text:
Does anyone read the part 2 of Nagarjuna's karika as an argument about infinite divisibility?
Is Nagarjuna is arguing that time cannot really be both infinitely divisible and extended, so is a conceptual construction?
I'm asking because verse 2.23 suggested that to me, taken completely out of context, anyway.

[A going] which is other than the going by which a goer is made evident does not [enable a goer to] go.  Because it is impossible for
  going to be twofold within a single goer.

Emphasis, obviously, mine. I really like the idea that Nagarjuna was saying that time must be infinitely divisible, but time as we experience it (evidently) is not infinitely divisible, because if it was it would take forever to compose it.

As I think it was pointed out in an answer, it is often I think said that Nagarjuna means time cannot inherently exist because it is infinitely divisible. I'm just adding that it can neither be infinitely divided nor not.
I would not conclude that time does not flow, but that anything that arises has already passed, radical impermanence, suggesting that extinction and so on is already present.

Here is the translation that by Jay L. Garfield of that same verse:

2.25 One that both is and is not a goer does not go in any of the three ways. Therefore, going, goer and that which is to be gone over are non-existent.

This is from the second chapter of Nagarjuna's Fundamental Treatise where Nagarjuna refutes the inherent existence of motion: going and that which goes. This verse is the last of the chapter and Je Tsongkhapa in his Ocean of Reasoning explains (by adopting Buddhapalita's earlier explanation) the three ways refer to:

That which is gone
That over which one is going
That which over which one has yet to go

ie., the three times. Je Tsongkhapa says there is another way to understand the three aspects here (by adopting Chandrakirti's explanation) as referring to:

That which is a goer
That which is not a goer
That which is and is not a goer

In sum, the verse can be read as refuting the inherent existence of the goer, the place one is to go, or the going. All of these exist as mere conventions. There is no essence of motion.
Anyway, maybe you can update your question to indicate how you arrive at the conclusion that time cannot be both infinitely divisible and extended? That's basically saying that time cannot be regarded as modeled by the real numbers... but rather must be the infinite integers?? I don't think this is what Nagarjuna is saying because even if time is infinitely divisible and extended it would still be proper to model time by the past, present and future.
Let's say that the past, present, and future are modeled by real numbers. All we have to do is identify the present with a specific real number and say all those numbers less than, but not equal to the present model the past and all those numbers greater than, but not equal to the present model the future. Even with this, Nagarjuna's argument in the chapter would still accomplish the goal: refuting the inherent existence of the goer, the act of going, and the place where one goes...
You also refer to verse 23 in your update, but this verse according to Je Tsongkhapa is just a refutation to the idea that there is more than one action or "going" that makes a goer go. Nagarjuna's position is that only one action is tenable because a two-fold action makes no sense. Although it is obvious that it takes time to perform an action, these verses and this chapter do not explicitly deal with time. The chapter is about motion and how motion does not inherently exist.
However, there is a chapter in Nagarjuna's Treatise that explicitly deals with time. That is chapter 19 and there is one verse in particular that deals with whether or not time "endures":

19.5 A nonenduring time is not grasped.
  Nothing one could grasp as time
  Could exist as enduring.
  If time is not grasped, how it is known?

You can read more about this verse and Je Tsongkhapa's explanation in Ocean of Reasoning, but I would just add that it is clear from the first phrase that we experience moments of time as enduring. That is directly contradictory to the way I used the real numbers above to model time. We perceive the present moment as enduring for some length of time. If we look at the present moment and analyze it we'll find it is made of parts. For anything that has an extent must be made of at least three parts: the beginning, the middle, and the end. Thus, if the present moment is enduring then it must be made of parts. If it is made of parts, we can analyze further and ask if an inherent entity that is this present moment can be found in the beginning of this present moment? In the middle ? In the end? By looking and analyzing like that it can be known for sure that the present moment cannot be made of any inherent entity. The present moment does not exist inherently.
So, I'd conclude and say that it is precisely through analyzing an enduring moment of time and breaking it up and dividing it infinitely we can know that no enduring moment whatsoever truly exists. Time does not truly exist. It only exists as mere label. It only exists conventionally.
That is emphatically not to say that time does not exist at all! That way lies nihilism and we can be sure that if we look at the above explanation as somehow indicating nihilism, then we have grasped the snake of emptiness incorrectly and ought to put it down right away!

good answer, thanks. i hope the edit helps?

@user3293056 Hi, I've updated the answer accordingly with your edit. Hope this helps!

the section on real numbers i didn't like, i felt that it didn't understand the question. i did like the section on time being an infinite regress, and that's something quite like what i was saying... i might edit the question again

Not sure how you arrived at that interpretation, care to elaborate?
To me, this reads as a typical application of Buddhist co-dependency principle: an agent of an action is identified as such only by the fact that he is the subject of that very action. While an action must have something undergoing it, so without an agent it is meaningless either.
Therefore, any notion of "change", as in something undergoing change while still staying itself in some sense - is a conceptual fiction.
I suppose you assumed that "three aspects" refer to past/present/future moments of going? In my intuition instead, they refer to the three possible interpretations of the agent given in the text above: agent as the goer, agent as not a goer (yet or anymore), and agent as not a goer before and after and a goer in between.
This doesn't mean your insight is wrong, even if that's not what Nagarjuna meant, so I be interested in hearing more about it.

hey, thanks for the reply, hope the edit is OK!


text:
Difficulty with Meditation Posture
I am able to meditate when on a bus, or when I'm walking, or sometimes standing; however, no matter how hard I try I seem to avoid formal sitting. I can't help but have the feeling that formal sitting would be most effective, and that I'm avoiding something about a formal posture that is also responsible for growth. I think this is merely effort.
What can I do to engage in formal sitting, and avoid always only meditating when it is effortless? Should I: 1) diminish the time of sessions 2) change my meditation type 3) change the consistency of my meditations 4) apply something else?
In terms of consistency, I wonder if consistent yet short sessions are better than long and inconsistent ones?
Thank you.

hey eggman I see that you have asked this queston multiple times,could you define your question a little better what exatly you looking for?did my answer help you in any way?

As per my teacher, this happens when we train ourselves to hate meditation. We do that by turning meditation into torture and punishment.
Instead, meditation should be something natural and (yes) pleasant.
-- 1) diminish the time of sessions?
Yes. You can start from something as short as 30 seconds. Do not ramp up too fast, only ramp up when you really WANT to sit more.
-- 2) change my meditation type?
Yes. Do not weigh your emotional mind with any notion of the correct target state. Do not blame yourself for not conforming to some ideal style, posture, or state of mind. Allow your meditation to be a natural discovery process that it is. Like a child playing a game, completely natural and spontaneous.
-- 3) change the consistency of my meditations?
Yes. Better meditate regularly, twice a day, 30 seconds each time - than randomly for an hour.
-- 4) apply something else?
Yes. Make it pleasant for your emotional mind. Beautiful setting, nice scenery, little visual noise in your peripheral field, comfortable pants, etc.

I am inner heat practitioner and I have had the same difficulties as you!
I could not understand the importance of why should I take the lotus posture when I am way more comfortable sitting in a chair or even laying in the ground. Know that my type of Yoga works with internal energies and posture is very important!
Milarepa used a belt:

Milarepa can often be seen depicted in paintings with round white
  earrings along with a bright red meditation belt, extending from the
  right shoulder to the waist on the left side, used to hold the body in
  particular and sometimes difficult to perfect yoga postures.

Practice after practice I started to see some changes,the more I became proficient the more the more I started to give importance to posture,energy alignment,breath length and relaxation.
Soon enough(6 months) I found staying in the lotus posture for hours without moving at all,totally relaxed and emerged into the fire!
I hope that this helps you understand that relaxation is the key in the posture position and I would encourage you to find that relaxation stop,still as a mountain!

You are having aversion towards formal sitting and that is something to work on in mindfulness practice. Start to note this aversion more often, don't ignore it as you have to transform it into eagerness and diligence.
It is the desire of only pleasant experience of meditation that you are most likely developing and that is to be let go of.
It (from experience) is also subconsciously rooted fear of unpleasant meditation session experiences and negative outcome of a session. That too is state of clinging to. It is something that meditation and especially Insight of meditation is designed to work with by concentrating on unpleasant sensations, pain, and hinderances such as desires, aversions and restlessness.

There is the mud, and there is the lotus that grows out of the mud. We
  need the mud in order to make the lotus.
Thich Nhat Hanh

Buddhism and Eightfold path is focused on alleviating suffering, how else can you train yourself to deliver this knowledge if not from letting go of unpleasant, miserable feelings? Let dukkha in, acknowledge it, and then let it out.
I would advise on seated meditation 20 minutes in the morning after waking up and 20 minutes in the evening for the first 6 months or until you are fully comfortable with it. You can then start increasing it by small increments.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to Sustain Alertness
I am wondering if alertness is best sustained in terms of:

Attempting to sustain alertness in meditation, not meditating when too lethargic. In other words, always exerting oneself and keeping sharpness when in meditation, and stopping when the mind becomes unclear.
Or, engaging with meditation even when lethargic, continuing one's meditation despite the mind being unclear and hazy. In other words, waiting for the mind to clear up.

Which is more accurate?

Your meditation method cannot to be too comfortable, nor too uncomfortable, that is why people mostly choose to sit in half or full lotus with straight back so they don't slouch and sloth. Be careful not to slouch, keep back upright, work on posture and correct it.
Question 1:

Attempting to sustain alertness in meditation, not meditating when too
  lethargic. In other words, always exerting oneself and keeping
  sharpness when in meditation, and stopping when the mind becomes
  unclear.

Sustain, but gentle mindfulness or awareness, I wouldn't say alertness as it implies stress as in fight or flight type of thing. Note that you are feeling lethargic. Do not stop, note that mind becomes unclear. Eventually correct your posture, straighten the back and continue. It is generally to be mindful of it just to the extent of eating, or waking up (both in meditation and daily life)

Again, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu is one who acts in full awareness when
  going forward and returning; who acts in full awareness when looking
  ahead and looking away; who acts in full awareness when flexing and
  extending his limbs; who acts in full awareness when wearing his robes
  and carrying his outer robe and bowl; who acts in full awareness when
  eating, drinking, consuming food, and tasting; who acts in full
  awareness when defecating and urinating; who acts in full awareness
  when walking, standing, sitting, falling asleep, waking up, talking,
  and keeping silent. 9. “In this way he abides contemplating the body
  as a body internally, externally, and both internally and externally …
  And he abides independent, not clinging to anything in the world. That
  too is how a bhikkhu abides contemplating the body as a body

Question 2:

Or, engaging with meditation even when lethargic, continuing one's
  meditation despite the mind being unclear and hazy. In other words,
  waiting for the mind to clear up.

Engage, yet gently noting haziness and confusion, lack of clarity. Eventually correct your posture, straighten the back and continue.
On mental hindrances, such as:

Sensual Desire
Ill-will
Sloth and Torpor
Restlessness and Remorse
Doubt

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html
Bonus: "Is there such a thing as bad meditation?":

questioner has asked regarding sustenance of alertness------you are sitting in a coffee shop aside road, lot of traffic noises are running, you are engrossed in reading your whatsapp/msgs on your cell  and suddenly you hear a blonde laughing similar to ringing of small bells. You focus your attention/awareness on it to listen still clearly and minutely. Now what does this indicate? .This implies that you see,listen,smell,touch,think as driven by desire. So here master is not you who is practising awareness on any object(kasinas), but the deep rooted kileshas,desires,asavas. So all  deliberate efforts to maintain/sustain awareness goes in vain. so these roots are to be uprooted. humble suggestion to refer "Pure Dhamma " site on net and read how to remove asavas.

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


text:
Did the Buddha intend for everyone to be enlightened?
Was it the Buddha's intention that all beings to be free from suffering i.e. enlightened?

As the Dalai Lama acknowledges, “Buddhism has evolved differently
  in different times and places and yet the essential Dharma remains the
  same.  The Buddha’s prime concern was that all beings should find
  peace and freedom from suffering.

Did he say whether it was possible for everyone to be enlightened, so that there was no one left unenlightened?
Would there then be no further (re)birth?

The Buddha does not have the intention for everyone to be enlightened.
However, the Buddha has compassion, which is his expression of alleviating the suffering of others. He is willing to teach everyone who is willing to listen to him.
So, the end goal of enlightening everyone is not his goal. However, his goal is to teach others who are willing to listen, and hope that they will also help others.
The teaching of others is his goal, and not the end goal of enlightening them. That's up to the people whom he teaches. It's in their hands, not his.
The Desanaa Sutta shows the 3 types of people he is willing to teach, to various degrees:

"Does not the Blessed One dwell in compassion for all living beings?"
"Indeed, headman, the Tathaagata does dwell in compassion for all
  living beings."
"Well then, Lord, does not the Blessed One teach Dhamma in full to
  some, but not so fully to others?"
"I will reply to this question, headman, with another. Answer as seems
  proper to you. What do you think? Suppose a peasant farmer has three
  fields, one excellent, one middling, and one poor, sandy, salty, with
  bad soil. Tell me: when the farmer wants to sow his seed, which field
  would he sow first: the excellent one, the middling one or the poor
  one that is sandy, salty and with bad soil?"
"Lord, the farmer who wanted to sow his seed would sow the excellent
  field first. Having done that, he would sow the middling field next,
  and the one that was poor, sandy, salty, with bad soil he might or
  might not sow. Why? Well it might do for cattle-food."
"Well, headman, that excellent field is like my monks and nuns. To
  them I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in
  its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I
  display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. Why?
  Because these people adhere to me as their island, their shelter,
  their resort, their refuge.
"The middling field is like my male and female lay-followers. To these
  too I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its
  middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to
  them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. Why? Because
  these people adhere to me as their island, their shelter, their
  resort, their refuge.
"The poor field that is sandy, salty and with bad soil is like my
  wandering recluses and Brahmans of other sects. To them I also
  teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its
  middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to
  them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. Why? Because if
  they only understand a single phrase, it would long be for their
  profit."

The Kesi Sutta shows that, as an excellent teacher, he has various techniques to teach others, but he may give up on stubborn students:

"Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness,
  [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness &
  harshness.
"In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is
  the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such
  is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct.
  Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such
  are human beings.'
"In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is
  the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is
  the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is
  the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal
  womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'
"In using gentleness & harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily
  conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is bodily
  misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is good
  verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is
  verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is
  good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such
  is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such
  are the devas. Such are human beings. Such is hell. Such is the animal
  womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'"
"And if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or
  to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, what do you do?"
"If a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a
  harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then I kill him, Kesi."
"But it's not proper for our Blessed One to take life! And yet the
  Blessed One just said, 'I kill him, Kesi.'"
"It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life.
  But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to
  a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata
  doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally
  destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't
  regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's
  knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth
  speaking to or admonishing."

The Maghadeva Sutta shows that the Buddha does not want his disciples to stop practising his teachings, and wants them to continue practising and teaching throughout the generations:

But now I have founded a good practice that does lead to
  disillusionment, fading away, cessation, peace, insight, awakening,
  and extinguishment. And what is that good practice? It is simply this
  noble eightfold path, that is: right view, right thought, right
  speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, and right immersion. This is the good practice I have now
  founded that leads to disillusionment, fading away, cessation, peace,
  insight, awakening, and extinguishment. Ānanda, I say to you: ‘You all
  should keep up this good practice that I have founded. Do not be my
  final men.’ Whatever generation is current when such good practice is
  broken, he is their final man. Ānanda, I say to you: ‘You all should
  keep up this good practice that I have founded. Do not be my final
  men.’”

Finally, it's up to people whether they want to become enlightened or not, according to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto
  yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your
  island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
"And how, Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto
  himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island,
  the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge?
"When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly
  comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow
  in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings in
  feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental objects,
  earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome
  desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island
  unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge;
  having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no
  other refuge.
"Those bhikkhus of mine, Ananda, who now or after I am gone, abide as
  an island unto themselves, as a refuge unto themselves, seeking no
  other refuge; having the Dhamma as their island and refuge, seeking no
  other refuge: it is they who will become the highest, if they have the
  desire to learn."

+1 but I understand a slightly different emphasis -- i.e. in the first quote he says he teaches everyone (all three fields) in the hope that everyone may benefit. And in the last quote, the "if" may be an artefact of the translation (it's not present in this translation) -- I see that as intended to encourage the assembly that the Dhamma (and their own effort) will be sufficient after he has passed (I don't see it as specifically intended to exclude other people).

@ChrisW This Sujato translation states, "Whether now or after I have passed, any who shall live as their own island, their own refuge, with no other refuge; with the teaching as their island and their refuge, with no other refuge—those mendicants of mine who want to train shall be among the best of the best.”" where "those who want to train" gives them a choice - it's up to them.

@ChrisW This Anandajoti translation states, "Ānanda, whether at present or after my passing, lives with himself as an island, himself as a refuge, with no other refuge, with the Teaching as an island, the Teaching as a refuge, with no other refuge, those monks of mine, Ānanda, will go from darkness to the highest—whoever likes the training." where it ends with "whoever likes the training" gives them a choice - it's up to them.

@ChrisW This Thanissaro translation states, "For those who, now or when I am gone, live with themselves as their island, themselves as their refuge, with no other as their refuge; with the Dhamma as their island, the Dhamma as their refuge, not with another as their refuge, will be my foremost monks: those who are desirous of training.” where "those who are desirous of training" gives them a choice - it's up to them.

Yes I don't doubt it (that the many translations are similar): I think the option is being presented, as there, available, and continuing to be available even though the Buddha was about to pass. I just don't read into that sentence an explicit message (as might be implied by "if") that there will necessarily be those who never benefit.

This answer appears to show that the Buddha does aspire to lead all beings to Nirvana.

@avatarKorra Diamond Sutra is a Mahayana text, while my answer is based on Theravada texts.

Answer to the original question:
The Buddha doesn't have wantings per se. He has uprooted craving. He simply helps beings to achieve freedom from suffering out of compassion. Beings are infinite, so any thought of making everyone enlightened is absurd. The Buddha certainly had no such ambition.
Answer to later additions:
I do not follow Dalai Lama and the use of the word 'concern' is not appropriate as enlightened beings are not 'concerned' per se. But there's a big difference between saying what everyone should do and having an ambition that everyone will do it. Ex: It's fine to say "everyone should eat healthy food at all times". Because that's just good advice to all. But having that as an ambition is not realistic.

Please see the revised qutesion, with quote from the Dalai Lama. Why would the Buddha have the ambition for only some to be free from suffering, and not everyone? It has been said that in Buddha's teaching is the idea that every human being has the potential for awakening.

added more to the answer

Please explain how this answer does not contradict the Buddha's teaching on the Four Immeasurables which is said to be an infinite mind precisely because beings are infinite. Are the Four Immeasurables unrealistic?

sending Metta to all beings is a meditation technique used to counter aversion in the mind towards anyone. It doesn't mean that you are going to have an unrealistic ambition of freeing everyone from suffering.

Metta is nothing more than the wish for sentient beings to have happiness. Happiness is nothing more than liberation from samsara. Immeasurable means it has no measure and is limitless. One wishing to develop good qualities should train like the Buddha: cultivate the mind wishing for all sentient beings to have happiness and the causes of happiness. You label this unrealistic and imply that it is an unworthy endeavor, in so doing you label the Buddha's wish unrealistic and unworthy.

Try to understand the difference between having an ambition to make all beings enlightened and simply wishing everyone to be enlightened to develop the quality of Metta in the mind.

The wish for all beings to be enlightened is quite meaningless if paired with the unwillingness to help them do so. In other words, your emphasis on the impossible or unrealistic goal of a Bodhisattva is not congruent with the wish for all beings to have happiness and its causes. This emphasis on seeing the wish as unrealistic is limiting and remember the four immeasurables are limitless! Why would the Buddha advise us to train our minds to wish for something that is unrealistic? Isn't that absurd in your view?

It's meaningful and useful as it subdues cruelty and aversion in the mind. Buddhism is not about chasing after unrealistic goals. If you can't understand the difference between well wishing and having an ambition, no more illumination can come.

A Buddha does not want what is not possible.

59. Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom.
174. Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss.
Dhammapada

Then, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of compassion for beings, I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did
  so, I saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much,
  those with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good
  attributes and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard,
  some of them seeing disgrace & danger in the other world.
'Open are the doors to the Deathless to those with ears. Let them show their conviction. Perceiving trouble, O Brahma, I did not tell
  people    the refined,    sublime Dhamma.'
MN 26

And, Master Gotama, when having directly known it, you teach the Dhamma to your disciples for the purification of beings, for the
  overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain &
  distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the
  realization of Unbinding, will all the cosmos be led [to release], or
  a half of it, or a third?
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
AN 10.95

I think that some Mahayana answers suggest that it is possible to participate in, to partake of, to benefit from the Buddha's enlightenment -- see for example here, or here.

Instead of writing "it's possible to participate" above, I thought of writing "it's possible for everyone or for anyone to participate" (or, "it's possible for anyone who wants to, to participate"). However, introducing the concept of "everyone" or "each person" may not conform to the  doctrine of anatta or sunyata -- see also the distinction between lokuttara and lokiya.
And it's exactly that (i.e. asking about "everyone") might be a/the problem inherent in the question.
I mean, you ask whether "all beings" can be free from suffering i.e. enlightened -- but maybe it's identifying as "a being" that is (or is a cause of) the actual problem which is an antithesis of enlightenment -- see for example Vajira Sutta:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
  Mara, have you grasped a view?

It is possible, though, to infer other answers from the canon -- e.g. there's the story of the weaver's daughter, which is in the commentary associated with Dhp 174 quoted in Dhammadhatu's answer.
That story is quite a person-centred view (it says that this person became a stream winner before she died, that most of the villagers weren't so enlightened, that the father became an arahant afterwards) -- and (especially relevant to the question) it implies that the Buddha saw she had the capacity to become enlightened, and delayed his Dhamma talk specifically to wait for her.

Also note that, at least according to the Pali canon, there are different stages of enlightenment.

To clarify the question, it's asking if a world where everyone is enlightened was conceived by the Buddha.

I think that the principle message from Pali canon, on that subject, is in MN 26 -- see the passage there which starts with Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep

Thanks that is a great point. Don't we find out though, that the Buddha decides to teach the Dhamma? And for those who have heard the Dhamma, he later says Go forth, O Bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world..

A Buddha is born via generating the uncontrived Mind of Enlightenment. This is an immense compassion and wish to free all sentient beings from suffering completely. It is such an uncommon mind that only Arya Bodhisattva's and fully enlightened Buddha's can even imagine what this mind would be like to experience.
As for the other answers... I think it is quite silly to say that the Buddha is not concerned or does not wish to help unlimited sentient beings or that this is somehow not realistic. I think this is not so subtle way of criticizing the Mahayana for being somehow unreasonable or unrealistic. This is  rather ironic given that even the Pali tradition itself contains teachings on the Bodhisattva vehicle. Consider the Four Immeasurables which can be found in the Pali canon. What are the Four Immeasurables? They are a form of mind training for Bodhisattva's wishing to generate the Mind of Enlightenment:

May all sentient beings have happiness and its causes;
May all sentient beings be from suffering and its causes;
May all sentient beings never be separated from limitless bliss;
May all sentient beings abide in equanimity, free from bias, attachment, and hatred.

These thoughts are said to be limitless precisely because sentient beings are limitless. To say that generating this mind is unrealistic in order to criticize the Mahayana is silly and unproductive. It is profoundly beneficial to train your mind to generate these uncontrived thoughts. Even more, one cannot become a Buddha without doing so! How silly to say that because the goal is impossible that generating this mind is not worthwhile!
The quintessential training in compassion is exemplified by Shantideva's Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life. It is essentially an expansion and elaboration of the very same attitudes and minds expressed by the Buddha in the Pali Canon's sutta's on the Four Immeasurables. Shantideva's guide is in my opinion one of the most beautiful and sacred religious texts on earth. I would happily dare anyone to read it completely and come away with a different opinion :)

Yes, as the Buddha states in the Diamond Sutra:

All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from
  moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have
  form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or
  not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the
  final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death.

@avatarKorra Diamond Sutra is Mahayana. The Buddha never said such a thing according to Theravada.

@SankhaKulathantille sorry you feel that way, but the question was not about a debate between Mahayana and Theravada. And I have no interest in disparaging Theravada, or any other religion for that matter.

@jacknad I was not stating a feeling. I was stating the fact "The Buddha never said such a thing according to Theravada" for the benefit of the OP.

@SankhaKulathantille Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for my misunderstanding.


text:
In which context did the Buddha say this, about ordaining women?
A quote:

" in whatever religion women are ordained, that religion will not last long. As families that have more women than men are easily destroyed by robbers, as a plentiful rice-field once infested by rice worms will not long remain, as a sugarcane field invaded by red rust will not long remain, even so the True Dharma will not last long."

In which context did the Buddha say this?

See also Why the Buddha didn't originally allow ordination of women and When were women first welcomed into Buddhist orders?

The context of this quote was the proposed ordination of women: Gotamīsutta (AN 8.51).
Since men established Buddhism around the world the quote is obviously true.
For example, even today, women who want to ordain also want to take advantage of the community & facilities established by men.
When Buddhism declined in India, it was men who took Buddhism to other places, such as to Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, etc. When this happened, the order of nuns was broken because women could not flee to & survive in foreign & often hostile lands.
It is a plain reality that it is difficult for women to establish & spread a religion, particularly in hostile places.
Many monks were killed in their efforts to spread Buddhism. Walking around the world with only robes & a begging bowl is not easy.
The women asked to be ordain after the Buddha was famous; after the Buddha had benefactors who provided land for monasteries, etc.
It is very difficult for women to do what Jason The Walking Monk did.

Some people e.g. here (which is a footnote to this) suggest that passage might be a later addition:

In the Vinaya (monk's discipline) the Buddha is represented as saying this, but such a prophecy involving time is found only here. There is not other mention anywhere in the whole of the Vinaya (discipline) and the Suttas (discourses). This makes it suspect as an intrusion. The Commentaries, as well as many other later Buddhist writings; have much to say about the decline of the Buddha's Dispensation in five-hundred-year periods, but none of this is the word of the Buddha and only represents the view of later teachers.

See also this answer for another example of that (this example references a detailed cross-textual analysis, which gives some insight into ways in which versions of the texts are or aren't consistent).
Or there's this answer which alleges another inconsistency (this one between a sutta and the Vinaya commentary).
It's hard to know what (if anything) to make of it. I think that suttas (including AN 8.51 which you quoted) are defined as buddhavacana or "canonical" by definition, so I'm reluctant to say it's untrue; but since you ask, perhaps you should be aware that that (and other topics tagged bhikkhuni) is part of the "context".

As for whether it's a "true" statement, maybe that's difficult to say too. It claims that ...

The true teaching will remain only five hundred years.
  Pañceva dāni, ānanda, vassasatāni saddhammo ṭhassati.

... and different people have (had) different opinions about whether the "true teaching" still exists.
I suppose that arguments, for and against, tend to be based on:

The infallibility of the canon
A textual analysis of the canon (testing it for self-consistency, see also "four great references")
Whether it matches people's preconceived ideas about gender and society (which in modern society might be described as "sexism" as opposed to "feminism")

I think there's been a lot written about it in this century. I gather that the Theravada Bhikkhuni lineage became extinct (a long time ago, I don't know when) which made it impossible to ordain, since a Bhikkhuni is ordained by other (pre-existing) Bhikkhuni: for further details see for example Re-establishing Bhikkhuni Ordination or for example Ajahn Brahm -- Bhikkhuni ordination.


text:
Does thought lead to existence?
Is there any dependency on thought for the existence of life ? (Dependency without which life would not come into existence.)
Another related question : Does craving for thought lead to craving for existence ?

would you mind adding some more informations to this question,looks like a very good q,however its a litle too broad,do you accept illustration from hinduism?this is a very debated topic

@InnerFire This site is meant to be for "people practicing or interested in Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice". Answers based on Hinduism rather than Buddhism would be implicitly off-topic on this site, and likely to be deleted. The OP can post on Hinduism.SE if they want answers based on Hinduism.

"Bhava" ("existence"; "becoming") in Buddhism refers to "ego-existence". Therefore, thoughts lead to ego-existence but not to material existence. This materialistic question is not related to Buddhism, which teaches: "The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming: This, friend Visakha, is the origination of self-identification described by the Blessed One. MN 44".

@Dhammadhatu  you mean to say cessation of existence means cessation of craving for existence or non existence? If that is case the does craving for thought lead to craving for existence ?

Thoughts exist and lives exist and sentient beings exist. These phenomena are mutually dependent and a first cause cannot be found. This whole phenomenal world is bound up with infinite sets of mutually dependent causes and conditions that are utterly suffused with relative and co-dependent existence. It is not the case that:

"In the beginning, a thought came into existence and dependent upon
  that life came into existence."

This is not how it is! No beginning can be found or ascertained.
If one looks at "thought" it can be known that "thought" cannot be contemplated without first depending upon "life" and "life" cannot be thought of without first depending upon "thought." They are mutually dependent and along with them whole infinite sets of relative causes and conditions that together conjure up this phenomenal world.

In the dependent origination when does the thought originate ?

This link gives a teaching on personalizing the twelve links which identifies the eighth link 'craving' as, "While feeling (7) is like an itch that we can’t even identify, much less scratch, craving is the constant thought that responds to that feeling, thinking, “I’d like to have this, go there, do that.” ... now there are many commentaries on the twelve links, but perhaps you will find this helpful: https://fpmt.org/mandala/online-features/personalizing-the-twelve-links-of-dependent-origination/

Dependant on Karmically potent thoughts, birth occurs. But not all thoughts are Karmically potent.

Existence in the rebirth cycle is due to ignorance. Thoughts  either good/bad arises due to ignorance.
Nirvana is a state where delusion/ignorance is completely destroyed. Hence the thoughts of a person who has achieved nirvana are netural. And does not crave for another existance.

The crave for existence leads to existence.

Long answers are not necessarily better. While I understand your point, I would also like to see if "long answers" are mandatory for all questions in this forum. If so, I will respectfully follow the rules in my future answers. Thank you.

How can craving for existence exist without existence? IOW, doesn't existence have to exist first before craving for existence to exist??

That crave is not based on thought. That crave will lead to manifestation in the Sahā-lokadhātu. This manifestation is called "existence". Existence is represented by the 5 Skandhas, which,  thought is one of them.

my questions said nothing of "thought"... rather, you say that "crave for existence leads to existence" and I'm asking how "crave for existence" can exist first before "existence" itself exists? You are positing a cause and effect relationship between the two: crave for existence comes first and it causes existence. However, to say that crave for existence comes first is to say that crave for existence exists first without existence... this is a contradiction. For how can something exist - craving - without depending upon existence?

Thought does not create existence. Anyway, your question is somewhat similar to those that the Buddha did not answer. Hence, I will not further comment on this thread. Thank you.

If author aims to get an answer in terms of existence of all life, then the answer is No, thought does not lead to existence. Nor it is required for existence.
For the very fact that plants or bacteria are not self-conscious, but rather simply conscious, and they are considered life. They are able to concur with each other, but without conscious processes and self-awareness, and facility of conceptualisation.
Everything with DNA is considered life that exists.
Thought is, however, required to perceive existence of life and concept of existence of life, it is an abstract term in the realm of mental objects. So, in this context, Yes, but it is dependant.
Overall, just because something does not exist, manifest or can be perceived at this very moment, does not mean that it doesn't exist at all.


text:
What did the Buddha do, and what does a teacher do, to teach?
When the teachings of Buddha are crystal clear i.e 1+1=2, then no need to be labelled.
I humbly place my question as below.
When buddha gave diksha, what he did: is that was the imparting of knowledge?
And in the path of Buddha, once known, is to be walked upon by individual: then, how the teacher is useful? Whether he pushes us ahead by using his jhanic powers, or resolves our difficulties?
Because in Hinduism there is mention of shaktipat by guru. Is it the same in Buddhism also?

At least in the Theravada tradition, there is no mystical energy seed that needs to be transferred from the teacher to the disciple through a medium like touch or speech, in order to kick-start the disciple's spiritual growth.
Rather, the teacher teaches the Buddha's Dhamma (teachings) using his own knowledge, experience and insight, much like how a mathematics teacher teaches mathematics to others.
The teacher must have the following qualifications according to the Udayi Sutta:

"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when five qualities are established
  within the person teaching. Which five?
"(1) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  step-by-step.'
"(2) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
"(3) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out
  of compassion.'
"(4) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
  for the purpose of material reward.'
"(5) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  without hurting myself or others.' (see Note)
"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when these five qualities are
  established within the person teaching."
Note:
  According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting oneself.
  "Hurting others" means putting other people down.

the answer/clarification given by christ w is perfectly aligning with the buddhas teachings which does not support any kind of dependency or hopes from any one except from the self efforts. but there is one instance in ones sutta ,i dont remember which one ,which says that one there was sunittha , a village feces/garbage carrier who came across buddha on his way and buddha with his supernatural powers recognized the potential of dhamma in him, After  diksha he attained arahat stage within 7 days. now here whether it was obstacle removed by buddha or infilled in him the pradnya.pl clarify.

@AnchalKate In Christianity, baptism is a sort of shaktipat or mystical energy transfer in many denominations.

Thanks for answer ruben, but  is the baptism giver is a realised soul? bcs i believe that shaktipat can be done by one who has experienced it.

@AnchalKate In Christianity too the "baptism giver" isn't so important (though their intention is important, i.e. a condition for a baptism to be valid is that they must intend to perform a Church-like baptism): instead it's the Holy Spirit that's important and effective -- but note that's Christian doctrine, not Buddhist.

thnks for the answer chris, it is sirprising that buddha has never mentioned about it . if it is holy spirit ,then it should have been observed and qoated in other religion also .amidst this chaos of religions , it is bit confusing which one is universal  alongwith its truth or doctrine proved and accepted.

Pali Buddhism is not non-labeling. Pali Buddhism is the giving up of craving, attachment & egoism.
Pali Buddhism forbids monks displaying psychic powers to laypeople (Vinaya Rule 8 & Kevatta
Sutta).
The Guru is not so important in Pali Buddhism.
Occasionally, the Pali suttas report the Buddha using his psychic powers to help a monk who had an obstacle (examples: Capala Sutta & Sona Sutta) but, in general, the Pali suttas report monks received a teaching and then went in solitude and practised alone.
In the Buddha's final days, it was reported he said: "The Dhamma Teaching will be the guru".

Now the Blessed One spoke to the Venerable Ananda, saying: "It may be, Ananda, that to some among you the thought will come: 'Ended is
the word of the Master; we have a Master no longer.' But it should
not, Ananda, be so considered. For that which I have proclaimed and
made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master
when I am gone.
Maha-parinibbana Sutta

Mayahana (Tibetan) Buddhism, which is influenced by Hinduism, is different to Pali Buddhism.

dear dhamma dhatu , like a realized guru ,by his mere will can lever us in higher jhanic state. is it so in buddhism masters or gurus? pl do answer

like a realized guru, by his mere will can lever us in higher jhanic state
Instead of that, the examples (of the Buddha's psychic power) told in suttas tend to be rather of the "divine eye" and "divine ear" (seeing what's happening elsewhere, and knowing the mind-state of another person) and the ability to travel instantly.
Using a psychic power to help someone (as narrated in the canon) tends to consist of telling the person what they need to hear, telling hem something that's to their benefit -- i.e., essentially, a dhamma-talk of one kind or another.
Perhaps it's not surprising that suttas consist mostly of dhamma-talks (because suttas tend to be a collection of the "thus have I heard" stories).
Even so, using "will  to lever us in higher jhanic state" isn't (for example here) numbered among the psychic powers.
When buddha gave diksha, what he did: is that was the imparting of knowledge?
I guess that giving diksha might be equivalent to, in Buddhism, either a "refuge" ceremony (for lay people) or "ordination" (for monks and nuns).
I don't think that the ceremony itself is intended/expected to impart knowledge: and that people are supposed to understand in advance (before the ceremony) what path they're starting on.
how the teacher is useful?
I think that (as well as teaching dhamma and meditation) teachers sometimes they offer explanations about the discipline, and advice about whatever day-to-day problem might arise; for example:

A Western monk at WatBa Pong became frustrated by the difficulties of practice and the detailed and seemingly arbitrary rules of conduct the monks had to follow. He began to criticize other monks for sloppy practice and to doubt the wisdom of Achaan Chah's teaching. At one point, he went to Achaan Chah and complained, noting that even Achaan Chah himself was inconsistent and seemed often to contradict him self in an unenlightened way.
Achaan Chah just laughed and pointed out how much the monk was suffering by trying to judge others around him. Then he explained that his way of teaching is very simple: "It is as though I see people walking down a road I know well. To them the way may be unclear. I look up and see someone about to fall into a ditch on the right-hand side of the road, so I call out to him, 'Go left, go left' Similarly, if I see another person about to fall into a ditch on the left, I call out, 'Go right, go right!' That is the extent of my teaching. Whatever extreme you get caught in, whatever you get attached to, I say, 'Let go of that too.' Let go on the left, let go on the right. Come back to the center, and you will arrive at the true Dharma."

I think they're also meant to be a good (i.e. reliable and perhaps inspiring, "admirable") example of how to practice.

perfectly well .

-- When the teachings of Buddha are crystal clear i.e 1+1=2, then no need to be labelled.
You are right, but people have different levels of prajna (deep intuitive understanding of how things work). Someone who is very mature, because of the work done earlier in this life or in previous lives, may not need any explanations, but someone who is just starting or very confused - may need lots of words and labeling. It depends on the student.
--When buddha gave diksha, what he did: is that was the imparting of knowledge?
Not all teaching is given in words. Some teaching is given in a more subtle form. The famous Flower Sermon is a legend of how Zen Buddhism started when Buddha gave what you might call "shaktipat" to his student Mahakashyapa.
--was that the imparting of knowledge?
It is a kind of information, yes - but not in the coarse form that we usually call "information". It is a subtle kind of information that we can also call "abstract energy". So yes, it is knowledge - but it is deep intuitive kind of knowledge, not the superficial knowledge conveyed in words.
--And in the path of Buddha, once known, is to be walked upon by individual: then, how the teacher is useful? Whether he pushes us ahead by using his jhanic powers, or resolves our difficulties?
It's a little bit of everything. Also, depends on the student and on the teacher of course. But usually it has elements of 1) behavioral training, 2) leading by example, 3) regular logical knowledge, 4) emotional inspiration,
5) deeper intuitive understanding, 6) dealing with real-life situations, 7) connecting the student with external sources of energy/information, 8) meditation.
--Because in Hinduism there is mention of shaktipat by guru. Is it the same in Buddhism also?
What you call "diksha" is called Refuge in Buddhism - and yes in that ceremony has an element of "shaktipat":

At that particular point, the energy, the power, and the blessing of basic sanity that has existed in the lineage for twenty-five hundred years, in an unbroken tradition and discipline from the time of Buddha, enters your system, and you finally become a full-fledged follower of buddhadharma. You are a living future buddha at that point.

In Tibetan Buddhism there is also "abhisheka" ceremony (empowerment), which is almost completely "shaktipat".
So yes, generally speaking there are some parallels, although there are differences too - the main difference being that in Buddhism we tend to be more "scientific" and much less respectful of what you would call Sacred Elements. In Buddhism we liberate ourselves using something like "mind science", so in this sense Buddhism is more modern.
Anyway, the role of the "teacher" is not as much "to teach" knowledge, as it is to teach the skills, mature the student's mind and deliver the student to the enlightened perspective. And yes, it involves transmitting something that cannot be explained in words. Although, you must understand that in Buddhism we do not have dualistic notion of "special energy" that is somehow different from normal stuff - we just say that this energy is a subtle/abstract aspect of regular things.
But yes, just like the law systems of different countries have similarities - because they are based on the actual human nature which is more or less the same everywhere (in terms of basic goodness, vices, desires, problems) -- similarly the different religions like Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. have many common elements and many overlaps - because they are reflections of True Dharma - the True Nature of Reality.

a very clarified answer andrei. are there any such abhisheka giving institutions in tibet ? pl refer some if you know.


text:
Can we apply the bundle of reeds simile to all limbs of Dependent Origination?
"Suppose there were two bundles of reeds leaning up against each other. In the same way, name and form are conditions for consciousness. Consciousness is a condition for name and form. "
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.67/en/sujato
Can we apply the bundle of reeds simile to all limbs of Dependent Origination?

Yes, this is correct. This is why it's called "pratitya-samutpada" or "dependent-co-arising" ("stepwise-mutual-production")
The sequence represents progressive development of dualistic thinking (dualistic hardening) down the chain that creates the concept of one's own death. You see, dualistic thinking is thinking based on discrimination between left and right, top and down etc. - it's a type of thinking that involves defining a reference point (the zero point, e.g. between up and down) and some sort of quality or criteria for separation (up/down, inside/outside, beautiful/ugly etc.).
In pratitya-samutpada each pair of adjacent steps represents one act of dualistic separation or co-definition. Each pair splits the world in two, along one dimension and creates foundation for the next split. We are talking about developmental psychology of mind here.
Samskara is a cohesive collection of memories or imprints that are accumulated one-by-one in such a way as to be logically consistent, in such way as to create some sort of consistent interpretation or experience of what's going on.
This collection of observations supports emergence of Experience (Vijnana) which is really nothing but reification of Recognition (or Interpretation) of new observations in terms of internalized old observations. This act of recognition or interpretation makes it possible for the new observation to be added to the pile, consistently with what's there already. Therefore Samskara enables Vijanana and Vijnana enables Samskara.
Recognition involves recognizing patterns like objects and situations, or generalizing significant features into identities. Therefore by its very nature Recognition is reification of entities. We define objects and give them names. This is called Namarupa. Recognizing objects (and places, situations) supports further development of Vijnana. So at this stage too, Vijnana supports Namarupa and Namarupa supports Vijnana.
The notion of objects arises co-dependently with the notion of their background or space in which they exist. Because there are six types of objects, there are correspondingly six types of space. This is Salayatana. So Namarupa and Six Spaces support each other, fall out from each other.  The world, once again, is split in two: object and its background.
Karmapa's Dream Flag is an illustration of this principle of the object and background mutually-co-defining each other. Are these blue waves on the yellow background or yellow waves on the blue background? That depends on the observer's interpretation. The object and its background are mutually co-dependent. As soon as we designate the object - the background co-emerges and vice versa.

By this point the dualistic process progressed far enough to have a pretty rich differentiation of the external ("world" with "objects"), but there is pretty much nothing differentiated on the inside yet. There is also no experience of Time yet. But now that there are six spaces with corresponding sets of objects, there can be experience of a known object re-appearing after a period of being absent. This experience is called Contact. It is made possible by everything that happened until this point, but particularly by the notion of space as the background on which the object appears. The world is split along the dimension of time, into the time without the object and time with the object. This notion of Contact (having the object) makes the absence of object event more noticeable, thereby re-supporting the Six Spaces.
Now that we have identified the time when object is with us as significant, we notice the Feeling we have when the object is present. We attribute this feeling to the Contact with the object. This feeling in its turn re-enforces experience of Contact as something real and significant.
This Feeling at the time of Contact makes for a striking contrast with the time of No Contact. Obsessively remembering the Feeling of Contact during the time when the object is not with us, because the impression it left on us was so strong and fit so well with the pile of Samskara, is called Tanha or craving. This craving re-enforces the feeling we have when the object comes back.
Obsessive craving for Feeling/Contact/Object leads to obsessive thinking and fantasizing about it, Upadana. We tell ourselves a never-ending narrative, we replay situation over and over again, we make a little movie in our head about the Contact. We develop a plan of action to get what we want. This narrative/movie/plan is nothing but re-constructing a possible sequence of events from our pile of Samskara, events that could lead to the desirable Contact again. This process of obsessing over the object of our desire serves to re-enforce Craving.
Fantasizing about the contact leads to an idea of ourselves existing in different points in time. First we exist here-now, without the object. Then we will exist there-then, hopefully with the object. This splits the world into the background of Time and the Self-Identity (Bhava) traveling from past to future over time. It also re-enforces the entire experience of the World with Objects that we have thus constructed. The concept of "I" is the mirror reflection of the entire world that we have created, and thinking about one side reinforces the other.
This notion of I as something that solid, something that exists, comes in contact with objects, experiences feelings, sets the goals and achieves them -- something that lives -- leads to conclusion that I am the sentient being. I am this organism that exists just like another object of the world. This is called Jati or birth. This notion of "I am this person" reinforces the notion of "I" created on the previous step.
Finally, as soon as we have defined a part of the world as something separate and concrete, an object living in this specific form - the change of form is seen by us as destruction. And since we identify with this object as "I", its destruction is seen as our Death, and anything that disturbs our idea of life-as-it-should-be is seen as this sentient being's suffering.
This entire structure is possible because of the fundamental Ignorance of how all this works. This ignorance permeates and supports the 11 nidanas, while the personal drama that comes out of it reinforces Ignorance, supporting the process of accumulation of observations, interpretation, and reification that leads to arising of the world and I, living and dying.
For more information, see Nanavira Thera's Notes on Dhamma and Buddhadasa's book "Practical Dependent Origination" a short summary of which can be found here: http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books6/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Paticcasamuppada.htm

Is this the Theravada view? Why it does not say like this in Sutta. Please see further discussion in https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=476510#p476510

Added the references above.

Naturally, I marked this post down. Also, Buddhadasa does not support his post. The proper translation is here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/161993913/Buddhadasa-Paticcasamuppada   Merely some of the early conditions of D.O. an arise, without the later arising. For example, sankhara can arise without craving; craving can arise without attachment, etc.

@Dharmmadhatu you are amazing in your idamsaccabhinivesa ;)) Not understanding Dharma yourself, you argue with someone who does. Anyway, I still have hope for you. And thanks for the link, brother.

Definitely not a brother. My Dhamma understanding is close to perfect. I have not spent my adult life engaging in sexual intercourse of a common householder. As for what was correct in your answer (although unrelated to the question), the impression is you copied this from my previous answers in the manner as though I am your teacher or guru. As a Mahayana, you should honor your teachers. lol

I don't know if I should laugh or cry

I think looking in the mirror is best in relation to reactions to disagreement & criticism and coveting from teachers.

Andrei, I think @Dhammadhatu likes the view of Ven. Buddhadasa's, which he referenced, because it talks about "one life" rather than three (past present and future). Nanavira Thera's Notes, which you quoted, agree with that view.

More to the point, I guess Dhammadhatu is complaining about your explanation that the inter-dependence is bi-directional, e.g. that attachment reinforces craving, that Vijnana enables Samskara, etc. I think the traditional explanation (such as it is) tends to be unidirectional, saying "B when A, if not A then not B" (i.e. that A is necessary for B, though perhaps not always sufficient for B). The traditional explanation of the reverse relationship is only in the negative sense (perhaps a.k.a. "dependent cessation").

Yes, of course. That objection seems pretty clear - thank you @ChrisW . Each step is a dualistic split implied and made possible by one side of the previous split. In this sense the dependency is uni-directional. But also, each subsequent step is a dualistic complement and a re-enforcement of the previous step - in this sense it is bi-directional.

ChrisW, My point about Buddhadasa was the reference made by Volkov to Buddhadasa does not support Volkov's post. Buddhadasa never ever taught Dependent Origination as Volkov does yet Volkov appears to claim Buddhadasa supports Volkov's view.

Is this the Theravada view? Why it does not say like this in Sutta.
If you're asking whether there are other examples in the suttas, then I guess that no there aren't.
Piya Tan's essay on Dependent Arising identifies several forms of the formula: e.g. there's one form with 12 nidanas, another with 10, and so on.
The form which you quoted is what he calls the "condensed version" on page 119 (because it only has 10 stages), and/or the "looped version" on page 120.
The same essay also references various other forms from the suttas.
Assuming his essay is a complete survey of the topic (a survey of the suttas and elsewhere), I don't see in it mentions of other examples of mutually dependent "dependent co-arising" or "co-dependent arising" (as opposed to a unidirectional "dependent arising").
He does see fit to start though, with:

Dependent arising is essentially an account of the causal nature of the cycle of existence
  (vaṭṭa), showing the conditions that hold together the wheel of birth and death, and make it turn from one
  existence to another. It shows how all existential conditions arise, not singly, but as a meeting of causes
  that bring about a set of effects—and that there is no first cause or prime mover: it is all cyclic. And it is a
  cycle that can be broken, when we know where the weak links are.
The Commentaries define dependent arising as the arising of effects evenly in dependence on
  a meeting of conditions (paccaya,sāmaggiṁ paṭicca samaṁ gantvā phalānaṁ uppādo).
  This implies that
  no single cause can produce a single effect, nor does only one effect arise from a single cause. Rather,
  there is always a set of causes giving rise to a set of effects.
In the well-known 12-link formula [diag 3.3], when one cause is stated as conditioning the following
  effect, this is merely to single out the chief condition among a set of conditions, and relate it to the most
  important effect among a set of effects.

This isn't exactly what you were asking, but...
Piya Tan's essay (referenced above) also identifies several explanations by several authors (which may or may not be mutually contradictory) of the cycle -- e.g. including whether the process describes one though moment, one life, or several lives.
The introduction (pages 107-108) suggest this is a topic on which people disagree, and write as if they're sure of their own view. I gather people become accustomed to arguments about this topic.
My own opinion, if you want it, is that the description is quite approximate:

I think the purpose of this topic is to explain how samsara happens (and how self-views arise); and maybe how (or where) to stop that (by interrupting the cycle)
It is a complicated topic
This is a relatively simple (simplistic) description
There are truths which aren't included in the description

I think that Andrei's answer (i.e. "yes") is a useful and "true" description -- even if it isn't in the suttas.
Note though that he describes the two-directional (i.e. backwards) relationship as "B is a re-enforcement of the previous step A" -- that's not the same as the forward-direction relationship, i.e. "A is a necessary condition for the next step B".
An example of this, in my mind, is fire: i.e. "fuel and heat are a necessary condition for fire to exist" is a forward-direction relationship, but "fire reinforces the heat" is a corresponding backward-direction relationship.
I think this kind of "loop-back" (where the result also affects the cause) in a relationship is sometimes called a "feedback loop" ... and when it's "positive" feedback (as it is in the example of "fire and heat") then it's a "self-sustaining" feedback loop, sometimes also called a "vicious cycle".
The fact that samsara is persistent seems to me evidence that there are feedback loops operating.
I guess a reason why that's not in the suttas is that it's not entirely useful knowledge. For example, knowing that fire reinforces heat is kind of interesting but doesn't really help to put the fire out, because there's no practical way to remove the heat from the fire. The practical knowledge (towards putting out the fire) is (only) that you can remove fuel -- I suppose this is a reason why (only) the one-directional "A is a necessary condition for B" relationships are taught.
In other words, the suttas contain the minimum/simplest description that's needed to teach dependent cessation.
The slightly richer description which includes other relationships (e.g. "B reinforces A") may be helpful for understanding the system as it is and how it comes to be and how it's sustained.
Maybe it depends what you're asking: if you're asking "do the suttas apply the bundle of reeds simile to all limbs" then I think the answer is no; if you're asking "can we apply it" then I think the answer is yes.

Apart from its use pratityasamutpada in the I think that "co-arising" is a useful concept generally. People often ask "did A cause B or did B cause A?" when the true answer might be that they co-arise. Once A and B both exist and there's a relationship between them, they may both be affected by or even defined by the relationship and each other.

No, because for the other nidanas in paticcasamuppada, one factor is dependent upon the one prior for its arising.
Nama-rupa & vinnana are the exception to this rule, for they are actually co-dependent upon one another for its arising... hence the simile.
That Nama-rupa & vinnana are actually co-dependent upon one another for their arising is another fact showing why paticcasamuppada is not about reincarnation.

As well as nama-rupa & vinnana, to pick another example (i.e. sankharas) ... in this answer  you wrote that "Asava is at the level of 'ignorance' in dependent origination". But asavas are a flow (a "backflow") of sensuality to sankharas, aren't they? Doesn't saying that they're "at the level of ignorance" mean that "they can exist only if ignorance exists"? But it's not a flow of or from ignorance, it's a flow whose existence is conditioned by ignorance: it's a flow of sensuality (and name and form and so on), is that so?

No Chris. Ignorance & asava are included within the one single nidana. Please re-read my answer. Regardless, it is still not the same, even within this one single nidana because asava & ignorance are similar things where as nama-rupa and vinnana are very different things.

This only applies to consciousness and name-and-form. It does not apply to the other links of Dependent Origination. Please see this answer for more details on why this is the case.
The quote from Mahanidana Sutta (DN15) shows that this applies only to consciousness and name-and-form, and not the other links:

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


text:
Can sankharas and craving arise without attachment?
I have noticed subtle thoughts (sankharas) can spontaneously pop up but mindfulness can quickly cut off & end those subtle thoughts so craving does not arise in relation to those thoughts.
I have also noticed the mind via subtle craving can be drawn with some attraction towards an external sense object but mindfulness can quickly cut off & stop any attachment & becoming arising towards the sense object.
Are there any Pali suttas that say the sankhara (2nd condition) and the craving (8th condition) referred to in Dependent Origination can arise without the further arising of attachment (9th condition), becoming (10th condition), birth (11th condition) and aging & death (12th condition)?
Must every arising of ignorance, sankhara & tanha (craving) result in the Dependent Co-Arising of all twelve conditions of Dependent Origination?

Since you're looking for sutta quotes, here's some. I know you're not a fan of Visuddhimagga but there's one quote from that too (I'm sure I've seen this story in the Canon though - but can't find it, so quoting VM).
About "mindfulness can quickly cut off and end those thoughts", see e.g. MN101 Devadaha Sutta:

"Suppose that a man is in love with a woman, his mind ensnared with fierce desire, fierce passion. He sees her standing with another man, chatting, joking, & laughing. What do you think, monks: As he sees her standing with another man, chatting, joking, & laughing, would sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair arise in him?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? Because he is in love with her, his mind ensnared with fierce desire, fierce passion..."
"Now suppose the thought were to occur to him, 'I am in love with this woman, my mind ensnared with fierce desire, fierce passion. When I see her standing with another man, chatting, joking, & laughing, then sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair arise within me. Why don't I abandon my desire & passion for that woman?' So he abandons his desire & passion for that woman, and afterwards sees her standing with another man, chatting, joking, & laughing. What do you think, monks: As he sees her standing with another man, chatting, joking, & laughing, would sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair arise in him?"
"No, lord. Why is that? He is dispassionate toward that woman..."
"In the same way, the monk, when not loaded down, does not load himself down with pain, nor does he reject pleasure that accords with the Dhamma, although he is not infatuated with that pleasure. He discerns that:

'When I exert a fabrication (or "apply an antidote" - AV) against this cause of stress, then from the fabrication of exertion there is dispassion.
When I look on with equanimity at that cause of stress, then from the development of equanimity there is dispassion.'

-- So he exerts a fabrication against the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the fabrication of exertion, and develops equanimity with regard to the cause of stress where there comes dispassion from the development of equanimity. Thus the stress coming from the cause of stress for which there is dispassion through the fabrication of exertion is exhausted & the stress resulting from the cause of stress for which there is dispassion through the development of equanimity is exhausted.

Regarding perception of something desirable and perhaps even momentary impulse of tanha arising but not developing into upadana, I remember this story (this version is from Visuddhimagga not from Pali Canon) translated by Piya Tan:

This is like the case of the elder Mahā Tissa, a resident of Mt Cetiya. It is said that the elder Mahā Tissa was on his way from Mt Cetiya to Anurādhapura for his almsround. Now a certain daughter-in-law of family who had quarrelled with her husband, had set out early from Anurādhapura, all dressed up and decked like a heavenly nymph heading for a relatives’
  house. She saw a monk on the road, and being of perverse mind, laughed loudly.
The elder, thinking, "What is that?" looked up, and seeing the bones of her teeth, attained to the perception of foulness, and so gained arhathood. Thus it was said:

Seeing the bones that were her teeth, he recollected it as his foremost perception.
    Standing right there, the elder attained arhathood.

Now her husband, going along the road after her, seeing the elder, asked: "Bhante, have you seen a woman?” The elder said:

Whether it was a man or a woman that went by I know not,
    But only that on this highway there went a pile of bones!"

Which is sort of explained in AN 3.68:

'But what, friends, is the reason, what the cause, why unarisen passion does not arise, or arisen passion is abandoned?' 'The theme (sign, nimitta - AV) of the unattractive' it should be said. 'For one who attends appropriately to the theme (sign) of the unattractive, unarisen passion does not arise and arisen passion is abandoned...'
'But what, friends, is the reason, what the cause, why unarisen aversion does not arise, or arisen aversion is abandoned?' 'Good will as an awareness-release,' it should be said. 'For one who attends appropriately to good will as an awareness-release, unarisen aversion does not arise and arisen aversion is abandoned...'
'But what, friends, is the reason, what the cause, why unarisen delusion does not arise, or arisen delusion is abandoned?' 'Appropriate attention,' it should be said. 'For one who attends appropriately, unarisen delusion does not arise and arisen delusion is abandoned. This is the reason, this the cause, why unarisen delusion does not arise and arisen delusion is abandoned.'"

The point of all this is that on beginning stages, we have to use effort to stop the process of unfolding of dukkha, but on advanced stages dukkha is prevented through a fundamental permanent change in perception/interpretation.

There are meditations on foulness in the suttas; and perhaps e.g. the story of Sundari Nanda is slightly similar; but the story you quoted of Mahā Tissa is set in Sri Lanka so I suppose that's not a sutta.

The way I remember this story.... it was not as much about foulness as it was about nimitta... Recognizing a woman as opposed to recognizing a skeleton - based on attending to and grasping of different signs. Can't find that version though... or was it something I heard orally... Can't recall.

IMO the clearest or perhaps the first exposition I remember reading, of that (i.e. of "signs"), is this little verse from an 11th century CE non-Buddhist source, i.e. "If they see | breasts and long hair coming | they call it woman, | if beard and whiskers | they call it man: | but, look, the self that hovers | in between | is neither man | nor woman | O rAmanAtha".

Yes, very clear!

i marked this answer down because the quote from MN 101 refers to the arising of the entire 12 conditions of dependent origination. the quote does not answer the question. Also the term "fabrication" in MN 101 does not refer to the sankhara of the 2nd condition of D.O.

No, feeling is classed as an resultant, meaning it cannot be avoided. It will arise.
Good news is that the chain can be cut off from there by observing the feeling with mindfulness, thereby preventing craving from arising.
If you don't believe me, go practice Vipassana meditation and see for yourself..

I think the question was actually mostly to pinpoint the source in suttas, not find it in experience.

Let me  use logic to answer the question. If there is a case that somehow there is cessation of attachment then automatically it means cessation of suffering which means cessation of ignorance also otherwise it will mean cessation of suffering without cessation of ignorance which is impossible.
Therefore if cessation of any link of 12 dependent origination factors is achieved then all 12 dependent origination links will fade away.
And if any link of 12 dependent origination factors is active then whole chain remains active. Therefore Sanskhara and craving can not arise without attachment.

An e.g, we are standing by railing of the bridge underneath a river flows with various types of floating materials. a filthy material comes flowing, we have to just observe it without any aversion , by the drag of flow it will pass away with the flowing water of the river without our effort of deliberately making it to pass. then again a beautiful bunch of flowers comes floating and we just observe without craving for it. that will also pass away. hence the things have the nature of arising and passing away. on practice ,experiential understanding ,wisdom develops of "anitya". this e.g was for your word "by mindfulness the craving can be cut off". No mindfulness neither cuts off nor nurtures anything except giving rise to "anitya" and later on "anatta". after this there remains very little to attain.

Licchavis, the appearance... is rare in the world... a person who explains the teaching and training proclaimed by a Tathagata (AN 5.195).

Tataghata's teach the sankhara of Dependent Origination are threefold; which are defined in MN 44; SN 41.6; etc; namely:

kāyasaṅkhāro (body conditioner - in & out breathing)

vacīsaṅkhāro (verbal conditioner - initial and sustained thinking)

cittasaṅkhāro (mind conditioner - perception & feeling)

Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā? Tayome, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā—kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro. Ime vuccanti,
bhikkhave, saṅkhārā.
SN 12.2

SN 36.11 is a sutta that describes the calming of these sankhara; that is, the existence & calming of these sankhara without any craving.

There are these six calmings. When one has attained the first jhāna, speech has been calmed. When one has attained the second jhāna,
directed thought & evaluation have been calmed. When one has attained
the third jhāna, rapture has been calmed. When one has attained the
fourth jhāna, in-and-out breathing has been calmed. When one has
attained the cessation of perception & feeling, perception & feeling
have been calmed. When a monk's effluents have ended, passion has been
calmed, aversion has been calmed, delusion has been calmed.
SN 36.11

Also, MN 19:

As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of sensual desire arose in me. I understood thus: ‘This thought of
sensual desire has arisen in me. This leads to my own affliction, to
others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs
wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.’ When I
considered: ‘This leads to my own affliction,’ it subsided in me; when
I considered: ‘This leads to others’ affliction,’ it subsided in me;
when I considered: ‘This leads to the affliction of both,’ it subsided
in me; when I considered: ‘This obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties,
and leads away from Nibbāna,’ it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of
sensual desire arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with
it.
“As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of ill will arose in me…a thought of cruelty arose in me. I understood thus:
‘This thought of cruelty has arisen in me. This leads to my own
affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it
obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbāna.‘
When I considered thus…it subsided in me. Whenever a thought of
cruelty arose in me, I abandoned it, removed it, did away with it.
MN 19

Also, MN 148 is a sutta that describes experiencing craving without attachment:

The Blessed One said: "The six internal media should be known. The six external media should be known. The six classes of consciousness
should be known. The six classes of contact should be known. The six
classes of feeling should be known. The six classes of craving should
be known.
If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when
its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My
self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone
were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms
are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye
is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self.>
MN 148

These suttas also show we cannot apply the bundle of reeds simile to all limbs of Dependent Origination.

I downvoted this answer because it does not address the question: how can the sankhara (2nd condition) and the craving (8th condition) referred to in Dependent Origination arise without the further arising of attachment (9th condition), becoming (10th condition), birth (11th condition) and aging & death (12th condition)? Must every arising of ignorance, sankhara & tanha (craving) result in the Dependent Co-Arising of all twelve conditions of Dependent Origination?

The answer appears fine to me. I do understand and have empathy if English is not your native language, Volkov. I can't imagine myself moderating a Russian website. Pali is difficult enough. With metta.

SN 36.11 seems to be about the calming of sankharas (via jhanas) -- not about their arising as asked in the question. Also I don't see MN 148 as proof that craving-without-attachment is possible. I read its saying that "craving should be known" as part of saying that the ayatana should be known, in order to not mistake that system as "self". I think it doesn't mention attachment (except in the last sentence), and it says that when you truly understand you give up the tendency to desire -- i.e. not "craving can arise without further attachment".

No Chris. Your comment is incorrect. The Pali "should be known" means "known with wisdom". As for SN 36.11, it refers to sankhara that exist because ignorance still exists. That is why SN 36.11 ends with "When a monk's effluents have ended, passion has been calmed, aversion has been calmed, delusion has been calmed.".

Chris, MN 148 refers to craving without attachment. It says: "If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of craving are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self.' Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self, contact at the eye is not-self, feeling is not self, craving is not-self."

Its very unfortunate to witness two moderators of this site score this perfect answer down. I am struggling to discern to the purpose of this website.

I didn't downvote it; in case that cheers you up: I just didn't see how it relates to the question. I tend to vote only when I know something is right or wrong, or at least helpful -- whereas this (including even the question) is difficult to make sense of (I won't say "not even wrong" because I assume you were saying something, if I could only figure out what).

If anyone were to say, 'Craving is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. Oh, so the "attachment" in question is some attachment to a sense of self, clinging to a sense of self? Rather than, say, sensual attachment, obsessing about a sensual object of craving? IOW are you (merely) saying that it's possible for craving to exist/continue/arise without self-view?


text:
Are Samskara in Pratītyasamutpāda a cohesive collection of memories or imprints?
I read a view on the internet that Samskara in Pratītyasamutpāda a cohesive collection of memories or imprints.
Is this view or idea taught in the Pali Suttas? If so, please provide some quotes?

"what is a relationship between Sankhara and memory? how is memory represented in Buddha's teaching?" would be a non-trolled version of this question that could be answered.

Since when did Buddhism call "trolls" what the Suttas call "Rare" Dhamma Teachers who can teach the same as the Buddha?

Licchavis, the appearance... is rare in the world... a person who explains the teaching and training proclaimed by a Tathagata (AN 5.195).

Tataghata's teach the sankhara of Dependent Origination are threefold; which are defined in MN 44; SN 41.6; etc; namely:

kāyasaṅkhāro (body conditioner - in & out breathing)

vacīsaṅkhāro (verbal conditioner - initial and sustained thinking)

cittasaṅkhāro (mind conditioner - perception & feeling)

Katame ca, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā? Tayome, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā—kāyasaṅkhāro, vacīsaṅkhāro, cittasaṅkhāro. Ime vuccanti,
bhikkhave, saṅkhārā.
SN 12.2

Ignorant memories imprinted by ignorance that ignorantly arise are obviously included within these saṅkhāra however it appears obvious none of these saṅkhāra explicitly refer to 'memory' because 'memory' is often praised in the suttas (eg. IN SN 48.10).
Any non-intentional inner thoughts, perceptions, feelings & disturbances of breathing that spontaneously erupt due to ignorance are saṅkhāra. They can be memories or can otherwise not be memories.
For example, imaginings that arise due to fear when entering an unknown place are sankhara not based in memory. Or the first sexual thoughts of a pubescent hormonal teenager are not thoughts based in memory.
Below, are examples of when Thanissaro and Buddhadasa attempted to explain the 'sankhara':

2) Fabrication: the process of intentionally shaping states of body and mind. These processes are of three sorts: a) bodily fabrication:
the in-and-out breath, b) verbal fabrication: directed thought and
evaluation, and c) mental fabrication: feeling (feeling tones of
pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain) and perception (the
mental labels applied to the objects of the senses for the purpose of
memory and recognition).
Thanissaro
What is mental concocting? The Buddha said: "Monks, there are these three kinds of mental concocting: bodily formation, verbal formation and mental formation." The sayings of the Buddha in the Pali Scriptures explain sankhara as that which brews up or gives rise to the bodily functions, that which brews up verbal functions and that which brews up mental functions.
Buddhadasa

However, based on AN 5.195, I would follow Dhammadhatu's rare explanation.


text:
Is Vinanna a Reification of Recognition?
I read on the Internet that Experience (Vijnana) which is really nothing but reification of Recognition (or Interpretation) of new observations in terms of internalized old observations.
Is this view or idea taught in the Pali Suttas? If so, please provide some quotes?

Reification is making something real, bringing something into being, or making something concrete.

These two questions, i.e. Is Vinanna a Reification of Recognition? and If consciousness is a Reification, how does a Buddha attain the Truth?, seem related if not identical: because I think the essence of both questions is asking (rhetorically) whether using the word "reification" is supported by or contrary to the suttas.

If you want to question the meaning of something you read (on the internet), it may help to reference (link to) .

"what is meant by reification and what is it's significance to Buddhism?" would be a non-trolled version of this question

I think that both these questions depend on the meaning of the word "reify".
I guess you understand "reify" to mean "say that something is real when it isn't" -- and so you dislike nidanas being described as reifications (but maybe you'd disagree with putting words into your mouth like that).
IMO "to reify" means to perceive an activity or verb as an object or noun -- e.g. from "running" or "to run", you derive "a runner". I may be wrong but I think I read once that Chinese doesn't do this, i.e. that its grammar/syntax doesn't split words into nouns and verbs and it would use the same word in a sentence for "running" and/or "runner" (and so it's difficult to translate Chinese, because to produce grammatical English from it you need to add reifications, i.e. subject/verb distinctions).
Reification also happens not only with verbs but with adjectives -- e.g. from "angry", where "angry" is an adjective, you derive the noun "anger". These tend to be so-called abstract nouns.
Even more generally I think that reification can be used to represent the notion that because a word exists the corresponding thing exists -- e.g. "god", but see also "unicorn". That does have some parallels, although more subtle, in Buddhist doctrine: see e.g. descriptions of "a self" or "a chariot".
Is this view or idea taught in the Pali Suttas?
I doubt it -- not in these words, anyway! I don't think that the suttas are very interested in teaching grammar. They are kind of into ontology, but ... I'm guessing that if you're looking for scriptures that describe a process that should be translated as "reification", I'd guess you may be more likely to find it in later scriptures that describe sunyata.
Experience (Vijnana) which is really nothing but reification of Recognition (or Interpretation)
I don't know if that's an accurate quote or your paraphrase. It sounds like it's meant to be a strawman i.e. easy to knock down.
Firstly because it's saying that something is "really" something, which begs this question for a start.
Second because it's saying "nothing but" whereas if only because of papanca I think it's always possible to produce distinctions (in the perceived meanings of words)
Thirdly because ("in real life") recognition and experience are complicated processes -- which are here described or defined using single words (i.e. "recognition" and "experience"). You seem to be assuming that the words exactly match the "reality" (by the way, note that "reality" is etymologically similar to "reification" i.e. based on the same root). Then you're asking whether the relationship between the words ("experience" is a "reification" of "recognition") is an exact match ("is really nothing but") the relationship in reality. And as I said I think the answer depends on the definitions of the words or your understanding of the meaning of the words -- i.e. "what does reification mean in this context?"
Anyway, I suppose it's true that "reification" isn't a view taught in the suttas. FWIW the only place I find the word on Access to insight is in the definition of the word papanca

papañca:
  Complication, proliferation, objectification. The tendency of the mind to proliferate issues from the sense of "self." This term can also be translated as self-reflexive thinking, reification, falsification, distortion, elaboration, or exaggeration. In the discourses, it is frequently used in analyses of the psychology of conflict. [MORE]

I'm not sure it's safe to assume, though, that whatever you were quoting was intending to convey this meaning of "reification" -- I suppose one should read the quote in its larger context to try for an understanding of what message they were trying to convey.
Perhaps (I only guess, since you didn't reference the quote) in this context "reification" was supposed to point to a difference between what's dynamic (current, ever-changing) versus static (stored memories or snapshots, and/or assigning specific "solid" words or nouns to describe the dynamic).
FWIW I think that suttas often suggest we identify things as adjectives rather than as nouns -- e.g. to categorise things as "skilful or not-skillful", or as "not mine", etc. -- though of course it also uses a lot of nouns (including many abstract nouns) like "sensuality" or "dispassion" and so on.

Yes, papanca may very well be the Pali origin of "reification"

MN 18 says papanca occurs after the operation of consciousness, feeling & perception therefore consciousness is obviously not papanca. thank you for your excellent comment, Volkov

It is memorizing [sañjānana] to memorize again after [puna sañjānanapaccayanimittakaraṇa].
In path of purification, khandha-niddesa make summary from Sutta. Ma. Mū. Mahāvedallasuttaṃ (MN 43) as:

Saññā [perception] has just the characteristic of memorizing[sañjānana] (I changed this word for more easier understanding).
Its function is to make a sign as a condition for memorizing again that “this is the same [puna sañjānanapaccayanimittakaraṇa],” as carpenters, etc., do in the case of
timber, and so on.
It is manifested as the action of interpreting by means of the sign
as apprehended, like the blind who “see” an elephant (Ud 68–69).
Its proximate cause is an objective field in whatever way that
appears, like the perception that arises in fawns that see
scarecrows as men.

There are more information in the note book of saṅgaha, too:

Saññā - Sam + Ö ñā, to know, (Compare Latin cognoscere, to know.)

The meaning of this term widely varies according to the context. To avoid unnecessary confusion, it is best to understand the specific meaning used in the particular connection as a universal mental state.
The chief characteristic of saññā is the cognition of an object by way of a mark as blue etc. It is saññā that enables one to recognize an object that has once been perceived by the mind through the senses. "Its procedure is likened to the carpenter's recognition of certain kinds of wood by the mark he had made on each; to the treasurer's specifying certain articles of jewelry by the ticket on each; to the wild animal's discernment in the scarecrow of the work of man."
Saññā, therefore, means simple sense perception.
"Perception," according to a modern Dictionary of Philosophy, "is the apprehension of ordinary sense-objects, such as trees, houses, chairs, etc., on the occasion of sensory stimulation."
Perception is not used here in the sense employed by early modern philosophers such as Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz.
As one of the five khandhas (Aggregates) saññā is used in the sense of perception.
Could it be that memory is due to this saññā?
Saññā, viññāna and paññā should be differentiated from one another. Saññā is like the mere perception of a rupee coin by a child. By its whiteness, roundness and size it merely recognizes the coin as a rupee, utterly ignorant of its monetary value. A man, for instance, discerns its value and its utility, but is not aware of its chemical composition. Viññāna is comparable to the ordinary man's knowledge of the rupee. Paññā is like the analytical knowledge of a chemist who knows all its chemical properties in every detail.