依無。若無此取者，心境繫著使不取、不住、不計我苦生而生，苦滅而滅，於彼不疑、不惑，不由於他而自知，是名正見，是名如來所施設正見。所以者何？世間集如實正知見，若世間無者不有，世間滅如實正知見，若世間有者無有，是名離於二邊說於中道，所謂此有故彼有，此起故彼起，謂緣無明行...滅。」
佛說此經已，尊者陀迦旃延聞佛所說，不起諸漏，心得解脫，成阿羅漢。
======
...Ven. Kātyāyana, "...what is right-view?..."
The Buddha told Kātyāyana, "There are two fixations in
the world, if exist or if non-exist, due to attachment on contact. For
attaching on contact, either fixate on exist, or fixate on non-exist.
If one doesn't have any attachment, tames the mind made it not attach,
not dwell, not involve the self. Suffering arisen as it arises,
suffering ceased as it ceases. In it don't doubt, don't faze. Not
depending on other but known it yourself, that is
called right-view. This is called the right-view taught by the
Tathagata. Why is that so? The aggregating of the world is known and
seen as it is; if the world non-existed it is not existing now.
The cessation of the world is known and seen as it is, if the world
really existed it is not ceased existing now. This is called
avoiding the two sides teaching the middle way. It is what called,
this exists therefore that exists, this arises therefore that arises,
called saṃskāra (activities) caused by ignorance... cessation."
... ...
... ..
... .
(the quoted italic text is corresponding to the OP quote.)

The Agama is much clear, concise and precise. Reading SN 12.15 ties a big knot in the head got lost in the bushes.

Akin to Majjhima Nikaya 74.. But if you believe in nothing, surely you believe in that!

Haven't checked Majjhima Nikaya 74. I've found the corresponding Agama to SN 12.15. IMAO the Agama is an explicit instruction on how to practice the Dharma. The ending was Kātyāyana became an arhat only listening to Buddha talking about the world really existed or not, and how to destroy the world :D! What do you think, is the Agama better textbook for we the student @IlyaGrushevskiy ??

Do you really think ,Mishu ,that question is wrong . 'Who propounded ' ,can be found in Bhagwad Geeta of Hinduism but I am confused of it's authenticity whereas hindus claim it to be more than 5000/- years old. As per this book , everything that is ,'Nature or Natural' is prakriti and this prakriti is completely Delusion/Maya of lord . You might wish to modify your answer now...÷)

@Tempo Itan you've mis-read my answer. Note the note of my answer. The problem is wrong Pali Sutta text or the English translation - "everything doesn't exist" this statement is a fallacy. The Chinese Agama renders it as "if the world really exist or not" . The Geeta or Hindic is "everything doesn't really exist" [but all are illusion/Maya]. See the difference? My before edited answer pointed out Indic belief doesn't say "everything doesn't exist" but said "the world isn't real" same elaboration. Now I just replaced with Agama text to show the Pali text/translation is misleading, see?

Ok! ... "Everything doesn't exist" is Hindic doctrine ... as per the geeta , "Nothing is real , even 'I' the one you are seeing now isn't real ,Arjuna. I call it my Maya & is my servant." Only my true form which is parmatma is real, everything else is prakriti ,is unreal... " . .... ::I m not answering because of my doubt on authenticity of the geeta, still it gives answer to question. Maya , as per hinduism means "Unreal or seems to exist ,in reality , doesn't exist if one focuses on Lord".. buddha rejected such self-contradicting thoughts... u can add it , I won't answer - doubt of authentic

The original Pali says - sabbam atthi...sabbham natthi...which precisely means "everything exists" and "everything is non-existent/nothing exists". So I dont think my question is incorrect.

@TempoItan You have misrepresented both the Bhagavad geeta and Hinduism.

@LazyLubber hmm...,correct me. What's wrong

@TempoItan Geeta does not say anywhere that "nothing is real". And geeta is taken as authentic in hinduism.

@LazyLubber  ok!Unuthentic is my personal level research. If hindu(not all)considers it to be authentic, it doesn't mean it is.Big politics in this matter. About ,nothing is real, geeta says it that everything is Maya,i.e. whatever we see, think(mind) , eat ,anything that we ignorant humans consider is unreal, doesn't exist ,only parmatma ,which is eternal&beyong consciousness is real & is beyond elements is real. This in itself is contradiction cause elements show dual nature. Also , in nature only that thing cam be present which is made up of it... can be a long discussion. Buddha rejected.

@TempoItan Looking at your post, it is obvious to me that you have not read geeta. Nor do you seem to have any idea of what the words "mAyA", "unreal" etc mean in the hindu context. And I also have no idea what you mean by "authentic" outside the hindu context. Obviously non-hindus dont follow geeta.

@TempoItan Thank you, but no thanks. I would be happy if someone can answer my original question. And the answer is definitely not the geeta.

@LazyLubber then you should do research/re-read on geeta ,cause I with some have done research on geeta.If u don't agree, it's good , if agreed ,it's good.

This refers to the old Indian classification of astika vs nastica.
Roughly speaking, astika are the ones who believe in standard Hindu religious concepts (reincarnation of souls, karma, asceticism, liberation, the power of rituals, sacrifice, demons & spirits, other worlds etc.) while nastika are the ones rejecting that.
Buddhism is neither astika nor nastika, because instead of accepting or denying these religious ideas, it explains how consciousness develops and works, and then maps it back to some of these preexisting religious concepts, for convenience.
The most famous Nastika tradition at Buddha's times was called Ajivika.
The other obvious Nastika tradition is the naive materialism, the view of regular worldly people.

The link you gave does not suggest that Ajivikas propounded the doctrine that nothing exists. Neither did ancient Indian materialists propound this doctrine.

I'm saying "nothing exists" is a bad translation of "nastika".

Please read Pali original, Sabbam atthi...sabbam natthi.."nothing exists" is an accurate translation of the latter.

Yeah, yeah. I saw that. Sabbam atthi = Sarvam Asti. Natthikavada= Nastika-vada. Nothing in this case means "none of that stuff everyone's talking about", not literally nothing.

Existence & non-existence are the 1st words of the Rig Veda. I agree SN 12.15 probably addressed pre-existing non-Buddhist doctrines.

In relation to the translation "All Does Not Exist (Sabbaṃ Natthi)", SN 12.15 refers one duality of the world called "Non-Existence" ("Natthitā").
Similarly, the closest Pali term to the Western philosophical term 'nihilism' appears to be natthikavāda. It seems natthikavāda can cover many types of wrong views found in the Pali sutta, such as:

Sole reliance upon the dimension of nothingness, as taught by Alara Kalama in MN 26. As described in the suttas, the view of the dimension of nothingness is "There Is Nothing" ("Natthi Kiñcī").
The idea a "self" or "being" "dies", as found in Iti 49, SN 22.85 & DN 1 (ucchedavāda; annihilationism).
The idea a 'self' that used to exist no longer exists (as believed by Vacchagotta in SN 44.10).
The view another self/person causes oneself to suffering (SN 12.17).
Moral nihilism, as found in MN 60, MN 117 and DN 2 (Ajita Kesakambala's doctrine), as follows:

There are some contemplatives & brahmans who hold this doctrine, hold
  this view: 'There is nothing (natthi) given, nothing offered, nothing
  sacrificed. There is no (natthi) fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no other world, no (natthi) mother, no father, no spontaneously arisen beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring
  rightly and practicing rightly, proclaim this world and the other
  after having directly known and realized it for themselves.'
MN 60; MN 117

When this was said, Ajita Kesakambalin said to me, 'Great king, there
  is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no
  fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no
  other world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously arisen beings; no
  brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly and practicing rightly,
  proclaim this world and the other after having directly known and
  realized it for themselves. A person is a composite of four primary
  elements. At death (kālaṃ karoti), the earth (in the body) returns to and merges with
  the (external) earth-substance. The fire returns to and merges with
  the external fire-substance. The liquid returns to and merges with the
  external liquid-substance. The wind returns to and merges with the
  external wind-substance. The sense-faculties scatter into space. Four
  men, with the bier as the fifth, carry the corpse. Its eulogies are
  sounded only as far as the charnel ground. The bones turn
  pigeon-colored. The offerings end in ashes. Generosity is taught by
  idiots. The words of those who speak of existence after death are
  false, empty chatter. With the break-up of the body, the wise and the
  foolish alike are annihilated (ucchijjanti), destroyed (vinassanti). They do not exist after death (paraṃ maraṇā).'
DN 2

At least three matters should be noted from the quotes above:

From MN 60, the verse does not necessarily refer to 'reincarnation' because the words 'world' & 'spontaneously arisen' are not necessarily something 'physical'. Instead, what is definitely certain is MN 60 is referring to both kamma & the results of kamma ('other worlds'). In other words, why 'Nihilism' is different to 'Buddhism' is because Nihilism does not believe in good & evil actions & results. For example, Nihilists are not grateful when they are taught the Dhamma. Instead, Nihilists believe: "there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed". This is Natthikavāda.
From DN 2, some of the views of Ajita Kesakambalin, such as a person is a composite of four primary elements, have similarities to what the Buddha taught (example, in SN 35.204). Therefore, not 100% of Ajita Kesakambalin's doctrine is different to Buddhism. What makes Ajita Kesakambalin's doctrine different to Buddhism is it is a doctrine of moral nihilism and also probably contains self-views.
Puthujjana Buddhists, obsessed with reincarnation or meta-physics, often say  ucchedavāda (annihilationism) means the view of no life/no reincaration after death. However, annihilationism is simply the view a 'self' ('atta') or 'existent being' ('satta') is annihilated at 'death'. Therefore, ucchedavāda (annihilationism) does not mean 'no reincarnation' but, instead, refers to a 'self-view'. The Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1) says:

There are some ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. They
  assert the annihilation, eradication, and obliteration of an existing
being on seven grounds.
Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā ucchedavādā sato sattassa
  ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi.
And what are the seven grounds on which they rely?
Te ca bhonto samaṇabrāhmaṇā kimāgamma kimārabbha ucchedavādā sato
  sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti sattahi vatthūhi?
There are some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view:
Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samaṇo vā brāhmaṇo vā evaṃvādī hoti
  evaṃdiṭṭhi:
‘This self is physical, made up of the four primary elements, and
  produced by mother and father. Since it’s annihilated and destroyed
  when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death, that’s how
  this self becomes rightly annihilated.’
‘yato kho, bho, ayaṃ attā rūpī cātumahābhūtiko mātāpettikasambhavo
  kāyassa bhedā ucchijjati vinassati, na hoti paraṃ maraṇā, ettāvatā
  kho, bho, ayaṃ attā sammā samucchinno hotī’ti.
That is how some assert the annihilation of an existing being.
Ittheke sato sattassa ucchedaṃ vināsaṃ vibhavaṃ paññapenti.
DN 1

SN 22.85 is a complex but excellent sutta, where a monk is admonished for having wrong view because he believes an Arahant is annihilated at death. This is wrong view because an Arahant is not "a being" ("satta") or a "self" ("atta") and thus does not experienced "death" ("marana"). Instead, SN 22.85 say at the termination of life (not "death"), the aggregates of an Arahant simply cease or end. SN 22.85 shows the term ucchedavāda (annihilationism) does not mean no reincarnation or no rebirth (but means the self-view that a self is annihilated).

Lastly, while not explicitly related to the question, in later times, I think the Mahayana Heart Sutra is a perfect example of a doctrine: "All does not exist".

This seems a very good answer to me, but as per our other discussion I'd like to see where it is said so unambiguously 'All does not exist'. As written this looks like nihilism.  .

Heart Sutra says all dharmas are empty, meaning they are mere rough descriptions of approximate observations, delineated within the framework of the interpreting observer. Entirely different meaning than "nothing exists".

The doctrine 'Everything does not exist' is Nihilism and nothing to do with Buddhism. The Mahayana doctrine is 'Nothing really exists', which is a very different statement.
The word 'really' in this statement allows us to avoid extreme views. Things would exist in just the way they seem to, as dependent phenomena, but by reduction they would not. 'Nothing exists' would be an extreme view and the Buddha taught that we must avoid such views.
I've never come across anyone teaching that nothing exists.

The Mahayana Heart Sutra appears to say nothing exists.

@Dhammadhatu - Interesting. I don't have a copy available. Could you quote the text? I suspect it's a matter of interpretation.

Heart Sutra says all dharmas are empty, meaning they are mere rough descriptions of approximate observations, delineated within the framework of the interpreting observer. Entirely different meaning than "nothing exists".

@AndreiVolkov - Thanks. It somewhat baffles me where this 'nothing exists' idea comes from.

There were many kinds of views in Buddha's time. This is discussed in Brahmajāla Sutta.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/DN/DN01.html


text:
Buddhism and Losing Determination
I noticed that I tend to very well know what I must do, and that I also strive and attempt to do these things, but that often I am filled with a kind of 'defeatism' or 'pessimism'. I know the right way, attempt the right way, but this heavy and saddening discouragement just makes me go: "What's the point? It's all futile anyways."
How would Buddhism describe and remedy such an emotion?
I feel like this is distinct from not knowing the right way, and not attempting the right way. It's more of a temporary emotion dragging me down, a kind of hopelessness or shame or maybe even self-hatred.
This emotion doesn't always occur, but it occurs enough for me to be held back in my practice. What should I do?

Why do you feel it's futile? You don't feel you have already made progress? That emotion will only hold you back if you let it. Meditation while feeling like that is likely to give you insight into why you feel like that.

I sympathise with your problem. It might even be the 'slough of despond'. One thing you could do is remember that if your practice is pointless then so is everything else you do, so you might as well do the practice. Another is to forget all about end-gaining in your practice and just enjoy the moment, and this is good practice anyway. But I have no magic bullet. . . .  .

Sit on the cushion.  You’ve posted scores of variants on this question and still seem to be under the impression that there’s an answer out there somewhere that’s going to get things to click for you - that somehow someone will say something that will miraculously make you committed and motivated to practice.  That answer simply doesn’t exist.  No amount of intellectualizing, sage advice, or sutra is going to change your mind or your circumstances.  Words don’t change behavior; behavior changes behavior.  Suck it up and sit.  It’s not going to be fun, it’s going to take monumental effort, you aren’t going to see any discernible benefit for a long time.  This is what practice looks like.  It’s why it’s called a discipline.  Effort doesn’t come from the outside.  It comes from within.  You have to provide the energy to make it happen.

For those who practice, illusions disappear. One becomes...disillusioned.

sn12.23: Truly knowing and seeing is a vital condition for disillusionment.

Without illusion, craving and aversion fade away, leading to dispassion.

sn12.23: Disillusionment is a vital condition for dispassion.

And with dispassion, there is freedom for right actions, etc.

sn12.23: Dispassion is a vital condition for freedom.

And then perhaps one might encounter:

sn12.23: Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending.

So if you're struggling with disillusionment, put it to good use. Help someone with their life, clean up something that is dirty, listen to someone who feels ignored.  Extend metta, compassion, rejoicing and inclusive equanimity to all you meet without illusions.

This emotion doesn't always occur, but it occurs enough for me to be held back in my practice. What should I do?

If Samsara is a very very long marathon, then just remember that if the race requires trillions steps to reach the finish line, any effort you make to put 1 step forward would mean that you're 1 step closer toward the finish line. But if you don't move your foot forward at all, you will never reach the finish line.

Defeatism and pessimism are just other activities of the mind; it's the thinking mind getting sulky because it's bored and not being allowed to do what it wants to do. If you sit with it and watch it mope that thread of mental energy will (eventually) settle down and align with the practice.

What should I do?

My advice is to:

Be mindful and guard the sense faculties
Find a good teacher
Do a 10 day (or longer) intensive meditation course
Read the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2)
Watch Ven. Yuttadhammo's 7 Dhamma discourses on the sutta
Listen to Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi's comprehensive 4 Dhamma discourses on the sutta

In brief, the Sabbasava Sutta is one of the most complete suttas in the Pali Canon. It encompasses the Buddhas entire teaching. Here the Buddha teaches how one should train oneself in order to become free from the root defilements that bind us to Samsara. The sutta is divided into 7 sections and all 7 methods work for all the defilements. The defilements should be removed by: Seeing, Restraining, Using, Enduring, Avoiding, Dispelling and Developing.

This answer might strike a little but pardon me for that in advance. I will try to give one of my friend's experience who went through same .
Currently you are feeling like...
"It's more of a temporary emotion dragging me down, a kind of hopelessness or shame or maybe even self-hatred"
Considering feeling("what's the point ,it's all futile anyways") makes you truly detached  from everything at that time. To know whether it's a detached feeling ,check if you feel satisfied by spiritual meditation of ,'Anaapaana' during those temporary emotions/feelings i.e.  ....
Yes ,then it's detachment
It's not a temporary emotion but beginning of something else.
1.) If you have no responsibilities ::
It's better to become a full time truth-seeker ,time has come to meditate deeply to get rid of Ignorance because nothing can satisfy you other than spiritual path.
2.) If you have responsibilities ,i.e. few are dependent upon you ::
Stand in front of Mirror & Smash it behind that thick skull that , "I have responsibilities left and there are few (remember the relation) Lives who would become living-Dead without me". If this is the right time , I would have been free from any responsibility. Start meditation at point when that emotion arise and declare that to be a hinderance of life like monkey thoughts of lust , Laziness etc. Wait for right time to come and when that time(of no responsibility) comes , be a full-time truth-seeker.
No it's not a detachment
Then it's called as laziness(प्रमाद) in mind.It can be due to a previous shock_of_life or due to too_much_comfortness in life. In this case ,it's Better to do a monitored meditation retreat for around 1-2 months & do some free-service (सेवा)
before returning back to usual life .It will re-track you in right direction.
That friend of mine is waiting for right time and has already started his spiritual journey partially. Actually ,he is waiting for permission of parents i.e. he wants his parents to remain happy while he seeks for truth.


text:
Is academic research right livelihood?
A question to those of you who’ve spent some time in academia: is academic research right livelihood?
Given that it requires one to engage in thinking for the entire duration of one’s working hours, could it actually be a hindrance on the eightfold path?

I haven't spent time working as an academic, but right livelihood is expressed as avoiding work dealing with weapons, human beings, poisons, meat and intoxicants. So as long as your work does not cause harm you should be ok. The fact that you are thinking is not an impediment, there is no job that does not require thinking, and thinking is never a hindrance. Arahants think.

Thank you. That is a great point about arahants.
I know that the explanation given for right livelihood is usually in those terms. But my sense is that the underlying principle is that, on balance, it should make good kamma. On balance, trading in weapons, etc., makes bad kamma. I am wondering if the kamma of conditioning oneself into thinking is also bad?

It's not nessasarily wrong livelihood  but the achedemic will have less suffering and more wellbeing when the  thoughts and the studying are not being clung to.
Thinking isn't nessasarily wrong. It's just that, conceptually speaking, thinking  can lead to bias or wrong view if one isn't mindful.

Thank you. A follow-up question, although I am half expecting the answer to this: do you mean not cling to it as in don’t treat the products of thinking as “mine,” or in some other way? I suppose anything that increases one’s sense of atta is wrong thinking. Am I missing something else?


text:
Buddhism Society & Action
According to the Buddha's teaching in the Buddhist scriptures, when is it appropriate:

To assist in creating the structures of a group or society?
To embrace the established structures of a group or society?
To defend others by enforcing
  the established authority of a  group or society?
To push away or overthrow the established structures of a group or society?
To defend others by pushing away or overthrowing the established authority of a group or society?

Is this a question about specific suttas on the topic, or buddhist opinions in general?

I made an edit to hopefully make it clearer: "According to the Buddha's teaching in the Buddhist scriptures, when is it appropriate to X"

I imagine Buddhism is about following the path and then, if you can, influencing others to follow the path. I imagine Buddhists such as the Buddha or Thailand's Bhikkhu Buddhadasa had the ability to influence political activists & leaders. When I lived in Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's monastery, I met the Thai Prime Minister more than once.
However, I think Buddhists can only lead by example and be careful about how they engage in political talk. For example, Thailand's Bhikkhu Buddhadasa influenced many Communists, where I imagine some of them were "martyred" in the 1976 Thammasat University Massacre.
For example, the Dalai Lama mingles within the corridors of world power but Dalai Lama appears to not actually influence evil politicians to change their ways. It is the opposite. The evil leaders appear to use the Dalai Lama to make themselves look better. Dalai Lama was paid US$180,000 per year for many years by the CIA.
Famous monks such as Ajahn Brahm often name-drop how they know this politician & that politician but, at least in Australia, the political environment moves further & further away from Dhamma each day. In fact, Ajahn Brahm maintains harmful & dangerous political narratives, such as the myth of 'Islamic terrorism' (which, in reality, is a UK-US-Saudi covert operation since WW1).
It was very unfortunate to witness the Western monks & nuns affiliated with Ajahn Brahm become politically active in Anti-Trumpism, where, even though Trump's anti-war rhetoric was obviously a lie (based on the Iran-Hater who was funding his presidential campaign); these monks & nuns were politically active supporting the major war maker Hillary Clinton & Obama, who destroyed at least three countries, namely, Libya, Syria & Yemen; plus escalated conflict in Ukraine & elsewhere.
Bhikkhu Bodhi openly lamented when Trump threatened to ban abortion. Bhikkhu Bodhi, appearing to pander to a liberal left-wing supporter base, somehow believes Buddhism supports "women's reproductive rights". While monks & nuns can plead ignorance & having no psychic powers when their political endeavors actually support covert wars, Bhikkhu Bodhi's political stance based on "women's reproductive rights" dropped the jaws of many Buddhists.
At least in Australia, recently, the religions, particularly the Catholic Church, were mostly silent about the international intervention in Syria, where covert terrorist squads murdered thousands of Christian & non-Christian people. The Christian religions in Australia were mostly silent when old Christian monastery towns were liberated by Syrian & Hezbollah defenders. This shows how narcissistic religion has become.
Today, there are Western monks grovelling to left-wing political correctness, such as attempting to appeal to the LBGT & Identitarian movements. Will siding with political correctness help Buddhism survive into the future? Or will this alliance harm Buddhism by wrecking its doctrine more than it is already wrecked in the West?
Ordinary people (puthujjana) look for affirmation in religion. They want a Protestant-style Jesus and an amoral metta Buddha to not judge or criticise them at all. Ordinary people (puthujjana) want to be justified by religious figures. Therefore, politics can easily wreck religions, such as Protestantism wrecked Christianity or Wahhabism wrecked Islam. When religion becomes mere amoral narcissistic metta, it becomes worthless. As Jesus said: "You are the salt of the earth but if the salt loses its saltiness it becomes worthless".
Often there is little we can do as Buddhists, apart from following the path and hopefully setting an example and possibly influencing others, high & low, if we can. But using the brute (military & police) force of politics - no - that does not appear to be Buddhist.
Therefore, to offer my opinion on the questions:

Yes, Buddhists can assist in creating the structures of a group or society, as long as that group or society accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can embrace the established structures of a group or society, as long as that group or society accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can assist defend others by enforcing the established authority of a group or society, as long as that defense & enforcement accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can, without violence, push away or overthrow the established structures of a group or society, as long as that group or society accords with Buddhist doctrine.
Yes, Buddhists can defend others by pushing away or overthrowing the established authority of a group or society, as long as that new group or new society accords with Buddhist doctrine.

In other words:

Supporting Communism appeared not Buddhist.
Edorsement of violent Western imperialism appeared not Buddhist.
Supporting the myths of the $7 trillion taxpayer funded War On Terror against nations unrelated to the 9/11 attacks that kills & uproots millions of innocent people is not Buddhist.
Supporting psychopathic mass-murders who create deadly covert wars is not Buddhist.
Promoting abortion is not Buddhist.
Actively recruiting unsuitable people to Buddhism who may actually not be partial to the true teachings & thus attempt to change the true teachings, doesn't sound like it is Buddhist.


text:
What does zen have to do with spontaneity?
Someone told me that I don't need to read about Dogens teachings of zen. They said that "zen is just about being spontaneous and free from rules." Are they right? Why or why not? Is it deeper than just being spontaneous?

Note to answerers: if you never studied/practiced Zen but still have an opinion - you can leave it in the comments. Please don't answer based solely on hearsay.

They said that "zen is just about being spontaneous and free from rules." Are they right? Why or why not? Is it deeper than just being spontaneous?

Well, it depends on the audience. Take a martial art analogy, you'll never hear a serious master instructing his white-belt student to be "spontaneous and free from rules". You'll only hear that once you've earned a 3rd dan on your black belt. If you're a white-belt, he's gonna have you do tons of drills, physical conditioning, fixed katas, sparring, etc. until your knuckles bleed. Why? 'cuz for any fighting discipline, one still has to put his money where his mouth is by proving how his "spontaneity and freedom from rules" helps him surviving 3 rounds inside the ring. Similarly for spirituality, tell a zen novice to be spontaneous and free from rules on day one, and he'll die inside the ring against Mara in under 3 seconds, let alone 3 rounds.

Very true. This is why it is often said that Zen (and Mahayana in general) is for a more advanced practitioner, who has no problems with handling the basics.

Good question. Zen has everything to do with spontaneity!
Zen is about discovering your true nature. This means being true - true to yourself, true to others. Being true to oneself can also be described as spontaneity. This goes very deep, being true without inner conflict.
As for the rules, one should be free from blindly taking them as something absolute - while understanding that certain actions do have certain results. One should be certainly free from the cargo-cult mentality: following rules superficially without true understanding.
Within this framework: being careful about results of one's actions, going beyond the cargo-cult mentality, being true to others, and being true to oneself - spontaneity is the pinnacle, the cherry on top.
And how can one be spontaneous if one is bound by definitions of self: "I am such, I am someone, I am [xyz]"? Hence emptiness, going beyond definitions.
Your interlocutor has a point, in the sense that action is what really matters - action moment by moment, suchness, fearlessness, being true. That said, Dogen is good too.

Spontaneity is possible where a conceptual system of ethics is replaced with an embodiment of Truth and Reality. In theistic terms - God can be spontaneous and must be, since He must always act according to His nature. The same would be the case for the true sage.
As Andrei says, this all about discovering ones' true nature. Once one has then one can and will act spontaneously according to that nature. By his very nature the true sage will act appropriately.


text:
How to do walking meditation?
I recently came across the concept of doing walking meditation, but I am not clearly aware of the technique or procedure to do walking meditation.
Can someone help me understand this?
Thank you.

How to do walking meditation?

Ven. Yuttadhammo has made a video introduction series to meditation practice called How To Meditate. There is also an introduction to Walking Meditation. I would advice watching all 6 videos since they are connected and based on a gradual practice.
The video series is based on his booklet from which I have here quoted the walking meditation instructions:

The method of walking meditation is as follows:

The feet should be close together, almost touching, and should stay side-by-side throughout the meditation, neither one in front of the other, nor with great space between their paths.

The hands should be clasped, right holding left, either in front or behind the body.

The eyes should be open throughout the meditation and one's gaze should be fixed on the path ahead about two metres or six feet in front of the body.

One should walk in a straight line, somewhere between three to five metres or ten to fifteen feet in length.

One begins by moving the right foot forward one foot length, with the foot parallel to the ground. The entire foot should touch the ground at the same time, with back of the heel in line with and to the right of the toes of the left foot.

The movement of each foot should be fluid and natural, a single arcing motion from beginning to end, with no breaks or abrupt change in direction of any kind.

One then moves the left foot forward, passing the right foot to come down with the back of the heel in line with and to the left of the toes of the right foot, and so on, one foot length for each step.

As one moves each foot, one should make a mental note just as in the sitting meditation, using a mantra that captures the essence of the movement as it occurs. The word in this case is "stepping right” when moving the right foot, and “stepping left" when moving the left foot.

One should make the mental note at the exact moment of each movement, neither before or after the movement.

If the mental note, "stepping right", is made before the foot moves, one is noting something that has not yet occurred. If one moves the foot first and then notes, "stepping right", one is noting something in the past. Either way, this cannot be considered meditation, as there is no awareness of reality in either case.
To clearly observe the movements as they occur, one should note “step-” at the beginning of the movement, just as the foot leaves the floor, “-ping” as the foot moves forward; and “right” at the moment when the foot touches the floor again. The same method should be employed when moving the left foot, and one's awareness should move between the movements of each foot from one end of the path to the other.
Upon reach the end of the walking path, turn around and walk in the other direction. The method of turning while maintaining clear awareness is to first stop, bringing whichever foot is behind to stand next to the foot that is in front, saying to oneself, "stopping, stopping, stopping", as the foot moves. Once one is standing still, one should become aware of the standing position as, "standing, standing, standing”, then begin to turn around, as follows:

Lift the right foot completely off the floor and turn it 90° to place it again on the floor, noting once, "turning". It is important to extend the word to cover the whole of the movement, so the “turn-” should be at the beginning of the movement and the “-ing” should be at the end, as the foot touches the floor.

Lift the left foot off the floor and turn it 90° to stand by the right foot, noting just the same, "turning".

Repeat the movements of both feet one more time "turning" (right foot), "turning" (left foot), and then note, "standing, standing, standing".

Continue with the walking meditation in the opposite direction, noting, "stepping right", "stepping left", as before.

During walking meditation, if thoughts, feelings, or emotions arise, one can chose to ignore them, bringing the mind back to the feet in order to maintain focus and continuity. If, however, they become a distraction, one should stop moving, bringing the back foot forward tostand with the front foot, saying to oneself, "stopping, stopping, stopping," then “standing, standing, standing,” and begin to contemplate the distraction as in sitting meditation, "thinking, thinking, thinking", "pain, pain, pain", "angry", "sad", "bored", "happy", etc., according to the experience. Once the object of attention disappears, continue with the walking as before, "stepping right", "stepping left”.
In this way, one simply paces back and forth, walking in one direction until reaching the end of the designated path, then turning around and walking in the other direction.
Generally speaking, one should try to balance the amount of time spent in walking meditation with the amount spent in sitting meditation, to avoid partiality to one or the other posture. If one were to practice ten minutes of walking meditation, for example, one should follow it with ten minutes of sitting meditation. This concludes the explanation of how to practice walking meditation.
Again, I urge you not to be content with simply reading this book; please, try the meditation techniques for yourself and see the benefits they bring for yourself. Thank you for your interest in the meditation practice and again I wish you peace, happiness, and freedom from suffering.

Is the technique for standing mediation too?

The same technique can be used for all the different
postures of the body, including standing.

This is to be mindful about walking. Walking creates sensations in the body like:

touch of your feet on the ground
the tension of the muscles
sensations due to change of posture
sensations due to fatigue.

Whatever sensation:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta

The Sutta instruction is quite simple, something like;
'Setting on a walking path one is percepient of the beginning and the end' - Capala Sutta
'When walking one knows; 'i am walking' - Kayagatasati discourses
'Dwells sitting and pacing back & forth' - Discourses on devotion to wakefulness

Just define a path of 20 to 30 steps. Mark each end of the path, with shoes, sticks or anything. Simpy walk back & forth. Walk up the path. Turn naturally & slowly. Stand and compose. Then walk down the path. Then repeat. If your mind is quiet, the mind will follow the breathing. Also, practise standing meditation anytime. Stand still, relaxed, get in touch with the breathing in & out.


text:
Formless Realm Suffering Question
What I would like to know is how does an entity (stream of consciousness) experience suffering if it doesn’t have a physical body? Like say in the hell realm or any of the lower formless realms. Is there anything in Buddhist teachings that can explain this phenomena?
I am also aware that mental suffering can intensify physical suffering, but I don’t understand how mental suffering alone, without a physical body is experienced in the formless realms.

Where does the idea come from, that lower realms are formless?

In the formless realm, there is no physical body but the mental process continues. Hence on feels pain as the metal process is impermanent, not-self and comes in contact with mental objects.

What I would like to know is how does an entity (stream of consciousness)...

I have never the Buddha taught about a stream of consciousness, let alone a stream of consciousness is an 'entity'. My impression is the doctrine/dogma/superstition of a stream of consciousness belongs to the commentaries & sects of what became later known as "Buddhism".

experience suffering if it doesn’t have a physical body?

I never read The Buddha teach about the above. For example, there are about two suttas from thousands (eg SN 4.23) where the Buddha says Mara (Satan) is looking for the consciousness of a dead monk. However, these suttas appear to not say if it was the Buddha who believed in a "consciousness after death" or Mara. However, based on the literal reading of these suttas, the only evidence we have is it is Mara (Satan) that believes in a disembodied consciousness. For example, there are many suttas, such as SN 38, SN 22.53 , SN 22.67 & SN 22.56.82 that say the Buddha said consciousness cannot exist without a physical body.

Like say in the hell realm or any of the lower formless realms. Is there anything in Buddhist teachings that can explain this phenomena?

Yes. SN 35.135 says "hell" is painful undesirable feelings felt at the six bases of sense contact.

I am also aware that mental suffering can intensify physical suffering, but I don’t understand how mental suffering alone, without a physical body is experienced in the formless realms.

The 1st noble truth says all suffering is attachment to the five aggregates. Attachment is clinging or possessiveness. For example, if I insult you, you suffer because your pride is wounded. This suffering is not related to pain of the physical body but it is the experience of mental pain (called "domanassa"). The pain of hurt pride is "formless" suffering.
Similarly, if the mind enters into the formless spheres of meditation (of infinite space, infinite consciousness, nothingness, etc), even though the physical body cannot be felt, if there is attachment to those formless spheres, there will be suffering. Any attachment, grasping or possessiveness is immediately stabbing or suffering; a loss of freedom.
SN 38.14 says there are three types of suffering:
(i) Suffering due to/about pain
(ii) Suffering due to/about change
(iii) Suffering due to mental proliferation, neurotic-psychobabble or monkey-mind.
Only one of the above three types of suffering is related to physical pain.

Note: Mahayana does not believe/endorse the stream of consciousness as disembodied entity either.

I am also aware that mental suffering can intensify physical suffering, but I don’t understand how mental suffering alone, without a physical body is experienced in the formless realms.

A few points worth noticing, mental pains like fear, anxiety, depression are already suffering without directly involving the physical body. When you have a nightmare in your dream at night, there's no direct physical body involved but that "you" in the dream already suffers with all the angst, the fear, etc. The second point is that the hell realm, the afflicted spirits, the animals, humans, etc. belong to the Sensual world, which do possess physical bodies, although it could range from subtle to gross. Above the Sensual world are the Form world (or fine-material world where beings possess a kind of very subtle material body), and lastly is the Formless world (see The Thirty-one Planes of Existence for more infos.).

In DN1 The Prime Net, the Buddha discusses the various eternalist views that arise. Here we find the suffering of a mind-made one.

dn1: There comes a time when, after a very long period has passed, this cosmos expands.
dn1: As it expands an empty mansion of Brahmā appears.
dn1: Then a certain sentient being—due to the running out of their life-span or merit—passes away from that host of radiant deities and is reborn in that empty mansion of Brahmā.
dn1: There they are mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the sky, steadily glorious, and they remain like that for a very long time.
dn1: But after staying there all alone for a long time, they become dissatisfied and anxious:
dn1: ‘Oh, if only another being would come to this state of existence.’

Loneliness is suffering.


text:
Awe in Buddhism
Contemporary psychology and neuroscience keep finding benefits to the emotion of awe, which appears as a spiritual emotion given it makes one more prosocial and less attached to material objects.
Does Buddhism talk in any way about this emotion?

Are you saying that mudita and awe are connected?

I can’t find any obvious correspondence to awe among the cetasikas or kleshas, but it could possibly compare to saddha or pasada. Perhaps awe is mentioned elsewhere in the suttas.
Personally I lean towards looking at awe as a type of ignorance, because it seems to me like a somewhat blind faith, as opposed to the investigative approach in buddhism.

I once heard a astronomer responding to someone asking "Doesn't knowing what is in the night sky make you less appreciative of it's beauty?" And they responded that knowing what's up there actually increases their awe because they can fully appreciate the scale of what they're looking at and feel how amazing it is that all of it exists in the first place. Awe and knowledge are not exclusive from each other.

Awe in the Western, Christian worldview corresponds roughly to the Zen concept of satori: a sudden awakening to true nature. The interpretations differ on philosophical and dogmatic grounds, obviously, but the experience — a sudden involution of perspective, with a consequence sense of wholeness, oneness, and 'flow' — is common to all faiths.


text:
A Problem in Need of an Answer
Through many of Yuttadhammo's videos and accesstoinsight, I have learned a vast amount of knowledge on the Buddha's teachings. But I feel like I am causing myself problems.

1) I keep on questioning everything I learn in the Dhamma & expanding
  on my questions through my answers and so on, how can I stop this from
  happening? How can I limit my questions or is there anything taught by
  the Buddha or in Yuttadhammo's tradition to help me?
2) As I have learned a lot (but definitely not all) from the Buddha's
  Dhamma, I keep on wanting to write down all that I learn but to keep
  it for myself on remembering the teaching, and I keep on writing long
  essays then rewriting and editing and adding and shrinking and adding
  and so on. I continue to do so and I feel like this is a problem, how
  can I cope with only knowing the teaching in my head than writing it
  all I learn down or is this not really a problem?

Please help!   Metta

Btw., giving the questions a traceable titel is helpful for tracing.

People learn in different ways, some by watching, some by doing, I have found that I personally, and I suspect you as well, learn by teaching. When I write essays like you're describing I am teaching the student within myself and it often allows me to gain a deeper understanding than I had before.

You probably know, you have to practice.
  You haven't watched Bhante Yuttadhammo's videos on how to meditate? Bhante Yuttadhammo is always talking about how it takes moment by moment experiencial practice to understand the enefable Dhamma.
  We can't read about insights into our own personal habits and beliefs that are below the surface of consciousness,  we have to witness them.

Here are some specific Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu videos concerning this issue:
Intellectual Knowledge of  Insight Knowledge
https://youtu.be/_qw0qRro2es
Intelligence, Wisdom, and Stupidity
https://youtu.be/gBTOOI1bk-o
Overdosing on Study
https://youtu.be/SfG1Dk6yUKE
Study of the Dhamma Vs. Practice
https://youtu.be/T2CodNAHzf0
Conceptual Truth vs. Ultimate Truth
https://youtu.be/jg48H8VtN9E
Why Practice Meditation
https://youtu.be/0rbspa_39EY
Basics of Vipassana
https://youtu.be/YmcE3TlCDYE
One Who Lives By The Dhamma
https://youtu.be/aVWCyaAmgSc
How I Became a Buddhist Monk
https://youtu.be/5PajaN34xK8

Good and useful answer, +1.

Dhamma is something to be practised. If it is practised it is remembered. This is what mindfulness means. Mindfulness means to remember to practise the teachings.

A Problem in Need of an Answer

Since you already seem to be following Ven. Yuttadhammo's teachings I would advice doing the online meditation course with Bhante. I'm doing that right now and I highly recommend it. You will have a weekly video session (via Discord or Google Hangouts) with Bhante and he will teach you the Mahasi Sayadaw technique.
May you have a fruitful practice.