text:
Seeking scriptural source for "all defilements temporarily suppressed when in jhana"
I've seen statements like "When one is in jhana, all defilements are suppressed temporarily." Is there any scriptural source for this?

Related: During jhana do you eliminate all hindrance at once?

AN 9.36 Jhana Sutta:

"'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said? There is the case where a monk, secluded (or "withdrawn") from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation [in the following way:] He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness [by thinking]: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.'

AN 4.123 adds:

He savors that, finds satisfaction through that.

AN 5.28 adds:

He permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal.
Just as if a skilled bathman or bathman's apprentice would pour bath powder into a brass basin and knead it together, sprinkling it again and again with water, so that his ball of bath powder — saturated, moisture-laden, permeated within and without — would nevertheless not drip; even so, the monk permeates, suffuses and fills this very body with the rapture and pleasure born of withdrawal. There is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by rapture and pleasure born from withdrawal...

This is why we sometimes say that kleshas are temporarily suspended while in Jhana, because you "withdraw" from them by "turning your mind away" from their objects - all the worldly pursuits, goals, and judgements.
Again, I insist: it's NOT like Jhana happens by itself and as its sideeffect brings all these good qualities. We deliberately turn away ("withdraw") from negative thoughts and we deliberately generate positive thoughts.
So it is misleading to say "all defilements are temporarily suppressed when in jhana" - we deliberately put them aside, we deliberately generate bliss - and that's how we enter jhana.

Above "AN 9.36 Jhana Sutta" included citta-samatha (jhāna) and sabbasaṅkhāra-samatha (nibbāna). So, IMO, the answer can be better, when you describe to separate them from each other.

Interesting, can you elaborate? I want to learn.

@ Andrei Volkov https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/77966/jhana

Thanks for that, Andrei. However, the seclusion/withdrawal from sensualities and unskillful qualities may not be the same act as turning one's mind away from "phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness". It seems to me the former is an act of samatha, while latter vipassana (since it "inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness").

@KumāraBhikkhu Interesting... In my opinion, "withdrawing" and "turning the mind away" are the same, and "having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness" - is a separate act. I wonder why you lump the last two together...?

The closest that I can find so far, from the Piti Sutta (AN 5.176):

[The Blessed One said:] "Excellent, Sariputta. Excellent. When a
  disciple of the noble ones enters & remains in seclusion & rapture,
  there are five possibilities that do not exist at that time: The pain
  & distress dependent on sensuality do not exist at that time. The
  pleasure & joy dependent on sensuality do not exist at that time. The
  pain & distress dependent on what is unskillful do not exist at that
  time. The pleasure & joy dependent on what is unskillful do not exist
  at that time. The pain & distress dependent on what is skillful do not
  exist at that time. When a disciple of the noble ones enters & remains
  in seclusion & rapture, these five possibilities do not exist at that
  time."

This means that only the pleasure and joy dependent on what is skillful can exist in jhana.
In AN 4.123 and AN 4.124 below, it is stated that one who enters jhana, has withdrawn from sensuality and unskillful qualities.

"There is the case where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality,
  withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first
  jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by
  directed thought & evaluation.

So, reading both parts of these suttas together, one withdraws from sensuality and unskillful qualities, and enters the first jhana, in which he can only experience the pleasure and joy dependent on what is skillful. He would not experience pleasure or joy or pain or distress from sensuality and unskillful qualities.
According to the "Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines" by Nyanatiloka Mahathera, on kilesa:

'defilements', are mind-defiling, unwholesome qualities. Vis.M. XXII,
  49, 65

Since the above suttas speak of one being in the first jhana as having withdrawn from sensuality and unwholesome (unskillful) qualities, and only experience the pleasure and joy dependent on that which is wholesome (skillful), we can say that all defilements are not present in the jhana state.
Since AN 4.123 states "where an individual, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana", this concurs with Andrei Volkov's statement that one enters the first jhana, only AFTER withdrawing from sensuality and unskillful qualities.

Thanks, Ruben. Nice find, and good analysis. However, AN 4.123 (pointed out by Andrei above), says one enjoys (assādeti) and desires (nikāmeti) the jhāna attained. That seems like defilement, doesn't it?

@KumāraBhikkhu At least the ten defilements of the Abhidhamma are suppressed in jhana.

@KumāraBhikkhu However jhanas could lead to clinging or attachment. Ajahn Chah wrote here, "Serenity is still part of the world of conditioned existence and conventional reality. Clinging to this type of peace is clinging to conventional reality, and as long as we cling, we will be mired in existence and rebirth. Delighting in the peace of samatha still leads to further existence and rebirth. Once the mind's restlessness and agitation calms down, one clings to the resultant peace."

So, it seems being secluded/withdrawn/separated from sensualities and unskillful qualities doesn't mean their absence.


text:
How can Name-and-form be the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate?
In SN 22.82 Buddha says Name and Form is the cause and condition for the manifestation of Consciousness aggregate.

“The four great elements, bhikkhu, are the cause and condition for the
  manifestation of the form aggregate. Contact is the cause and
  condition for the manifestation of the feeling aggregate. Contact is
  the cause and condition for the manifestation of the perception
  aggregate. Contact is the cause and condition for the manifestation of
  the volitional formations aggregate. Name-and-form is the cause and
condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.”

However while elucidating dependent origination Buddha says Consciousness is the cause and condition for Name and form.

This being so that is, beginning with the arising of this that arises,
  thus: because of ignorance there are volitional processes, because of
  volitional processes: consciousness, because of consciousness: mind
and body, because of mind and body: the six sense-spheres, because of
  the six sense-spheres: contact, because of contact: feeling, because
  of feeling: craving, because of craving: attachment, because of
  attachment: continuation, because of continuation: birth, because of
  birth: old age, death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair
  all arise, and so there is an origination of this whole great mass of
  suffering.

My question is : Is this a contradiction ? If not then please explain how?

Where in dependant origination it says "Volitional formations as the cause and condition for Contact "?

@SankhaKulathantille volitional processes leads to consciousness leads to mind and body which leads to six-sense sphere which  leads to contact. Therefore volitional formations are cause and condition for contact. Another apparent contradiction appears when Buddha says consciousness as the cause and condition for name and form. In dependent origination consciousness leads to mind and body.

In dependant origination, when we talk about the cause, we talk about the proximate cause. If you are going to skip steps and compare to suttas, it might appear confusing.

The second example doesn't skip step. According to dependent origination consciousness is the cause and condition for mind("because of consciousness: mind and body") and body whereas in the sutta 22.82 ,which I have mentioned above, Buddha says  "Name-and-form is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate." The only difference I see is in the naming of consciousness as consciousness aggregate.

If you edit the question to focus on that, it can be answered.

From the Mahanidana Sutta (DN15):

"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does contact come?'
  one should say, 'Contact comes from name-and-form as its requisite
  condition.'
"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does name-and-form
  come?' one should say, 'Name-and-form comes from consciousness as its
  requisite condition.'
"If one is asked, 'From what requisite condition does consciousness
  come?' one should say, 'Consciousness comes from name-and-form as its
  requisite condition.'
"Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes
  consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes
  name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes
  contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From
  feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a
  requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite
  condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes
  birth. From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the
  origination of this entire mass of stress.

Did you notice the loop?
Piya Tan in his commentary on Dependent Origination, talks about five versions of Dependent Origination in the Pali suttas:

Roderick S Bucknell (1999) identifies five main variations or versions
  of dependent arising: the standard version(s), the branched
  version, the looped version, the Sn (Sutta nipāta) version and the
  ancestor of the standard version.
The looped version is so called because it represents consciousness
  and name-and-form as mutually conditioning each other,
   and "this causal loop is confirmed when the series is reiterated in
  summary in the  "normal" or forward direction," thus:
Conditioned by name-and-form is consciousness.
  Conditioned by consciousness is name-and-form.
  Conditioned by name-and-form is contact
The most famous example of the looped version is found in the
  Mahā Nidāna Sutta ; other examples  are  found in the
  Nala, kalapiya Sutta and  the Mahâpadāna Sutta.

The Mahanidana Sutta (DN15) continues in its explanation:

Name-and-form
"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If
  consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would
  name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"No, lord."
"If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart,
  would name-and-form be produced for this world?"
"No, lord."
"If the consciousness of the young boy or girl were to be cut off,
  would name-and-form ripen, grow, and reach maturity?"
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
  is a requisite condition for name-and-form, i.e., consciousness."
Consciousness
"'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If
  consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a
  coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress
  in the future be discerned?
"No, lord."
"Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this
  is a requisite condition for consciousness, i.e., name-and-form.
"This is the extent to which there is birth, aging, death, passing
  away, and re-arising. This is the extent to which there are means of
  designation, expression, and delineation. This is the extent to which
  the sphere of discernment extends, the extent to which the cycle
  revolves for the manifesting (discernibility) of this world — i.e.,
  name-and-form together with consciousness.

Piya Tan explains this in his same commentary on Dependent Origination:

However, in the looped versions of Diagram 5b, the nāma-rūpa
  that feeds viññāṇa is what, in Abhidhamma, is called the
  bhav’aṅga,  the “birth continuum.”  At the moment of dying, this
  bhav’aṅga is the cuti-citta, “death-consciousness,”
  and is also the  paṭisandhi citta,  “rebirth-consciousness”
  of the next life.
  The modern term for this is the existential consciousness .

So, DN15 says that name-and-form is the condition for consciousness, which is the condition for name-and-form, which is the condition for contact. This is in the looped version of Dependent Origination.
Based on Piya Tan's explanation, the first name-and-form is from the previous life, which is the condition for consciousness. This consciousness, at death, is what the Abhidhamma calls cuti-citta or the "death consciousness" of the previous life, and is the same patisandhi citta or "rebirth consciousness" of the new life. This consciousness, is the requisite condition for the name-and-form of the next life. The second name-and-form is therefore the name-and-form of the next life. This is very clearly proven by the DN15 quote:

"'From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If
  consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would
  name-and-form take shape in the womb?"
"'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness.'
  Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how from
  name-and-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness. If
  consciousness were not to gain a foothold in name-and-form, would a
  coming-into-play of the origination of birth, aging, death, and stress
  in the future be discerned?

This answer is wrong because SN 22.82 says the four elements are the cause (hetu) of "rupa" where as Dependent Origination says consciousness is the condition (paccaya) for "rupa" (and "nama"). The paragraph in the question from SN 22.82 is not about dependent origination, which is why the same paragraph says contact is the cause of feeling, the cause of perception and the cause of sankhara (where as Dependent Origination says ignorance is the cause of sankhara and where Dependent Origination does mention perception, except in the nama link, which is conditioned by consciousness).

"SN 12.39 begins with three synonyms for saṅkhāra, willing, intending (pakappeti) and carrying out (anuseti). It then states that "this becomes an object (arammanam) for the persistence of consciousness (viññanassa-thitiya)" which leads to the appearance of name and form."

In dependant origination, Vinnana refers to the Patisandhi Citta. In other words, the first Bhavaanga citta in your current life. This is way before the senses are developed.
Consciousness aggregate refers to awareness aspect of the sensory experiences. In other words; the eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness etc. The mind and body cause the six senses and the six senses cause contact(Passa). Consciousness aggregate is a part of contact. Ex: Eye contact is simply form, eye and eye-consciousness.
Even when the senses are not fully developed, the union of name and form allows for the arising of the mind-consciousness. Hence the name-and-form is the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate.

Patisandhi Citta is not mentioned in the suttas

@Dhammadhatu The term "patisandhi citta" may be found only in the Abhidhamma. But the Pali suttas, while not using this term, have definitely defined the concept. DN15 states "And this is the way to understand how from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-and-form. If consciousness were not to descend into the mother's womb, would name-and-form take shape in the womb?"

No. Nama-rupa in DN 15 refers to permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group. Therefore, if the mother's consciousness does not descend into the womb, the mother cannot impute permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of her child. Please read the sutta. While the Buddha probably did not speak DN 15 due to its many contradictions with the main body of the suttas, regardless, DN 15 does not say what you are saying.

@ruben2020 is right. And if you notice your quote from mahānidānasutta is using "okkama"-word, which I quoted in the 2nd example of this answer: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/26519/10100

The Buddhist scholar commits a serious blunder by placing the Theravadin concept of causality on the same level as the modern scientific concept of causality. From a modern point of view, an event (especially in physiology, psychology, and medicine) is generally understood to have a multitude of contributing causes based upon hundreds of years of scientific research. In modern science, very few events have a single necessary and sufficient cause, except for trivial examples. Hence, when the Buddha said “X is the cause and condition for the manifestation of Y,” a scientist would read “X is a contributing cause of the manifestation of Y.” In other words, when the Buddha was speaking to an uneducated audience, he referred to a concept of causality that lacked complexity and sophistication. The concept of causality that arises from the practice of vipassana is far more sophisticated and far more challenging to articulate. The practice of vipassana generates psychological insight into both the causes of and the influence of personal examples of sankhara (so-called “karmic formations”). For example, through vipassana, we may gain psychological insight into how our early experiences of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse caused us to develop a very specific mental disorder that, in turn, caused us a lot of suffering. The concept of dependent origination does not come close to explaining such complex causality. Consider, for example, the notion that “From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming.” From this, we conclude clinging to be the cause of suffering. This is nonsense. The reality is that (1) contact causally contributes to feelings only under special circumstances and there are many causes of feeling, (2) feelings causally contribute to craving only under special circumstances and there are many causes of craving, (3) craving causally contributes to clinging only under special circumstances and there are many causes of clinging, and (4) clinging causally contributes to becoming (the formation of unwholesome sankhara) only under special circumstances and there are many causes of sankhara. In my view, anyone who advocates the concept of dependent origination to be an adequate substitute for a modern scientific understanding of the causes of suffering performs a profound disservice to the Buddhist community. It is nonetheless true that vipassana can lead to psychological insights that are more profound than those provided by modern psychology, but these insights are extremely difficult to acquire and even more difficult to articulate.
A very advanced state of vipassana consists of the fourth level of mindfulness meditation in which a person becomes directly aware of both physical and mental causality. It was from this state of mind that Sariputra was able to write the Theravadin Abhidharma. This state of meditation opens a window to a vast exploration of how the mental and physical universe unfolds in great detail. Eventually, scientists will gain access to this state of awareness and physics and psychology will undergo great expansion. It is important to understand that this expansion will engage an extremely challenging process of articulation and explanation.
Question: How can name and form be the cause and condition for the manifestation of the consciousness aggregate?
Answer: In the cycle of rebirth, the content (form) of experience in a lifetime and how we understand that experience (how we “name” it) has a causal influence (through learning) on the consciousness (awareness) of future lifetimes (along with a great multitude of other causal factors).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Kamma associated with "Provocation"
The question is: How does Kamma associate with "provocation"?
Example 1:
A says to B "Hit/kill me if you dare."
Example 2:
A tells B that killing is justified if the cause is right.
In the above examples, and if B did the hitting/killing after the provocation, who's kamma is worse? A or B? And Why?

Kamma is largly based on intention...in both the cases you have given the intention is not clear.
Moreover Kamma is not some measurable quantity that can be quantified...so you cannot ask such questions like whose Kamma is more bad...

Thanks for the answer. Initially, i was basing my example on certain scenarios. Example 1 for scenarios from family/relationship disputes...etc.  Example 2 for scenarios such as war / military / terrorists... which all of these scenarios involve a lot of emotional provocation that leads to very bad actions..

Example 1: A commits bad Karma for provocation. B commits bad karma for hitting/killing. B's Karma is usually severe than A's for breaking the first precept.
Example 2: A commits bad karma for being ignorant or for lying. B commits bad karma for killing. B's Karma is usually severe than A's for breaking the first precept unless A's actions were caused by extremely strong ignorant views.

Thanks for the answer.
In example 1, does "A" break the precept of only 'False speech' ?
In example 2, if it was a military commander persuading front-line soldiers to kill their enemies, the kamma for front-lines are still much worse than the commander because they had the 'intention' + 'action' of breaking the first precept? Whereas the commander only had 'intention' ?

Provocation isn't false speech. Military commander persuading soldiers to kill will get the karma for  all the kills committed by soldiers on his instructions. Whereas a soldier is only responsible for the kills he commit.

Thank you, I think it clears my confusion now. I was also thinking about politicians/gov officials who support wars, maybe they also get the kamma for all the kills associated with that war too.

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


text:
Feeling of unbecoming & losing I-hood
There is an entity called Rohit (knowing subject) who has his own liking,  disliking,  habits etc. Or maybe these liking, disliking,  habits etc make up the entity called Rohit. By constant awareness of self identification ( and eliminating things which I'm not) , I have started losing I-ness. It is difficult to explain in entirety but it is like death of the entity. Although this death of the entity giving a sense of peace and thoughtlessness, but it has started giving fears also. Fear of losing self - all liking, disliking etc along with social associations. It's kind of void & nihilism.  It's like vanishing of selfhood & my own existence.
So,  my question is what should I do in this situation? Why it is happening? Should I go ahead against fears & continue my endeavor of non identification or I should  step back (stopping the meditation & start identification again)? Or If I continue in unbecoming,  what are the suggestions would you give?
Note: I'm aware of paradoxes I used while posting details, ignore them as there is no any way to ask other than using 'I' wherever required.

My teacher made a few points in connection with this. Now that I got to this point in my own practice I'm beginning to understand what he meant.
When the illusion of self is lost... motivation that animates most people is no longer there. There's no impulsion to engage in projects or entertainment activities. Projects may seem meaningless and entertainment - empty. This makes it hard to relate with people. Buddha said, the mind of "one like this" is inclined towards seclusion. This does not happen overnight, but develops gradually. When this starts happening to you - do not freak out. This is normal. There's nothing wrong with you. On the flip side, you may find yourself enjoying nature a lot more than before. Enlightened mind goes well with nature, so don't hesitate to spend more time out in the wild.
Nevertheless, sometimes there may be sudden longing for "normal life". You can try it if you want, but be aware: at some point you won't be able to play samsaric games anymore, you just won't function the same way as before. There are anecdotes in Buddhist tradition about people going insane trying to fit back with the normal. Don't force it. It's okay to be different.
At some point you may start worrying that you don't know what to do with your time. My teacher said, it's best to follow your instincts, listen to your heart. Once you develop enough connection with Bodhicitta through meditation and no-self, your instincts purify, they no longer come from egoistic impulses, so you should trust them. If you feel like not doing anything, or even taking a nap - it's perfectly okay. Eventually you get sensitive to reality giving hints and inviting your participation. My teacher said, when enlightened activity is liberated from pressure of judgment, it becomes spontaneous and creative. There's no need to push that though, it comes from your suchness and inner peace.
You may find yourself having hard time sleeping same number of hours you're used to. The thing is, you don't have to sleep same hours anymore. As you integrate with your "other mind" your brain no longer requires as much sleep. Don't force yourself. When you do sleep, you may have strange dreams: walking through walls, staying lucid inside dreams, and other weird things. Don't worry about this. Some of it may be good signs of the changes going inside you, and some is just noise. Trust your instincts on what's what.
At some point you may stop recognizing yourself in a mirror. Don't worry about this, you're not going insane.
In general, a good rule of thumb is to "leave your mind as open as the sky, but keep your action as pure as the flour". Meaning, as long as you don't engage in immoral uncompassionate action (physical, verbal, or mental), you can relax and let your selflessness drive.
Finally, all my teachers said, at some point you are supposed to naturally and effortlessly get over this highly polarized selflessness/seclusion phase and reach the level when there's no difference between your meditation mind and the mind you have when walking in the busy marketplace. At that point you can integrate both worlds, your regular mind is meditation and your regular action is setting example of peace to everyone you encounter. As with all this stuff, pushing it is counterproductive, it has to grow by itself from the full maturity of the selflessness.
These are some of the main things that come to mind. Some of this I know from my own experience, and some only from words of my teachers, but I hope it's all accurate and is helpful to someone. Good luck to us all.

If I may ask, who is your teacher?

I had a few. First was a Russian guy. Second was an American. And then there were two Korean guys. It doesn't matter who they are, for simplicity I usually just say "my teacher".

Don't try to conceptualize what is happening. Simply stay aware and let-go.

If you have reached to that point, have courage. Obviously you will be afraid, it is the death of ego, a conscious death.

Some wisdom from the Buddha,

There are only two mistakes a man can make on the path of Nibbana, one is never starting at all and second is not walking till the end.

Again as the Buddha said,

Charaiveti Charaiveti.

Edit: The third point is a fake buddha quote. My bad.
The fourth one is apperently what the Buddha said at the end of every discourse. Meaning, ' go-on go-on'. This has been said by some,  but there is not strong evidential cititation. But feels like right.

Can you source those quotes? I can't find (a source for) the first, and the second sounds like the Rig Veda.

@ChrisW apperently it was a fake buddha quote. I didnt knew that until I just checked. And Charaivati Charaiveti means keep walking, keep walking, this is something the Buddha used to say after every discourse...this I have herd from several Indians...but I havent got any evedential citation for this. But it sounds right. As many said it I assumed it to be true.

By constant awareness of self identification ( and eliminating
  things which I'm not) , I have started losing I-ness.

The above sounds like the practise of Hindu meditation (rather than Buddhist Anapanasati).
Losing "I-ness" but not completely is not difficult to explain. It is easy to explain. It is precisely the "death" ("marana") of "the entity" ("jati") the Buddha explained in Dependent Origination .
Although this "death" ("marana") of "the entity" ("satta-jati") is giving a initial sense of some peace and thoughtlessness, you ("the entity") is not committed to Nibbana and you ("the entity") is not ready to "cease" ("nirodha"). You ("the entity") is not practising to end suffering but sound like you are playing games with meditation.
What you should do in this situation is to stop fondling (playing) with meditation, be it Buddhist meditation or Hindu meditation, and return to ordinary worldly life. The Buddha did not teach anatta (not-self) meditation to worldlings.
The Buddha explained this situation in the following sutta:

On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Kosambī on the bank of
  the river Ganges. The Blessed One saw a great log being carried along
  by the current of the river Ganges and he addressed the bhikkhus thus:
  “Do you see, bhikkhus, that great log being carried along by the
  current of the river Ganges?”
"If, bhikkhus, that log does not veer towards the near shore, does not
  veer towards the far shore, does not sink in mid-stream, does not get
  cast up on high ground, does not get caught by human beings, does not
  get caught by nonhuman beings, does not get caught in a whirlpool, and
  does not become inwardly rotten, it will slant, slope, and incline
  towards the ocean. For what reason? Because the current of the river
  Ganges slants, slopes, and inclines towards the ocean.
“So too, bhikkhus, if you do not veer towards the near shore, do not
  veer towards the far shore, do not sink in mid-stream, do not get cast
  up on high ground, do not get caught by human beings, do not get
  caught by nonhuman beings, do not get caught in a whirlpool, and do
  not become inwardly rotten, you will slant, slope, and incline towards
  Nibbāna. For what reason? Because right view slants, slopes, and
  inclines towards Nibbāna.”
‘Sinking in mid-stream’: this is a designation for delight and lust.
  ‘Getting cast up on high ground’: this is a designation for the
  conceit ‘I am.’
‘Getting caught in a whirlpool’: this, bhikkhu, is a designation for
  the five cords of sensual pleasure.
SN 35.241

I guess there are two ways to see a duality.
One was is "All or nothing" ... and that's the message I'm hearing in your question: "All liking, disliking, habits, and social associations are ... they're old, and, they're selfish, and, associated with delusion ... and this 'all' should be (or will be, is being) replaced by 'nothing' -- i.e. to lose all liking, disliking etc., along with social associations, with a tendency toward a kind of void & nihilism."
A slightly different view, I think, is "unskillful versus skillful", or "delusion versus knowledge", etc. According to this doctrine you don't replace "all" with "nothing" -- instead you replace delusion with wisdom, and so on.
The question i.e. ...

Should I go ahead against fears & continue my endeavor of non identification or I should step back (stopping the meditation & start identification again)? Or If I continue in unbecoming, what are the suggestions would you give?

... sounds like a duality (continue towards nihilism, or go back towards identification), but there may be a third option (e.g. proceeding but towards right view, or something like that).
Note for example that:

The "three poisons" are said to have "Opposite wholesome qualities"
Losing (all) social associations doesn't sound quite right -- I know that the doctrine praises seclusion and renunciation, but also Association with the Wise (see also kalyāna-mitta)
There's doctrine about remaining engaged or active in society -- see e.g. the Brahmaviharas, and maybe something like this book -- or see vīrya for example: I assume that's "energy" not only for or during meditation but also other activities, and the other "perfections" too are not nihilist

One last bit of advice, I guess, is that one reason why there is no self is that existence (or the state of the "person") is conditioned by experience and environment -- there are things you'll know if you go to school, there are habits you'll form if you do this or that, or associate with various people. So consider what environment, what experiences, might be ... might be "virtuous", for want of a better word, or "skilful" ... or "praised by the wise", to quote from one of the suttas.

The Noble Eightfold Path is balanced in the development of virtue (sila), concentration (samadhi) and panna (wisdom).
Sila is composed of Right Speech, Right Action and Right Livelihood.
Samadhi is composed of Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.
Panna is composed of Right View and Right Resolve / Intention.
The forerunner of the path is Right View.
The path includes the cultivation of wisdom and insight, in order to uproot the ten fetters.
In order to pursue both insight and concentration, first virtues (sila) must be well-established according to the Kimattha Sutta. Lay people are not discouraged from meditation - please see this answer.
There are also more tips regarding meditation involving the use of the middle way, including getting moderate sleep, food and sensual experiences, according to the tips by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu in Chapter Six of his book "How to Meditate", which is entitled "Daily Life".
Perhaps, you want to review your progress so far, and ask yourself if you are truly progressing in a balanced way, taking into account all eight parts of the Noble Eightfold Path. The path to the end of suffering should not be reduced to meditation only.
Experiencing fear of losing your self, is a sign that you may not be ready yet to go deeper, or your path is not balanced. I can't tell you what is not right - you may need to find a proper teacher to instruct you further. A proper teacher should ensure that you continue on the Middle Way with the Right View, rather than falling into either extremes of practice (over-asceticism) or extremes of view (eternalism or annihilationhism).
It is also possible that when you are ready to go deeper, it makes more sense to leave the lay life (which is incompatible with losing interest in material concerns) and move to becoming a anagarika or novice monk, adhering to the Eight Precepts or Ten Precepts.

The answer here is not relevant to the question. I marked it down. No amount of sil (morality) can stop the terror when the self construct collapses and dies. The death of the "self" is "marana". "Marana" is not physical death but what the questioner is explaining. Those that cling to false dhamma of rebirth can never understand this.

@Dhammadhatu 'cling to FALSE dhamma of rebirth' can you please explain this part.

Updated answer to be more relevant to the question.

Each time the mind believes in reincarnation; this is a becoming; this is egoism. As for the true dhamma of rebirth; it is each time self-view is reborn in the mind.


text:
How should I express Mudita or Joy for all beings?
In Mudita meditation or Joy Meditation I am supposed to experience Joy for all beings. But I don't know which aspect of living beings is worth celebrating.
My question is : How should I express Mudita or Joy for all beings?
EDIT: To support my mental dilemma I quote Maiterya.

Just as there can be no pleasant fragrance in a cesspit There is no
  joy among the five classes of beings.
– Maitreya
Uttaratantra Shastra, IV, 50

The aspect that I celebrate: that despite all the difficulties, suffering, dirt, cynicism, pain etc. people still find strength to be positive, to love, to forgive, and to create beauty. Especially people who have seen difficulties are often the kindest and the most understanding of all. I think this is very beautiful.

When I see people without strength to be positive , to love , to forgive and to create beauty should I lose my Mudita ?

You should switch to Karuna

70% people in the world struggle everyday to earn their daily bread. Most people live life driven by lust and desire which will lead to great suffering in future. Unfortunately I do not find any reason to be glad except for the reason that Buddha has given us the hope to escape from bondage. Karuna and Metta works for all beings at all times. But Mudita seems to be misplaced. Mudita seems to be antidote for jealousy. I do not feel jealous because as I see it people are suffering or are going to suffer. To see it clearly let us ask what is there to be glad about the poor and outcaste?

Moms still love their children, and children still love their moms. Friends are happy when they see each other after a long break. The puppies are still playing in the dust. People fall in love for the first time. The flowers bloom and the clouds flow. The sun rises every morning. To see this world as beauty and perfection is the greatest achievement of a bodhisattva. "The sacred outlook" is a choice we make.

Anumodanā is expressing joy to wholesome-causes, actions (all living beings), which will give good effects.
Muditā is expressing joy to wholesome's effects, resultants (all living beings), which gave from good causes.
So, you should express your joy to all  wholesome's resultants, but you should not express your joy to all unwholesome-actions.
Ex: a thief rob successfully without arrest. This case, we muditā to the thief's "living without arrest" (resultants), but we don't anumodanā with his thieving (actions). And we don't say/feel "serves you right" to that thief, because we are being muditā, not being jealous (muditā's enemy) him.
Note:
Resultant (effect) = resultant-paṭiccasamuppāda, such as vipākaviññāṇa/nāmarūpa/salāyatana/phassa/vedanā/uppattibhava/jāti/jarā/maraṇa.
Action (cause) = avijjā/saṅkhāra/taṇhā/upādāna/kammbhava.
By that paṭiccasamuppāda, all thieves' living being are effects of past live wholesome-action, because if not, he should be in apāya.
All as a living being (satta), not paramattha.

I am having little difficulty in understanding the answer. As I understand you are saying that all beings will experience result of my wholesome actions therefore I should be glad for all beings. It would be great if you can elaborate a little more.

Ex: a thief rob successfully without arrest. This case, we muditā to the thief's "living without arrest" (resultants), but we don't anumodanā with his thieving (actions). And we don't say/feel "serves you right" to that thief, because we are being muditā, not being jealous ([muditā's enemy][1]) him.

ok. Suppose a thief enters your home to steal, will you feel Mudita? and why ? What is the wholesome resultant of theft ? No one does meditation on Anumodana. Why ? I want to express my gladness for all beings at all times just as Metta and Karuna can be expressed for all beings at all times.

Anāgāmi&arahanta will be mudita. You can not do, it doesn't mean anāgāmi&arahanta will can not too.

@chrisW I can't understand him, why he ask what I already answered?

@DheerajVerma you can not muditā  to the thieves, so you can not archives unlimited-muditā-meditation. I said we muditā to an effect, resultants-paṭiccasamuppāda (as aliving being;satta;not paramaṭṭha). And that's why we can meditate unlimited-muditā-meditation to all thieves. If the muditā-practitioners do like you, they can not meditate muditā-meditation to be unlimited.

Can you remember how to destroy sīmasambheda in visuddhimagga mettā-brahmmavihāra? You have to meditate sīmasambheda-muditā-brahmmavihāra, too. That's call unlimited.

@ChrisW That's why we have abhidhamma. Resultant (effect) = resultant-paṭiccasamuppāda, such as vipākaviññāṇa/nāmarūpa/salāyatana/phassa/vedanā/uppattibhava/jāti/jarā/maraṇa. Action (cause)=avijjā/saṅkhāra/taṇhā/upādāna/kammbhava.

By that paṭiccasamuppāda, all thieves' living being are effects of past live wholesome-action, because if not, he should be in apāya.

Here's an excerpt from the Visuddhimagga (The Path of Purification) authored by Buddhaghosa in the 5th century. It's entitled "The Meditative Development of Unselfish Joy":

One who begins the development of unselfish joy should not start with
  dearly beloved person, a neutral person or hostile person. For it is
  not the mere fact that a person is dearly beloved, which makes him an
  immediate cause of developing unselfish joy, and still less so neutral
  or hostile person. Persons of the opposite sex and those who are dead
  are not suitable subjects for this meditation.
A very close friend, however, can be a suitable subject. One who is
  called in the commentaries an affectionate companion; for he is always
  in a joyous mood: he laughs first and speaks afterwards. He should be
  the first to be pervaded with unselfish joy. Or on seeing or hearing
  about a dear person being happy, cheerful, and joyous, unselfish joy
  can be aroused thus: "This being, verily, is happy! How good, how
  excellent!" For this is what is referred to in the Vibhanga: "And how
  does a bhikkhu dwell pervading one direction with his heart imbued
  with unselfish joy? Just as he would be joyful on seeing a dear and
  beloved person, so he pervades all being with unselfish joy" (Vibhanga
  274).
But if his affectionate friend or the dear person was happy in the
  past but is now unlucky and unfortunate, then unselfish joy can still
  be aroused by remembering his past happiness; or by anticipating that
  he will be happy and successful again in the future.
Having thus aroused unselfish joy with respect to a dear person, the
  meditator can then direct it towards a neutral one, and after that
  towards a hostile one.
But if resentment towards the hostile one arises in him, he should
  make it subside in the same way as described under the exposition of
  loving-kindness.
He should then break down the barriers by means of impartiality
  towards the four, that is, towards these three and himself. And by
  cultivating the sign (or after-image, obtained in concentration),
  developing and repeatedly practicing it, he should increase the
  absorption to triple or (according to the Abhidhamma division)
  quadruple jhana.
Next, the versatility (in this meditation) should be understood in the
  same way as stated under loving-kindness. It consists in:
(a) Unspecified pervasion in these five ways:
      "May all beings... all breathing things... all creatures... all persons... all those who have a personality be free from enmity,
  affliction, and anxiety, and live happily!"
(b) Specified pervasion in
  these seven ways:
      "May all women... all men... all Noble Ones... all not Noble Ones... all deities... all human beings... all in states of misery (in
  lower worlds) be free from enmity, etc."
(c) Directional pervasion in
  these ten ways:
      "May all beings (all breathing things, etc.; all women, etc.) in the eastern direction... in the western direction... northern...
  southern direction... in the intermediate eastern, western, northern,
  and southern direction... in the downward direction... in the upward
  direction be free from enmity, etc."
This versatility is successful only in one whose mind has reached
  absorption (jhana).
When this meditator develops the mind-deliverance of unselfish joy
  through any of these kinds of absorption he obtains these eleven
  advantages: he sleeps in comfort, wakes in comfort, and dreams no evil
  dreams, he is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings, deities
  guard him, fire and poison and weapons do not affect him, his mind is
  easily concentrated, the expression of his face is serene, he dies
  unconfused, if he penetrates no higher he will be reborn in the Brahma
  World (A v 342).

Good answer but suppose I see a hadicapped poor person for the first time then what is there to be glad about ? I don't know his past and I know that he will suffer in the future. How can I be glad for all beings ? I can only be glad for beings who are happy now and will be happy in the future. What is the intrinsic nature of life which makes me glad for all beings?

I've seen it used in three or four contexts:

It's sometimes said, in a context in which you might expect to hear Sadhu! Sadhu! Sadhu!
Given that understanding Dhamma is the highest good, you might appreciate someone's virtue or good fortune, when they show evidence of that or share that.
It's described as an antidote for envy or jealousy -- i.e. as an alternative to feeling envious of someone's success -- for example here:

If this potential for unselfish joy is widely and methodically encouraged and developed, starting with the Buddhist child (or, for that matter, with any child) and continued with adults (individuals and Buddhist groups, including the Sangha), the seed of mudita can grow into a strong plant which will blossom forth and find fruition in many other virtues, as a kind of beneficial "chain reaction": magnanimity, tolerance, generosity (of both heart and purse), friendliness, and compassion. When unselfish joy grows, many noxious weeds in the human heart will die a natural death (or will, at least, shrink): jealousy and envy, ill will in various degrees and manifestations, cold-heartedness, miserliness (also in one's concern for others), and so forth. Unselfish joy can, indeed, act as a powerful agent in releasing dormant forces of the Good in the human heart.
We know very well how envy and jealousy (the chief opponents of unselfish joy) can poison a man's character as well as the social relationships on many levels of his life. They can paralyze the productivity of society, on governmental, professional, industrial, and commercial levels. Should not, therefore, all effort be made to cultivate their antidote, that is mudita?

The same quote (above) continues, that it's also an antidote to "a condescending and patronizing attitude":

Mudita will also vitalize and ennoble charitable and social work. While compassion (karuna [karu.naa]) is, or should be, the inspiration for it, unselfish joy should be its boon companion. Mudita will prevent compassionate action from being marred by a condescending and patronizing attitude which often repels or hurts the recipient. Also, when active compassion and unselfish joy go together, it will be less likely that works of service turn into dead routine performed indifferently. Indifference, listlessness, boredom (all nuances of the Pali term arati) are said to be the 'distant enemies' of mudita. They can be vanquished by an alliance of compassion and unselfish joy.

Perhaps it may be used in a more general situation:

If someone really has no problems, that's great, they are Enlightened! The historical Buddha (According to Stephen Batchelor's retelling) said as much on his death bed, when he asked if anyone had any questions left, no one did, so he said, well you all must be enlightened then. People need Buddhism when their current raft has sunk. If there is food on the table, a comfortable place to sleep, and they have no complaints about their daily routine, then our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success (mudita).

So as well as being an antidote to jealousy, perhaps it's also an antidote to excess of compassion.
I read (unfortunately I haven't been able to find it again) an article explaining, about the the four brahmaviharas, that sometimes one is an antidote to an excess of another -- for example if you feel too much of one, then you might want some equanimity. Perhaps similarly if you feel too much 'pity', then you might want some mudita, to consider what the person does have in the way good fortune or attainment.

I do not feel jealous about anybody but I wish to warn them of their 'success' stories. Most success stories lead to attachment which will ultimately lead to great suffering. What kind of success I can anticipate in life which will lead me towards gladness for ALL beings?

I guess you're saying you're tempted to go around telling everyone, "Don't be happy, it's all a trap, you're going to lose everything you have and die." I guess that kind of fear, though, is part of the problem which Buddhism is meant to solve. If someone isn't feeling that fear, I don't think it's my job to tell them that they ought to, instead (as quoted above) "our jobs as Buddhists is to rejoice in their success". Also I think that "they're going to die" is a fabrication of mine -- no need to project that fabrication onto them.

What kind of success I can anticipate In the case of my mum for example, I'm hoping she'll lead a virtuous life -- doing good, being kind, helping others, not hurting others -- as a result of which, I hope she will experience no remorse.

To express Mudita or Joy for all beings, means cultivating Mudita Meditation ?
From most common brahmavihara (Maithree) to most difficult an un-attempted brahmavihara (Mudita) of cultivation of the four (04) brahmaviharas.
If I ask myself the question : How can I cultivate Mudita ?
Simple answer is to lessen (mitigate) or to reduce the intensity of feeling envy or jealousy over others' actions, words and achievements etc.
Before being joyful in one's happiness (which is very difficult unless I am abnormally a thorough practitioner of cultivating  brahmaviharas, and close to a quality of person attaining near self-actualization (or a Bodhisathva)) I should try to be devoid of envy of other people's happiness.
If tiny bit of jealousy or envy is left in our mind we cannot begin mudita meditation.The mudita meditation begins at the endpoint of non-envy and non-joy in others' happiness or well-being. That is when I am unmoved by one's own happiness or sorrow for that matter.
From that point onward, I can cultivate mudita meditation with ease. Because I am devoid of envy and I am honestly longing for mudita. So henceforth my mind would be upstream MUDITA and I have no hindering thoughts over being joyful in others' joy.
So I should say myself, that now I am on the threshold of practising Mudita Meditation meaningfully and diligently and effectively.
So foremost prerequisite of Mudita meditation is to nullify whatever envy, jealousy over others' behaviour and achievements.
Mudita meditation begins from the point of no-envy.

Sadhu for pointing on voidness of maccharia! Maybe some in addition to it here: What's the reason that stinginess (macchariya) would disappear? and may Nyom expand his answer, certainly trying to practice mudita, starting by appreciate ones own done causes for happiness (merits).

First of all one has to associate with people who practice mudita in daily live and are joyful in sharing their merits. This is something one would not easy find in "outer lands" (i.e. outside a monastery).
Second, to not practice it wrong, one has to know and understand what is a good and a bad deed, a conductive attainment or a hindrance -- otherwise you could possibly think that looking at popstars, and people jumping while watching them, is a place for proper mudita. That's a place for karuna...
Mudita means to remember and honor good attainments of other beings -- where there are no beings who had not done good, or accumulate good, in the present or past. If dwelling under people with wrong view, if even such as appreciation is usual, one would just increase one's defilements.
There is a list of reasons and people who are incapable of mudita, mostly caused by stinginess (macchariya), and aside of mind connected with unskillfullness, traders are counted to be incapable for appreciation.
Some may think of reflecting on a "Buddhanature", but actually mudita is the right way to do that. Understanding "Buddhanature", seeing the reason what to appreciate in all beings so to develop mudita in the context of Buddha's good teachings is worthy to understand; and of course, people from a Bodhisatta background have a better training in the basics of mudita (yet often with wrong view, such as inherent goodness).
For more and detail explaining see:  Sharing merits - Freude teilen (pattanumodana & pattidana) [Forum Guide]
And since maccharia (stinginess) or amudita makes it impossible to reach even Jhana, not to speak about path or fruits, this words might be useful in addition: What's the reason that stinginess (macchariya) would disappear?
My person missed that the question includes already the wise detail question, Sadhu!
But I don't know which aspect of living beings is worth celebrating.
What ever of the real treasures, causes for such or effects by receiving the results can be seen and traced in beings.
And what are the real treasures?

"There are these seven treasures. Which seven? The treasure of conviction, the treasure of virtue, the treasure of conscience, the treasure of concern, the treasure of listening, the treasure of generosity, the treasure of discernment. ...Dhana Sutta: Treasure

See further topic to get into detail if wished, since discussion, exchange for clarification, is not welcome here: [Q&A] How should I express Mudita or Joy for all beings?
[Since a gift with mudita is not an approval of inproper not to happiness leading attainments: this is not given for trade, exchanges or other stock increasing bond to world.]

I approved your edit but it would be simpler if you "registered" your user account, so that only have one account. I'm not sure why your accounts are unregistered -- perhaps you didn't reply to the email which was sent to your email address.

Atma would not take an account, Nyom. Appreciation for the deed of offering (but my person thinks that Nyom is not the owner). Atma uses two devices and what ever they and the cookies might made. That's why two (auto-)accounts at this time, probably good if deleting cookies after every turn.


text:
Is samatha meditation more suited to lay people than vipassana?
Does the Piti Sutta imply that it is better for lay people to start with cultivation of jhana through samatha meditation, instead of starting with vipassana meditation?
Also, the use of the term "piti" (rapture) seems to encourage lay people to enter and master the first jhana.
From the Piti Sutta (AN 5.176):

Then Anathapindika the householder, surrounded by about 500 lay
  followers, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down
  to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said
  to him, “Householder, you have provided the community of monks with
  robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick, but
  you shouldn’t rest content with the thought, ‘We have provided the
  community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal
  requisites for the sick.’ So you should train yourself, ‘Let’s
  periodically enter & remain in seclusion & rapture.’ That’s how you
  should train yourself.”

Samatha = citta-samatha =  Leading to wholesome mind = seclusion of unwholesome in 5 strings, kāmaguṇa.
Vipassanā = samatha-vipassanā = Leading to sabbasaṅkhāra-samatha, nibbāna = seclusion of whole 5 clinging-aggregates.
So, samatha is for taṇhā-carita (unwholesome often arise), vipassanā is for diṭṭhi-carita (wholesome often arise).
People, who can't get the seclusion of unwholesome in 5 strings, should meditate samatha.
People who already got the seclusion of unwholesome in 5 strings, should meditate vipassanā.
It is not depend on lay or monk, it's depend on each personal ability like I explain above.
However, most lays can't get the seclusion of unwholesome in 5 strings, even the seclusion of verbal and bodily actions as well, so Buddha often teach dāna & sīla & bhavanā (samatha&vipassanā) to lay. But there are more monks who have gotten the seclusion of unwholesome in 5 strings, so the buddha often teach sīla&samatha&vipassanā to monk.
See: Netti-pakaraṇa.

Can't conclude a lot from the sutta but accrding to my personal experience as a lay buddhist,

Vipassana needs higher levels of concentration and mindfulness.
Instructions for Vipassana are little bit more complicated and difficult to follow than Samatha.
Vipassana involves using the mind to sense the bodily feelings. Mind usually wanders.
Learning Vipassana for first time requires a 10 day commitment to a retreat. But Samatha meditation can be learned at a days retreat.

So I will say, yes. Samatha meditation more suited to lay people than Vipassana.

No, it is not.
Shamatha ultimately leads to Jhana and then it is highly unlikely that lay person would still want regular, ordinary world pleasures. Most of the people after such experience immediately want to be ordained (at least according to Ajahn Brahm and his guide to Shamatha). After all, sex and all experiences are all quite unsatisfying compared to such higher bliss.
Moreover, conditions for Shamatha are more difficult to achieve, at least according to Allan Wallace's book "Stilling the Mind, Shamatha Teachings from Dudjom Lingpa's Vajra Essence", it requires many more hours and years of practise and has many smaller conditions like requires meditator to be of proper health to even start:

Shamatha requires more careful incubation than most other kinds of
  meditation. You can practice tonglen (taking on the suffering of
  others and cultivate anywhere. In fact, many other practices can be
  done under varying circumstances. If you wish to take shamatha all the
  way to its ground, however, it requires a supportive, serene
  environment, good diet, proper exercise, and very few preoccupations.
  The necessary internal conditions are minimal desires, few activities
  and concerns, contentment, pure ethical discipline, and freedom from
  obsessive, compulsive thinking. It is my feeling that the achievement
  of shamatha is so rare today because those circumstances are so rare.
  It is difficult to find a conducive environment in which to practice
  at length and without interference—even more so to have that and
  access to suitable spiritual friends for support and guidance.
  Therefore, if the causes are difficult to bring together, the
  result—shamatha—is also necessarily rare. I present a detailed guide
  to the general practice of shamatha in my earlier book, The Attention
  Revolution (Wisdom, 2006).

This is why proper Shamatha training before embarking on Vipassana is often neglected as it is difficult for lay people. Oftentimes one has to train for years to do it right and achieve proper concentration.
Vipassana is just more practical in real world. It is embracing and focusing on ever changing reality, hence Mindfulness is such a commercial success, and the fact that there is common ground between the two. Simply put, for lay people its easier to be aware of arising and falling of all phenomena, since lay person lives the life, not sitting many hours a day in the higher state of bliss that is Jhana, that makes him useless in daily life.
In the end, these days lay people mostly get (and are comfortable with), a mixture of both Mindfulness/Vipassana and calming the mind of Shamatha, so they develop Insight without neglecting concentration. It is just more practical to develop both.

Great answer. Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu also agrees with the notion that "Vipassana is just more practical in the real world ..." in this video.

If AN 5.176 was a genuine sutta then most Buddhist laypeople would easily develop jhana and be not interested in sex. The fact that most Buddhist laypeople have not developed jhana & are unable to develop jhana shows neither jhana or vipassana are inherently suitable for most laypeople.
For example, in SN 55.53, similar situation occurs where  the lay follower Dhammadinna, together with five hundred lay followers, are advised to abide in emptiness (sunnata) but they are unable to do so.
Laypeople should follow the five precepts, particularly not engage in heedless sex. Laypeople should also avoid the demerit of preaching Dhamma when they don't understand it. Laypeople should also rejoice with mudita when Noble Practitioners explain the Noble Supramundane Dhamma, thinking: "It is wonderful to see Noble Ones in this world".
In summary, the trustworthy suttas explain samatha & vipassana are developed in tandem from the one practise of the noble path.

Thus for him, having thus developed the noble eightfold path... these two qualities occur in tandem: tranquillity & insight.
MN 149

Interestingly SN 55.53 talks about "And we will have the ethical conduct loved by the noble ones … leading to immersion (samadhi)".

"Leading to" but possibly not having reached the destination. Sir, we live at home with our children, using sandalwood imported from Kāsi, wearing garlands, perfumes, and makeup, and accepting gold and money.

Is samatha meditation more suited to lay people than vipassana?
From Pali Canon it does not seem that Buddha ever taught "samatha meditation" and "vipassana meditation" as two distinct and separate meditation techniques. This seems to be a later generalization. What Buddha taught is meditation that has two aspects of "calming down" and "understanding" - to use simple words.
Both "calming down" and "understanding" are correlates and manifestations of Liberation of Mind. Indeed, in order for the mind to calm down it has to liberate itself from emotions, obsessions, attachments and other mental activity that feeds the vicious circle of disturbed mind. The more you liberate, the better you can see into the nature of the mind and understand how it works. The more you understand how mind works, the more you liberate from its pitfalls, the more you calm down.
The unique Buddhist twist is using "feeling good" as a factor of "calming down", and using "being good" (behavior-wise) as a factor of "feeling good". So the whole thing works as a multi-threaded helix, the factors of "virtue", "skill", "joy", "calming down", "understanding", and "liberation" penetrating and supporting each other. The "piti" in Piti Sutta is a nod to factors of "being good" and "feeling good" playing an important role in this process.
Regarding lay people having to start from "calming down" or from "understanding" - it depends. Both at ancient times and now, lay people are usually pretty caught up in the drama of life. Their minds are almost completely obsessed by solving problems and pursuing goals that they think are important, due to their attachments. This makes it very hard for lay people to understand something as profound as Emptiness. In modern days though, people are expecting to start from theory and then go to practice. Modern people almost can't do it, until they understand how it works. So for modern student of Dharma, getting some basic "understanding" is critical for engaging with practice of "liberation".
Again, all of this has nothing to do with so-called "samatha" and "vipassana" as they came to be understood in modern times. In my experience, a good Buddhist teacher intuitively assesses the student, probing into both emotional and conceptual obscurations, and gives a mixture of instruction - some conceptual aimed at understanding and some behavioral aimed at liberation. It's never one or the other, it's always both. Or all four/six/twelve/etc depending how you count.

We cannot conclude something just because some particular person wrote it or some particular monk said it. Buddha himself told against such mindsets and practices.
Samatha meditation is actually much easier than vipassana because vipassana requires delicate and deep introspection and is complex while Samatha requires just a sustained attention to one single point or object like the breath, some word or a picture or a candle flame.
Moreover you wouldn't be able to sit down and introspect as deeply as required for Vipassana if your mind is fickle. You wouldn't be able to think straight if you are angry or anxious or emotionally unstable. And all these impediments can be removed through Samatha meditation.
And most individuals are interested in meditation just for secular reasons like mental health benefits. Samatha meditation can provide those benefits and be used in a secular spirit but not vipassana. Vipassana is closer to cultivating Buddhist mindsets than Samatha.
Vipassana meditation can and has caused more disturbance in individuals with anxiety issue and depression. While Samatha meditation has cured many with such issues. I'm one of them too.
Therefore yes, Samatha meditation is much easier, suitable and better to cultivate than vipassana for the layman.


text:
What is eradication of the fetter of identity-view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)?
I'm asking this question based on this comment and this question.
It is well known that the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering.
However, it is popularly mistaken (as seen in the cited comment and question) that Buddhists have to rush towards destroying their sense of self, skipping over the balanced wholistic practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. I think this is not correct.
The ten fetters have the eradication of the identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) as a lower fetter, that has to be done in order to become a sotapanna or stream winner.
However, a stream winner, has still not yet eradicated the fetters of sensual desire, ill will, material-existence-desire, immaterial-existence-desire, conceit and ignorance.
I take it that total eradication of the sense of self happens with the eradication of the higher fetters, especially ignorance (avijja).
After all, if the sense of self has been totally eradicated by the stream winner, it does not make sense that he could still have conceit, right?
So, my question here is, if eradication of the lower fetter of identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is not the complete eradication of a self, then what is it really?
Is it an intellectual understanding of not-self? Or is it more?
Is it an opinion? Is it a belief? Is it an experience?
How is the eradication of the lower fetter of identity view different from total eradication of the sense of self?

The 6th and 7th fetters are lust for rupa jhana and lust for arupa jhana and totally unrelated to "rebirth" and the misrepresentations posted in this heretical question.

@Dhammadhatu I've renamed them to material-existence-desire and immaterial-existence-desire. I previously copied the translations in Wikipedia.

Its still heresy. The fetter is lust for form and lust for formless. It is unrelated to your eternalistic heresy of "existence". rūparāgo & arūparāgo

The ten fetters have the eradication of the identity-view or belief in
  a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) as a lower fetter, that has to be done in
  order to become a sotapanna or stream winner.

It's actually the other way around, meaning becoming a stream enterer will be 'done' before the belief in a self is eradicated.
After becoming a stream enterer you'll realise that you are nothing more than a process (for the lack of words).
Before becoming a stream enterer the mind will pick and observe one of the three characteristics: anicca, dukkha or anatta. And when this characteristic is understood/seen completely the mind will release and let go.
And even though the stream winner knows then, from experience, that (s)he is nothing more than a process it doesn't mean that (s)he also experience everything impersonal. Awareness itself for instance will still feel as 'I am aware of this or that'. The difference is between deeply knowing from experience (entering the stream) and experiencing or feeling, or sense of self as you put it.
That sense of self will be eradicated with the uprooting of conceit.

Eradicating the lower fetter comes from prolonged experience of anatta in meditation (and the associated liberation) however the tendency to selfing is not uprooted. Nor is craving & attraction towards sensual pleasures uprooted when a strong sensual pleasure come within the field of experience. For example, the mind of a stream-enterer may find a certain food delicious & enticing; which is sensual desire. However, a stream-enterer has sufficient purity (as described in SN 13.1) so to not crave any sensual pleasure to a degree that hinders meditation. Or a stream-enterer may not be interested in sex however the sight of an exceptionally beautiful woman may draw the mind of the stream-enterer towards the woman. This is sensual desire; even though the sensual desire does not give rise to becoming (bhava) and unwholesome thoughts towards the extremely beautiful woman. The suttas are very clear in describing arahantship as the "uprooting" of the tendencies (anusaya). A stream-enterer has not uprooted the defilements of greed, hatred & delusion however their mind has had sufficient experience of anatta do fully understand selfing is not a real self and merely a thought construct fueled by suffering. The stream-enterer has comprehended Dependent Origination as I have explained many times on this forum.
In conclusion, stream-entry did not occur in the other question because the mind did not develop confidence in the Dhamma because the mind did not clearly experience liberation from suffering with the absence of selfing. Instead, the mind experienced fear, which is not stream-entry. For stream-entry, three fetters are to be broken:

View of real self.
Doubt (vicikicchā) in Dhamma and the path
Superstition.

The stream-enterer has comprehended Dependent Origination Do you mean the 12 nidanas? Or is it sufficient to comprehend the four noble truths? Are the four noble truths the main or primary, essential, original doctrine of "Dependent Origination", or does "Dependent Origination" only and necessarily mean the doctrine of the 12 nidanas?

4nts and DO are the same doctrine. the former is in brief & the later is in detail. if your doubts (vicikicchā) continue about this matter, refer to AN 3.61, where it explains what the 4nts are https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.061.than.html

Thank you for for the reference. So "Dependent Origination" aka pratītyasamutpāda is a general principle, whose specific applications or examples  include: the four noble truths; the twelve nidanas; also the lokuttara-paticcasamuppada; and the (Mahayana) doctrine of emptiness. I think that people on this site usually use it as the name of the doctrine of the 12 nidanas (or vice versa, i.e. when they want to name the doctrine of the 12 nidanas, they call that "dependent origination" or paticcasamuppada).

sorry i don't know anything about  pratītyasamutpāda, which is Sankrit & Mahayana. as for paticcasamuppada, no, it is not a "general principle". it is a "specific principle". paticcasamuppada is exactly the same as the 2nd noble truth, as explained in AN 3.61. as for a "general principle" of causality, this is called "Idappaccayatā". also, paticcasamuppada has nothing to do with emptiness (sunnata).

When in anapanasati is anatta experienced? In vedanas?

If the mind is clear, with right samadhi, anatta is experienced in each tetrad however the disappearance of 'self' may not occur until the 3rd tetrad. For example, in the 1st tetrad, if it is clearly seen that the body breathes rather than the self breathes then this is seeing anatta of the body & breathing. In the 2nd tetrad, when feelings arise so they are "alien" to the observer then feelings are seen as anatta because the observer is completely detached from the feelings. In the 3rd tetrad, the same will occur at the 9th stage. At around the 12 stage "self" might mostly disappear.

I think that a "view" is fixed: stable or permanent over time.
For example, I rarely ever think of Newton's Law of Gravitation -- but whenever I do, I imagine it to to be true (within relativistic limitations): and I will recall to mind examples of "evidence" for it (e.g. parabolic trajectories, elliptical orbits, and the fact that it's the doctrine of a space-faring culture).
If someone or something suggests that a "view" isn't true, a reaction may be to defend that view -- to reinforce or perpetuate the view, to repeat the reasoning which leads to that view.
The term is often used, e.g. in the Ditthi Sutta (AN 10.93), to refer to speculative views -- views that people have formed but which nevertheless don't have a proper (right) basis:

As for the venerable one who says, 'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is worthless. This is the sort of view I have,' his view arises from his own inappropriate attention or in dependence on the words of another. Now this view has been brought into being, is fabricated, willed, dependently originated.

See also "thicket of views".
I think it's difficult to argue or reason with people who "hold" views -- because you might take down a house by removing its supports, but if a view has no basis to begin with then how can you approach it? -- and because people are emotionally invested (so, reason alone may not be enough).

I think that sakkāya is a doctrine or view about "the body" or the "abode of soul".
The dictionary says (with references to suttas) that it's associated with views about the five aggregates:

sakkāya
  the body in being, the existing body or group (= -nikāya q.v.); as a t.t. in P. psychology almost equal to individuality; identified with the five khandhas MN.i.299; SN.iii.159; SN.iv.259; AN.ii.34; Thig.170, Thig.239; Dhs-a.348. See also DN.iii.216 (cp. Dial. Pv.iii.216#1); AN.iii.293, AN.iii.401; Mnd.109.

It's also sometimes associated with a view about contact with the senses: SN 35.167.

So, my question here is, if eradication of the lower fetter of identity-view or belief in a self (sakkāya-diṭṭhi) is not the complete eradication of a self, then what is it really?
I think it's no longer holding the view: neither for intellectual reasons, nor even for emotional reasons.
I guess that "not holding the view for emotional reasons" may require some insight into (experience and diagnosis of) dukkha associated with self-view -- i.e. a reason not to hold self-view is that the view is unsatisfactory or conducive to suffering (and anatta is seen to be compatible or not incompatible with any self-interest so there's less or no emotional resistance to it).
In other words, it's associated with seeing the three characteristics.
It's also associated with vicikicchā, as you said.
For completeness' sake, another possibility, another condition in which it may arise (i.e. an emotional willingness to consider a view in which yourself, body, isn't primary and central), is loving another as yourself -- perhaps the love experienced by a parent, or bodhicitta.
Is it an intellectual understanding of not-self? Or is it more?
Is it an opinion? Is it a belief? Is it an experience?
I think it's an experience, of the three characteristics and of hearing the dhamma, and an intellectual understanding, and some (enough of an) emotional understanding.
How is the eradication of the lower fetter of identity view different from total eradication of the sense of self?
That was a topic of How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
In summary I think that someone with self-view might have an experience and say, "this is self" -- note that in this way, as a result of this, the self-view is self-perpetuating.
Conversely, without self-view you might have an experience (a thought, a feeling) and observe that "that was some conceit".


text:
Buddhism and Stereotyping Perceptions
An answer has prodded me to completely reconsider my understanding of Buddhism and emptiness [this answer]. I never realized that Buddhism involves the dismantling of preconceptions and false certainty. Due to some spiritual experiences, I feel it's clear that the path to a happier life for me is changing this.
However, I know for a fact that I continuously generate such preconceptions and approximations almost pathologically. I feel that doubt greatly arises from this, in my mind; I keep making inexact and hasty conclusions, and assuming things. I cannot merely not know.
My question is: What are the ways to dismantle such biases of mind? I specifically mean those of speculation, stereotyping, jumping to conclusions, and so on.
Simply put, I'm wondering how one trains or comes to accept uncertainty.

The habit of mind to Speculate and Stereotype is developed over thousand of years of psychological evolution. It was at some point in history, very important for humans to classify the objects, they saw and and hence speculation and stereotyping gave advantage, when the world around humans was not very complex.
The point I am making is, these are habit patterns of mind created over thousands of past lives.
As against 'jumping to conclusions', as we mean it in a judgemental sense, is some kind of recent phenomena of fast paced life.
May be, even the stone age humans must have been jumping to conclusions at sight of some thing akin to snake.
So, I am trying to say, these are habit patterns of everybodies mind.
Now answering your question, how one trains to accept the uncertainity
The point of Buddhism is not to train the mind (there are therepies in modern psychology to do just that), instead we try our best to see things as they are. So the way to dismantle the bias is, to be aware to the present moment and be watchful of your mind as much as possible.
This gives rise to intelligence, and through that intelligence you dismantle the habit pattern.
When you fail, don't be judgemental towards yourself and feel bad. Instead make a note and understand that as all your intelligence was available what you did was the best you can do.
Through such repeated feedback your biases will be dismantled without specifically trying to train the mind which is a superficial and phony solution.
To put it simply, Stay Aware to the Present Moment.

I don't have any better advice than this song:
Mahamudra transcends all words
And symbols, but for you, Naropa,
Earnest and loyal,
I have to say this:

The Emptiness doesn’t need support,
Mahamudra rests on nothing.
Without making any effort,
One can break the yoke
Thus - reaching Liberation.

If one sees nothing when staring into space,
If with the mind one then observes the mind,
One destroys distinctions and reaches Buddhahood.

The clouds that wander through the sky
Have no roots, no home; nor do the distinctive
Thoughts, which float through the mind.
Once the nature of mind is seen,
Discrimination stops.

In space shapes and colours form,
But neither by black nor white is space tinged.
From the nature of mind all things emerge,
The mind is not tainted by virtues or vices.

The darkness of ages cannot hide the bright sun
Nor the long kalpas of samsara
can hide the splendid light mind.
Though words are spoken to explain the Emptiness,
Emptiness for itself can never be expressed.

This world is transient,
like ghosts and dreams, without any substance.-Tilopa

You can find it full here

You are asking how to train in overcoming mind's tendency to stereotype and to reify superficial perceptions. Generally speaking, entire Buddhist path is about training in this. Much of the philosophical study (Madhyamaka) and practice of Zen and Vajrayana's higher tantras (Mahamudra and Dzogchen) are aimed at transcending the limits of superficial mind.
Working with a live contemporary teacher adds a practical aspect that is not readily explained in texts. This aspect has to do with application of Buddhist insights to everyday life. The superficial mind with its tendency for stereotyping keeps creating reoccurring patterns in one's personal life. It is by exploring and challenging these patterns that we get to see our superficial mind objectively. This leads to gradual disidentification and eventual freedom from stereotypical thinking.
In my personal experience undergoing this training, there are two parts to it. The first one is explained conceptually, for the student to practice on his own, between the periods s\he meets with the teacher. The second part is traditionally taught by the teacher in-person, without much explanation.
The part that's explained conceptually is a standard instruction on non-attachment. In my "lineage" it goes something like this:

REMEMBER: every time whenever you feel a negative emotion in response to a real life situation,
assume the emotion comes from an "attachment" (a traditional word for preconceptions and stereotypes), then
engage in 5-second introspection to quickly identify the specific attachment, then
make a silent symbolic gesture of admonishing your ego for trying to protect its solidity, and then
mercilessly take the attachment away from your ego,
FINALLY, watch the emotion subside and deal with the situation properly.

The act of giving up your attachment is designed to leave you highly vulnerable - but also much more open to other perspectives and frames of reference. By definition, the more a certain idea is important to you, the harder it is to let go of attachment. Ego is a master of rationalization and to be honest some of its reasons are actually pretty logical and often valid, but in context of this practice all these rationalizations must be ignored, and all attachments must be let go. The exercise gets seriously difficult when it involves dealing with other people over different interests and perspectives, especially when this is a real life or work situation, especially when you are right - but this is exactly what makes this practice so effective.
The second exercise consists of your teacher occasionally pushing you to operate outside of your comfort zone. The normal student's reaction is to indulge in one's egoistic defenses until one day the student learns to get over them and open up to non-preconceptualized activity. This involves enormous creativity on the teacher's part, setting up all kinds of embarrassing situations in which the student is put on the spot and does not know how to react. It's hard to give specific examples since they tend to be very personal. A good Zen master or Vajra master has a talent for endless improvisation of these. The practice is both very painful and very effective for driving the student outside his or her preconceptualization.
In the absence of live teacher my advice is to get creative yourself and start finding ways to put yourself in situations when you do not have a good plan of action. Luckily, modern social life gives endless opportunities for trying one's luck outside one's comfort zone and watching oneself stumble.
Both of these exercises work by forcing the student to lay aside one's  preconceived notions, and practice operating in the preconceptual space of "beginner's mind".
It's seems awkward to explain all this in writing, as it is usually presented in a much more pithy and casual style in the middle of real life situations. Despite my limited ability to explain it with clarity, I can't overemphasize the importance of this practice. In my experience, it makes night-and-day difference in one's ability to comprehend and realize true Dharma. Hope it helps.

I've bumped into various prosaic and spiritual messages that have cultivated in me a certainty that most certainties are unjustified.
Studying debate in high school they drilled how to detect and avoid logical fallacies into us. It's easier to detect in the writing of others than your own, I find. If you can reliably detect them in your own thinking, you will cultivate a mental awareness that can help avoid these things. I could be wrong, but I think there's important elements of mindfulness involved with this process. I've found fallacies are used the most frequently when it comes to truths people don't want to face.
I'd not try to avoid speculation. I'd actually encourage it, especially when it comes to criticizing what's going on in your head. What information could you acquire, at least in principle, that would prove you wrong? Employ any criticisms you might offer to someone else to yourself. I suspect this facilitates taming Ego. The other side of the coin has similar effects. Have compassion for yourself as you have compassion for others.
Meditate. Watch your thoughts very carefully. What topics arise frequently in what order? Do you notice any patterns? You're likely to find there are some things you want to be true that might not be. That I suspect is the source of a lot of jumping to conclusions.
Do not seek perfection. Perfection is Ego lying to you. Don't get discouraged from meditating because your thoughts take a long time to settle. Don't think that you just can't do it.
These suggestions are heavily science/logic influenced, very linear. There's some problems stuck in thinking that way. I find Thich Nhat Hanh has a lot of great advice deviating from that pattern while cultivating understanding, especially in Zen Keys. He is very good at clarifying what information is being ignored when we try to contain things in our head with concepts.
Hope that helps!

The cause to your biases, speculation, stereotyping, jumping to conclusions,.....are your strong attachments to Impermanence.
To cure this, you must Recognize the "Nature of impermanence". Once you did, your biases, speculation, stereotyping....will cease to exist, for they are also  impermanent.


text:
Effectiveness of Body Contemplation (Asubha Bhavana)
Does someone actively practise this type of meditation for a longer period of time? I feel like that it does not really work. Is there something to keep in mind to increase its effectiveness? I think that pictures or even better real life situations are better than self created images in order to see the repulsiveness.
Any ideas?

I didn't practise it for a 'longer' time, but I did practise it, it didn't worked because contempletion needs active memory and we really don't have memories of revulsive aspects of bodies.
Then I changed the way, I switched to looking in real world. Following are the things I saw...

Meet old people be aware of their bodies, facial features especially, pay attention to the wrinkled skin, stinky weak teeth, bad eye sight, feel the repulsiveness.
If you ever happen to be in India visit the place called Varanasi, its the dead body burning ghat for the hindus. Not only they burn it they also just throw it in river to rot, if they are poor. There are also half burned bodies all over. See that sight.
Try and attend a stomach surgery or a post mortem at a hospital.

I think this will take you too far with the body contempletion meditation.
And if nothing works contemplate on this story of buddha.

Youtube has enough videos on asubha.