text:
How should I watch sensations in Vipassana meditation?
How should I watch sensations in Vipassana? Should I watch from head to toe and then toe to head? Please explain things step by step as I'm new to Vipassana. Thanks in advance!

Firstly one should know how to handle experiances. This is what Vipassana teaches you.
Judging or reacting to sensation can lead to negative latent tendencies:

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

Pahāna Sutta
So the take away from this is one should not judge or react to sensations.
Whatever feeling on feels one should:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

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

If he feels a painful feeling,

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

If he feels a neutral feeling,

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

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

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
Similarly,

“Nothing is worth clinging to”
When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One: “In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the highest amongst gods and humans?”
“Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to. And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly knows the nature of the all]. Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all things.
Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether

pleasant,
painful or
neither painful nor pleasant.

As regards to those feelings, [Section on Disillusionment and Revulsion (Nibbida) follows]

he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;
he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;
he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;
he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).

When he dwells contemplating

impermanence in them,
contemplating dispassion in them,
contemplating ending in them,
contemplating letting go,

he does not cling to anything in the world. Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana.

Pacalā Sutta
Now knowing how sensations should be handled, systematically start scanning areas of your body from head to foot and foot to head without missing any areas for sensations.
There are subtle every ware in one's body. One should make oneself sensitive to the subtlest sensations. One should not miss any areas as this way one may not get sensitive to sensations in these areas.
One should stay in each and every area for some time until one feels sensations, but not too long as to get attached to the sensation. If one does not feel any sensation after while one just moves to the next area. One should not lose one's mental composure due to the sensations experienced or even the lack of sensations. If there is no sensations one should not feel disappointed as this is aversion.
One should systematically do the scanning so that:

one does not miss any areas
one stays the same time in one area

Being systematic in the scanning process ensures that at some point one is sensitive enough to feel sensations:

thought out the body
instantly when one's attention is moved to the area

When scanning when one feels sensations in an area one should look at them close to see:

intensification and reduction of sensation
components or make up of the sensations

One should look at the sensations:

dividing and dissecting sensations to see more clearly, if the sensations look like clumped up mass of pain or pleasure one should break the sensations into smaller areas to see if they are made of smaller components
one should penetrate a mass or clumped up clusters of sensation looking at how it cages and intensifies as one direction to another
one should look at the change of sensation from moment to moment

Looking at sensations dividingly, dissecting and penetratingly ensures one starts seeing arising and passing away phenomena as a 1st hand experience. Further systematic practice will lead to a situation wherever one's attention is focused one sees the arising and passing away of phenomena.
The sensations one experiences are:

pleasant
unpleasant
neutral

Whatever one feels this is unsatisfactory:

pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes;
painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes;
neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
Each type of sensation corresponds to the 3 categories of dukkha:

Unpleasant feelings - Dukkha-dukkha, the duḥkha of painful experiences. This includes the physical and mental sufferings of birth, aging, illness, dying; distress from what is not desirable.
Pleasant feelings - Viparinama-dukkha, the duḥkha of pleasant or happy experiences changing to unpleasant when the causes and conditions that produced the pleasant experiences cease.
Neural or neither pleasant not unpleasant feelings - Sankhara-dukkha, the duḥkha of conditioned experience. This includes "a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence, all forms of life, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance." On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.

In Sammā Diṭṭhi Sutta 16 ways of liberations are discussed and one common thread in many of these ways is to abandon latent tendencies of lust, aversion and ignorance:

he utterly abandons the latent tendency of lust,
he removes the latent tendency of aversion,
he abolishes the latent tendency of the view and conceit ‘I am,’

and by abandoning ignorance and rousing true knowledge, he makes an end of suffering here and now.
In that way, too, avuso, a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, attained to wise
  faith in the Dharma, one who has arrived at this true teaching.

In order to achieve that one should use

pleasant feelings to abandon lust,
unpleasant feelings to abandon aversion
neutral feelings to abandon ignorance

by being

equanimous to them and
seeing their impermanence:

the latent tendency of lust should be abandoned in regard to pleasant feeling;
the latent tendency of aversion should be abandoned in regard to painful feeling;
the latent tendency of ignorance should be abandoned in regard to neutral feeling.

Pahāna Sutta
When one feels a sensation:

having equanimity one abandons attachment and aversion which intern leads to fabrications
seeing impermanence or arising and passing of 5 aggregates one abandons ignorance

Also, sensations lead to craving

Avijjā,paccayā sankhārā With ignorance as condition, there are volitional
  formations;
sankhāra,paccayā vinnānam with volitional formations
  as condition, there is consciousness;
vinnāna,paccayā nāma,rupam with consciousness as condition, there is name-and-form;
  nāma,rupa,paccayā sal’āyatanam with name-and-form as condition, there are the six sense-bases;
sal’āyatana,paccayā phasso with the six sense-bases as condition, there is contact;
phassa,paccayā vedanā with contact as condition, there is feeling;
vedanā,paccayā tanhā with feeling as condition, there is craving;
tanhā,paccayā upādānam with craving as condition, there is clinging;
upādāna,paccayā bhavo with clinging as condition, there is existence;
bhava,paccayā jāti with existence as condition, there is birth;
jāti,paccayā jarā,maranam with birth as condition, there arise decay and death,
soka,parideva,dukkha,- sorrow, lamentation, physical pain,

domanass’upāyasā sambhavanti mental pain and despair.

evam-etassa kevalassa dukkha-k-
  khandhassa samudayo hoti — Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering

(Paṭicca,samuppada) Vibhanga Sutta
Also, sensation is an important station which leads to concept proliferation.

“Bhikshu, as regards the source from which proliferation of conception and perception assails a person: if one were to find nothing there to delight in, nothing there to welcome, nothing to cling to—this is the end of

the latent tendency of lust,
the latent tendency of aversion,
the latent tendency of views,
the latent tendency of doubt,
the latent tendency of conceit,
the latent tendency of desire for existence, and
the latent tendency of ignorance.

This is the ending of the taking up of the rod and the sword, quarrels, disputes, mayhem [strife], slandering and lying —here these evil unwholesome states cease without remainder.”
…
Avuso, dependent on the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind] and [form | sound | smell | taste | touch | mind-object], [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind]-consciousness arises.

The meeting of the three is contact.
With contact as condition, there is feeling.
What one feels, one perceives.
What one perceives, one thinks about.
What one thinks about, one mentally proliferates.

From that as source, proliferation of conception and perception assails a person regarding past, future and present [forms | sounds | smells | tastes | touch | mind-objects] cognizable through the [eye | ear | nose | tongue | body | mind].

Madhu,piṇḍika Sutta
Both these train of events can be stopped by:

knowing there is a sensation
being equanimous whatever is felt
knowing it is impermanent

One should also contemplate causality in Vipassana:

As such, bhikshus, the instructed noble disciple closely and wisely attends to dependent arising itself, thus:

“When this is, that is;
with the arising of this, that arises.
When this is not, that is not;
with the ending of this, that ends.”

Bhikshus, dependent on pleasant contact, a pleasant feeling arises. With the ending of the pleasant contact, the pleasant feeling that arose in dependent on that pleasant contact, ceases, is stilled.
Bhikshus, dependent on painful contact, a painful feeling arises. With the ending of the painful contact, the painful feeling that arose in dependent on that painful contact, ceases, is stilled.
Bhikshus, dependent on neutral contact, a neutral feeling arises. With the ending of the neutral contact, the neutral feeling that arose in dependent on that neutral contact, ceases, is stilled.

Assutava Sutta 2
The arising and passing nature of the sensations result in unsatisfactoriness. Uncontrollable nature results in unsatisfactoriness. What causes sensations are also arising and passing which case the sensations to arise and pass. The cause of sensations is not controllable. Therefore, the whole sphere of experience is unsatisfactory.
Stopping of:

unwholesome roots
latent tendencies
craving
concept proliferation
fabrications
etc. (complete list see: Sammā Diṭṭhi Sutta)

arising is what needs to be done in the course of meditation.

In my opinion, practice experiencing the sensation of your sole when you practice walking meditation. Once you perfected that you can move to the whole body experience.
For further study on walking meditation.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=25363&p=542816&hilit=


text:
How to practice vipassana meditation?
I practice  vipassana meditation since 2008. My recent experience is  breathing can't be noticed. But sensation of the body is present. And thoughts are coming and passing away automatically. Most of the time sensation  of the body  appears such as pain , dissolves without any discomfort. Thoughts are less. Sound can hear but no thoughts on those sounds which were heard.
What is this state?
How to continue from  here?

OP: My recent experience is breathing can't be noticed.

As you progress in meditation breathing becomes subtle and stops. As many prematurely think breathing has stoped when it becomes subtle but not completely stopped as one is not sensitive to detect it.
Breathing is tied to bodily formations.

The in-and-out-breaths, avuso Visākha—these are states bound up with the body.

Therefore,
  they are bodily formation.

Avuso Visākha, one, having first thought and pondered, then breaks out into speech.

Therefore,
  thinking and pondering are verbal formation.

Perception and feeling—these are mentally-connected states, bound up with the mind.

Therefore, perception and feeling are thought formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

When a monk is attaining cessation of perception and feeling,  ayya, which states
  end first:

bodily formation, or
verbal formation, or
thought formation?

When a monk is attaining cessation of perception and feeling, avuso Visākha,

verbal formation ends first,
then bodily formation, and
then thought formation.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

OP: But sensation of the body is present.

Perception and feeling \ thought formation is what ends last.

OP: Most of the time sensation of the body appears such as pain, dissolves without any discomfort.

As you progress most of the sensations are pleasant but unpleasant sensations disappear fast.

OP: Thoughts are less.

Thoughts/ verbal formation is what ends 1st. They initially reduce and subside.

OP: Sound can hear but no thoughts on those sounds which were heard. What is this state?

This seems like a preliminary stage in meditation.

OP: How to continue from hear?

Keep doing more meditation to go deeper. Double-check if you are practising correctly and have selected a proper technique which is conducive to you further in meditation.
Also, try increasing the number of hours.

You can say that you are in a mixed stage of the path .The most basic are bodily sensations including those of the breath and sound ,then comes thoughts and feelings ,which are more subtle and slippery .And the end of the path you will realize everything comes and goes ,so what remains ?,there will remain only the witness of all that which is really nothing but emptiness or existence itself.The thoughts will come and go but no association with them anymore in your dynamic life.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What path does B. Alan Wallace teach?
I am long time student of Chogyam Trungpa. Unfortunately, the current situation at the sangha (now Shambhala International) is in a state of chaos. I am interested in becoming B. Alan Wallace's student. I'm wondering if his path is similar to Vajradhatu, in other words, start with shamatha/vipassana, then ngondro, and then abhiseka. Thank you

Hello and welcome to Buddhism Q&A. Are you familiar with Reginald A. Ray https://www.dharmaocean.org/ - he is a prominent student of C.T. who spun off his own practice. Might be another option to consider?

i hadn't heard about that, hope you're OK. hopefully Chogyam Trungpa was just abusing his power over his students, and that's all he did. good luck in finding a new teacher!

@Andrei Volkov, I have thought of Reginald Ray but he is on retreat and not taking any more students. Word is that Ray's ego is gotten a little out of control; on a bit of a Guru trip. From what I've read Alan Wallace is probably a good bet.

As a C.T. student are you not worried that A.W. seems to be more inclined towards theory and formal structured "buddhism" rather than hard-core real-life practice?

Not true at all about Alan Wallace. He's all about practice. Checkout this link: http://media.sbinstitute.com/courses/fall2012/01-settling-body-speech-and-mind-in-its-natural-state/

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


text:
Why are so many Buddhists in the west hostile to academic analyses of the religion?
Why are some Buddhists in the west hostile to academic analyses of the religion?

Are you hoping for answers based on references, or based on personal experience?

why not both? i'm interested in any explanation @ChrisW i might just delete my account, i'm not sure stackexchange is a useful resource here

I'm not sure this hostility is any greater in the West than elsewhere, but one reason might be that in the West much of the analysis has been muddled and wrong. There is a lot of nonsense published in the academic world and Buddhism is not let off the hook.

(Meta:) Do you mean "some" or "so many" actually? Seems it is somehow arbitrary here?

You have strayed from the direct path free from [reified concept of] intrinsic being, and wandered down the wrong path of strict rationalism. And as you apply yourself to the labors of your own imagination, the obstructions to the correct path mount ever higher. What do you derive from this constant accumulation of words?

~Candrakirti, as quoted in "The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Madhyamika" by C. W. Huntington & Geshe Namgyal Wangchen

I highly doubt that this quote is authentic because Candrakirti owns his opponents using rationalism and I can't imagine him ridiculing strict rationalism. Although the quote above is mentioned in the book "The Emptiness of Emptiness", when I tracked down the quote in the original source i.e. MAB 6.172, I didn't find Candrakirti saying this.

Perhaps this question was inspired by my answer to another where I disparaged some western philosophical notions applied to Buddha Dharma. That was not helpful nor was it meaningful. I’m trying to sincerely answer these questions with a mind of generosity and the sincere wish to benefit others, but unfortunately I don’t always succeed.
As to this question I don’t know that there is a general pattern. My particular tradition - gelugpa - descends from Nalanda university which was a worldwide center of exactly what we might call “academic analysis” of Buddha Dharma. Moreover, the modern inheritors of my tradition study at monastic universities like Sera Je for literally decades in a rigorous academic environment to earn what is the equivalent of a PhD in the Buddha Dharma.
Many western academics have done invaluable work in translating the sutras and commentaries. Many more have invested heavy thought and years of study to trying to truly understand the subtlest aspects of Buddha Dharma and I have nothing but profound respect and gratitude for them.
All of this said... it is important to remember that Buddha Dharma is not just an academic exercise, but one with a profound and world shaking soteriological goal. And if I let my impatience and frustration get the better of me it is with those times when I perceive some western academics who do not give respect to this goal or to the depth of intellectual insight in the Buddha Dharma, but rather paper it over with somewhat lazy analogies and a cultural bias that regards western philosophy and logic to be superior. There have been times when I have read what appear to me to be cursory reviews of Buddha Dharma that do not respect the subject matter and the deep thinking that has generated it. It might just be my own karmic mis-perceptions though.

do you not think, though, that evidence for karma (just think rebirth if my analysis is a struggle) would be insanely valuable? as good as any purported miracle etc.

Evidence for karma is readily available and can be seen in my own experience on a daily basis. It is obvious to me and I tried to express that with examples, but have apparently failed. It is not mystical or moral judgment or anything like that to me. It is simple cause and effect of the actions I take the repercussions I see in my own life.

personal evidence is not what i meant. it never stands up to analysis for anyone else

If not empirical evidence, then I fail to understand what you after. Do you mean for rebirth? Or the ripening in this very life? If it is still about rebirth, then as I’ve said my belief in rebirth is founded by the logical inescapability of emptiness as expounded by Nagarjuna.

ok, well same. does it matter if i frame it in different terms? i would add that i think part of that is rational, and part empirical. having one without the other doesn't get me (anyway) anywhere

Your last paragraph seems much too kind. Poor scholarship is common-place and it seems to be the name of the game in the typical philosophy department. .  .  .

Thoughts dashed off before while waiting for the rice to cook -
Several particularly pernicious things happen when you try to investigate Buddhism intellectually or scholastically.  For one, you short change yourself.  Yeah, it's fun to ruminate about these things, but ultimately it's not going to get you anywhere.  It is utterly impossible to make any kind of spiritual progress in this way (and don't even get me started on that "dry insight" hogwash).  The more time you spent pondering these ideas, the less time you're spending on the cushion investigating your own obstacles.
The next things that can happen (and these are going to be listed in order of danger), is that when you treat these things academically, you run the risk of convincing yourself that you've actually learned something.  The thing about Buddhism is that it can make some degree of sense to us intellectually.  That koan about the fox?  On the surface, who wouldn't think that was about karma?  There's another koan about two monks arguing over whether a flag blows in the wind or in their mind, or where ever.  I forget which because, frankly, the flag, monks, wind, and the mind have nothing to do with that koan either.  If you sit there spinning ideas about either of those two koans, or the nature of mindfulness, or what the Heart Sutra means, you're missing a chance to investigate your own shortcomings and even the very nature of reality.  I don't think I need to add this, but it's like eating a picture of a cake instead of the actual thing.
Next, intellectualism gets in the way.  Oh does it get in the way!  Say you've finally made it to the cushion and are trying to reach jhana or some other useless state.  You'll sit there plugging along shoving every experience and phenomenon into the little jhana box that you built with all of your reading.  A little happiness?  Oh that must be piti!  I'm concentrated!  Ekaggata!  You sit there filling that little box with all of these fragments experience meanwhile missing the honest to goodness reality that just smacking you in the face trying you to get you to notice it.  Things that are far more important, things that you would never have expected (that's key) that have nothing to do with the jhana factors or the four foundations of mindfulness.  Worse yet, you may even try to create these phenomenon within your field of perception.  Man, if you do that, you're just plain lost.
Worse yet, an academic Buddhism completely neglects the body.  Meditation is a bodily practice.  What we learn by sweating and aching on the cushion is infinitely more important than anything we can learn in the sutras.  This is where you meet yourself face to face and really learn who you are.  Are you a coward who runs away from a challenge?  Do you get frustrated when you can't sit as long as the person on the mat next to you?  Pissed off that you haven't slept enough?  Can you lay yourself out on the edge of a sword, let yourself be cut in two, and give every iota of yourself completely over to your breath?  Questions like that are the very basis of Buddhist practice.  Questions like that never get answered through scholastic pursuits.
Lastly, academic Buddhism misrepresents the dharma.  Unless what you're reading is firmly couched in a long enduring practice (and there are some pretty fine books out there, let's be clear), you are undermining what the Buddha was trying to teach.  The Buddha's task to us was the complete transformation of our very being.  Anything that doesn't aid in that pursuit is not Buddhism.

i'm not sure about the last paragrpah (and it's why i asked the question). i guess it's horses for courses? personally, i don't see thoughts in zazen, including the ones you describe, as no different to any other. same as pleasant feelings. if i sit, it's because i felt the need to, for some reason -- often for my sanity -- and doing so does seem good for that (unlike, perhaps, reading). a token gesture? maybe we are just going different ways

You can sit to feel better.  That’s fine, but it’s strictly palliative.  When you can sit when you don’t need or want to, when you can sit when nothing is happening, when your legs hurt, and the whole matter seems futile, then you are no longer sitting on the closer shore.  You’ve gone beyond the where the academic and personal can reach, where only the foaming billows wash the sky.  In that maelstrom, you’ll meet the Buddha face to face.  And that one, you don’t kill.  ;-)

i don't mean sanity like "feeling better" what do you mean "strictly palliative"? isn't that all buddhism?

So the kind of meditation you are doing right now "keeps you sane" or "does [you] good". It's helping you cope with your life and deal with suffering.  This kind of meditation is like taking a holiday from a stressful job or having a drink to calm your nerves.  That's not what the Buddha is asking of us.  Buddhism is about completely transforming your life, your relationship to suffering - even who this "you" is.  It's about uprooting the deeper structures that keep us bound to our small minds.  This takes work.  This kind of practice is also often frustrating.

But it's the only kind of practice that leads to liberation.

This answer (and question) might be a little off-topic -- "too subjective" and "a polling question".
I don't think I'm hostile to academic analyses -- I am a bit indifferent to them, if that makes sense. I even think that an "academic" question can be helpful, in that it might help me to get an introductory or beginner's (student's) overview of a topic.
If I were hostile it might be for two reasons:

Not accurate
Not beneficial

I reckon "beneficial" is something to do with soteriology -- also ethics (sila) -- to whatever extent that's not the goal of academics, to that extent I'm maybe not so interested in academia.
As for "accurate", there's this quote from the suttas -- The Four Great References

Take a mendicant who says:

‘Reverend, I have heard and learned ...: this is the teaching, this is the training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’

You should neither approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training. If they’re not included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion:

‘Clearly this is not the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been incorrectly memorized by that mendicant.’ And so you should reject it.

... If they are included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by that mendicant.’ You should remember it.

When I read a sentence like the first one quoted in this question, i.e. ...

each action has its own specific consequence for the agent, the hedonic nature of which is determined in accordance with causal laws and in such a way as to require rebirth as long as action continues

... then that is a chore, maybe merely a chore -- to try to see how, where, whether that "clearly is the word of the Blessed One".
Instead of that chore (i.e. reading that analysis) then if I am reading I might prefer to read something closer to the original texts.
Or prefer to read an analysis written by a monk (I don't know whether you'd call that "academic").
https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/ for example is full of paraphrases -- i.e. one-sentence summaries -- of the Buddhist doctrine.
Maybe you see a sentiment resembling this one in Yeshe Tenley's answer, i.e.:

Would encourage you to study Nagarjuna and trace his arguments if you can.

Plus I am interested in academic analyses.

There's this one for example which compares two versions of an early Buddhist text -- I find the scholarly argument interesting (my dad was a historian and academic, of roman history, which I'm not) -- plus the subject seems to me consequential (a matter of soteriology and ethics, where better-understanding e.g. as provided by the academic it might give better insight in the nature of early Buddhism).
Or for example I find Piya Tan's analyses helpful if I'm trying to understand a sutta -- it's sort of carefully referenced and footnoted. Piya Tan had been monk and is now a scholar.

But then again why would you be interested in "academic" anything -- no matter what the skill or discipline or "body of knowledge" you might want to learn, people typically learn that from the practitioners or professionals. There are ways to teach Buddhism -- curriculums and sequences -- but maybe reading encyclopedia articles isn't quite the thing.
I once had a boss who retired from the army and wanted to become an entrepreneur and sales-person. He went to university and I think took a degree in "economics" -- and was very disappointed in that, that wasn't useful to him at all!

Why are some Buddhists in the west hostile to academic analyses of the
religion?

What makes you think so ?  If any Buddhist says that academic analysis of religion is prohibited then he or she is going against Dhamma. Buddha says come ,analyse and test the Dhamma by yourself and follow it only if you are convinced. Why does Buddha says so ? He says so out of deep compassion for well being of humanity. Some people try to absorb Dhamma selectively but that won’t help. One must walk the path as told by Buddha and undoubtedly it will involve some suffering.

From reading the answers, I think it's about different conceptions of what "thinking" amounts to. No-one is saying that reading academic analysis is a substitute for seated meditation or chanting.
There is a long history of debate in Buddhism, both with other Buddhists and e.g. Hindus. Whether or not you think reading its history is helpful, probably depends on whether "you" are the sort of "person" (sorry for the quotes) are the sort to decide upon your beliefs (about points of controversy) based on the need for rational analysis or conformism to an accepted norm.
Do you not slander the sutras because no-one else does, or because the texts conform to what you already understand? The alternative, e.g. the divine eye, is of course preferable.

Given there are four ways of answering questions, this medium may be suitable for only of these four. Trying to answer the other three on this site (i.e. using this Q&A format) may be an exercise in frustration -- although see also also this meta-topic.

But debate isn't the norm. In my experience the kind of debate (conversation) some academics have for fun might start with a sweeping generalisation, to which the reply might be "What do you mean by that?" or "What about X counter-example?" and so on.. But that doesn't work in this Q&A format which was originally means to  be "no chat" -- so instead someone has the burden to ask a lucid and self-explanatory question, about practice or doctrine. And if it's a question about doctrine IMO it should quote or reference the specific doctrine which it's questioning

are you saying my answer is poor? i'm not feeling frustrated at all; only when i asked the question. i do not see what's wrong here?

No, I was treating the answer as a continuation of the question, and as a meta-question about this specific site -- i.e. that although, "There is a long history of debate in Buddhism", that's true to an extent. But there's also a history of people disengaging from (e.g. sectarian) argument. And there's question about the extent to which (two-way) "debate" is possible on this site.

oh right well i wasn't trying to debate, only say what i've learnt @ChrisW

It is said that the Buddha was a like a doctor, a soul healer, so to speak.
What do you think: when there is a certain person who is overwhelmed, burdened, ruined etc by stress, possibly to the extent of being categorized as a lunatic, psychiatrically ill, mentally disordered. Which is better: either a presumably noble being with an academic degree, with lots of students and published papers, and many formal references to his work by scholars and researchers and medical doctors? Or a presumably noble (possibly even enlightened) being, coming to rescue that certain person, with infinite selfless compassion, holding the hand of that certain person, being a caring mother to him for as long as he needs, without even the ability to attach any scientific or medicinal/psychiatric labels to the relationship? Without even the ability to view those without degrees as less educated or insightful, relying on the fact that they lack a degree?
So, Enlightened Doctrine being centered around the notions of infinite compassion and self sacrificing help and caring towards others, as well as completely self reliant wisdom, insight and knowledge, I would definitely go even as far as saying that an enlightened person with a degree in Buddhism/Religion/Psychiatry is less useful than an enlightened being without a degree. If the degree, however, were in some more "mundane" science such as physics or math or chemistry, how could it interfere with the purity of compassion, humility and wisdom of the helper as perceived by the "patient"?
Or layman's terms: a wise man with a pure heart and no self-interest, you know the kind that the modern world has mostly forgotten, is much more likely to bring light and solace into the minds of those with wounded hearts, than a professional shrink with his unshakable mountain of references, books full of diagnoses, and drawers full of pills. A wise man with a pure heart and no self-interest is more likely to spark self enlightenment in those who previously thought of themselves as uncapable, whereas a proper academic/scholar will never ever give up his formal "edge", will never admit that the patient is also a doctor in disguise, an equal waiting to be awakened to that truth, just as a rich person will never reach heaven, will never want to sleep on the same floor as the homeless man, will never invite to the board of directors one who is not addicted to gold like the rich man himself.
Here is something relevant from the Dhamma:

So, out of compassion, the Buddha visited the two bhikkhus to prevent the scholar from questioning the other bhikkhu. The Buddha himself did the questioning. He put questions on jhanas and maggas to the master of the Tipitaka; but he could not answer them because he had not practised what he had taught. The other bhikkhu, having practised the Dhamma and having attained arahatship, could answer all the questions. The Buddha praised the one who practised the Dhamma (i.e., a vipassaka), but not a single word of praise was spoken for the learned scholar (i.e., a ganthika).

reference: https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/verseload.php?verse=019


text:
Will sentient beings go to hell for abandoning the Holy Dharma?
The sanghata sutra says that upon death a person that abandons the Holy Dharma will have his dreams broken and go to hell for 8 aeons.

The Blessed One said: “Sarva-shúra, limitless are the migrations of sentient beings who disparage the holy Dharma. Limitless too are their future lives. Sarva-shúra, sentient beings who abandon the holy Dharma will experience feelings for an eon in the sentient beings’ great hell of Lamentation; for an eon in the Crushing Hell, an eon in the Hot Hell, an eon in the Extremely Hot Hell, an eon in the great hell of Black Lines, an eon in the great hell of Avíci, an eon in the great hell called Hair Rising, an eon in the great hell of Calling Out ‘Alas!’ and, Sarva-shúra, they will have to experience the sufferings of these eight great hells for eight eons.”

So if someone converts to another religion he will go to hell?

This is not an admonition against converting to another religion per se. This has to do with the consequences of knowingly giving up or disparaging something very specific and grave.
I think this Sutra is equating the Holy Dharma with undertaking and committing to the Bodhisattva vows. And not by a lowly being, but by a Great Being. If a truly Great Being has managed the incredible - near miraculous task - of actually generating engaged Bodhicitta - which is very specific and requires a super-heroic herculean effort - and then abandons that Bodhicitta or disparages it, then the consequences are world shatteringly bad for that being and all that depend upon them.
Knowingly giving up and totally abandoning the Bodhisattva vows and/or disparaging Bodhicitta - the noble goal of attaining enlightenment and becoming a Buddha for the sole sake of liberating countless sentient beings - is a karmic action that will result in countless lifetimes in the worst possible hells. Why is this so?
Knowingly giving up or breaking the perfectly accomplished Bodhisattva Vows or disparaging the truly generated and engaged Bodhicitta is among the blackest and heaviest of karmas one could possibly inflict upon oneself. Why? Because it destroys the hopes of countless sentient beings who are relying upon the Bodhisattva to accomplish their goal.
When you take vows there are consequences to breaking them. This is true for all vows. And the Bodhisattva vows are among the most serious vows that could possibly be taken.

The mention of lamentation suggests a being who is far along the path, and possibly a bodhisattva. If a bodhisattva abandons the Dharma then they also abandon other beings. On the other hand, disparaging the Dharma is also pretty bad since it diverts beings away from the Dharma.

If someone converts in another religion, he won't go to hell. What matters is karma, not what religious group you declare yourself to belong to.

“Beings are the owners of their deeds (kammaorkarma), heirs to their deeds, their deeds are the womb from which they sprang, they are bound up with their deeds, their deeds are their refuge. Whatever deeds they do—good or evil —of such they will be the heirs.
  AN 10:205

What decide your fate is the sum of your deeds.
Now if someone abandons the holy dharma, i think the correct interpretation would not be that they specifically give up the buddhist religion, but that they adopt behaviours and value that are opposed to the noble path taught by buddhism, and disparage buddhists teachings which might be a cause of bad karma in itself.
As a consequence, they will reinforce their implication in the samsara and experience transmigrations from realm to realm, rebirth in hell being a likely event along this path, as well as innumerable periods of wandering through all the realms.


text:
Why are there so many fire incidents happening around the world?
Recently there was fire in Australia and before that there was fire in USA.
In India fire incidents keep happening.
My question is given the fact fire is a natural element, what causes such fire disasters?

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it seems as an attempt to discuss climate change.

It's a total valid and good question, reaching till high Abhidhamma. Rupa requires nama.

Cosmic order is governed by the 5 Niyama Dhamma:

utu-niyāma “the constraint of the seasons”, i.e. in certain regions of the earth at certain periods the flowering and fruiting of trees all at one time (ekappahāreneva), the blowing or ceasing of wind, the degree of the heat of the sun, the amount of rain-fall, some flowers like the lotuses opening during the day and closing at night and so on;

bīja-niyāma “the constraint of seeds or germs”, i.e. a seed producing its own kind as barley seed produces barley;

kammaniyāma “the constraint of kamma”, i.e. good actions produce good results and bad actions produce bad results. This constraint is said to be epitomised by [Dhammapada] verse 127 which explains that the consequences of actions are inescapable;

citta-niyāma “the constraint of mind”, i.e. the order of the process of mind-activities as the preceding thought-moment causing and conditioning the succeeding one in a cause and effect relation;

dhamma-niyāma “the constraint of dhammas”, i.e. such events like the quaking of the ten thousand world-systems at the Bodhisatta’s conception in his mother’s womb and at his birth. At the end of the discussion Sumaṅgalavilāsinī passage the Commentary says that dhammaniyāma explains the term dhammatā in the text of the Mahāpadāna Sutta (D ii.12) (Cf. S 12.20 for a discussion of the use of the word dhammaniyamatā in the suttas)

Bush and forest fires generally happen due to dry weather which is utu-niyāma.

Good answer. Smartly you have avoided the assumption of anomaly in fire incidents ... everything is normal. But if one keeps ignoring the truth then how will one learn ?

And "Bush and forest fires generally happen due to dry weather which is utu-niyāma.": isn't weather and place of dwelling a matter of Upanissaya (strong condition causes, kamma, tendecy), spoken in Abhidhamma means, Upasaka Sirinath? What about bringing it in relation with the "Fire ceremony" and attachment to sensuality? In lesser sensual attached areas there might be cooler weather or?


text:
Emptiness in mind and in reality
Recent exchange here got me thinking. Nagarjuna's karika, 1.3 (Batchelor)

Na hi svabhāvo bhāvānāṃ pratyayādiṣu vidyate
Avidyamāne svabhāve parabhāvo na vidyate
The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on.
If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist.

There is a venerable tradition of different interpretations of Nagarjuna, based on "the two truths".
Can that phrase be read to mean emptiness does not exist in non-emptiness: if and only if an own thing does not exist in non-emptiness then an other thing does not exist in emptiness
So the first phrase says that emptiness is empty in the sense that the absence of svabhava does not exist in things. After that, that whenever a self caused thing cannot be found, then there is no other empty thing.
I don't think it's a normal interpretation?

For the purposes of my philosophical question elsewhere (a neat argument for karma and rebirth) I have rendered 'empty' to mean 'analytic' and 'non-empty' to mean empirical.

Definition of analytic. Of or relating to analysis or analytics
  especially : separating something into component parts or constituent
  elements.
Definition of empirical. Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

I cannot understand the question. You ask some good ones but often they take some untangling. Perhaps others will know what you mean.

The linked question on philosophy stack exchange is helpful in untangling it. I think I understand the arguments in the linked scholarship, but still have not understood the leap from that to this particular verse and the connection to karma and rebirth. Will answer if/when I do.

i very much look forward to your reply @YesheTenley

What are things empty of? What is the actual object of negation? In my understanding, this is very clear and has a definite answer. It is a very specific thing that Nagarjuna and Buddha has in mind when they says things are empty of it. Emptiness is not to be interpreted as a general sort of emptiness. Is that the way you also see it?

clearer now @YesheTenley

@user2512 maybe this answer will also help. https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/44639/13375

Subtleties... The concept of emptiness is a mental object that is predicated on other things. We only get to the concept of emptiness by seeing through and negating the fullness (meaningfulness) of other concepts.
The experience of emptiness in not predicated on the concept of it. To experience emptiness is to see that 'emptiness' is no more real than 'fullness'.
If one holds the concept of a thing-in-its-own-right (an 'own thing'), one must hold the concept of its negation (that which is 'not-such'). If one holds the concept of a negation, one must hold a concept of that which has been negated (a thing-in-its-own-right). So what lies beneath those concepts?

The argument -- for karma -- is that causes have essences in the exact same way as they bring about their effects

The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on... Since there is no effect, what could [be its] non-conditions or conditions?

One answer -- to the rhetorical question -- is that the essence of things is their conditions and so on. The essence of things do not exist in conditions, fire is not fire because it burns leaves, but are those conditions (what births another thing): fire is fire because it burns -- leaves in the same way as itself.
I don't think that's anti-Buddhist. As long as we're clear that's only conventionally, and ultimately there is no causation and I am not the same thing before and after I am reborn.

I've asked a question about philosophical reasoning from this phrase.
  Suffice to say I was wondering if it can be read as an argument for a
  karmically conditioned rebirth

Its the opposite. When there is no essence of things nor in conditions, there can be no "rebirth".

that's nihilism -1

i mean it's not an awful reply, i'm being dogmatic really. but yeah

its not nihilism. you do not know what annihilationism means in Buddhism

Ajita Kesakambala followed Gosāla as the third teacher mentioned by Ajatashatru. Kesakambala followed "ucchedaditthi" (often translated as nihilism or annihilationism) and is frequently understood to be a materialist. Kesakambala held that all in existence was merely the process of natural phenomena and vehemently denied the existence of any life after death; "A man is built up of the four elements', when he dies, earth returns to the aggregate of earth, water to water, fire to fire, air to air, and the senses vanish into space."

don't think too much :).
The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on.
It simply means "there is no self or eternal-self within and behind causes & conditions".
For eg. sometimes when a meditator sees everything with non-existence(wave nature) eye, perception of there is nothing occurs but the seer itself is having a materialistic aspect also, so meditator might develop an essence of eternalism or self as view.
Another simple eg. Considering buddha to be as immortal_existing_being as god; considering dhamma to be immortal_existing_being as child of god.

nice idea ha... sorry i didn't upvote

I presume you equate emptiness with analysis because on analysis things are empty, and non-emptiness with 'empirical' because to our senses things are non-empty. Is that it?
Thus our senses lead us into naive realism, while analysis leads us out again.
The complication would be experience, which some folk classify as 'empirical' and some don't. Thus we could say emptiness is an empirical discovery.
You ask - Can that phrase be read to mean emptiness does not exist in non-emptiness: if and only if an own thing does not exist in non-emptiness then an other thing does not exist in emptiness
Nagarjuna is clear. Nothing really exists. The words after the colon here seem a muddle to me. Emptiness is not a thing that exists.
The discussion is tricky because emptiness may be an ontological term applied to phenomena or meditative states, or in Theravada may be a term for non-self.
In Mahayana it is the idea that all things are empty of intrinsic existence, or it may refer to the emptiness of original awareness. For the former it may be helpful to consider Kant's 'thing-in-itself', and this may be the 'emptiness of analysis' you speak of. By analysis Kant concluded things are empty of inherent existence and consist only of perceived attributes. I see him as providing a bridge between 'Western' and 'Eastern' or 'non-dual' thinking in this respect.
I'm just pondering the issues generally because I still cannot quite understand what's being asked. I wonder if the question is assuming emptiness is a phenomena.

ok. that's a shame, because to me my language is clearer than nagarjuna's and garfield's. i guess that's normal

I find Garfield unsatisfactory and much too wordy. I would recommend 'The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way' by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso. It's short and clear.

On the contrary: "To think ‘it is,’ is eternalism,
To think ‘it is not,’ is nihilism:
Being and non-being,
The wise cling not to either." Nagarjuna rejects positive and negative assertions about whether things exist.

That is a highly eccentric use of analytic and empirical, that can only cause confusion. Analytic truth typically means truth by definition, or from definition. Empirical, from observation, or events. Both depend on causes and conditions, and their results lack inherent nature.

"To think ‘it is,’ is eternalism,
To think ‘it is not,’ is nihilism:
Being and non-being,
The wise cling not to either."
-Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 15:10

Emptiness is, of inherent nature. Nagarjuna is refuting metaphysical speculation about identity and essences, using the four corners of the catuskoti. This is pointing at the insufficiency of our intuitions, of our terminology, such  as to 'not even be wrong'. Another term for emptiness is inter-being. And a powerful metaphor is Indra's Net.
This article draws comparison between what Nagarjuna is doing & other philosophers, which I think helps clarify how he is 'using words to escape words'. What Dogen drew attention to in the Shobogenzo fascicle 'On the Vines That Entangle: the Vines That Embrace' (available here), as words and thinking not as arguments to create a 'thicket of views', but as a practice: dedicated to awakening.


text:
Is it considered "normal" / "possible" / "bad" / "wrong" the use of Mala Beads for counting breaths while meditating?
I sometimes use my Mala Bead during meditation, I find it quite "concentrating" to turn one bead for each breath.
As I read online, when I reach the center bead, I reverse the rotation and start rotating the beads in the opposite direction.
Is this a considered "normal" behaviour? Or I just came up with it, mixing (and maybe misunderstanding) what I've been reading/studying?
Thanks!

These are fine for now, but remember, they’re just training wheels.  Your big boy bike is your breath.  For the purposes of samatha or “calm meditation” you are looking for an object that is subtle.  For one, it requires more unification of mind to find.  These will require that you move away from other distractions.  Less appreciated is that the breath will become less of a distraction as your sitting deepens.  Those beads, believe it or not, are going to become a bull in the proverbial china shop if you keep using them.  The sensate data from the feel of the beads to the sound of them clicking - not to mention the volition of moving your fingers - is going to prevent you from getting much deeper into your sits.  They great thing about the breath is that it becomes less obtrusive as your mind calms.  In fact it nearly vanishes once you near full absorption.

Thank you, this was the kind of answer I was looking for - as I had the same doubts about them being "helpful", but probably easing becoming something "different" and taking place over it.
Thanks!

Using beads for samadhi sounds weird. Anapanasati is being sensitive to cittasankara and kayasankara before killing them, no beads will ever to this for you.
Generally speaking people cling to their wrong idea that some external objects will clean their citta for them, like some sound, like Om, or some things they see, or even a splash of water will wash all the hindrances and bad karma magically.
But like the buddha said, what matters is to clean the mind and this is done ''by the mind itself'', no objects will do this for you, or way better said, cleaning the citta is done with proper attention, with sati and so on.

Thanks for your answer, actually I never mentioned (not thought) about any special "power" they can have, or anything they could "do" for me. I was simply asking if you see it as a wrong practice to use them to count the breaths.
Or maybe I have too small knowledge of terms like "samadhi", "Anapanasati" , "cittasankara" or "kayasankara"


text:
pranayama unsettles my meditation practice
I sit for a daily meditation, it will be deep most days. I have been advised to add pranayama(alternate nostril) to my practice and when i add that to my routine. It disturbs my sleep and as well my deepness in meditation. Does anyone undergo this ? Any suggestions to overcome this.

NOTE: Pranayama is a yogic practice of controlling the breath. The Early Buddhist Texts (EBTs) recommend observation, not control.  Asking about pranayama might be more appropriate in a yoga forum.

Yoga does have both physiological and psychological benefits, when practised lightly and not as an ascetic practice, however, it is not tied to the Buddhist goal of Nirvana. The Buddha also practice certain forms of it and gave up as it was not linked to the goal of Nirvana which The Buddha was searching. At certain extremities, this is counterproductive, for physical well being, psychology and meditation.
As you have said, some forms can be unsettling and not conducive to meditation. This is especially true for mindfulness.
E.g. following is a paragraph which highlights extreme forms of Khecarī mudrā / kriya leads to unsettling which is not conducive to meditation especially mindfulness:

Clenched teeth, tongue pressed against the palate
Aggivessana, it occurred to me,
  ‘Suppose, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, hold back,
  and crush the mind with mind.’
So, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, held back,
  crushed the mind with mind. While I did so, sweat ran from my armpits.
It was just as if a strong man, holding a weaker man by the head or shoulders, were to restrain,
  subdue, and attack him;
even so, with my teeth clenched and my tongue pressed against my palate, I beat down, held
  back, and crushed the mind with mind, and sweat ran down my armpits.
But although I exerted tireless energy, and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm,
because I was exhausted by the painful striving.
But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.

Mahā Saccaka Sutta
Similarly, extreme Prāṇāyāma and Bandha also leads to unsettling experiences not conducive to meditation especially mindfulness:

Breathingless meditation
(1) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise the breathingless meditation.’
So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth and nose.
  While I did so, there was a loud sound of winds coming out from my ear-holes, just like the loud
  sound of winds from a smith’s bellows.
But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.
But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.
Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.
ARABLE OF THE STRONG MAN (1)
While I did so, violent winds cut through my head, just as if a strong man were splitting my
  head open with a sharp sword.
But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.
But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.
(2) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.
PARABLE OF THE STRONG MAN (2)
While I did so, there were violent pains in my head, just as if a strong man [244] were tightening a strong leather strap around my head as a headband.
But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.
But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.
(3) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.
PARABLE OF THE BUTCHER
While I did so, violent winds carved up my belly,
  just as if a skilled butcher or his apprentice
  were to carve up an ox’s belly with a sharp butcher’s knife.
But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.
But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain.
(4) Aggivessana, it occurred to me, ‘Suppose I practise further the breathingless meditation.’
  So I stopped my in-breaths and out-breaths through my mouth, nose and ears.
PARABLE OF THE TWO MEN
While I did so, there was a violent burning in my body, just as if two men were to seize a weaker man by both arms and roast him over a pit of burning coal.
But although I exerted tireless energy and unremitting mindfulness was established in me, my
  body was overstrained and lacking calm, because I was exhausted by the painful striving.
But, Aggivessana, such painful feeling that arose in me did not invade my mind and remain. Now, Aggivessana, when the devas saw me, some said: ‘The recluse Gotama is dead!’
  Other devas said: ‘The recluse Gotama is not dead but dying!’
  Still others said: ‘The recluse Gotama is neither dead nor dying: he is an arhat;
  such is how arhats
  dwell!’

Mahā Saccaka Sutta
Similar accounts are found in: (Deva) Saṅgarava Sutta, Mahā Saccaka Sutta, Bodhi Rāja,kumāra Sutta, etc. where pitfalls of these practices are discussed.
Yoga practices are fabricating practices creating new Saṅkhāra while the Buddhist practice avoids creating new Saṅkhāra, hence different in the final results.

While I scored your answer up; the 1st sentence of your answer about “yoga benefits” appeared to contradict the rest of your answer. Regards

I have updated the wording.

The advice you received was wrong. Both asana & pranayama can harm & even ruin the natural flow of consciousness & breathing required for Buddhist meditation & dissolution of stored defilements.
The Buddhist practise called “anapanasati” means remembering to let go of craving so the mind becomes quiet & naturally aware of the in & out breathing. Anapanasati is not a form of pranayama. Even most meditation techniques taught by Buddhist commentators & teachers are wrong. When the mind suspends craving & is quiet, the experience of anapanasati will unfold & progress naturally.

Why are you practicing pranayama? Sounds like if it's disturbing your sleep, you're practicing it too intensely. Like any kind of physical exercise, it's all about how you do it. If you do it gentle and smooth, it should't disturb your sleep. Any kind of physical exercise done too intensely, you can injure yourself, raise your adrenaline, etc, and disturb your sleep pattern.

yes i made it gentle now and reduced my time of doing


text:
Establishing a shrine in the bedroom?
If one weren't able to have a proper room in which to establish a shrine, could the bedroom be a suitable place to put a statue of the Buddha ?
As expressed by Lama Yeshe, sexual misconduct would include sexual activity if it is "near holy objects, such as the guru or the Triple Gem." (reference Taking the Mahayana Restoring and Purifying Ordination), thus reassessing how I approach the situation.
Considering this, would shrouding the shrine with a cloth or in a cabinet be sufficient to keep it there in such a place when not practicing ?
Many blessings to you.

This topic might be related or similar -- Do all Buddhists abstain from alcohol? -- not about alcohol but about locating a statue (especially MatthewMartin's answer there).

Thank you for your comment ChrisW, although in this context it is possible that people might have not been sufficiently acquainted with the Buddhadharma to see the possible consequences of the use of altars and statues representing the Buddha or the Triple Gem, which would differ from differ from here.

First, you should keep in mind that rules are different for those on the monastic path than those who are lay practitioners. Monastics are not supposed to engage in any sexual activity (in most orders), but it is presumed that lay practitioners can engage in sexual activity without it being considered misconduct (so long as they adopt the right attitude). All you need to do is maintain a properly respectful attitude towards your altar.  This might involve covering your altar, buying a small folding screen to put in front of it, or even taking down your altar and putting it away when you are not meditating.
It's worth keeping in mind that purpose of an altar is to create the proper mental state (attitude) for meditation and spiritual development. The altar itself has no intrinsic value or meaning beyond that which you imbue it with; it is more like a stepping stone or walking stick that helps keep you on the path as you move forward. An attachment to rites and rituals (sīlabbata-parāmāsa) is one of the Ten Fetters, so while it is important to maintain an attitude of respect towards any altar or image of the Buddha, one does so because it creates respect for the Buddha within, not because some external Buddha or external rule demands it. Follow your conscience and you will not go wrong.

Thank you so much for your clarifying answer. To keep a level head on these matters is a arduous task, I hear and read stories of people for example kicking involuntary a stupa and creating negative karma (but also positive as it creates connexion to the Dharma). Practically speaking, could the altar be set on top of a shelf within which books are stored (Dharma on top in seperated cases and "wordly" underneath) ?

Well, I hate to over-specify, because this really is a matter for your own conscience. I will say (as a practical matter) that you don't want your altar too high, otehrwise it becomes difficult to use it. Generally speaking, you want your altar position so that when you are sitting on your cushion, you can see the altar with your neck and head in a neutral position (neither craning up nor craning down). So if you're cushion is on the floor, the base of your altar would probably be 2' to 2.5' high. On most bookshelves that would be the second or third self from the bottom.

I don't see a problem with that, so long as your mind is clear about it, but I'd be careful to keep it 'clean' by keeping random junk from piling up on the other shelves. You might want to have a cloth or curtain to cover the 'worldly' material when you are meditating, unless you're intentionally trying to bring your meditation practice into your secular studies.

Put the shrine above your meditation cushion so that you sit below the Buddha. The Buddha isn't really a sleeping companion.  The emphasis should be on practice, even if you practice in the bedroom. The shrine should be in a place dedicated to the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. Be mindful of the place, not the room. Indeed, if it is in your bedroom, you can protect the place by keeping it clearly separate.

Thank you very much Oyamist for your answer, I will certainly put it to good use.


text:
Cannot find amazing Buddhism resource with a sequence of instructions/guidance by level
I've previously come across an incredible Buddhism resource that has escaped me. It was a website with a non-modern design, plenty of sub pages that were formed in a sequence in terms of how to study buddhism.
In particular:

there were different "levels" at which different techniques were appropriate and articles were split by the stages/levels
for each of these levels there were a lot of comparisons (e.g., what type of problem/need you can remove at that level, what meditation is applicable at level, the Truths, the Paths)
it was illustrated with quotes and pictures from the masters and written in Buddhist language, not a beginner-friendly wikiHow-like style
it was quite an extensive resource

The closest comparison I've found is the Basic Buddhism Guide on Buddhanet , but was I'm looking for was a less modern website, with more pictures and written in a more traditional style.

What tradition was it? Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan, Zen? Maybe details like this could help people locate it?

Absolutely - I'm 90% sure it was Vipassana, 10% chance it was Zen! Sorry wish I could remember precisely, it's between those two though.

As for the 1. Step: Better to Give than to Consume. The next would come by given cause.

Just a shot in the dark as I am not sure how well it matches your description, but could it be this? https://studybuddhism.com/
That site used to have an older version that was decidedly less modern and had the feeling of a much older website, but it has been updated recently.

Thanks a lot for sharing, unfortunately not this one, it was a lot less modern and the language was more traditional (as if taken from a Buddhism book), but the content was similar in structure.

Could be this:
https://accesstoinsight.org/
It’s Theravadan.

I don't think that describes "different levels" etc., nor say much about meditation, nor have pictures -- (which were all part of the OP's description).

That's right :(, it's not the one.


text:
Pressing palms together in respect for the lotus sutra - a boddhisattva?
I listened to the lotus sutra as an audiobook. There I heard that when one presses the palms together in respect for the lotus sutra, it means that one has paid already homage to myriads of Buddhas in the past. Does that mean if I do this I am eligible to become a Buddha?

What does 'eligible to become a Buddha' mean to you? I am not sure what you have in mind.

Will I be able to? Because from what I’ve read/listened to you have to have paid homage to myriads of Buddhas before you are able to become a Buddha yourself. Correct me if I’m wrong.

@MalikA - Don't worry. No need to pay homage to anyone. Somewhere along the line in your practice you might find yourself wanting to pay homage but that'll be your decision and by then you'll have some idea of the reason for it. You are definitely already eligible and have no choice in the matter.   .    .

If you’re making the effort to listen to the sutra in the first place, you’re paying plenty of homage already.

The greeting with joined palms is mentioned throughout the suttas. In general, the entire Sangha is worthy of such greeting:

DN33:1.11.105: ‘The Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples is practicing the way that’s good, straightforward, methodical, and proper. It consists of the four pairs, the eight individuals. This is the Saṅgha of the Buddha’s disciples that is worthy of offerings dedicated to the gods, worthy of hospitality, worthy of a religious donation, worthy of greeting with joined palms, and is the supreme field of merit for the world.’

Note the clarification about four pairs and eight individuals. The fourth pair comprises those perfected or practicing for perfection. But it takes more than simply paying homage. All of these eight individuals have undertaken the Noble Eightfold Path: Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Immersion.
Even Gautama Buddha had to be encouraged to pay homage to a living Buddha. He had to be grabbed by the hair:

MN81:8.16: Then Ghaṭīkāra grabbed Jotipāla by the hair of his freshly-washed head and said, ‘Dear Jotipāla, the Buddha Kassapa’s monastery is not far away. Let’s go to see the Blessed One Kassapa, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. For I regard it as holy to see that Blessed One.’

It is good that you are paying homage to the Buddhas already. But perhaps more attention to the entire Noble Eighfold Path would be more effective than such simple observances?

Thanks but that is not Mahayana.


text:
King Siddharta, his wife Jasodhara, and other buddhas
What happened to king Siddhartha after he left the palace after renouncing the duty of King?How many days queen Jasodhara remained in the palace with his son?A king is not so weak minded so that he he will give up kingdom.This is hard to believe he forsook every kind of luxury after seeing a Deadbody and a blind person or leper.what occured to him,many learned writers have written.After king siddhartha,there were other Buddhas which include Ananda and other Buddhas who took over preaching and practice.since king Siddhartha was king of a kingdom he did not live the life of a sage for a long period.This is obvious. Queen Jasodhara also left the palace with his son.My question is what king Siddhartha Gautam and other renowned Buddhas were in the sight of new king and his ministry.Buddhism existed even before king Siddhartha Gautam. And what happened to Queen Jasodhara and his son?I request answer what I can believe because the history is about 5000 years old.BUDDHADEB IS ALSO KNOWN AS SHAKYAMUNI.

Is this several questions? The first question ("what happened?") sounds like you're asking for a reference e.g. to the Titipaka? And then several sentences, which say "It's hard to believe" but which aren't phrased as a question? Then you ask a question "what king Siddhartha Gautam and other renowned Buddhas were in the sight of new king" where I don't understand the grammar? Lastly, about Queen Jasodhara and his son -- the suttas say that they ordained and that the son at least (named Rāhula) became an arahant -- is that what you're asking? And what are you asking about Shin and Zen Buddhism?

@ChrisW-it is hard to believe -the phrase means this is not believed or believable."In the sight"-the use is common and found in many sentences such as"He was good in the sight of GOD.I am sorry about grammar and phrasal use.

I'm sorry I didn't understand and that my English isn't always clear. So that part of the question is, "how did the new king (of the Shakyas), who became king because Siddhārtha didn't, how did he view Gautama Buddha (i.e. what was his opinion of, or how was his relationship with, the Buddha)?"

@ChrisW-During  long 80 years,King Siddhartha,Gautam Buddha,and other Buddhas left handing over charges to other Buddhas many times.This post might seem to be opinion based.Is it to believed that same Siddhartha and other Buddhas meditated for eighty years  sometimes roaming sometimes under a tree? .Was King Siddhartha and Gautam Buddha was of same identity?The history is 5000 years old.In my post I used IMAGINATION a little.and the posti  is not opinion based.I don't want want to distort the facts BUDDHADEB WAS "LIGHT OF ASIA".Ant factual error is regretted.

@ChrisW-This is no wonder that about 30 percent of world population are Buddhists.People are greatly.influenced by teachings of Buddhadeb  and Buddhism as a whole.

That seems to be several questions -- I'll try to answer them all but only briefly.
What happened to king Siddhartha after he left the palace after renouncing the duty of King?
He was never "king". He was son of a king -- or, Wikipedia says,

Shakya
Gautama Buddha (c. 6th to 4th centuries BCE), whose teachings became the foundations of Buddhism,[note 2] was the best-known Shakya. Known in his own lifetime as Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha was the son of Śuddhodana, the elected leader of the Śākya Gaṇarājya.

After he left the palace he tried to gain enlightenment (liberation). He studied with several teachers, eventually succeeded when he was alone (thus becoming an "arahant"), decided to teach what he learned (which a Buddha does: teaches). This is summarised in Ariyapariyesana Sutta: The Noble Search (MN 26).
He then taught for the rest of his life, leading the "Sangha" (i.e. Buddhist monastics) and passing away at about the age 80.
How many days queen Yaśodharā remained in the palace with his son?
I don't know exactly. She eventually left the palace to join him, with the son who was named Rahula -- they both became monastics too, joined the Sangha -- so did Mahapajapati Gotami, who was Siddhārtha's step-mother and who asked that the Sangha be expanded to include nuns as well as monks.
Rahula eventually became an arahant too (which I think, from memory and without looking it up and so I might be wrong, was when he was a young man); and so did Yaśodharā.
A few suttas include the Buddha's teaching Rahula. I think this is an early one, -- Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone (MN 61) -- and that sutta was when Rahula was age 7 or something like that.
That implies that the princess and son didn't stay more than a few years in the palace after Siddhārtha left, possibly (I don't know) just long enough until Rahula was old enough to survive without nurses etc.
Wikipedia's biography of Yasodharā suggests it was 6 years before the Buddha returned to near where they were living, and it was then that they joined the Sangha.
A king is not so weak minded so that he he will give up kingdom. This is hard to believe he forsook every kind of luxury after seeing a Deadbody and a blind person or leper.what occured to him,many learned writers have written.
If you say so. Bhikkhu Bodhi for example sounded a little skeptical too when he wrote this essay -- Meeting the Divine Messengers -- you might like to read that.
After king siddhartha, there were other Buddhas which include Ananda and other Buddhas who took over preaching and practice.
People like Ananda are called "monks" (if and when they joined "the Sangha" i.e. the community of monks).
There are different degrees of liberation -- Four stages of enlightenment (Wikipedia) -- and though many other monks became Arahants through the Buddha's teaching-and-discipline, Ananda himself didn't reach that last stage (Arahant) until after the Buddha death (though Ananda too was teaching even before then).
None of them are called "Buddhas" though -- there is only one Buddha at a time (called 'Sammāsambuddha'), that Buddha then teaches others.
The monks teaching each other and practising wasn't "instead of" the Buddha teaching and practising (it was, "as well as").
The Buddha wasn't a king. The story is that it was prophesied that he'd become either a Buddha or a World-ruler, which was why his father tried to keep him isolated in a palace.
since king Siddhartha was king of a kingdom he did not live the life of a sage for a long period. This is obvious.
He never became king (not in that lifetime anyway) -- left the palace before he became king.
My question is what king Siddhartha Gautam and other renowned Buddhas were in the sight of new king and his ministry.
I don't know -- don't remember whether that's said anywhere, i.e. the relationship between the Buddha and the rulers of his former nation (including his father)?
One thing that is written is that that nation (the Shakyas) was destroyed by or conquered in a war.
Was King Siddhartha and Gautam Buddha was of same identity?
They're the same person (except, as I said, Siddhartha wasn't a king).
I'd tend to say "Siddhārtha" to refer to him before hist enlightenment, and the Buddha afterwards (or another translated title like "the Blessed One" -- bhagavant).
BUDDHADEB
I think I've never heard this word being used. Wikipedia says that was the name of a 20th century Indian politician.

it was at Mahapajapati Gotami's request that the Sangha was expanded to include nuns as well as monks

Rahula's arahantship is in MN 147

Thank you for those edits.

Thank you for your good work in offering a comprehensive answer. With metta

Buddha's full life story is found in this book with his family tree.
Buddha and his teaching by Narada
============
One glorious day as he went out of the palace to the pleasure park to see the world outside, he came in direct contact
with the stark realities of life. Within the narrow confines of
the palace he saw only the rosy side of life, but the dark side,
the common lot of mankind, was purposely veiled from him.
What was mentally conceived, he, for the first time, vividly
saw in reality. On his way to the park his observant eyes met
the strange sights of a decrepit old man, a diseased person, a
corpse and a dignified hermit.18 The first three sights convincingly proved to him, the inexorable nature of life, and the universal ailment of humanity. The fourth signified the means to
overcome the ills of life and to attain calm and peace. These
four unexpected sights served to increase the urge in him to
loathe and renounce the world.
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/buddha-teachingsurw6.pdf


text:
Is uncertainty incompatible with the doctrine of emptiness?
For purposes of this question I define “uncertainty” as a willingness to entertain doubt or acknowledge incomplete knowledge with regards to the truth of the matter about what one knows of a particular question of subject. And I define “the truth of the matter” as an objective fact about some aspect of reality which is independent of observer or context and is not contingent in any way.
For a long while I have regarded myself as unusually capable or comfortable with uncertainty. Having a general willingness to see the gray in every question and to acknowledge my own incomplete knowledge. To see and entertain the viewpoints of others and to grant that my own viewpoint is not certain. A general comfortability with complexity that is above average. And this is something I prided myself in thinking of as beneficial.
However, I recently realized that a lot of what I define as “uncertainty” presupposes an objective fact of the matter that is not contingent. And that it handcuffs me at times in that I can be of two, three, or more minds about something and unsure of the proper course to take.
Moreover, it occurred to me that this is not compatible with the doctrine of emptiness which I understand quite clearly as saying that for every conception that I have... it is not undergirded by a genuine non-contingent fact of the matter.
So with that...
Is uncertainty as defined above incompatible with emptiness?
If so, how? If so, what repercussions can be seen as occurring with this misunderstanding? What is an appropriate definition of uncertainty or one that is compatible with emptiness or how things really exist?
If not, why not? Where is the error in my thinking?
A question that might be related, but different is Is lack of doubt a form of self-cherishing?

I'm struggling to understand the question. Either we are uncertain or we are not - it's not a choice - and the connection with emptiness is unclear to me. Are you thinking that we choose to have doubts and be uncertain? In what way is this a choice? .

Hi PeterJ, yes it is apparent to me that the question is mystifying or at least if is not well understood what I am actually asking. Sorry for that. I am saying that uncertainty as defined presupposes an objective answer. An ultimate truth of the matter. And my understanding of emptiness does not include that there exist objective truths of the matter. All truths are relative.

So insofar as uncertainty presupposes an objective truth of the matter it seems to me incompatible with emptiness. I guess in order to answer the question you first have to understand emptiness conceptually the same way that I do and I am not sure others do.

FWIW, I am not sure anyone else on this forum shares my conceptual understanding of emptiness which is informed by Nagarjuna. That may be just because I am wrong of course. There are times when I have felt others have come close, but of course it is very hard to verify that someone else shares your conceptual understanding especially with a concept so subtle as emptiness. I have the most confidence that Ruben - interestingly a Theravada practitioner - has an inkling of what I (mid)understand. We have had some beneficial dialogue.

So Ruben, if you see this, would love to hear your answer and if you understand my question...

my two cents is that you need certainty -- but in what you're doing, not the trappings of it

@YesheTenley - Your comment adds much clarity. I'll post an answer.

I found the question tricky to understand but this comment made it clear.
"I am saying that uncertainty as defined presupposes an objective answer. An ultimate truth of the matter. And my understanding of emptiness does not include that there exist objective truths of the matter. All truths are relative."
I note you're a student of Nagarjuna, as am I. Interpretations vary wildly.
Nagarjuna proves there is a truth of the matter, viz. that all positive views are logically indefensible thus by implication false, and genuine Reality is beyond conceptual fabrication. These would be demonstrable truths true in all universes.
The way I see it the absurdity of positive theories is a relative truth, an outcome of logical analysis. Their falsity would be an objective truth for him, verified in experience or by identity, but would be a relative and uncertain truth for those who infer their falsity from their absurdity.
Nagarjuna shows that we need not be uncertain. He refutes all false views to reveal the correct one. So I'm not sure how uncertainty comes into his.
You say " it occurred to me that this is not compatible with the doctrine of emptiness which I understand quite clearly as saying that for every conception that I have... it is not undergirded by a genuine non-contingent fact of the matter."
This would be because Reality is beyond conceptual fabrication. In this case every conception we have will be wrong. But this is a certainty! We can be certain that all extreme views are wrong and certain that all our ideas are wrong. After this there's not much room for uncertainty.
So I see Nagarjuna as giving us certainty, or at least showing how it may be acquired. We can know with certainty that all positive or extreme views are logically indefensible, and in this case Reality must be either absurd or beyond conceptual fabrication. The first idea would seem redundant when there's a better one available.
This is a demonstrable result and as such a certainty, but the demonstration depends on the rules of logic and reason so produces only relative knowledge. Nagarjuna does not depend on demonstrations but on experience and realisation so for him this would be certain and absolute knowledge.
So I'm wondering what uncertainty has to do with this, or why you would doubt there is an objective truth of the matter. This is not what Nagarjuna proposes. He proposes there is an objective truth and he knows it, and it is the falsity of all extreme views and the truth of emptiness.
Have I grasped what you're asking or is this off-topic? It's a fascinating issue.

You are close to the heart of my question, but not quite there yet. Not wanting to concentrate on Ultimate Truth or the non-deceptive non-conceptual direst perception emptiness. This is not what I have in mind when I say, “there is on objective truth of the matter.” I am rather wanting to talk about mundane conceptual truths. In particular, the truth about what is going through the minds of other people and my interactions with them. Often times I am uncertain and do not act with conviction or confidence as a result.

And the thought occurred to me that this uncertainty causing my lack of conviction is based implicitly on the idea that there is an underlying objective, non-contingent, fact of the matter, about what other people are thinking or what is going through their minds. But this is incompatible with my understanding of emptiness. Therefore, perhaps this way of acting with uncertainty and a lack of conviction is incompatible. What do you think?

i don't yet see how an understanding of emptiness can be incompatible with the idea there is an objective truth as to what others are thinking. Your way of acting with uncertainty looks like common-sense to me. You assume there is a truth of the matter and concede you do not know it. This causes what you call uncertainty but what the Desert Fathers would have called discretion and caution. One thing though, I don't yet understand why you doubt there is a truth of the matter.

Because all truth is utterly contingent. There is no objective - non-contingent - truth of the matter. Never was and never will be.

@YesheTenley - Now you've flummoxed me. Are you saying the Buddha did not know know or teach truth? Are you saying there is no fact of the matter as to the nature of Reality?

No. Of course there are truths. Conventional truths. Utterly contingent truths. But there are no independent, objective, non-contingent - fact of the matter -conventional truths.

@YesheTenley - It seems we disagree on this issue. No worries. I may ask a question on the topic to explore it further.

Hi PeterJ, did you ever ask your question? If so, I have not seen it.

@YesheTenley - I'm not quite sure what the question should be. It seems I'd have to ask whether the Buddha knew the truth and this would an odd question. I decided we are at cross-purposes in some way.  .

I think you misunderstood. I am not and was not saying there are no such thing as truth. Rather, that there is no such thing as independent, objective, non-contingent truth.

@YesheTenley - I'm struggling to reconcile your view of truth with Buddhist teachings or indeed the Perennial philosophy in general, so presume I'm still misunderstanding something. I'll get to a question eventually.   .

I think I was the one who misunderstood and was very wrongfooted in this exchange. Your answer was extremely helpful and I believe I see it clearly now.

Case 5 of the Mumonkan
  Kyõgen's "Man up in a Tree"
Kyõgen Oshõ said, "It is like a man up in a tree hanging from a branch
  with his mouth; his hands grasp no bough, his feet rest on no limb.
Someone appears under the tree and asks him, 'What is the meaning of
  Bodhidharma's coming from the West?' If he does not answer, he fails
  to respond to the question. If he does answer, he will lose his life.
What would you do in such a situation?"
Mumon's Comment
Even if your eloquence flows like a river, it is of no avail.
Though you can expound the whole of Buddhist literature, it is of no
  use.
If you solve this problem, you will give life to the way that has been
  dead until this moment and destroy the way that has been alive up to
  now.
Otherwise you must wait for Maitreya Buddha and ask him.
Mumon's Verse
Kyõgen is truly thoughtless;
  His vice and poison are endless.
  He stops up the mouths of the monks,
  And devil's eyes sprout from their bodies.

So this part of your question struck me:

For a long while I have regarded myself as unusually capable or
  comfortable with uncertainty. Having a general willingness to see the
  gray in every question and to acknowledge my own incomplete knowledge.
  To see and entertain the viewpoints of others and to grant that my own
  viewpoint is not certain. A general comfortability with complexity
  that is above average. And this is something I prided myself in
  thinking of as beneficial.

I can't help but wonder if you've ever been truly uncertain.  Every shade of gray you see, every conflicting idea, is just another manifestation of certainty.  You can hold it in your mind, consider its merits, and weigh its value against what you already know.  Nothing here is really uncertain as all that you take to be uncertainty depends on preexisting conditions.  Every novel idea is just showing you what you already know albeit from a different point of view.
What answer can you hope to hear when all of the Buddhas of past, present, and future have hung their mouths on the wall?  What words will save your life when you are hanging from a branch by your teeth?
Real doubt leaves us dumbfounded.  There is nothing comfortable about it.  The kind of doubt that stops up your head with cotton and hits you in the forehead like an unseen cabinet in a dark room is the kind of doubt that is truly productive.  There are no edges to hold onto.  Your previous ways of engaging the world won't help you move real doubt a single inch.  In that doubt, we are helpless and begging for our life.  We are desperate and unsure of which way to turn.  In the midst of such great doubt, we are also completely empty.
To see doubt is to see emptiness.  To see emptiness, we have to begin with doubt.  With faith and determination, both can resolve into wisdom. Only on the other side of great doubt can we hope to learn anything new.

When fish move through water, however they move, there is no end to the water. When birds fly through the sky, however they fly, there is no end to the sky. Fish and birds have never once, since antiquity, run out of water or run out of sky. When their need for water or sky is great, its availability is great, and when their need for water or sky is small, its availability is small. Acting this way, fish and birds realize their limitations yet at every moment somersault freely through their realm; but if a bird leaves the sky it will die at once, and if a fish leaves the water it will die at once. So we understand that water is life and that sky is life. Birds are life, and fish are life. It may also be that life is birds and that life is fish.
The experience of our own existence is also like this. If a bird or a fish decided to move through the water or the sky only after getting to the end of water or utterly penetrating the sky, it would never find its way or its place in the water or sky. When we have found our own place in our own realm, we have arrived at potential. When we maintain our own true way, our action is potential itself.
Our own way and our own place are neither great nor small; they are neither subjective nor objective; they have not existed in the past nor do they arise in the present; they are just as they are. In maintaining our own true way and abiding in our own place, to consider one thing is to explore only that one thing, and to perform one action is to fully participate in that one action. In this state, we exist in our own space and practice our own way, and awareness of ourselves is not conspicuous. The reason this is so is that our own thoughts and actions and the realization of potential appear together and are experienced together.
Do not assume that we can be conscious of potential, or that potential can be recognized by the intellect. The experience of potential is not necessarily a cognitive realization.
Realization is the state of ambiguity itself [kahitsu -- how can it be convulsively decided that]
Dogen

i think this may be a misreading of the translation -- it's asking how we can be conclusive about realization. not, then, that uncertainty is realization. hth

There's a quote from the Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi that reads (my phrasing):

Call those people whom the universe aids 'the favored'. Those who
  reach for that state through learning seek what learning cannot grasp.
  Those who reach for that state through effort seek what effort cannot
  achieve. Those who reach for that state through reason seek what
  reason cannot fathom. The favored know to stop reaching where reaching
  is pointless. Those who do not, break on the lathe of heaven.

Uncertainty is a product of the mind: it is a solution to a problem of partial knowledge in complex contexts; an attitude in which we measure and calculate with what we do not know as well as with what we do know. It's perfectly normal and natural, and when cultivated it's a powerful intellectual tool; every philosopher, thinker, scientist, and academic builds a close relationship with uncertainty, at least within their own fields.
In emptiness there is no uncertainty, because the active mind — the part of the mind that reasons, anticipates, plans, seeks alternatives, etc — is put to rest. It's like floating in a boat in the middle of a lake, where questions that might provoke uncertainty — e.g., "Is it better to float here, or should I float over there? — are completely irrelevant.
Of course, in emptiness there is no certainty, either.  Emptiness transcends dualisms...
Certainty is authentic: it is natural for us to be certain of what we believe we know. Uncertainty is honest and conscientious: it keeps us from the pitfalls of dogmatism and zealousness. We need both, until we reach that state where we need neither. Just don't cling to them.

The answer to your question is No, uncertainty is not incompatible.
I dont believe you could possibly find something that is not “compatible” with emptiness? To quote your definition: emptiness is
“Ultimate Truth or the non-deceptive non-conceptual direst [sic] perception” right?
This is also how i perceive emptiness and might i add that for me it is a fixed point in space that i “go to”.
So whether i am uncertain or not it is there. Whethere i am ignorant or not it is still there. Wether i am too lazy or tired to go there (because it is cold scary lonely and taxing to go there makes me VERY HUNGRY) it is always there.
I like this question. The uncertainty of which you speak is particularly entertaining. The problem you give us is that you believe that you appear to other people as uncertain/unsure of yourself when you in fact are. And the people who you appear uncertain to this is so vague. Are “the people” in question women?
It sounded to me like the problem your having takes place in time. You obviously know ultimate truth if you experience emptiness. So youre not uncertain. But u fear to be seen as such (probably not so much by people you arent sexually attracted to).
I get it it the uncertainty ur referring to is your own. You dont know for sure that you appear this way to women but the possibility is there and u dont like that. The true problem is that women may or may not see u that way u dont know because oestrogen is so radically different than your world.
And when you asked if uncertainty is incompatible you meant with your attainments? Like how can i be perceived by women as being uncertain when i am does this mean i am not who or what i believe myself to be/identify with?

You wrote, The problem you give us is that you believe that you appear to other people as uncertain/unsure of yourself when you in fact are -- I don't see that the OP says that -- nothing about how the OP appears to other people; and nothing about "women". It's about whether "uncertainty" is good when people's "views" or "statements-of-fact" contradict each other, especially about complex topics -- whether it's good and especially whether it's compatible with emptiness.

In the comments on feb 9 specified “and others”

Emptiness is simply nothing,not even the concept of nothing ,but really nothing , including all your concepts and ideas about what it is or what is compatible with it .Just drop All that and emptiness remains .
Uncertainty is simply a manifestation seen in emptiness . Anything can be recognised ,including your definitions about uncertainty .And your idea of incompatibility is also seen from that place .

Something more everyday (less esoteric) for you: Dogen's wholehearted way

The concentrated endeavor of the way I am speaking of allows all
  things to come forth in realization to practice going beyond in the
  path of letting go. Passing through the barrier [of dualism] and
  dropping off limitations in this way, how could you be hindered by
  nodes in bamboo or knots in wood [concepts and theories]?

You need certainty in what you are doing. So you need conviction in right view, if you're practicing in Theravada Buddhism. But you can practice zazen with conviction only in zazen (though quite what that amounts to I'm not so sure).
So don't worry too much! You're in a good place if you can drop -- all -- the rest of it.

This answer is helpful and crystallizes for me part of what I am getting at. That this uncertainty causes a lack of concentration and conviction in my actions that I think is unhelpful and often finds detrimental to myself and others.

go to a zazen retreat -- no-one will be mad :) ? @YesheTenley

oh i guess that zazen is the buddha dharma :) ? @YesheTenley