text:
Cessation of suffering is the main goal of Buddhism, but is cessation of suffering the end goal or does Buddhism pursue Joy beyond end of suffering?
I ask the above because Socrates in the Republic has proven that the cessation of suffering is a quietude of the mind, an illusion or a jugglery not real. What we should we aim according to him is not the end of suffering which is a quietude, but true Joy.
Quoted below is form the Republic ... ( i have added [mind] next to Soul to ease the reading for those who detest the idea of the soul; i think, the soul in Socratic tradition is akin to mind in Buddist ideas, but that in itself is a long discussion ..)

Say, then, is not pleasure opposed to pain?
True.  And there is a neutral state which is neither pleasure nor
  pain?
There is.
A state which is intermediate, and a sort of repose of the [mind] soul about
  either --that is what you mean?
Yes.
You remember what people say when they are sick?
What do they say?
That after all nothing is pleasanter than health. But then they never
  knew this to be the greatest of pleasures until they were ill.
Yes, I know, he said.
And when persons are suffering from acute pain, you must. have heard
  them say that there is nothing pleasanter than to get rid of their
  pain?
I have.
And there are many other cases of suffering in which the mere rest and
  cessation of pain, and not any positive enjoyment, is extolled by them
  as the greatest pleasure?
Yes, he said; at the time they are pleased and well content to be at
  rest.
Again, when pleasure ceases, that sort of rest or cessation will be
  painful?
Doubtless, he said.
Then the intermediate state of rest will be pleasure and will also be
  pain?
So it would seem.
But can that which is neither become both?
I should say not.
And both pleasure and pain are motions of the [mind] soul, are they not?
  Yes.
But that which is neither was just now shown to be rest and not
  motion, and in a mean between them?
Yes.
How, then, can we be right in supposing that the absence of pain is
  pleasure, or that the absence of pleasure is pain?
Impossible.
This then is an appearance only and not a reality; that is to say, the
  rest is pleasure at the moment and in comparison of what is painful,
  and painful in comparison of what is pleasant; but all these
  representations, when tried by the test of true pleasure, are not real
  but a sort of imposition?
That is the inference.
Look at the other class of pleasures which have no antecedent pains
  and you will no longer suppose, as you perhaps may at present, that
  pleasure is only the cessation of pain, or pain of pleasure.
What are they, he said, and where shall I find them?  There are many
  of them: take as an example the pleasures, of smell, which are very
  great and have no antecedent pains; they come in a moment, and when
  they depart leave no pain behind them.
Most true, he said.
Let us not, then, be induced to believe that pure pleasure is the
  cessation of pain, or pain of pleasure.
No.
Still, the more numerous and violent pleasures which reach the [mind] soul
  through the body are generally of this sort --they are reliefs of
  pain.
That is true.
And the anticipations of future pleasures and pains are of a like
  nature?
Yes.
Shall I give you an illustration of them?
Let me hear.
You would allow, I said, that there is in nature an upper and lower
  and middle region?
I should.
And if a person were to go from the lower to the middle region, would
  he not imagine that he is going up; and he who is standing in the
  middle and sees whence he has come, would imagine that he is already
  in the upper region, if he has never seen the true upper world?
To be sure, he said; how can he think otherwise?
But if he were taken back again he would imagine, and truly imagine,
  that he was descending?
No doubt.
All that would arise out of his ignorance of the true upper and middle
  and lower regions?
Yes.
Then can you wonder that persons who are inexperienced in the truth,
  as they have wrong ideas about many other things, should also have
  wrong ideas about pleasure and pain and the intermediate state; so
  that when they are only being drawn towards the painful they feel pain
  and think the pain which they experience to be real, and in like
  manner, when drawn away from pain to the neutral or intermediate
  state, they firmly believe that they have reached the goal of satiety
  and pleasure; they, not knowing pleasure, err in contrasting pain with
  the absence of pain. which is like contrasting black with grey instead
  of white --can you wonder, I say, at this?
No, indeed; I should be much more disposed to wonder at the opposite.
  ....

In regular life (outside of Buddhist context) we can talk about a reward mechanism working in our brain: when things are not the way we want, the brain generates stress hormone, when we achieve a goal and make things be the way we want, the brain produces the joy hormone, but when things continue being the way we want - then there's no hormonal jumps, we just feel satisfaction and peace.
This type of quiet Peace is what Buddhism is after, not that Joy, which is an impermanent condition.
Hunting for more and more joy, is like increasing the drug dosage, not sustainable. No matter how good things get, once we are used to them, we don't feel that big joy anymore. We have to find a new goal to strive for, to get happy. It's just hormones.
But the peace of suchness has a light of it's own. It's like always being in loving relationship, you always hear "yes, you're right" from your partner, you feel validated and that gives you a type of quiet joy. Similarly in Nirvana, you are your own validation, or technically the truth and dharma and wisdom is your validation, so you always hear "yes, you're right" from it.
So it's not just cessation of suffering arriving to some dead neutral zombie state, it's the state of healthy peace and confidence, because you are in sync with reality of how things are, moment after moment.

Isn't "loving relationship" an burdensome drug? Just if interested to improve the answer and make it even more less confussing.

always hearing "yes, you are right" sounds like confirmation bias to me

Cessation of suffering is a source of joy by itself

Ud 2.10
[The Buddha:] "Is it true, Bhaddiya that, on going to a
forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, you repeatedly
exclaim, 'What bliss! What bliss!'?"
[Ven. Bhaddiya:] "Yes, lord."
"What meaning do you have in mind that you repeatedly exclaim, 'What
bliss! What bliss!'?"
"Before, when I was a householder, maintaining the bliss of kingship,
I had guards posted within and without the royal apartments, within
and without the city, within and without the countryside. But even
though I was thus guarded, thus protected, I dwelled in fear —
agitated, distrustful, and afraid. But now, on going alone to a
forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, I dwell
without fear, unagitated, confident, and unafraid — unconcerned,
unruffled, my wants satisfied, with my mind like a wild deer. This is
the meaning I have in mind that I repeatedly exclaim, 'What bliss!
What bliss!'"

Yes but note that the word translated there as "bliss" is sukha, not pīti.

Let my person bring a Sutta and a simile into here:

1. Noble Truth:

Whoever sees
          pleasure as stress,
  sees    pain as an arrow,
  sees    peaceful neither-pleasure-nor-pain
          as inconstant:
      he is a monk
      who's seen rightly.
      From that he is there set free.
          A master of direct knowing,
              at peace,
          he is a sage
gone beyond bonds.
iti 53

The second and third:

Carrying a Rock
"Letting go" actually means this: It's as if we're carrying a heavy rock. As we carry it, we feel weighed down but we don't know what to do with it, so we keep on carrying it. As soon as someone tells us to throw it away, we think, "Eh? If I throw it away, I won't have anything left." So we keep on carrying it. We aren't willing to throw it away.
Even if someone tells us, "Come on. Throw it away. It'll be good like this, and you'll benefit like that," we're still not willing to throw it away because we're afraid we won't have anything left. So we keep on carrying it until we're so thoroughly weak and tired that we can't carry it anymore. That's when we let it go.
Only when we let it go do we understand letting go. We feel at ease. And we can sense within ourselves how heavy it felt to carry the rock. But while we were carrying it, we didn't know at all how useful letting go could be.

The fourth Noble Truth

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Socrates here is talking about pain vs. pleasure, not about suffering in the Buddhist meaning of the word. In Buddhism, suffering is a condition that includes all of our responses to pain, pleasure, and neutral feeling. Those three are facts of life, and they are fundamentally of equal status.
The existential suffering a Buddhist wants to remedy arises, not because of pain, but due to clinging to pleasure, reacting with aversion to pain, and becoming blank and ignorant in response to anything that arouses a neutral feeling.
Joy isn't a goal in Buddhism, but it is a desirable consequence of practice and a quality of an enlightened being's life, as long as one doesn't cling to the "pleasure" aspect of it and expect it to become a permanent state. It rises and falls along with everything else, and recognizing that is part of overcoming the suffering of life.

@rub_mtl... can you elaborate on this  ** becoming blank and ignorant in response to anything that arouses a neutral feeling.**  how is that a suffering?

It isn't in itself, but it leads to suffering. When you cross the street and you don't see a car coming, you're not suffering now, but the cause of future suffering is in place without you knowing. This is the second "Foundation of mindfulness" - the constant awareness of pleasure as just pleasure, pain as just pain, and neutral sensation as just neutral sensation, without letting those three proliferate into greed, aversion, or ignorance.

@rub_mtl... But he who is blank and ignorant in response to any natural feeling will be blank also to suffering due to a car accident and ultimately to death. I don't think you are comparing the same person, what future suffering is there for the one who is blank?

I was referring to momentary blankness, not to a permanent personality trait.

From Dhammapada 203-204:

203. Hunger is the worst disease, conditioned things the worst suffering. Knowing this as it really is, the wise realize Nibbana, the
  highest bliss.
204. Health is the most precious gain and contentment the greatest wealth. A trustworthy person is the best kinsman, Nibbana the highest
  bliss.

From here, we can see that "Nibbana is the highest bliss" is the translation of "nibbanam paramam sukham".
Nibbana may not be joy that is ecstatic (piti) but is rather happiness that is blissful (sukha). Nibbana is certainly not described here as stoic quietitude.
In the Niramisa Sutta (trans1, trans2, trans3), you can also find detailed descriptions for:

worldly joy / rapture of the flesh / carnal rapture
unworldly joy / rapture not of the flesh / spiritual rapture
worldly happiness / pleasure of the flesh / carnal pleasure
unworldly happiness / pleasure not of the flesh / spiritual pleasure

The word piti is used for joy or rapture here and the word sukha is used for happiness or pleasure. However, the unworldly or spiritual rapture and pleasure are associated with jhana states in this sutta, rather than Nibbana.
Hence, the best translation of sukha in association with Nibbana is bliss.
The quest for Nibbana, is therefore the quest for blissful happiness.

Middle Path. Pursuing joy beyond end of sufferings is also a suffering. Cessation of suffering is good enough.


text:
What do different schools of Buddhism say about Mara
Does the concept of "Mara Devaputta" (The being called Mara) exist in all schools of Buddhism?
What is mentioned about that concept?

See also What/Who is 'Mara' in Buddhism?

Mara , according to the specific Buddhist and Hindu Cosmology, is the leader of the heaven above Sakra, prince of the Devas (see The Thirty-one Planes of Existence).
According to Wikipedia's Mara (demon) article:

In Mahayana Buddhism. There are traditionally
  these four types of Mara
  In traditional Buddhism, four metaphorical forms of "māra" are given:

Kleśa-māra, or Ma̋ra as the embodiment of all unskillful emotions, such as greed, hate and delusion.
Mṛtyu-māra, or Māra as death.
Skandha-māra, or Māra as metaphor for the entirety of conditioned existence.
Devaputra-māra, the deva of the sensuous realm, who tries to prevent Gautama Buddha from attaining liberation from the cycle of rebirth on the night of the Buddha´s enlightenment.

This Devaputra Mara is, according to Buddhists, a real sentient being.
He is destined to become a  Pratyeka Buddha. His followers might not be so fortunate.

The above image quoted from The Thirty-one Planes of Existence. Note especially:

Realm: 11) Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva)
Comments: These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them. Mara, the personification of delusion and desire, lives here.
Cause of rebirth here:

Ten wholesome actions (MN 41)
Generosity

Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva) These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them.

According to Master Hua, a great Sutra master from China, the beings in this heaven have great merits, but they get their happiness from stealing the enjoyment of others. Devas Wielding Power over the Creation of Others (paranimmita-vasavatti deva) These devas enjoy sense pleasures created by others for them.

You should consider reading S. Bachelor's book, Living with the Devil, where he explains how different Buddhist schools define Mara.
There is a short interview with the author: Living With The Devil -- A Buddhist take on good and evil.
In fact, Batchelor considers  "Mara" - the seductive allure of doctrine  that offer the false consolation of an explanation of the meaning of life and "I". There is even an opera about Mara (Mara the Opera).

Per the interview, Mr.  Bachelor has his own view of what Mara is: i.e., "Traditional Buddhists would argue that Mara is a god, a deva, who comes down to earth, has a little chat with the Buddha, then goes off again ... But if you think of Mara as a way of talking about an aspect of the Buddha’s own experience, then the Buddha is made human again."

Do you happen to know whether the concept of Mara exists in all schools of Buddhism? If the book you cited does define the doctrines of different schools, could you perhaps add a paragraph your answer (or a few quotes from the book) to summarise the different definitions?

Batchelor is clear. "Buddha and Mara are figurative ways of portraying a fundamental opposition within human natures." The idea that Mara "comes down to earth, has a little chat with the Buddha, then goes off again" is for children. Mara would not be a 'being'.
As Mara describes a natural function of the mind it will appear in all schools of Buddhism and all doctrines of the Unity of Self. It just won't always be called Mara. Jesus met Mara in the desert under a different name and awarded him the same treatment.
Mara is said to have sent dancing girls to distract the Buddha from his purpose and he simply turns them into cherry blossom. I feel this is a useful story to remember for the ease with which the Buddha, like Jesus, dispatches Mara. Once the ego and the distinct self is dealt with Mara becomes toothless because there is nobody to tempt.
This is my view and as such may be incorrect.

@Dhammadhatu I think of CrabBucket (associated with Triratna) as maybe "secular" himself ... and he associated Batchelor with secular Buddhism here and here. Definitionally, IMO this site allows people to "self-identify" (if they will) as being of one school of Buddhism or another if they want to (and generally allow any school to self-identify as "Buddhist").

I don't mind the downvote but an explanation for it would be useful. At this time I see no problem with my answer.

My guess is that the downvote was Dhammadhatu's, who (as he posted in a comment which he since deleted) disagrees with "Batchelor's ideas" for whatever reason I know not (I haven't read any of Batchelor's books). I think we all need to feel a little equanimity over the possibility that someone might downvote our answer for that kind of reason -- keep the answer as-is if you yourself think it may be useful. Another part of this answer which someone might have found "not useful" was introducing "Jesus" into an explanation of Buddhist doctrine, but (shrug).

I haven't voted at all yet, myself, fwiw; I've been waiting for an answer which talks about "all schools" or "different schools" and "what is mentioned" as requested by the OP.

@ChrisW - Thanks for the helpful comment. I probably share Dhammadhutu's view of Batchelor but feel B's comment about Mara being 'figurative' is correct. I did mention other schools but you might be right about the reference to Jesus. Happy to say I share the view you give in your comment below.

"Mara" is the enemy of enlightenment. "Mara" can be so cunning that this morning a "Mara" visited this forum disguised with the user-name "Nibbana". This shows how sneaky & cunning Mara is. This Mara tried to stop the enlightenment my Holy Guru Volkov transmitted today.
In the Pali suttas, "Mara" is found in many places, such as:

The suffering terror of "ego-death" called "marana" (SN 12.2).
The cause of "marana", namely, attaching to aggregrates as "I". "me" & "mine" (SN 22.63).
A mind with psychic powers (generally a believer in God or Brahma) that tries to stop the enlightenment of unshakable faith in the Lokuttara (Supramundane) Buddha-Dhamma.

In summary, Mara believes the "birth" ("jati") of "a being" ("satta") is a physical organism emerging from a physical womb rather than merely the arising of a "view", as described in SN 5.10:

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
SN 5.10

In Chapter 23 of the Samyutta Nikaya, suttas about Mara as clinging to aggregates (SN 23.1, 23.11, 23.13, etc) are found together suttas about how "a being" ("satta") is a state of attachment (SN 23.2, 23.3, etc).

Off-topic but SN 5.10 doesn't mention "birth" ("jati"); it mentions "made" ("pakata"), and "arisen" ("samuppanno") and "ceases" ("nirujjhati"). But yes Vajirā identifies that as another example of diṭṭhigata ("māra diṭṭhigataṃ nu te;"). Also IMO she doesn't literally say that "a 'being' is a 'view'", instead she says, "there is no 'being', there are only the aggregates" -- actually not even that, what she says is, "when the aggregates are present, a 'being' is conventional, but it's only dukkha that arises and ceases".

Same thing. "Jati" is about "satta". "Satta" is jati and jati is satta. Note: the phrase: "only suffering arising" is found in SN 5.10 and SN 12.15, which is about the arising of "self". "Jati", "satta" and "atta". Same thing. All Mara. Regards

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Where and what to study - Buddhist compassion and business communication
I have a background in business studies and communication. I believe that what the Buddha taught about how we should communicate with each other compassionately can change the business world. I want to be able to do a PHD on this topic so that I can spread this concept for the benefit of everyone working in business organisations. However.I have looked at several PHD programs on buddhist studies around the world and most of them ask for bachlor and master in buddhist studies and knowledge of atleast one root language. I do not have any of these. Does anyone know what I can study or where I can explore this idea ?

https://tzmvirginia.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/chase-stuart-the-tyranny-of-words-2nd-ed-book-scan.pdf
A popular approach to semantics in which the author discussess how to clarify the meaning of words and achieve more exact communication.
About the Author
Stuart Chase (1888-1985) Born in Somersworth, New Hampshire was an American economist and engineer trained at MIT. His writings covered topics as diverse as general semantics and physical economy. His hybrid background of engineering and economics places him in the same philosophical camp as R. Buckminster Fuller. It has been suggested that he was the originator of the expression a New Deal, which became identified with the economic programs of American president Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He had a cover story in The New Republic entitled "A New Deal for America," during the week that FDR gave his 1932 acceptance speech promising a new deal, but whether FDR speechwriter Samuel Rosenman saw the magazine is not clear.
...
His 1938 book The Tyranny of Words was an early (perhaps the earliest, predating Hayakawa) and influential popularization of Alfred Korzybski's general semantics which can still be read with profit.

You can find info on Buddhist Studies in the USA here and info on Buddhist Studies in the UK here.
However, it is likely that the kind of research topic that you're considering, would be more acceptable in Business faculties rather than Buddhist Studies faculties. You probably need to find a doctoral supervisor who would be interested.
Searching "Buddhist business workplace" on Google Scholar, I found this paper:

Marques, J. (2010). Toward greater consciousness in the 21st century
  workplace: How Buddhist practices fit in. Journal of business ethics,
  92(2), 211-225.

Its abstract:

The purpose of this study was to determine the applicability of
  Buddhist practices in today’s workplaces. The findings were supported
  by interviews with Buddhist masters and Buddhist business
  practitioners, as well as literature review, through phenomenological
  analysis. As a means of presenting the main reasons why Buddhist
  practices should be considered in contemporary workplaces, a SWOT
  analysis is presented. In this analysis, a number of strengths for
  using Buddhist practices in workplaces are listed such as
  pro-scientific, greater personal responsibility, and healthy
  detachment, while potential weaknesses such as non-harming,
  equanimity, and no competition are also reviewed. Both the strengths
  and the weaknesses could be listed in reverse if applied to a
  different extent. Among the opportunities were issues such as
  re-educating the world of business, enhancing personal ownership and a
  healthier society, while the threats comprised issues such as creating
  different imbalances, disinterest, and stationary development.

Based on this, I think Prof. Joan Marques of Woodbury University's School of Business, might be a good choice for a doctoral supervisor. You can find a list of her other publications on her Google Scholar profile page.
You can search for more relevant papers on Google Scholar, Scopus or Web of Knowledge, and the authors of those papers may make suitable research supervisors.

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


text:
Rebirth, nibbana, and anatta
Rebirth, is the continuation of anatta.. no Self can be said to transmigrate - only the statement that 'dependently originated phenomena (any conditioned and posited self) cannot have permanent properties', can be accurately put forward. Is nibbana therefore, still the continuation of anatta, but without dependent origination?
Can it be said that dependent origination - impermanent and unsatisfactory - is distinct, or at least not identical, to anatta?

Anatta isn't something which continues- it just refers to the lack of an inherent (non-dependent) self nature, which is true of everything, everywhere and always.
Contemplating dependent origination shows why anatta is true- since everything arises in dependence on something else, and extinguishes when that condition disappears, nothing can have an inherent self nature.
Nibbana is the disappearance of the conditions that cause something to arise, and so, because of dependent origination, it's also the disappearance of the thing itself.

Rebirth, is the continuation of anatta.

How can this be when the suttas say the realisation of anatta leads to the ending of birth?

Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with
  perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with
  consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through
  dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the
  knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the
  holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this
  world.'
SN 22.59

..

no Self can be said to transmigrate

This sounds like the heresy of Buddhaghosa about the 12-fold voidness. If rebirth was not-self, there would be no incentive to do good kamma because the results of kamma would be impersonal. Also, if no-self transmigrated, there would be not need to take refuge in impermanence. This heresy of Buddhaghosa destroys all Dhamma, both mundane & supramundane Dhamma. This Buddhaghosa heresy destroys incentive to do good personal kamma & destroys the Three Characteristics. It destroys morality & destroys liberation.

- only the statement that 'dependently originated phenomena (any conditioned and posited self) cannot have permanent properties', can
  be accurately put forward. Is nibbana therefore, still the
  continuation of anatta, but without dependent origination?

Anatta is unrelated to dependent origination, which is why the Buddha did not teach dependent origination in SN 22.59, which resulted in the first five arahants. All things are anatta, regardless of dependent origination.

Can it be said that dependent origination - impermanent and unsatisfactory - is distinct, or at least not identical, to anatta?

Yes. Absolutely. The Dhamma (Dhp 279) says "sabbe dhamma anatta ti" - all things, be they permanent or impermanent, be they conditioned or unconditioned, are anatta.

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


text:
Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering?
While describing Dhamma Buddha asks "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?" to which Ananda replies "suffering".
My question is : Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering?

Yes, all that are impermanent come under the first noble truth. Both arising and disappearing are aspects of impermanence. Painful feelings cause suffering when they arise, pleasurable feelings cause suffering when they disappear.

Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering?
It's not. The cause of suffering is your Identification with the Impermanent.

Excellent answer. I scored it up.

Do not identify with impermanent. That is Anatta. Anatta is the cure for suffering. But impermanence is always the cause of suffering.

Getting angry or possessive causes suffering. Impermanence does not have to occur. Mere attachment is enough, which is why the 1st noble truth defines all suffering as attachment (upadana).
When Buddha asks "Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?", he is essentially asking: "Can that which is impermanent bring lasting happiness or are impermanent things incapable of bringing lasting happiness?"
The different teaching in MN 115 about the Three Characteristics provides a clearer translation than the common translation of the Three Characteristics based in SN 22.59:

Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation
  as permanent ― there is no such possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It
  is possible that an ordinary person might treat some formation as
  permanent ― there is such a possibility.’ He understands: ‘It is
  impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could
  treat any formation as happiness― there is no such possibility.’
  And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary person might
  treat some formation as happiness ― there is such a possibility.’ He
  understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person
  possessing right view could treat anything as self ― there is no such
  possibility.’ And he understands: ‘It is possible that an ordinary
  person might treat something as self ― there is such a possibility.’
MN 115

"My question is : Is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering?"
No, what is impermanent is not the cause of dukkha, what is impermanent is dukkha.
Meaning, what is impermanent is unsatisfactory in its absolute sense; it's out of one's complete control, and even if pleasing, it's pleasantness has an expiration date, bound to change, e.g., into something unpleasant.
And what is the cause, the origin of dukkha?

“And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering? It is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering.
-- SN 56.13

Thus, we seeks delight in the impermanent pleasures of the senses hoping to find final rest to suffering. However any rest found from suffering in what is impermanent is always temporary at best.
Therefore, desiring for things that are impermanent is not only bound to never bring ultimate satisfaction, but is also bound to constantly put oneself in danger of suffering, for one cannot make what is impermanent to be always and constantly pleasing forever.

“Bhikkhus, there are these five situations that are unobtainable by an ascetic or a brahmin, by a deva, Māra, or Brahmā, or by anyone in the world. What five? (1) ‘May what is subject to old age not grow old!’: this is a situation that is unobtainable by an ascetic or a brahmin, by a deva, Māra, or Brahmā, or by anyone in the world. (2) ‘May what is subject to illness not fall ill!’: this is a situation that is unobtainable by an ascetic … or by anyone in the world. (3) ‘May what is subject to death not die!’: this is a situation that is unobtainable by an ascetic … or by anyone in the world. (4) ‘May what is subject to destruction not be destroyed!’: this is a situation that is unobtainable by an ascetic … or by anyone in the world. (5) ‘May what is subject to loss not be lost!’: this is a situation that is unobtainable by an ascetic or a brahmin, by a deva, Māra, or Brahmā, or by anyone in the world.
-- AN 5.48

In conclusion, it is the desire for those impermanent things which is the culprit, since it's by destroying that desire (and not by destroying what is impermanent) that one puts a definite end to suffering.

It's not that Impermanent is "the cause" of suffering. The cause of suffering is mismatch between "is" and "should", and the cause of mismatch is attachment to wrong idea that something "should" be this way, when in reality it is not that way and should not be that way. We just have a mistaken idea about something that does not match reality.
In the case of impermanency, we have an idea of a thing, an entity, we completely forget that an entity is just a temporary arrangement of its causes and conditions. These causes and conditions had a different configuration in the past and will have a different configuration in the future, but in the present they have this configuration. Our mind calls this configuration "a thing" but it's not a thing, it's just a point in time snapshot, that we called "a thing", as if static things truly existed (they do not).
So this idea of "a thing" is an illusion. If we hold on to it long enough, the reality will move ahead, but the illusion in our head stays the same. So we try to act, as if it was real, we try to stand on it, lean on it for support - but it cannot be reliable support.
Illusion can't serve as reliable support or reliable ground, only truth can.
And what is truth? The truth is, what we call things are in fact ephemeral arrangements. This can be a reliable support for peace. How can it be reliable support for peace? Because if we see things this way, we will not have a mismatch between "is" and "should", we always have "is" and "is". Without a "should" to attach to, we always in suchness, always in tathata. This suchness or tathata is the true Nirvana, it is unconditional, peaceful, and perfect. There's nothing missing in it, nothing extra, it is just as it is and should be. Great Perfection.
That's why Buddha said, "I found the ultimate, the other shore, peaceful, reliable - but this world delights in attachment."
And this is why Mahayana says that Enlightenment is ever-present and everyone is already Buddha, because everything is already "suchness", it's just that people have confusion about things.

Your question: "is what is impermanent always the cause of suffering?"
Let's ask the same question in a different way: is there something that is impermanent that causes happiness?
Let's say the answer is Yes.
Does it last forever? No.
When it is gone, would you be unhappy or unsatisfied? Yes.
Therefore, that which is impermanent always (eventually) causes suffering.
Let's ask another question: is there something that is permanent which causes suffering?
What is permanent?
Even time and space that are conditioned on each other according to General Relativity is not permanent. Even subatomic particles that can be transformed into energy and energy back to matter, is not permanent.
Only Nirvana is permanent. And Nirvana does not cause suffering. It's the end of suffering.
Since all that is permanent does not cause suffering AND all that is impermanent (eventually) cause suffering, therefore, that which is impermanent is always the cause of suffering.

OP: There is something which is impermanent and causes suffering.  When it
  is gone you will be happy. That something is for example disease.
  Therefore that which is impermanent is not always the cause of
  suffering.

Disease, ageing, bodily decay and misfortunes are unpleasant situations.
After the unpleasant situation is gone, you would be happy.
But can you be free from unpleasant situations forever? No. As long as you're in samsara, unpleasant situations can come back.
If you are free from one disease, you can still get another disease.
When any unpleasant situation comes back, would you be unhappy or unsatisfied? Yes.
Therefore, that which is impermanent, regardless of whether they are pleasant or unpleasant, always (eventually) cause suffering.

There is something which is impermanent and causes suffering.  When it is gone you will be happy. That something is for example disease. Therefore that which is impermanent is not always the cause of suffering.

@DheerajVerma I've updated my answer.

If we look at tilakkhana: anicca dukkha anatta.
Anicca is impermanent and as a condition for suffering (dukkha). What is impermanent or suffering without atta
And they are sankhatta dhamma.


text:
How can the term "spirit" be translated into Buddhist doctrine?
How can the term "spirit" be translated into Buddhist doctrine? If I may just copy paste the definition:

Moreover, could be mean anything unconditioned, permanent, or in some way separate from the rest of 'us'? The tags are clues, but I'm not being facetious.

anything eternal as in everlasting is taught to be in the realm of impossible.

sutta reference to MN (many kinds of elements sutta);
“Here, Ānanda, a bhikkhu understands: ‘It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat any formation as permanent ― there is no such possibility.’

It is citta (mind), which have cetasika (citta+nika;mind factors), such as feeling, emotions, etc. See more information in cittanupassanasatipatthana in mahasatipatthanasutta.
But if you mention to the ghost (citta+cetasikas+rupas), it is bhuta or sambhavesi in KN. Khuddakapatha ratanasutta & it's atthakatha.
Abhidhamma describe this topic as tons.

Trying to translate "the seat of emotions", and looking at Ayatana, I guess the answer might be "mana" or mind -- because the "mind" is to "mental objects" what the "eye" is to "visible objects" -- in that way the "mind" might be called the "seat" of "mental objects" (which I think include "emotions").
See also:

What is the difference between Vijñāna, Manas and Citta?
A dictionary definition of mano & mana(s)

Or the answer might be "citta" (according to this extract from the definition of mano):

As regards the relation of manas to citta, it may be stated that citta is more substantial (as indicated by translation “heart”), more elemental as the seat of emotion, whereas manas is the finer element, a subtler feeling or thinking as such.

Asking for a translation of "the soul" though, into Buddhist terminology, is difficult: because in Christianity the "soul" (or "spirit") is understood to be eternal, whereas Buddhism denies there is such a thing. I think that the word for the "permanent soul" denied by Buddhism is atta (Pali) or atman (Sanskrit) -- which I think that just means "self". In Hinduism that word is imbued with extra meaning ("the Self"), in Buddhism it's used as a simple, conventional or grammatical reflexive pronoun.
Instead of atta another possibility is "satta".

a living being, creature, a sentient & rational being, a person

A disadvantage of this translation is that "a being" isn't exclusively non-physical -- also, that in suttas like Vajira Sutta (SN 5.10) the view that there even is "a being" is condemned ... instead there are only "the aggregates".
So the "aggregates" ("khandhas") might be a good translation -- except that there are four non-form aggregates where perhaps you were looking for a single word -- and except that I'm not sure that "perception" ("sanna") for example is the "seat of emotion", and I think instead it's the various transient emotions themselves (perhaps without positing the existence of "a seat").

Incidentally the etymological origin of the word "spirit" comes from a Latin word related to "breath" or "breathing" -- that's a bit of an interesting connection, given the Buddhist practice of "watching the breath" ("anapanasati"), partly to understand how breath is connected to emotion. It's said that a meditator 'should watch the breath, in the same way that a hunter might watch an animal's lair' ... i.e. knowing that sooner or later the animal will return to its lair. In that way maybe "the breath" might be regarded as "the seat" -- I'm not sure though whether you'd count that (the breath) as "physical" or "non-physical".

With some reservation, I think the term 'mind/Cittavagga' will fit for what you looking.

Just as a fletcher straightens an arrow shaft, even so the discerning man straightens his mind — so fickle and unsteady, so
  difficult to guard.
As a fish when pulled out of water and cast on land throbs and quivers, even so is this mind agitated. Hence should one abandon the
  realm of Mara.
Wonderful, indeed, it is to subdue the mind, so difficult to subdue, ever swift, and seizing whatever it desires. A tamed mind
  brings happiness.
Let the discerning man guard the mind, so difficult to detect and extremely subtle, seizing whatever it desires. A guarded mind brings
  happiness.

> 37. Dwelling in the cave (of the heart), the mind, without form, wanders far and alone. Those who subdue this mind are liberated from
  the bonds of Mara.

Wisdom never becomes perfect in one whose mind is not steadfast, who knows not the Good Teaching and whose faith wavers.
There is no fear for an awakened one, whose mind is not sodden (by lust) nor afflicted (by hate), and who has gone beyond both merit and
  demerit. [6]
Realizing that this body is as fragile as a clay pot, and fortifying this mind like a well-fortified city, fight out Mara with
  the sword of wisdom. Then, guarding the conquest, remain unattached.
Ere long, alas! this body will lie upon the earth, unheeded and lifeless, like a useless log.
Whatever harm an enemy may do to an enemy, or a hater to a hater, an ill-directed mind inflicts on oneself a greater harm.
Neither mother, father, nor any other relative can do one greater good than one's own well-directed mind.

"Cittavagga: The Mind" (Dhp III), translated from the Pali by Acharya
  Buddharakkhita. Access to Insight (BCBS Edition), 30 November 2013,
  http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.03.budd.html .

If it is a phenomenon, then it is either:

Form (physical). Ex: one's body, smell, etc.
Consciousness (clear and knowing and not physical). Ex: an eye consciousness apprehending shape and colour.
Non-associated compositional factors. Ex: time, emptiness, etc.

One could say there is a nonphysical part of a person, the continuum of consciousnesses (that part is obviously not the person but a basis of designation).
As Andrei suggests we might see the alaya-vijnana such as posited by Yogacara (mind-basis-of-all or store-consciousness) as the seat of the seeds that manifest as (1) apprehending consciousnesses and (2) apprehended object.
This is not posited by other schools, though. From a Prasangika viewpoint, qualifying the mind of "seat of emotions", regarding it as a container or a field, would be strange. For instance, fear itself is a mind that is not "grounded" on any other factor (although it depends on them), from this point of view.

Your definition of spirit is "The non-physical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character."
Dhammapada 165 states:

By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity
  depend on oneself; no one can purify another.

The "spirit" from your definition is therefore the "self" (atta). But in Buddhism, there is no standalone absolute or permanent entity called self or spirit or soul. It exists, but it arises out of the inter-working of the five aggregates.

i am actually much more fond of the 2nd defintion

According to what I have heard, Buddha has explained four types of lives...

born as an infant like mammals
born from eggs
reproduce by binary fission (microbes)
the lives without physical bodies (ghosts, gods etc.)

Therefore, the spirit comes under the fourth group.

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


text:
Does this statement by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu conflict with traditional mettā meditation?
I'm a beginner and I'm studying (and trying to practice) both meditation on breathing and mettā meditation, and in the book Anapanasati by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, which i'm following with some initial success, when dealing with preliminaries and false views, it is said:
"[...] Some forms of "radiating loving kindness" are phrased in an amusing way, for instance: "May I be happy, free from suffering hatred, difficulties, and troubles, and may I live in happiness!" This really reflects fear and self love on the part of the speaker. How could a person with such a weak mind ever put forth the effort necessary to realize impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-selfhood? With this kind of ritual he will only disturb his mind all the more. [...]"
Now, i think almost every book and guide on mettā I've read suggests phrases like the one took as example in the above cited text. For example in Brahmavihara Dhama by Ven. Sayadaw it is suggested the phrase "May i be happy and free from misery" and similars. So the above mentioned paragraph confused me a bit. Do the Buddhadasa teachings conflict with traditional mettā practice? What view of things should a beginner follow, between these?
Thanks in advance!

I suggest this book you are studying might be too complex for a beginner, even though the section on metta is reasonable. The book 'Unveiling the Secrets of Life: a Manual for Serious Beginners' might be more suitable.
As for metta meditation in relation to Anapanasati, Buddhadasa's point is obviously straightforward and correct, namely, to realise enlightenment the idea of "I" must be abandoned. The Buddha taught suffering can only be extinguished when the idea of "I" is abandoned therefore the Ven. Sayadaw idea "May I be free from misery" is obviously illogical, as the suttas show, as follows:

...it's because Ven. Sariputta's I-making & mine-making and obsessions with conceit have long been well uprooted that even if
  there were change & alteration in the Teacher, there would arise
  within him no sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair. SN
  21.2

Buddhadasa's idea may conflict with the majority of teachers who consider themselves to be Buddhists but Buddhadasa's idea obviously does not conflict with the Dhamma of the Buddha. The Pali suttas generally refer to what Buddhadasa said in his earlier paragraph, namely, "metta is radiated towards all living beings based on reason & insight", as follows:

There is the case where a monk keeps pervading the first direction — as well as the second direction, the third, & the fourth — with an
  awareness imbued with good will. Thus he keeps pervading above, below,
  & all around, everywhere & in every respect the all-encompassing world
  with an awareness imbued with good will: abundant, expansive,
  immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will. MN 43

And he lets his mind pervade one quarter of the world with thoughts of Love, and so the second, and so the third, and so the fourth. And
  thus the whole wide world, above, below, around, and everywhere, does
  he continue to pervade with heart of Love, far-reaching, grown great,
  and beyond measure. Just, Vāseṭṭha, as a mighty trumpeter makes
  himself heard—and that without difficulty—in all the four directions;
  even so of all things that have shape or life, there is not one that
  he passes by or leaves aside, but regards them all with mind set free,
  and deep-felt love. DN 13

Wishing: In gladness and in safety,  May all beings be at ease. Whatever living beings there may be;     Whether they are weak or strong,
  omitting none, The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,   The
  seen and the unseen, Those living near and far away,  Those born and
  to-be-born — May all beings be at ease! Let none deceive another,     Or
  despise any being in any state. Let none through anger or ill-will
    Wish harm upon another. Even as a mother protects with her life     Her
  child, her only child, So with a boundless heart  Should one cherish
  all living beings; Radiating kindness over the entire world. Sn 1.8

Occasionally, there are teachings in the suttas about 'self-love' but unlikely to practitioners of samatha-vipassana. For example, in Ud 5.1, the Buddha makes a comment to himself about unenlightened worldlings who love themself more than others:

Having gone around in all directions with the mind, There is surely no one found who is loved more than oneself.
In the same way others each love themselves, Therefore one who cares for himself should not harm another.
Ud 5.1

This teaching in Ud 5.1 is about the 'Golden Rule' or 'morality' rather than about Anapanasati.
In conclusion, the teaching of metta in the Anapanasati Sutta itself shows Buddhadasa is correct & all of the other teachers, regardless of how many of them exist, are wrong. The Anapanasati Sutta includes the following instruction, as found in MN 62:

Develop the meditation of good will (metta). For when you are developing the meditation of good will, ill-will will be abandoned.
Develop the meditation of compassion. For when you are developing the meditation of compassion, cruelty will be abandoned.
Develop the meditation of appreciation. For when you are developing the meditation of appreciation, resentment will be abandoned.
Develop the meditation of equanimity. For when you are developing the meditation of equanimity, irritation will be abandoned.
Develop the meditation of the unattractive. For when you are developing the meditation of the unattractive, passion will be
  abandoned.
Develop the meditation of the perception of inconstancy. For when you are developing the meditation of the perception of inconstancy, the
  conceit 'I am' will be abandoned.

This shows metta is to be developed together with abandoning the conceit "I am".
Therefore, the statement by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu certainly conflicts with traditional (worldly) mettā meditation  but does not conflict with the mettā meditation the Buddha taught.

The Buddha’s injunction is that one should take the axiom ‘one is dear to oneself’ as a self-evident illustration and develop mettā towards others depending on that conviction. But Visuddhimagga misinterprets that injunction and recommends developing mettā to oneself as the first step. Meditations on ‘Divine Abiding’ (Brahmavihāra) are solely concerned with our attitude towards others. The gravity of the blunder of ignoring this fact comes to light in the Visuddhimagga account of the breaking down of the barriers between oneself, one’s dear person, neutral person and hostile person.
The Buddha says that one should develop mettā towards all beings with the self-abnegating love of a mother to her only son. But Venerable Buddhaghosa recommends a practice of mettā, which goes against the spirit of the Buddha word. What sort of Deliverance of the Heart can that kind of approach lead to? In pervading the directions with thoughts of mettā one has to be aware of one’s position only as a peg in the center with which to survey the world as above, below and all around. Apart from that, the Buddha has never sanctioned a selfish attitude of developing mettā to oneself. The object of mettā is not a group of persons discriminated as one’s dear, not dear or neutral but the totality of living beings which the Buddha has presented as five universals.

The Five Universal Categories:
‘..... ye keci pāṇabhūtatthi
‘..... whatever beings there are

tasā vā thāvarā vā anavasesā
whether feeble or stable – without exception

dīghā vā ye mahantā vā majjhimā rassakāṇukathūlā
whether long or large, middling, short, minute or massive

diṭtḥā vā ye va addiṭtḥā
whether seen or unseen

ye ca dūre vasanti avidūre
whether they live far or near

bhūtā vā sambhavesī vā
whether already come into being or seeking birth

sabbe sattā bhavantu sukhitattā
May all beings be happy at heart.
So developing metta to oneself is a later comentarial addition that is not present in the Pali Canon
Above text cited from:
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Deliverance_of_Heart.pdf
By Bhikkhu K. Ñāṇananda
It is worth reading all to clear things and also other work by K.

Ajahn Sumedho, in his excellent book, Don't Take Your Life Personally, offers in many passages the perspective that the four Brahma-Viharas are the transcending  sublimation of our usual self centered reactive patterns towards the Vedanā, the hedonic tones of experience.

Sakko ujū ca sūjū ca (being honest, very honest: a very prerequisite, not only for metta practice with conductive effects)
The Buddhas words on one occation: "Do you really love yourself? Are you going to content yourself simply with the food, clothing, shelter, and medicine of lay life even though this means staying in the cycle of birth, aging, illness, and death? Or would you really like to put an end to suffering?" (See: "Selves & Not-self", by Ven. Thanissaro on more about general instances on the roots here)
The traditional lines.

Ahaṃ sukhito homi
  May I be happy.
Niddukkho homi
  May I be free from stress & pain.
Avero homi
  May I be free from animosity.
Abyāpajjho homi
  May I be free from oppression.
Anīgho homi
  May I be free from trouble.
Sukhī attānaṃ pariharāmi
  May I look after myself with ease.

As a matter of karuna, in short, for those capable not to get lost on the main stream of Dhamma-trade:
For those "wishes to attain that state of Peace", e.g. having goodwiil with themselves:
Yes (Buddhadasa Conficts, here in one of his bestsellers), not only 2600 tradition but also the Buddhas teachings.
Just think how confused it is to think not being into existence and then wish well-being, metta, goodwill, to all other BEings...
Where would be a you if there is no I.
Metta meditation requires objects and it usually starts best with oneself, for one not having goodwill for oneself (given that oneself is most dear for everyone) is incapable to wish well-being for all others.
Buddhas way is for oneself and all others. Once one forgotten there will be a on going turn around.
As mentioned in an earlier question of on who answered here, (which was deleted): Buddhadasa was "a politican", call him philosoph or a favor doer for strong identification views (eg.: we, or nation...), another "Ghandhi",, far away from Path and abounding even low fetters, something especially lay teacher have adopted, which actually is nothing else as the Uposatha of the Jains, and of cause a good sell... eg. Dhamma-trade.

They get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Lay down the rod with regard to beings who live more than 100 leagues to the east... more than 100 leagues to the west... more than 100 leagues to the north... more than 100 leagues to the south.' Thus they get the disciple to undertake kindness & sympathy to some beings, but not to others.
"On the Uposatha day, they get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Having stripped off all your clothing, say this: "I am nothing by anything or of anything. Thus there is nothing by anything or of anything that is mine."' Yet in spite of that, his parents know of him that 'This is our child.'

So far as to the reason why some "smart" look for making points under the big mass of "enemy" outwardly seekers in the "ego-less" way, teaching "there is no self" and hold on huge houses.
So now one might wonder why such as the traditional line of thought to develope metta can not be directly found in the texts. One really practicing has such as goodwill for oneself as "drive", why practicing if having not? But since it easy happens that one seeks identification in outwardly "seeming" objects, falling into the other extreme, a good way is to also start balanced and focus on uprooting the real problem where it can be made and with a good reason not to get lost, "loosing" the base and ooze into anywhere, hard to find back on a base where things can be solved.
And if looking a little on how the famous sutta starts, one sees that it starts with goodwill for oneself:

Karaṇīyam'atthakusalena
          Yaŋ taŋ santaŋ padaŋ abhisamecca:
Sakko ujū ca sūjū ca,
          Suvaco cassa mudu anatimānī.

He who is skilful in his welfare,
  And wishes to attain that state of Peace
  Should act thus:

He should be capable [of practice],
  Upright and very upright,
  Easy to instruct, gentle, and not arrogant.

If seeking for the dual approach on other places and how to best use the goodwill for each in best was (active on the base, releasing wishes to the world), the famouse bamboo lady inspired this:

Looking after oneself, one looks after others.
  Looking after others, one looks after oneself.
And how does one look after others by looking after oneself?
  By practicing (mindfulness), by developing (it), by doing (it) a lot.
  And how does one look after oneself by looking after others?
  By patience, by non-harming, by loving kindness, by caring (for others).
  (Thus) looking after oneself, one looks after others;
  and looking after others, one looks after oneself.

Again: Where does it start? What's the required drive to arrive?
Some short accounts on [From mettā Jhāna to nibbāna] and some deeper guidance on the development of the Brahma-Viharas one may find here.
Again, short and on the point, as a matter of karuna, and further will be up to you, leaving with metta and mudita.
Certain: "Sukhī attānaṃ pariharāmi May I look after myself with ease." is/would be wise :-) what do you think? Do not stay to much under confused and seek out for those who know and do/have done the job not just talk, as a matter of metta torward youself and with it for all others.
On "What view of things should a beginner follow, between these? Thanks in advance!": seek for people of integrity, a proper teacher., and if having found a proper teacher follow his/her advices, hold them higher as others and especially you own views. That is the meaning of refuge. There is much to learn and to understand, so strong association is very required if having goodwill for yourself, willing to let go.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other low trades and exchange for the world.]

You didnt quote the metta parts from sutta but from comentary. There is no may I be happy in any suttas. That is divisive. May all being be happy is inclusive of others and oneself and is found in suttas

What's the point, @UrsulRosu ? Suttas are quoted, commentars are quoted, and some words to possible get confusion into more simple. Maybe Ursula make "the metta parts" she talks about more traceable, so that possible corrections and additions can be added. As for 'Yes' in regard of the OP, aside of meaning, it holds. And yes, the fist lines are "just tradition", just follow the link. The other quotes following are Suttas origins.

"May I be happy" can you give the sutta for the quote?

How could my person? Did @UrsulRosu read all or just react on. Dhamma starts with "May I be 'happy', progresses and possible ends there. Can Ursula quote a "what can be found in the suttas" in the op qu.? "Do the Buddhadasa teachings conflict with traditional mettā practice? "

Sorry Samana Johann. I realized my reactions came because I am comparing myself with you and other people and I enter a foolish competition in my mind. It gives me something to think about. The need to better than other people because as a small child I was compared to others. Very good excuse from my behalf. I am tricky and cunning like hell. Self disparagement. Why do I self disparage ? Good question. I'm also self amused about what I write. Sorry.

So many do not really start with themselves and there is no real reason to excuse if been given from somewhat able to act as a refuge. My person hopes @UrsulRosu is able to take the own lesson as a gift, not a usual that binds but one that latent or platant demands torward unbinding. In this manner mudita and may Nyom Ursula never be shy to use possibilities which are given without strings holding bound but release.

Do the Buddhadasa teachings conflict with traditional mettā practice?

Yes, he did, because he is a  unusually argumentative regard to commentary and  abhidhamma. His quote is in visuddhimagga. So, he againt it.

What view of things should a beginner follow, between these?

The uneducated beginner should follow the traditional mettā practice, because it is easier to understand "what is mettā".
So in the path of purification, loving kindness meditation section, wrote:

when the practitioner doesn't know how to mettā, he should mettā to himself, before meditate mettā follow the tipitaka. "May I be happy, free from suffering hatred, difficulties, and troubles, and may I live in happiness!"

It is because the uneducated practitiner can easily notice giving-happiness-to-himself mind by this way. When he know what is mettā, then he can let the  giving-happiness-to-the-others mind arise.


text:
Is it possible to exercise Metta to all or is Metta only a mental state only? If so how does one act to remain dispassionate?
Love, I mean the common one which cares only to the beloved and is indifferent to others, is accessible to many, but as I understand it this is the near enemy of Metta, not truly Metta. My question is the true Metta, which is a kind of goodwill to all without preference, without exception.
How does one wish goodwill to all in this world where nature itself works by compromise, where one's goodwill is another's misfortune? To give crude examples a lion eating am unborn calf or you frying unborn chick to feed you loving child.
I know the idea of Metta is not limited to Buddhism Laozi also has it in his gradation of the world we live in, he set the lover below the saint who champion a kind of universal love, which is Metta, but Laozi higher goal is even to abandon Metta and let go of everything to run as is...in a sense a lion eating a calf is part of the process of Tao so not evil.
How's Metta seen in the ultimate sense in Buddhism, and how does one practice goodwill for the entire cosmos and
cultivate a limitless heart in everyday life?

"Practise yourself, for heavens sake in little things, thence proceed to greater". Epictetus (Roman Stoic Philosopher)
You have to use wisdom in order to make metta stronger and you have to practise metta formaly and informaly.
With wisdom I mean perceptions you have to reflect upon many many many times:
• No one can escape aging, sickness, death as well as mental and physical suffering
• Everyone is heir of his/her thoughts, actions and emotions. If one acts badly it's because of the causes and conditions that are meeting then and there

You said, "My question is the true Metta, which is a kind of goodwill to all without preference, without exception"
Metta is an attitude, right? Whether or not you actually can help everyone or not, whether or not you have Wisdom and Power to take care of everyone or not, whether or not you spend every minute of your waking life helping others, whether or not you try to help every person you interact with every time you have a chance -- metta is when you operate with an attitude of unbounded goodwill to all.
Which basically means, you try NOT to act out of ego and you DO try to act in "the best way possible" in every given situation. Acting out of ego includes mental, verbal, and physical action. Mental is the most important, it pertains to thinking any thoughts that are meant to feed the ego.
I'm pretty sure I know this topic rather well, because this was my "main practice" when I entered Buddhism. (Main practice is a feature of Tibetan Buddhism; it is something that for a period of time serves as a conceptual center of your understanding of Buddhism, the object of mindfulness, and the goal of all activities. Main practice can change as you progress from level to level.) You said, "Is it possible to exercise Metta to all?" -- I know it is possible because I have done it.
You said, "to all without preference, without exception" - not just "the beloved" -- yes, of course. This means you try not to have attachments, biases, overgeneralizations, preconceptions, stereotypes, any kind of identification, you always try to operate from an objective perspective.
You said, "How does one wish goodwill to all in this world where nature itself works by compromise, where one's goodwill is another's misfortune?" -- again, this means trying to be objective and unbiased, which usually means trying to find the best balance or the best compromise between all the opposing forces and interests. Once again, it's not about your skill, it's about your attitude. Whether you can or not is beside the point, the important thing is that you try.
You said, "how does one act to remain dispassionate?". See my answer about  Kshanti-paramita. It's all about attachments. Ego is made of attachments. No ego - no attachments. No attachments - no ego.
Metta is one of the "Four Brahmaviharas". The reason they are called Brahma-vihara (Brahma's Disposition) is because they are supposed to emulate the attitude of Brahman, the Absolute God, whose body is pantheistically equivalent with this universe. According to Buddha, emulating the attitude of Brahman is a simple way to get pretty close to the perspective of Buddha, which then goes beyond pantheistic non-dualism of atman=brahman and into the triple emptiness of prajna-paramita.
So you basically operate as if you had no ego and were God, except you don't think that you are God, nor allow yourself to get a kick out of being so saintly and humble, since both of these thoughts would be the exact egoistic thoughts feeding the ego that you are supposed to eliminate.

As per my thinking "Metta" can not be interpreted in to English with true essence of meaning. Love is mention as hindrance in Buddhism as Kama channda. Base of love is an attachment and liking so when you love some one or thing you have an attachment of it and grows your desire more and more. Please refer the question; what is the love described in Buddhism?
I agree that metta is a mental state to practice.which is a kind of goodwill to all without preference, without exception-this statement also very versatile and profound.But metta is something more than goodwill.
Also your example;lion eating  unborn calf or you frying unborn chick to feed you loving child- as you mention loving child is very precise and prove love is an attachment some time lead unwholesome deeds. If you mentions loving child like fried chicks so I have fried unborn chick;that will explain it well.
If you react with metta, you tend to see both your child and unborn chick with wholesome view. e.g What happen if your child has to experience as same as unborn chick. How painful is it? then how about my feeling and etc.... so you will realize the things as it is and avoid unwholesome deeds and direct your wisdom for alternative solutions.(E.g find some vegetable to feed your child or find access to different food)
For the lion example;The mental state of  metta is exist in human realm and higher realms. it can't be observed in animal realm and lower realms. Lion possesses strict inherent instinct to physical survival of their kind and they are limited to that narrow mental state. so animals are not tend to think as humans. that's the reason animal can't practice metta.
To practice metta in practical life; one must get clear understanding about the what is metta and can practice through meditation or awareness(of metta) first you have to start from you by spread metta towards you and and spread gradually to outer world and universal level. you can't spread metta towards non-living things. It has to convey living being who suffer as one of characteristic of nature. wish genuinely get freedom from suffering and reach happiness. Also be kind enough to refer "karaniya metta sutta" and you will get proper awareness of "Metta"
May all being remain peace and harmony
May all being attain realization of Nirvana
May all being be happy!

Unlimited mettā-mind.
Unlimited target people.
But limited by situation.
The practitioner meditating unlimited mettā-mind by using unlimited target people as object.
The practitioner doesn't meditating the sitution such as target people's resultant, target people's kamma, etc.


text:
What the characters of a human being?
What should or are the characters of a human being? In today's age, r people real humans ? As i feel , humans are those who have compassion towards others, love towards others wheather it be animals nature or other humans.. But i don't see this any characters in todays humans(>99%). Should i call them humans just because they have intillegence ? I think even the crow is intillegent. Is only self awareness enough to be a human being?

Beings with consciousness encompass all sentient beings, in addition to being self aware human being have a capacity to be compassionate, temperate, and just; generally humans have a capacity to be virtuous.
Quoted below is a stoic sage lamenting like you do (not Buddhist source i know, but i think its interesting to read. :)

Is he passionate, is he full of resentment, is he fault-finding? If
  the whim seizes him, does he break the heads of those who come in his
  way? (If so), why then did you say that he is a man? Is every thing
  judged (determined) by the bare form? If that is so, say that the form
  in wax is an apple and has the smell and the taste of an apple. But
  the external figure is not enough: neither then is the nose enough and
  the eyes to make the man, but he must have the opinions of a man. Here
  is a man who does not listen to reason, who does not know when he is
  refuted: he is an ass: in another man the sense of shame is become
  dead: he is good for nothing, he is any thing rather than a man. This
  man seeks whom he may meet and kick or bite, so that he is not even a
  sheep or an ass, but a kind of wild beast.

Gelugpa scholars define a human being as:

A sentient being that is of the type of speaking and understanding.

Thus, it includes baby humans, since a baby is "of the type of speaking" but does not speak yet. It also excludes animals, since animals cannot come to speak even if one trains them (we can train them to dance, however!)
"speaking and understanding" must be taken together. Otherwise, one might say that animals are human beings because they have some level of understanding, or even some level of "speaking" since they express themselves and utter seemingly expressive sounds.
Anyway, the point is: there is no notion of "being human" in the common sense. A human being is not necessarily "human" the way you understand it.

The human state is described in SN 56.47 & elsewhere:

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

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

Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
  principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
  respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle’s wife or a
  teacher’s wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
  would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
  pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
  the world, there is discerned respect for mother… and the wives of
  other honored persons. AN 2.9

But i don't see this any characters in todays humans
Perhaps you should, it would be better if you did, see compassion towards others in other people?
There's a (non-Buddhist) saying that might be relevant: "The only way to have a friend is to be one."
Anyway, I wanted to quote from the Punna sutta:

"Lord, there is a country called Sunaparanta. I am going to live there."
"Punna, the Sunaparanta people are fierce. They are rough. If they insult and ridicule you, what will you think?"
"If they insult and ridicule me, I will think, 'These Sunaparanta people are civilized, very civilized, in that they don't hit me with their hands.' That is what I will think, O Blessed One. That is what I will think, O One Well-gone."
...
"Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see fit."

Is only self awareness enough to be a human being?
I think that from a Buddhist point of view, the good thing about being human is the ability to understand Dhamma.
There's also a koan called Joshu's dog:

Has a dog Buddha-nature?
This is the most serious question of all.
If you say yes or no,
You lose your own Buddha-nature.

I think that Buddhism teaches that "self" awareness isn't beneficial.


text:
Taking Refuge in the Dhamma
Friends, having heard in many a Dhamma talk references being made to the permanence of the Dhamma as refuge, I am looking for suttas in the Pali Canon evoking that very theme of permanence of the Dhamma.
Thank you for your much appreciated help.

Related Thig 13:1  Ambapālī https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Thig/thig13_1.html

The Pali here for "doesn’t change" is anaññathā, which appears to not mean "permanence": https://suttacentral.net/define/ana%C3%B1%C3%B1ath%C4%81

The Dhamma is described as timeless (akāliko).
From the Pali glossary:

akāliko:
      Timeless; unconditioned by time or season.

From SN 55.22:

"He/she is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma
  is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless,
  inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for
  themselves.'

From AN 6.47:

"... the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, inviting
  verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves."

From AN 3.40:

Now, the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One, to be seen here &
  now, timeless, inviting all to come & see, pertinent, to be seen
  by the wise for themselves. There are fellow practitioners of the
  chaste life who dwell knowing & seeing it.

You can also find this in AN 11.11, AN 11.12, AN 5.179, AN 10.92 and AN 3.70.
From this essay by Ajahn Sumedo:

The second refuge is in the Dhamma, in ultimate truth or ultimate
  reality. Dhamma is impersonal; we don’t in any way try to personify it
  to make it any kind of personal deity. When we chant in Pali the verse
  on Dhamma, we say it is ‘sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko
  paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi’. As Dhamma has no personal attributes, we
  can’t even say it is good or bad or anything that has any superlative
  or comparative quality; it is beyond the dualistic conceptions of
  mind.
So when we describe Dhamma or give an impression of it, we do it
  through words such as ‘sanditthiko’, which means immanent,
  here-and-now. That brings us back into the present; we feel a sense of
  immediacy, of now. You may think that Dhamma is some kind of thing
  that is ‘out there’, something you have to find elsewhere, but
  sanditthikodhamma means that it is immanent, here-and-now.
Akalikadhamma means that Dhamma is not bound by any time condition.
  The word akala means timeless. Our conceptual mind can’t conceive of
  anything that is timeless, because our conceptions and perceptions are
  time-based conditions, but what we can say is that Dhamma is akala,
  not bound by time.
Ehipassikadhamma means to come and see, to turn towards or go to the
  Dhamma. It means to look, to be aware. It is not that we pray to the
  Dhamma to come, or wait for it to tap us on the shoulder; we have to
  put forth effort. It is like Christ’s saying, ‘Knock on the door and
  it shall be opened.’ Ehipassiko means that we have to put forward that
  effort, to turn towards that truth.
Opanayiko means leading inwards, towards the peace within the mind.
  Dhamma doesn’t take us into fascination, into excitement, romance and
  adventure, but leads to Nibbana, to calm, to silence.
Paccattam veditabbo vinnuhi means that we can only know Dhamma through
  direct experience. It is like the taste of honey — if someone else
  tastes it, we still don’t know its flavour. We may know the chemical
  formula or be able to recite all the great poetry ever written about
  honey, but only when we taste it for ourselves do we really know what
  it is like. It is the same with Dhamma: we have to taste it, we have
  to know it directly.
Taking refuge in Dhamma is taking another safe refuge. It is not
  taking refuge in philosophy or intellectual concepts, in theories, in
  ideas, in doctrines or beliefs of any sort. It is not taking refuge in
  a belief in Dhamma, or a belief in God or in some kind of force in
  outer space or something beyond or something separate, something that
  we have to find sometime later. The descriptions of the Dhamma keep us
  in the present, in the here-and-now, unbound by time. Taking refuge is
  an immediate immanent reflection in the mind, it is not just repeating
  ‘Dhammam Saranam gacchami’ like a parrot, thinking, ‘Buddhists say
  this so I have to say it.’ We turn towards the Dhamma, we are aware
  now, take refuge in Dhamma, now as an immediate action, an immediate
  reflection of being the Dhamma, being that very truth.

I think akāliko means "immediately effective" or "without delay" rather than the "timelessness" inferred in this post. It means as soon as dhamma is practised (example, craving & attachment are abandoned), the result is immediate (example, liberation from dukkha).

Thanks for your taking the time anf effort to write down such a detailed answer.

The following phrase about the permanence of the Dhamma Law (Natural Truth) is found in both AN 3.136 and SN 12.20.

Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of
  the Dhamma.