text:
Is there a way to wipe out ones Karma?
I am 34 and I was brought up in this mad rat race of trying to become 'someone' and be somebody successful. I come from a Hindu background and up until I have been introduced to Buddhism I have only asked god in temples for fulfilment of worldly desires. I was a high achieving and hard working person and as a  consequence of my lifestyle, I got into severe clinical depression in 2015. My entire life turned upside down, I had to quit my job and since then I am at home.
Luckily few Buddhist books fell into my hand and I started reading books about Buddhism. I read Ajahn Brahma, Thich nhat hanh, Jet-Sunma Palmo, Alan Watts,  Bhikku Bodhi...After that, I went to a couple of Vipassana retreats and a Zen Shessin retreat. I also practise Zazen.
But after my mental health partially recovered and with new find solace and wisdom in Buddhism, I contemplated my life and I am filled with Guilt, Regret and Shame to have behaved in an egoistic way with so many people and having hurt and got hurt from so many people.
Intellectually I understand to practise loving-kindness and gratitude but this pain that I feel in my heart never goes away. I feel guilt and regrets. I believe this is result of my own karma and may be karma of my past lives.
I want to ask is there any way to wipe out ones Karma or work or meditate somehow that the Karmic fruits can be dissolved? I dont want to feel bad about my life anymore.

@WrittingNewbie Glad to know you want to practice Buddhism. When you realized that what you have done in your past, your practice in present may wipe or wouldn't affect much more as your present deeds. Can't say exactly since we could not control karma. Thanks, welcome to Buddhism. Namo Buddhay

@Swapnil thank you...Namo Buddhay.

Thank you all for the answers, there are multiple answers I feel are correct so I am not choosing the right answer. Thank you very much again.

You are asking not about how to eliminate kamma, but about how to escape the results of kamma.
There is no escape from the experience of the results of kamma. What there is is modification of the subjective experience of those results. This modification takes place as a result of changing your mental set.
The simile is: Imagine a small cup of water into which is placed a large spoonful of salt. It would taste salty. Then imagine placing that large spoonful of salt into River Gangha. It would affect the water but hardly noticably.
So your job, escaping the results of kamma, is to create a river Gangha of good deeds.
Make a practice of Giving with the intent that the consequences be directed at relief from your depressive mental state.
Do the same thing with the good wishes of the Brahma Viharas: Wishing all beings in all realms of being friendly vibrations, sympathetic understanding, empathy with other's situations and objective detachment.
And any and every other good deed you can think of for as long as it takes.
Guilt and remorse are, by the way, themselves bad kamma. They are willful self-indulgences. You may not like the sound of that, but it is your salvation here in that it being self-made, it can be self-corrected. You should make a conscious effort at the impulse to dwell in misery to change your mental state. Again this is easily and rapidly done with doing good deeds.
Finally: If your interest is in escaping kamma (doing intentional deeds of thought, word and body), you need to ask that as a separate question. Hint: learn from your experiences by examining them objectively, not emotionally, and alter your behavior in the ways suggested by the Ariya Atthangika Magga: High Working Hypothesis, high principles, high talk, high works, high lifestyle, high self-control, high mind, high serenity, high vision and high detachment.

Thank you so much for the answer. It helps a lot.

I have read or heard similar analogies about experiencing the fruits of karma before, and mitigating how one experiences the results of karma where one has caused harm in some way, but the salt in a cup/river version is new to me and, please excuse any faulty memory, more comprehensible than any I remember hearing before.

In the Dependent Origination, the Lord Buddha explained to us the "element of ignorance or not-knowing" ("avijja dhatu") is the "doer" of unwholesome unskillful action rather than "the self" or "our self".
If we continue to blame "our self" for unwholesome actions, we will continue to suffer, because the Buddha said attaching to things as "self" is suffering.
The cause or object of blame for unwholesome actions is "ignorance". We blame "ignorance" for ignorant actions rather than "our self".

The Blessed One said, "Monks, ignorance is the leader in the attainment of unskillful qualities, followed by lack of conscience &
  lack of concern".
SN 45.1 Avijja Sutta

Please read SN 12.17 (excerpt below) carefully, with appropriate faith.

"Master Gotama, is stress/suffering self-made?"
"Don't say that, Kassapa."
"Then is it other-made?"
"Don't say that, Kassapa."
"Then is it both self-made and other-made?"
"Don't say that, Kassapa."
"Then is it the case that stress/suffering, being neither self-made nor
  other-made, arises spontaneously?"
"Don't say that, Kassapa."
"Then does stress not exist?"
"It's not the case, Kassapa, that stress/suffering does not exist. Stress/suffering does
  exist."
From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications... Such is
  the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
SN 12.17

In conclusion, the Lord Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path is the path to end kamma. This means the path of not attaching to past kamma as "my own kamma" or "my past lives". Instead, the Noble Eightfold Path views past kamma with right wisdom, namely, it is caused by ignorance or not-knowing.

And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is
  the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right
  view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood,
  right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of
  practice leading to the cessation of kamma.
AN 6.63 Nibbedhika Sutta

About old kamma, the scriptures are very clear, saying "old kamma" is "not yours":

Bhikkhus, this body [collection of aggregates] is not yours, nor does it belong to others. It is old kamma, to be seen as generated and fashioned by volition, as something to be felt.
SN 12.37

Thank you so much for the answer, it helps me a lot. Can you please explain to me what is the meaning of, 'cessation of contact'.

"Cessation" in respect to Dependent Origination, refers to the cessation of ignorance and craving. Therefore, cessation of contact means the cessation of contact accompanied/tainted by ignorance. "Ignorant contact" in Pali is called "avijjāsamphassajena".The cessation of contact means the cessation of "avijjāsamphassajena". Kind regards

In the essay "To Suffer Is an Active Verb", Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote:

This is one of the reasons
  why the Buddha doesn’t have us try to go back into the past and ask,
  “What did I do to deserve an illness, a mental state, a situation in
  life?” He said that if you tried to trace all those things back, you’d
  go crazy. In fact, he said, you can’t trace back and find a beginning
  point for the ignorance that underlies suffering. But you can see what
  you’re doing to sustain it now.

And also:

So when things come up in life, don’t ask yourself, “What kamma did I
  do in the past that’s making me suffer now?” or “What is somebody else
  doing to me that’s making me suffer?” The question is: “What am I
  doing right now? To what extent am I actively creating the suffering?
  To what extent can I see that it really is true that to suffer is an
  active verb, that it all comes from my own actions?” When you see
  that, you also see the opportunity not to do those things anymore.
  You’re not compelled to do them anymore. That’s when you’re free. As
  for where the outside conditions came from in the past, that’s no
  longer an issue. The suffering you were creating moment to moment was
  the only suffering that was weighing down the mind. And now you’ve
  stopped.

The Buddha taught us to cultivate virtues and be ashamed of committing acts of misconduct, in order to avoid suffering in future. But we're not supposed to wallow in remorse over the past. Just learn the lessons of the past and move on quickly.
It's skillful to be ashamed of committing bad kamma, but it is not skillful to feel remorse over past kamma.
From AN 5.57:

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
  householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
  my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
  relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
  good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
  and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
  is either completely abandoned or diminished.

Thank you so much for the answer this helps me a lot.

I know that in Diamond Way they have a meditation that they consider really effective at getting rid of karma. I'm quite sure they won't allow you to practice it from the start, so it's probably cumbersome for you to get to it. But the point is, at least in Tibetan Buddhism such practices probably exist.
You can also simply compensate for what you did before. If you stole, then you can be generous. That should help with karma.
Also, remember that your knowledge matters too. For example if you get to Stream-entry (1st Stage of Enlightenment in Theravada) then you can't have bad rebirths anymore and you are guaranteed nirvana in a few lives. Your actions will naturally become more moral/useful after Stream-entry. Even if you killed dozens you can still get enlightened, and you will certainly get rid of that useless guilt as you progress.
Finally, unless you are some kind of serial rapist and killer, then friends or a psychologist will help you a lot. You are trying to make up for what you did, that is already a big step forward. You are practicing Buddhism too. Stick at it and you'll find your solution. To me you are already a really good person.

Thank you so much Exequiel.

Yes. You can break the chains of Karma.Law of Karma is not absolute. I will show you three ways to do so:
1.Have compassion towards all. Do not retaliate if someone hurts you or abuses you.
Suppose someone slaps you and you do not retaliate then have not you broken the chain of karma? Suppose someone steals from you but you forgive him or her... haven't you broken the chain of karma ? Suppose someone stabs you and you give your blessings to him or her then haven't you broken the chain of karma?
2.Do works of charity. Suppose you give food to those who beg. Haven't you broken the chain of karma ? Suppose you save someone's life with no self interest. Haven't you broken the karma ? Suppose you bring gifts for poor and destitute then haven't you broken the chain of karma ? Yes you have. This is how those who gives alms to Bhikkhu gains eligibility for Nirvana.Be deeply generous.

Associate yourself with blessed people. Be part of Sangha. Karma can not touch you if you are blessed by the blessed One. But it is better to bear the consequences of your own Karma then move forward with a guilt free conscience.

Only what past bad karma ends is when the result is felt. But it can be diluted [Loṇa,phala Sutta]. Also one can end the accumulation of new karma by following the Noble Eightfold Path[(Nava Purana) Kamma Sutta].

Thank you for the answer.  It helps a lot.

Sure, good householder, that's what the teachings of the Sublime Buddha, of the Arahats, is all about. Giving here, sharing further, access to a longer talk on it at first place: Kamma & the Ending of Kamma.
Kamma (skillful) is used to overcome all kamma and it's vipaka (fruits) and the initial kamma for this path is right view. From it comes the purification, serious taking on, of virtue. Once one has really reasonable resolved to stop (remember Ven. Angulimala, the mass-murder, here), stopped doing harmful, old kamma is no more feed, died of, and new will no more arise. Meeting bad vipaka one usually gives further unskillful into it and nurishes it.
So it's by the forth kind of kamma that this path of practice with an end, that all kamma, comes to an end.
A Noble path, strategy: AN 4.235: Ariyamagga Sutta — The Noble Path.
As the question was also whether there is a meditation for such to heal: actually the path, the processes of healing isn't gained by meditation but by straighten ones view, by listening, having heard, to the good teachings, that of the Arahats, and proper attention, of which then might work out in five different ways.
Once path is gained it's all a matter of patient, patient means metta, and it has to start with oneself. The rest works out by itself, by it's causes, and nothing to put right effort into aside of straighten ones view, resolve, speech, actions, livelihood. Sometimes a little story is a good help for one: The Healing of the Bull and one should be also always reminded that also bad thing aren't for sure, will not last: so patient, good householder!
[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, after trades world-binding here, but for escape from this bounds]


text:
Is this a grave mistake in DN22 translation?
Is this a grave mistake in DN22 translation?
It appears both Ven. Thanissaro and Bhante Sujato have made a grave translation error in DN22.

“Mendicants, the four kinds of mindfulness meditation are the path to convergence. They are in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment.
  “Ekāyano ayaṃ, bhikkhave, maggo sattānaṃ visuddhiyā, sokaparidevānaṃ samatikkamāya dukkhadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamāya ñāyassa adhigamāya nibbānassa sacchikiriyāya, yadidaṃ cattāro satipaṭṭhānā.

https://suttacentral.net/dn22/en/sujato
Ven. Vijithananda explain this in a diffrent way. "Attangamaya" means not "make to and end of pain and sadness" but taking them as not i,me or mine.

Please see further discussion on this question in Dhamma Wheel.https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=36464

There's nothing much (and no discussion) to see there: only the same question, with about the same answers.

Even assuming attha.m could be equated to attā, it could not mean "the not taking as self", because gama here means"the going", so it would mean something like "the going to self of pain and sadness".
Also atthaṅgama is a common enough word to leave very little doubt over its meaning:

“yato kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu channaṃ phassāyatanānaṃ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca..."
"iti rūpassa samudayo, iti rūpassa atthaṅgamo..."
“santāvuso, sattā sabbaso rūpasaññānaṃ samatikkamā paṭighasaññānaṃ atthaṅgamā..."
"ye hi keci, bhikkhave, samaṇā vā brāhmaṇā vā imāsaṃ dvinnaṃ diṭṭhīnaṃ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca..."
“puna caparaṃ, brāhmaṇa, bhikkhu sukhassa ca pahānā dukkhassa ca pahānā pubbeva somanassadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamā adukkhamasukhaṃ upekkhāsatipārisuddhiṃ catutthaṃ jhānaṃ upasampajja viharati."
"yo tassā nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo..."

The entire PED section on Attha 2 is of interest:

Attha2 (nt.) [Vedic asta, of uncertain etym.] home, primarily as place of rest & shelter, but in P. phraseology abstracted from the "going home", i. e. setting of the sun, as disappearance going out of existence, annihilation, extinction Only in acc. and as ˚ -- in foll phrases: atthangacchati to disappear, to go out of existence, to vanish Dh 226 (= vināsaŋ natthibhāvaŋ gacchati DhA iii.324), 384 ( parikkhayaŋ gacchati); pp. atthangata gone home, gone to rest, gone, disappeared; of the sun (= set): J i.175 (atthangate suriye at sunset); PvA 55 (id.) 216 (anatthangate s. before sunset) fig. Sn 472 (atthagata). 475 (id.) 1075 (= niruddha ucchinṇa vinaṭṭha anupādi -- sesāya nibbāna -- dhātuyā nibbuta); It 58; Dhs 1038; Vbh 195 -- atthagatatta (nt. abstr.) disappearance SnA 409. -- atthangama (atthagama passim) annihilation, disappearance opposed to samudaya (coming into existence) and synonymous with nirodha (destruction) D i.34, 37, 183; S iv.327; A iii.326; Ps ii.4, 6, 39; Pug 52; Dhs 165 265, 501, 579; Vbh 105. -- atthagamana (nt.) setting (of the sun) J i.101 (suriyass' atthagamanā at sunset DA i.95 (= ogamana). -- attha -- gāmin, in phrase udayɔ atthagāmin leading to birth and death (of paññā): see udaya. -- atthaŋ paleti = atthangacchati (fig.) Sn 1074 (= atthangameti nirujjhati Nd2 28). -- Also atthamita (pp. of i) set (of the sun) in phrase anatthamite suriye before sunset (with anatthangamite as v. l. at both pass. DhA i.86; iii.127. -- Cp. also abbhattha.

So no, that part of their translations seems fine.

Dear Venerable. Bhikkhu Buddhadasa taught "atthaṅgama" refers to a temporary cessation and is not synonymous with "nirodha". While Bhikkhu Buddhadasa is correct here in relation to say AN 4.41, i am not sure if he is correct in all contexts, such as in the phrase: "dukkhadomanassānaṃ atthaṅgamāya". What is your view on this? Thank you

This question is from MahāsatipatthānaSutta, so recite and memorize MahāsatipatthānaSutta uncountable times are the simplest way to get the answer. How can we trust in people we asking? Why don't we recite and memorize Pali and get the answer ourselves?
MahāsatipatthānaSutta KhandhaPabba:

Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu, ‘iti rūpaṃ, iti rūpassa samudayo, iti rūpassa atthaṅgamo; iti vedanā, iti vedanāya samudayo, iti vedanāya atthaṅgamo; iti saññā, iti saññāya samudayo, iti saññāya atthaṅgamo; iti saṅkhārā, iti saṅkhārānaṃ samudayo, iti saṅkhārānaṃ atthaṅgamo; iti viññāṇaṃ, iti viññāṇassa samudayo, iti viññāṇassa atthaṅgamo’ ti.
Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu [discerns]: "such is rūpa, such is the samudaya (arising and its' origins) of rūpa, such is the passing away (vanishing and its' origins) of rūpa; such is vedanā, such is the samudaya of vedanā, such is the passing away of vedanā; such is saññā, such is the samudaya of saññā, such is the passing away of saññā; such is saṅkhāra, such is the samudaya of saṅkhāra, such is the passing away of saṅkhāra; such is viññāṇa, such is the samudaya of viññāṇa, such is the passing away of viññāṇa".
Iti ajjhattaṃ vā dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati, bahiddhā vā dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati, ajjhatta-bahiddhā vā dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati; samudaya-dhamm·ānupassī vā dhammesu viharati, vaya-dhamm·ānupassī vā dhammesu viharati, samudaya-vaya-dhamm·ānupassī vā dhammesu viharati; ‘atthi dhammā’ ti vā pan·assa sati paccupaṭṭhitā hoti, yāvadeva ñāṇa·mattāya paṭissati·mattāya, a·nissito ca viharati, na ca kiñci loke upādiyati. Evam·pi kho, bhikkhave, bhikkhu dhammesu dhammānupassī viharati, pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu.
Thus he dwells observing dhammas in dhammas internally, or he dwells observing dhammas in dhammas externally, or he dwells observing dhammas in dhammas internally and externally; he dwells observing the samudaya of phenomena in dhammas, or he dwells observing the passing away of phenomena in dhammas, or he dwells observing the samudaya and passing away of phenomena in dhammas; or else, [realizing:] "these are dhammas!" sati is present in him, just to the extent of mere ñāṇa and mere paṭissati, he dwells detached, and does not cling to anything in the world. Thus, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu dwells observing dhammas in dhammas, with reference to the five khandhas.

Is Atthangamo is the opposite of Samudayao? I thought it is Samudaya and Vaya.

@SarathW, Vaya is in the same sutta, too. I edited the reference above.
And that's why in KN.Patisambhidamagga often use them almost like the synonym (it's a bit difference for keeping sutta structure correct in every situation.)

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Should any monastic be considered a noble one?
Should every monastic unconditionally be considered a noble one, and treated as such, to abstain from bad kamma at the very least? or are lay people, and other monastics, free to use personal judgement based on the personal qualities, or lack thereof, of a given monastic?
If the latter, then am I free to verbally express my concern/blame, without producing excessively bad kamma? For example due to not agreeing with the way the Dhamma is presented, or timing thereof, or not agreeing with the arrogant attitude of the monk, or pointing out flaws in the behavior/methods/views of that monk?

As " if, then " plays always an importand role, good householder, aside of ones possible worldly disadvantages, good to consider AN 4.83: Avannaraha Sutta - Dispraise. And in regard of compassion, as well meant critic is a seldom gift actually, is such: good to have no fear. Nothing is free in the world: importand!

@SamanaJohann alright. and monastics are no exception? it is alright to dispraise a monastic after investigating and scrutinizing?

What's your benefit, good householder? Merits from compassion? My person doesn't thinks so. Demerits for householder, caught in eager to win? Your change to win over a real great battle. Try it, give into wise! And as said: nothing wrong if an act of wishing deeply to help him.

Would this question more accurately be expressed as "should every monastic be considered a noble one"?

@Smartybartfast yes, possibly... I will edit. :)

I think venerable is saying the same thing here... it is your motivation that is the key question regardless of who you are criticizing... and of course your wisdom in accurately discerning whether criticism would be beneficial or not.

Not motivation (aim, pupose) but whether mind is caught in greed, aversion, not knowing, or a-greed... May one beware of "motivation"! Right at acting is where kamma, good or bad, is done.

Taken that a good friend would give you advices to abstain from things which could harm you or of bad results, what advices would you give, being in such a possition, knowing that cause and effect isn't a democratical thing, or a "liberal"? Would you send him in an easy fatal lost "war" to win his favor, give into possible defilements?
While it is a very seldom gift of being well-wished adviced, even if disliking, think on you as a child and your parents, it's not something you are obligated to and so worthy to think clear why wishing to do, honest.
Just a sample, not to present something, but to have a possibility to think maybe more from outside, as life actually runs different as thought, as just one to give: Assimilating of Bhante Samahita's death, decay of beloved
For on ordinaty person it's really hard to keep preoccupations, feeling... seperated, not to speek of understanding of what possible just known from far.
So it's really not an easy issue if serious wishing to build up Nissay with those headed toward liberation, not even if after good, firm, intellectual understanding.
May all take care and often remember their parents hardship to even letting have grown till here.
For all that reason, since the old, people are adviced to focus their dedications toward the Sangha and others then the most think, the Buddha gave also to householders advices of how to react on "troublesome" monks, since thinks aren't for sure! And the Buddha knew his Pappenheimer:

...Anāthapiṇḍika the householder heard that, “They say that the Kosambī monks, quarrelsome, makers of strife, makers of disputes, makers of rumors, makers of issues in the Saṅgha, are coming to Sāvatthī.”
Then Anāthapiṇḍika the householder went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, “Lord, they say that the Kosambī monks, quarrelsome, makers of strife, makers of disputes, makers of rumors, makers of issues in the Saṅgha, are coming to Sāvatthī. How am I to behave with regard to these monks?”...The Discussion of the Eighteen Grounds

Old lay people in tradition countries, wouldn't advice or support one, nearly generally, especially if having been monks, but of course they had no google and suttacentral-monks, which might be useful or will most eternal cut of the stream of those rest heading already outward. So again, right critic leads to heaven (even if just by ones thought) and wrong likewise to hell. So the proverbs of binding a knot into your tongue aren't out of reason, one can be sure, and for good deeds one does not need to become a "killer", not even one who stuggles outwardly long. In both directions, and the rest stays open for real compassion and seldom left paramis one could have.
And to add an importand issue, kamma, and that's what the most here is about, doesn't care whether you then tell wrong just your friend, spread it cicretly or anonymuosely... a larg bypass downstairs as well, by especially "smart".
There should be no issue better to simply direct the case direct, and if no "success", onecan deside to left another off for one self, not even just at least.
(Note that this isn't given for trade, exchange, stacks or what ever binds, but for freedom from it.)

Perhaps I feel I understand, Bhante, a desire to criticise -- as a form of good or necessary advice to a good friend. I fear though that criticism tends to do little or no good, unbeneficial, is rejected -- which might be part of why one is expected to ask permission, before one offers criticism? My mum was a preschool teacher and the doctrine of her school was that children learn (in part) from the good examples of their classmates' behaviour. And (with young children) instead of criticising bad behaviour she would wait to see someone (or someone else) do something good, and then praise that.

That's modern, yes. And what does Nyom actually see outside as a product? Such about "group" education of which may work as long the good side is longer. Ask your mother how many good engaged and successful teachers had been left at the end of her carrier, Nyom. And the big problem here is again that the direction goes furthermore not downward but actually can be very, very upward, so hight that the top isn't see on the other side, but that is possible impossible to understand if having an idiotology of all are equal. Nyom known Atma artifact fire and it's use for wise...

To add: in a relation, one has actually a duty to even bend ones father on the track again, even in a student, teacher, monk relation. And the Buddha actually strongly disregarded comfortable "dewlling like sheeps", so also this whole monastic system is actually one of blame and reinstall till perfection. The "not speaking issue" is a good tool of mara, and of course the more bond actually the lesser ways to do. Now think honest if that liberal and informed to critisice for outer land and far way stand a monk?  Again, not that right critic is bad, the opposite, but that it is actually right.

Should every monastic unconditionally be considered a noble one, and treated as such, to abstain from bad kamma at the very least? or are lay people, and other monastics, free to use personal judgement based on the personal qualities, or lack thereof, of a given monastic?

I think you already knew the answer. But in case you need some concrete instruction from the Buddha, check out AN 4.192, Dhp 26, SN 20.7, MN 142, etc.

I thought I knew the answer, but I did criticize a monastic and got an angry response, telling me it's bad karma to argue with a monastic. So I took that response seriously. Living in a culture where monastics are extremely rare and protocol is lacking, I have a hard time trusting my gut about these things.

Well, one of a sure sign of "ignoble" quality is for a monastic to "get angry and telling you it's bad karma to argue with monastic". For a noble one will have great patience and listen to criticism without getting angry. If what you just said is true, then whoever monastic you just talked to is absolutely still very far away from being a noble one.

How does another see anger of one far away? Be careful. And anger is not gone for ever Noble one as well, as next. Itjs not wise to lead people to fooloish ways. Wrong view is always base of wrong doing and what is right view?

The question looks like a yes/no question. Links to sutta are good but I think this answer would be improved by not quoting the question, actually giving a yes or no answer, and not expecting me to be a mind reader and know what santa100 suspects the asker already knew.

@Smartybartfast, you miss the whole point about using a Buddhist forum. You don't come here to be spoon-fed with yes or no answers. You are here to learn about Buddhism, contemplate on it, and maybe practice it. There's no shortcut for those and the absolute minimum to start out with is reading more and more suttas. That's exactly what I did because I want you the readers to read the suttas and draw the conclusion for yourself.

Don't discuss with a person. You could find out his wisdom. Just consum and be quite on given.... (the answer is btw. already legal no more the contributers, just the reputations follow)

I admit santa100's teasing is actually constructive/paedagogical in a way, but for me this was somewhat of an emergency question, so I was also slightly annoyed at first, having been systematically confused with covert sarcasm in inappropriate ways in my youth — but in any case, this mild sarcasm aroused me and now that I know the answer, I will probably be less prone to succumbing to lack of self trust again, i.e. in the future I will know that an angry or coercive contemplative is not to be considered a noble one yet.

@santa100 Maybe I do come here to be spoonfed, maybe that is my level of achievement, maybe that is how I will best learn now and for decades or centuries or millenia.

@Smartybartfast, you will never learn best now nor for decades nor centuries nor millenia with that kind of approach. Why? Taking spoonfed advices from complete strangers on the internet is a terrible way to learn the truth. Read the suttas, contemplate on them, put them into practice are the most reliable way.

Theoretically the form of an answer on SE is to answer the question and add references  to support your answer or for further reading (so the form of this answer is a bit abnormal for SE). In this case just reading the suttas seemed to make it clear enough what "the answer" was -- except SN 20.7, which seemed to me to be good advice but I wasn't quite sure how it related to answering the OP's question.

@ChrisW, I wasn't sure about SN 20.7 at the beginning either, but ever since Smartybasrtfast made some comments, i realized this sutta is probably even more important than others in the list for it stresses the importance of investigating the truth thru the correct original source: the Buddha's words; not secondary infos. like most people do nowadays by taking spoonfed yes/no answers from total strangers on the internet.

@santa100 You have no more idea of my level of accomplisment that I do of yours. Perhaps SN20.7 is directly relevant to you but perhaps sutras directed to bhikkus are beyond my level of comprehension and I need help, even from strangers on the Internet (who ironically tell me that's a terrible way to learn). Perhaps being spoonfed is a terrible way to learn the truth but if one's aim is to prevent the infant starving one condescends to spoonfeed the infant even a small truth. Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it little by little, fills himself with good.

@Smartybartfast, I have no idea what you're talking about. I've provided the suttas directly relevant to your inquiry. Have you read them? If you did, did you find the answer to your OP?

@santa100 Answer to my OP? I did not have a question, I am not OP. I think you need to reread the thead of comments.

Motivation is so important in all we do. Try considering what the proper motivation would be for honoring monastics? For honoring lay people... for proper attitude and treatment of others in general. Maybe if you focus on really analyzing the why you should honor a noble one... is it for their benefit?? For others benefit?? For your own benefit?? Some combination?? And really importantly how does it benefit..
With these maybe it will help you figure out the answer to the question of who?
Quite honestly should it matter what level of attainment another has for you to decide proper conduct for you towards them? If your communication is criticism of them or disagreement with them... whose well-being are you focused on with this criticism? Is it for their benefit? Is it altruistically motivated? Or do you wish to show off your knowledge? Are you worried about your own reputation or well being?
Thoroughly understanding and analyzing our own motivation is key in every action we take... the most basic question I am trying to ask myself is whose well being am I focused on with any particular action. Is it the enemy of all: the self-cherishing attitude?!

Should every monastic be considered a noble?
- I think no you should not always consider such just based on the clothes a person is wearing (ie: Monk Robes). It could be anyone in the guise of a monk.
But in addition to being cautious towards anyone it is always best that you first listen to the words spoken by the said person without any bias. After listening to it if you disagree, what I do is just leave without making a commotion. As if the person who said the specific words might have had a right intention but he could have worded it wrongly and if you berate a person like that, yes you will recieve bad kamma. The best option would be to find another monastic to hear the Dhamma.

I think that's several questions with several answers:

Should anyone be considered noble?
Generally you should know for yourself what is true.
Can I have a disagreeable attitude?
See the Parable of the Saw.
Can I express disagreement?
See the Right Speech criteria.
Can I disagree with how the Dhamma is presented?
See the Four Great References.

Then there's the question of whether you (as a monastic or layperson) "are free to" criticise a monk's attitude or behaviour or views.

If you're a monk then you would know the Vinaya -- which says that some monks live in dependence on a preceptor -- and which says you should ask a monk's permission before you reprove their behaviour
If you're a layperson then your question might be whether you want to support the monk in question; I'm mindful of the doctrine (in the vinaya) that monks mustn't try to claim they're noble (even if that's true) to laypeople, because laypeople might be naturally inclined to support only the noble monks.

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


text:
How to not to attach to the vinaya?
I feel very guilty when I break the vinaya / shila. Now it became a couse for suffering. Some times I feel very bad about people who not follows vinaya.
How do I get out of this ? How to follow vinaya without attaching to it ?

Focus on your own! One needs to be strong attached to Viaya/Sila, to gain remorselesses, concenration, path and fruit. It's your path, your Vinaya, Your virtue, and from it your suffering or your liberation, not of others and that of othes isn't your.

In simple words, Vinaya is defined to help to the people who follow the Path to the Nivana. As I've heard, there were Lord Buddha's time (early Lord Buddhas before the Gauthama Lord Buddha) where the vinaya was not defined, because it was not a need.
Anyway since it's defined in this Lord Buddha's (Gauthama) time, it's good to follow. But if you understand the core thing in Buddhism as advised by Buddha, what we need to do to attain Nivana is to -> Stop ruining the mind with Ragha, Dvesha and Moha. Therefore if you do this, if you get ruined your mind with these while trying to control others who are not following Vinaya, think twice.
And the other thing to think about is, what's the purpose of worrying others, it's good to help others or showing the way, or sharing you experience (on Nivana), but if you conflicts with them, you earn bad Karma, because you've ruined your mind, which causes you to delay your journey to Nivana.

We can derive some clues about how to deal with kukkuca, if we look at its characteristics:

It is a mental factor (cetasika)
It is one of the five hindrances (nivarana) during meditation
It is originating from aversion (dosa)

https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/kukkucca
Seeing as it is considered a cetasika, we can try to still it during meditation, and proceed to investigate them mindfully as with any mental factor.

And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen? There is stillness of awareness. To foster appropriate attention to that: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen restlessness & anxiety, or for the growth & increase of restlessness & anxiety once it has arisen.

The fact that it is based in aversion, means that we can dilute the karmic effect of the aversion by practicing metta bhavana, not least towards those who struggle with the precepts/vinayas.

And what is lack of food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen? There is awareness-release [through goodwill, compassion, empathetic joy, or equanimity]. To foster appropriate attention to that: This is lack of food for the arising of unarisen ill will, or for the growth & increase of ill will once it has arisen.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN46_51.html

The vinaya is more of a guideline than a book of commandments. You undertake to 'observe' the precepts/vinaya. While you are proceeding with day to day activities you might by accident 'break' a precept. One should not scold himself but instead, mindfully recall what went wrong and how the specific precept was broken.
After that you should be mindful to not cause the same mistake again as you would not break the certain precept in the same way. But you might break the precept, in another way, which again you must inspect mindfully like I said before. This way you will ultimately be able to observe all precepts without breaking them.


text:
How Am I not the owner of the mind?
Is it the mind that think mind is owned by itself? Can any one provide insights, techniques, meditations that help me to understand that "mind does not belong to me"?
I aware that thoughts are coming from nowhere and we don't intentionally make them. But this is not enough. Can you please provide me a deep explanation, especially a guided meditation to practice no-self?

To own something, there has to be an owner. Where can you find such thing? What is that 'I' you refer to?

According to my imagination, there are 3 things. Me (= empty), mind and the body. But in eveyday life, I feel guilty when a bad thought come to the mind. It means, I feel that I can control the mind which is not true. So, How to deattach to the mind ?

Hi Dum! What I asked weren't questions to be answered to me. Instead, it is useful to investigate the inner-world of the mind through these questions, going deeper in "your" experiences, until there's no doubt about the emptiness of self of the aggregates. Kind regards!

Brian, I think you should answer this not in the comments but in the answer section. Your answer is good and I am not criticizing it, just suggesting you put it in the form of an answer :)

@BrianDíazFlores ... and not in the form of a question :) -- so for example, "It is useful to investigate the inner-world of the mind through questions such as, etc."

You are reifying mind. But where is it?

@Brian, Got it, thanks :)

In my opinion, the linchpin teaching of Buddhism is the teaching of no-self. It is the pillar that holds the entire foundation, and once it falls, enlightenment is inevitable.
You have made a very common jump in logic that will hold you until you free yourself. You have two contradicting beliefs that will never allow you to progress in your path to freedom as long as they remain.

Can any one provide insights, techniques, meditations that help me to understand that "mind does not belong to me"?

You must not ask if mind belongs to you. By asking that question, you have already jumped to the conclusion that there is a “you” it can belong to. Ask instead if your mind is you. The teaching of no self can only be understood if we question the assumptions we make about ourselves. Do not ask if something belongs to you. Try instead to find yourself. Right now it may seem so obvious who you are, but the more you look, the harder it is to find.

Can you please provide me a deep explanation, especially a guided meditation to practice no-self?

No-self is not a practice. It is an instantaneous realization that causes the end of all suffering and a clear view of Nirvana. Understanding it experientially as opposed to logically is the end of the journey and utterly life changing.
All you need to do to inquire deeply about no self is to follow the following steps.

Think about something you identify as a part of yourself.
Ask yourself, does this thing ever change? When it changes, do I no longer exist?
Ask yourself, does this thing come and go? When it goes, do I no longer exist?
Ask yourself, is this thing essential? If it were gone, would I no longer exist?

Hopefully at the end of your inquiry, you will come to the conclusion that that thing is not you. If find it essential, send me an email and let me know because I’d love to know. =]
Continue this over time to slowly rid yourself of the beliefs you hold onto that keep you from seeing the world unfiltered. The only way to truly understand no-self, is to realize all the facts you have about who you are are actually beliefs. Then you must understand all your beliefs are incorrect. If you do so, eventually you will see the world as it is, which can not be done from the perspective of a human being.
I hope this was helpful to you in some way. I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime.

It seems to me that I can't own fire, for example.
I might think I own the fuel, which is consumed by fire!
I think Buddhism suggest that thoughts are not entirely uncontrollable -- like you can't control fire -- but you might control how much fuel and air you feed it. So see for example:

Food and other cravings, and guarding the senses
Related suttas (about guarding the senses) on Access to Insight here
Aditta Pariyaya Sutta (Fire Sermon)

I thought that thoughts, feelings are result of karma or some other reason (same as the body).So is n't  controling mind is a illusion ? 2. Mind is continuously borning and dying. But there is an energy going from previouse mind to next mind . Is n't that energy is the "I". 3. Am I going wrong path ?

No one can own anything.  Give up the idea of owning your mind.  Give up the idea of ownership.  You are not your mind.  You are beyond description.  Sit, breathe, be.
The path of liberation is not just liberation from ignorance or suffering.  The path of liberation is the abandonment of anything that does not serve your own development or the happiness of self and others.  Then liberation increases the inner light to the point where you can abandon the thought of abandonment.  And just be.
The mind is the sum of all your experiences.  You are more than all of your experiences.  Much more.
Be at peace, be peace.  Be the light you are.  This is the message of all Buddhas.

Is it the mind that think mind is owned by itself?

Generally speaking, what we label "mind" is usually described as "skandhas" in buddhism.
A very short description of what skandhas are, is to describe them as ever-transforming processes in our body, attention, emotions, thoughts and will impulses. We easily run the risk of mistaking these multiple processes as a singular "mind".
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/khandha.html

Can any one provide insights, techniques, meditations that help me to understand that "mind does not belong to me"?

I would recommend learning the four noble truths in depth, consisting of the nature of suffering (dukkha), the origination of suffering (dependent origination), the cessation of suffering, and how to go about this (the noble eightfold path). I find this is a useful overview in case you have the time and interest:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/truths.html
Parallel to learning these concept, you may want to try "anapanasati" meditation. Instructions are detailed in the satipatthana sutta:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanasatta/wheel019.html

SN22.155 is a short sutta that addresses Identity View, describing how it arises from grasping at the five aggregates.

SN22.155:1.4: “When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, identity view arises.  When feeling … perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, identity view arises.

The standard remedy is simply not grasping:

SN22.155:1.21: “But by not grasping what’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, would identity view arise?”

However, even for those who understand this, there is still a fetter, a lingering sense of self-existence.

SN22.89:10.11: For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’.

Briefly, the self invests in continued-existence. Therefore, the practice of studying impermanence is the directly applicable escape.

SN22.89:12.8: ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form. Such is feeling …  Such is perception …  Such are choices …  Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’  As they do so, that lingering residue is eradicated.”

That practice is part of the fourth stage of Ānāpānassati:

MN118:27.1: Whenever a mendicant practices breathing while observing impermanence,

I found the answer from a video by S N Goenka.
10 day vipassana course - Day 3 (English). But w33t's answer describe this in detail.
The problem is "this is not enough".
There are 3 types of panna.
1. suta-maya panna - wisdom obtained from listening to others, from being instructed by others.
2. cinta-maya panna - wisdom obtained from one's own thinking, not just from hearing others .
3. bhavana-maya panna - experiential wisdom.
"I aware that thoughts are coming from nowhere and we don't intentionally make them." Is suta-maya panna and cinta-maya panna. In order to fully understand the "no-self" , we need to have bhavana-maya panna obtained by meditation, the wisdom that comes from the direct experience of the truth. So it can not be post here.
Thanks to Brain Diaz Flores
Please improve this answer.

The mind is a conditioned object; and the mundane, "animal-speech" contents of the ordinary, un-enlightened human mind, are also conditioned.  The mind is non-eternal; it is brought about through the cycle of birth and death.  The brain is affected by physical substances -- pollution and nutrients, drugs, medicines, allergies and chemical side-effects.  Vitamins, and the weather.  It is affected by metabolic process, hunger, sleep, disease and aging, and by emotional stimuli as well; flattery, insults and the like.  It is clearly not fully under its own control.
Just try to think rationally about, for example, paying bills, or any other mundane obligation, when you are hungry or tired.  It's very difficult; it is easy for one's judgment to be impaired.
That doesn't even account for how one's emotions, preferences, opinions, and cravings are affected by misinformation and propaganda from others.  How the mind feels about, for example, "my family" or "my romantic prospects" or "my career" or "my political party" -- all of one's biases are deeply influenced, intentionally and unintentionally, by the biases of others.  One would have completely different views, if one was (mis)informed differently, and by different people.
Buddhism teaches that all thoughts of the self, by the self, are incorrect.  Notions of "I am beautiful", "I am ugly", "I am moral", "I am wicked" and so forth are all based upon self-deception, and incomplete views of reality.  One "feels" moral or wicked in the moment, without taking into account all the ways one can potentially be influenced in the opposite direction.  (The Eight Winds/Eight Difficulties)
To the extent that "the mind" actually is "correct" and reliable, it is because it adheres to what is objectively true; when the mind decides that two plus two equals four, it decides this because that is verifiably true based upon the inescapable laws of arithmetic.  Even the Buddha, when he reached Enlightenment, happened upon the laws of the dharma that had always been so; he did not own or invent anything.  The Buddha had no intellectual property in the dharma--and neither does anybody else.
Anything true that the mind happens upon did not originate in the mind, but outside of it.  And most of what is untrue also originated from what is outside of it.

"Am I", "Am I not", these are just thoughts. Simply think something else, just that much.  Mental activity is endless, but a "Mind" does not exist, nor a "Self". Just thinking along these - or similar - lines break up the thought processes which generate the feelings which are corresponding objects of identification. When this happens unknowingly, the belief or "view" of a self arises.


text:
Reference to Questions of King Milinda in Progress of Insight, Chapter 12
In Mahasi Sayadaws "Progress of Insight", Chapter 12. Insight Leading to emergence (vutthanagamini-vipassana-ñana), a reference is made to Milindapañha.

Also in the Questions of King Milinda it is said: "His consciousness, while carrying on the practice of bringing to mind (i.e., noticing), passes beyond the continuous occurrence of phenomena and alights upon non-occurrence. One who, having practiced in the correct manner, has alighted upon non-occurrence, O king, is said to have realized Nibbana."

Where is this paragraph or its correspondent, in the Milindapañha english  translation of Bhikku Pesala?
http://www.aimwell.org/milinda.html

Bhante (Ven. Sir) Pesala is active on Dhammawheel and surely best to approach personal and ask respectful there, what does good householder think?

Venerable Pesala's translation is greatly abridged. We read it recently in our study group and while it's quite good, he leaves out a lot of interesting passages. I recommend if you have time to read the full translation by Rhys-Davids. It is very old, but well done I think. We eventually switched to the Rhys-Davids version to read all the similes at the end.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/milinda.htm
The passage you are looking for is here, I think:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe36/sbe3606.htm

and still to that does he direct his mind again and again, until gone far beyond the transitory, he gains the Real, the highest fruit (of Arahatship). And when he has gained that, O king, the man who has ordered his life aright has realised, (seen face to face,) Nirvâna!'

The entire paragraph:

And in the mind of him who thus perceives the insecurity of transitory life, (of starting afresh ha innumerable births) the thought arises: "All on fire is this endless becoming, burning, and blazing! Full of pain is it, of despair! If only one could reach a state in which there were no becoming, there would there be calm, that would be sweet-the cessation of all these conditions, the getting rid of all these defects (of lusts, of evil, and of Karma), the end of cravings, the absence of passion, peace, Nirvâna!" And therewith does his mind leap forward into that state in which there is no becoming, and then has he found peace, then does he exult and rejoice at the thought: "A refuge have I gained at last!" Just, O king, as a man who, venturing into a strange land, has lost his way, on becoming aware of a path, free from jungle, that will lead him home, bounds forward along it, contented in mind, exulting and rejoicing at the thought: "I have found the way at last!"--just so in him who thus perceives the insecurity of transitory births there arises the thought: "All on fire is this endless becoming, burning, and blazing! Full of pain is it, and despair! If only one could reach a state in which there were no becoming, there would there be calm, that would be sweet-the cessation of all these conditions, the getting rid of all these defects, the end of cravings, the absence of passion, peace, Nirvâna!" And therewith does his mind leap forward into that state in which there is no becoming, and then has he found peace, then does he exult and rejoice at the thought: "A refuge have I found at last!" And he strives with might and main along that path, searches it out, accustoms himself thoroughly to it, to that end does he make firm his self-possession, to that end does he hold fast in effort, to that end does he remain stedfast in love (toward all beings in all the worlds), and still to that does he direct his mind again and again, until gone far beyond the transitory, he gains the Real, the highest fruit (of Arahatship). And when he has gained that, O king, the man who has ordered his life aright has realised, (seen face to face,) Nirvâna!'


text:
Under what conditions does a Samyaksambuddha arise?
Buddha arises. In the past there were several Buddhas. And it is said that in the future there will be at least one.
My question is under what conditions does a Samyaksambuddha arise?

For how the/a Buddha possible would arise for one individual it's good to go after the protections. Best wishes and encouragements that many meet him.

My question is under what conditions Buddha arises?

There's no set patterns. For example Buddha Gotama came during a relatively uneventful period where human life span was within normal range. However, for the future Buddha Metteyya to arise, per DN 26, life on earth must undergo some very drastic "downswing", and then some recovery, and finally thru some great upswing before He'll appear.

To be buddha merely means to be awake: to open your eyes and see the true nature of reality. That happens more often than anyone realizes, to people one might never hear about or expect.
To be a teacher — one with open eyes who goes beyond the karma of others as well as his own — is rare. I suspect that the world has to be locked in dukkha, a generalized state of dissolute and decayed dissatisfaction, in order to effectively pull people to the path without pre-existing structures. No one tears down an old temple to build a new unless the old one is close to rubble and ruin. But that's more an intuition than anything else.

While the answer is good, I have a problem with the first sentence which is why I've marked this down. The Buddha is not simply one who is enlightened. That is an Arhat or a Pratyekabuddha. The question I believe is asking about a Samyaksambuddha who is a world teacher.

@YesheTenley: Oh, yeah, I understand the distinction you're making. Personally I prefer to blur that distinction, because (given the nature of ego) a lot of early practitioners set their sights on samyaksambuddha and dismiss the others. I prefer to treat world-teaching as just something a buddha might do, not something special, important, or significant in its own right.

It is an interesting question and I think the traditions differ on this, but for Tibetan Gelug-pa their is a definite difference in the attainment between an Arhat, a Pratyekabuddha and a Samyaksambuddha. It isn't just that the latter is a world teacher. And it isn't just that a Samyaksambuddha attains this realization on their own and may very well have been an Arhat in a previous birth.

All of this is detailed in "Buddhism: One Teacher, Many Traditions" btw which does a fantastic job of outlining the differences between the traditions in an unbiased way and with respect for all of them.


text:
Nature of rebirth
I want to understand the nature of rebirth. If one says that the next rebirth would depend on the degree of identification, does that mean that if I am not identified with body I will be reborn without a body or as mind only? Or does it just go to a higher being overall that keeps that degree of overall identification and not restart from scratch? Or the rebirth just restarts all the identifications and the path has to start all over again?
What also caught my attention is if there is complete dis-identification even with the inherit "I" self existing independently, and that now existence itself realized that it is not this limited "I" because it can't be that "I" realized but what is before that which is nothing and everything and no birth will occur, doesn't that mean "I" will never exist again and just dissolve into existence? Or rebirth can happen as a completely dis-identified being by default?

All of these questions about rebirth lately focus on what happens at the end of life. The questions themselves betray confusion and I would suggest to help clear it up first focus on a narrower investigation.
Here is an important fact that should be kept in mind whenever trying to understand rebirth:
The Buddha taught that sentient beings are reborn moment-to-moment in this very life.
This cannot be emphasized enough it seems! We are reborn continuously in every moment in this very life. Before devoting attention and effort to understanding how we are reborn from life-to-life... first devote attention and effort to this! How is this possible and what does it mean to be reborn from moment-to-moment?
The reason I emphasize this is because people seem to acknowledge this teaching by the Buddha, but think it easy to understand and simple to comprehend. I would suggest that this is not so true... why? Because of another fact that should be kept in mind:
There is no difference in kind, manner, or extent between the rebirth we experience moment-to-moment and the rebirth we experience life-to-life.
If you truly understand one, then you necessarily understand the other. They are the exact same phenomenon. Which leads me to suggest that those who profess to understand how we are reborn moment-to-moment, but are still confused how we are reborn life-to-life... well, this indicates they don’t actually understand what it means to be reborn moment-to-moment!
So I say keep investigating moment-to-moment rebirth... you’ll know you’ve come to a correct understanding when there is harmony and agreement between rebirth moment-to-moment and life-to-life. When there isn’t a scintilla of difference you can see between them.
Hope this helps!

With this in mind, let's see what happens when we transform your questions to consider rebirth from moment-to-moment.
"If one says that the next rebirth would depend on the degree of identification, does that mean that if I am not identified with body I will be reborn without a body or as mind only?"
Have you succeeded in this very life with not identifying with your body? In this very life, are there moments where you are reborn with no body or as mind only? This is an empirical question you can answer yourself! What happens when you are dreaming? What kind of body do you have? Do you experience a formless dream with no dream body? What about deep meditation... have you experienced a formless realm?
Or does it just go to a higher being overall that keeps that degree of overall identification and not restart from scratch? Or the rebirth just restarts all the identifications and the path has to start all over again?
Again, ask yourself what happens in this very life when you are reborn moment-to-moment. In that context, I am not sure how to interpret your question(s) here. If you cannot interpret your question with regard to rebirth from moment-to-moment I would suggest the underlying assumptions of  the question(s) are flawed. Can you interpret them?
What also caught my attention is if there is complete dis-identification even with the inherit "I" self existing independently, and that now existence itself realized that it is not this limited "I" because it can't be that "I" realized but what is before that which is nothing and everything and no birth will occur, doesn't that mean "I" will never exist again and just dissolve into non-existence? Or rebirth can happen as a completely dis-identified being by default?
Did the Buddha just disappear when he achieved nirvana beneath the Bodhi tree? Do Arhats just wink out of existence when they achieve nirvana? Do we see spontaneous combustion or beings just up and poof disappearing on their prayer rugs while meditating? I don't see this. Do you?
No, what happens is that conventionally existing things continue to exist conventionally just as they did before and not one whit more. They begin and end conventionally just as they did before and not one whit more. All of this is like a mirage, like a dream, like a flash of lightning... impermanent, phantasmagorical, effervescent, insubstantial, existing only like Theseus' boat without any true existence whatsoever! Nothing truly real ever began or will ever truly end because nothing truly real has ever existed in the first place!

This is an experiential way to look at it ,thanks very much .But now this means that the story of Buddha not reincarnating again and dissolving into existence is false .Conventionally as you said he will just change in form like we all do in real life but  maybe as another higher being if I understood correctly .

I don't know what 'dissolving into existence' means. Was the Buddha that emerged from under the Bodhi tree exactly the same as the one that died decades later at the end of his life? Was he composed of the same atoms? Was he reborn continuously throughout his life? If not, then how to explain his body growing old and sick? The Buddha... like all things was not truly real and existed only conventionally... in a dream-like manner, insubstantial, ephemeral. This is the only way that any phenomena whatsoever can exist.

Ok let me confirm if I understand you correctly.you are saying life as whole is always changing and is always reborn from moment to moment right ?.

I've tried to elaborate here: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/37283/13375

Yeshe Tenley, thanks for your response, but it would make your answer clearer if you elaborate on what it means to be reborn moment to moment, and to explain how it relates to reincarnation.
I understand that everyone changes / is being reborn, very gradually, through our daily experiences, no matter how mundane. But maybe Omar and I have trouble seeing the underlying pattern that connects this to reincarnation of an entire human life.

I will try.
I simply don't think you do understand what it means to be reborn moment-to-moment. Every instance of this life is a different being. There is no inherently existing "I" or any inherently existing anything that exists in any way whatsoever from moment-to-moment. There is existence, but it is insubstantial and merely labeled, only conventional. Things exists through convention only! Like Theseus' boat. All things exist in a manner similar to Theseus' boat with not one whit of real or true existence. This is the only way in which being reborn moment-to-moment could work.

The problem that befuddles everyone about life-to-life rebirth is there is this underlying *deeply, deeply, deeply held belief that we really exist in a substantial way from moment-to-moment in this very life! That there is some real Yeshe Tenley that persists from moment-to-moment. When we have this underlying belief and we confront the end of life we have two options to pick from: 1) That this real Yeshe Tenley is annihilated and utterly ends with death and the break up of the body. 2) That this real Yeshe Tenley continues in some manner in a new life.

But it is the underlying belief that is wrong. There is no real Yeshe Tenley! Only a conventionally existing one that is reborn from moment-to-moment. And that same insubstantial, conventionally existing-only aggregates will be reborn under a new label in that next life.

Here is an attempt to elaborate as you request: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/37283/13375 Hope it is helpful. If not, don't worry about it :)


text:
Buddhism broke up my marriage
The title is provocative but sums up my problem: when I am immersed in Buddhist thought, I can no longer love my wife.
Buddhism clearly contradicts romantic love. It tolerates it up to a certain point: but in the absolute, the practitioner is invited to (or naturally abandons) his wife to become a monk.
To love one's wife romantically: it is to discriminate, it is to love her more than a cat or a neighbour for example, it is therefore to judge and prioritise. It is also to become attached: not wanting to share his wife, wanting to be with her, being sad when she is not there. It is impossible to love your wife romantically without becoming attached and/or without discriminating, putting her on a pedestal.
In the end, Buddhism invites us to be indiscriminate and have only unattached love (metta). From this point on, how can one continue to be married if one is sincere in one's practice? Love your wife in this way, unattached and loving her as much as anyone else, and tell me that she is satisfied.
The Buddhist ideal love is not romantic. Even if in theory the disciple can reach the sotapanna stage by staying married, isn't it hypocritical to stay married with that in mind? To love your wife until that stage knowing that you'll have to abandon her afterwards? How can you love your wife romantically, find her attractive, desirable and endearing, when you know that sooner or later this relationship will lead to pain and dissatisfaction and come to an end?
I'm not clear, I'm mixing everything up, but I'm really frustrated and angry. If I had realized all this before I got married, I wouldn't have done it. But here's the thing, now I'm married, and I feel trapped. Either I stay with her and make a cross on the Nibbana, or I leave her to become a monk like the Buddha did and I make her suffer. How do you tell your wife that you will love her forever? How can you love her when you know it won't be forever and you directly perceive the dukkha of this relationship?
As soon as I clearly see impermanence and dukkha, I can no longer let myself be caught up in the flow of life and love unconsciously. I hope that I am clear, I expect the usual answers "it is not all black and white, a married disciple can reach sotapanna" etc., but this kind of arguments do not work with me, I live them as pure hypocrisy. I should forget the impermanence and the dukkha of our relationship, stay in the sweet reassuring illusion of our romantic love and tell her that I love her knowing that I should abandon her after sotapanna?
I love her, that's not the problem, I'm angry that my commitment contradicts the absolute truths of Buddhism and is an obstacle to my progress. I hope I am clear and that you understand me...
In short: how do you succeed in loving your wife romantically and not abandoning her when you know that you will need to abandon her after sotapanna, that you will never be able to reach Nibbana by loving her, when you see directly the dukkha of your marriage, when you know that it is touched from the start by the seal of impermanence, when you know that it is an attachment from which you will have to free yourself, and so on?
To put it plainly: how can one love one's wife romantically when this act contradicts all the truths of Buddhism? By deliberately remaining lukewarm and settling for half-truths?

I may have missed something but—unless you practice a very self-absorbed strain of Theravada—isn't the goal to stop loving yourself quite so much and to be open to the truth, which btw involves living virtuously and being full of love? Start with your wife. (cont.)

(cont.) Rather than wrecking your life over worry about your 'lost opportunity' to become enlightened sooner, which you can hopefully recognize as the selfish attachment it is once you look at it objectively, use the peace and truth you've found in Buddhism to bring peace and truth to your relationship. If she demands obsessive and jealous love, she may have been the wrong partner but it sounds like this is mostly from your end. Fulfill your duties with honesty & joy, let her know your love in ways large & small, help her be as open to you. Your marriage will be the very opposite of hypocrisy.

Addendum: You say you certainly love your wife but that truly loving all sentient creatures necessarily requires loving her less. Might I suggest that you could be mistaken about that?

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

@lly - I respectfully request that you take your comments above, and some that I've read below, and put them together as an answer to the question. Some people may read answers and skip comments, and would thus miss out on your insights. Thank you.

Open up and tell your wife about all the times you have harmed her, or hidden something from her - no matter how small or large.  If you are 100% honest with yourself and her, your love for her will come flooding back.

This is not an answer, but this might be of interest to some readers: Perfect is the enemy of good.

@uhoh This page says, "It means that the search for perfection is a major fault, harmful to the goal one is pursuing. The search for the 'better' is therefore not the act of finishing the search for what's good, but rather a fatal trap in which any beneficial enterprise can get stuck and fail."

@ChrisW I see what you mean; and I certainly don't want to suggest that the search for the best is in any way "bad". The way that I've seen this used is much less restrictive; pursuit of perfection shouldn't be so consuming that it leads to rejection or avoidance of anything that falls short of it. Since this is Buddhism SE not Interpersonal Relations SE, perhaps my comment isn't as relevant here as I first thought it would be. I can delete it if you think it might be more distracting than anything else.

@uhoh It's not untrue, and it-as-I-understand-it has many IMO obvious parallels with Buddhist doctrine -- restlessness, conceit, the Buddha's realisation just before the end of his Noble Search, the Brahmana Sutta -- but who knows whether it's applicable and relevant to the OP.

I don't suppose that any of us are qualified to advise you on your marriage or the optimal duration of it.
In theory, I really don't think it's fair to say that Buddhist love is non-romantic.  The Nakulamata Sutta (AN 4:55) is a perfect counter-example; it is a promise the Buddha gave to a blissfully married couple to be united again in the next life.  The text is certainly much sappier, I would say, than any Hallmark movie or Valentine card.
I would say that even with a complete embrace of, and transformation within, the Buddhist dharma, one still has whatever karmic obligations in this life that one had before.  Nobody can say, well, I wouldn't have accumulated this credit-card debt if I were a Buddhist, so now that I am a Buddhist I won't pay the debt.  And likewise a convicted felon will still have to serve a prison sentence, even after taking refuge; a recovering alcoholic will still struggle with health problems in the short term; etc.  Being bound to a spouse with wedding vows is a very mild form of karma, all things considered.
I would think that if you really are a Buddhist, than upholding the reputation of the Enlightened One, the Teaching, and (more to the point) the Community should be a much higher priority than your own purity and practice.  Would it cause pain, if you simply announced to your wife, "I don't need a wife anymore.  I'm a Buddhist now"?  Would it (somehow) make her more likely to take refuge and discover the benefits of the Way for herself?
I would advise that Buddhism, like many other non-mainstream philosophical movements or self-help doctrines, tend to attract seekers and people struggling for answers.  Even in the Buddha's own time, recent converts were regarded with a healthy skepticism.  If you really are growing apart from your wife, the reason is much more likely to lie within yourself than simply following the dharma to the letter.  Perhaps you feel that your wife is holding you back and lacks the potential to help you live your best life; and phrasing it as an issue preventing progress in the Buddha path sounds holier and gives you permission to voice your true feelings?
Again, you still owe some amount of fealty to your spouse simply because you took a spouse; but if you no longer feel "attached" then it's okay to respectfully discuss that with her.  But I would talk to a therapist first.

She is your Buddha, your dharma, and your sangha.   Love the world through your love for her.  Your marriage is your refuge and your bodhimandala.  It is the place where you will awaken - no less perfect or profound than any other vow you may take.  Don’t let your attachment to the idea of perfection ruin this opportunity.

This message is beautiful although I don't understand it from a Buddhist point of view, thank you.

There are at least three major koans in the Rinzai tradition that address this exactly - Nansen’s cat, Kempo’s One Road, and notably Josshu’s I Alone Am Holy.  Each one of those koans asks you to put yourself aside in service to something greater than yourself.  That could be the dharma - as it is for monks - but it just as easily could be your art, your children, or even your wife. The object is inconsequential.  Only the sacrifice matters. To be in the great way is to give yourself fully.  Generosity is the first and greatest of the paramitas.

Buddhism does not contradict romantic love; Buddhism contradicts romantic obsession. Granting that this is a terribly difficult discrimination for most people to make — confusing love with obsession is typical of almost everyone in almost every place — it's still an important discrimination to make.
When you go into meditation you should strive to free yourself of attachments, even attachments such as love. When you come out of meditation and head back into normal life, you should carry that meditative equanimity with you and allow it to apply itself to your normal interactions and relationships. This will help you to separate love from obsession; to rid yourself of jealousy and possessiveness while deepening your affection. There is no contradiction between loving one person particularly and loving everyone generally. That is merely an obstacle that your mind imposes because it is confused and frightened, so don't become attached to that fear and confusion.
Yes, loving anyone (specifically or generally) is a condition of risk, because love (like everything) is subject to change. It's worth considering: Does a buddha suffer when s'he sees people flounder and fail on the path and cause themselves misery? We often talk about the compassion of a buddha, but compassion is inherently a shared suffering, and a love that overcomes it. A buddha must have compassion for h'erself as much as anyone else.
Maybe it's time for you to cast off all worldly relationships and join a monastic order; that would be fine, if you are willing to commit to it. But if you are not going to cast off all worldly relationships, then it is on you to bring your practice into your worldly relationships, not use it as a shield to deny them.

Eating food is impermanent. After a few minutes, the food is chewed & swallowed. After 24 hours or so, the food becomes excrement. However, we still eat food.
Similarly, your lives as husband & wife are impermanent. However, this does not mean to not remain married until life ends.
You made a spoken commitment or promise to your wife; which as a Buddhist, is honest speech you cannot transgress. You are stuck with your wife (unless she chooses to divorce you).
Since we do not know what type of marriage vows the Buddha made, we cannot use him as an example.

Well, that's not true. Of course we know about the Buddha's wife, to the same extent we know anything about his life through all its accumulated legends. He left her, however, before he attained enlightenment and dedicated himself to honest fulfilment of duties; he eventually welcomed her back. Needless to say, though, he probably could've handled things better if he'd started out with the knowledge he eventually found.

Your comment is nonsense.  We do not know what type of marriage vows the Buddha made, we cannot use him as an example. If you could disprove my comment, you would provide evidence. The Buddha did not ever welcome his wife back. At best, his wife became a nun and rarely saw him again.

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.

when you know that sooner or later this relationship will lead to pain
  and dissatisfaction and come to an end? I'm not clear, I'm mixing
  everything up, but I'm really frustrated and angry. If I had realized
  all this before I got married, I wouldn't have done it.

Yes my friend you've mixed the core of buddhism. If you've realised the first steps, you won't get frustrated or angry, when thinking about this situation. And also my friend, I should say, the marriage is one of the best place to study the core of the life. Study our feelings. Study what love is, what existence is, what's temper is, what is patience is,  what is attachment is, what is expectation is, etc.. and the list goes on and on.
So what you need to do is, find the correct Dhamma, it's not what you've found yet. Because if you've found it you won't struggle like this.
And the other thing is, don't be in a hurry to become a monk. Because if you haven't realise the core of life, you will come back to the normal life from monk's life and will marry again.

"I don't need a wife anymore. I'm a Buddhist now"?

Being a buddhist doesn't mean something like this. To become a real buddhist you should be in the path to the Nirvana. And how you come to the right path, is once you realised/understand the core of the buddhism.
I'll try to give an example of this understanding. Imagine a math student who always considers only the positive number when getting a square root of a number. That's because he doesn't know the negative part. (eg: root of 4 is +2 and -2)
And once he realised/learn/understand there's a negative part for every square rooted number, does he reject positive part? No right? It's an understanding. Not rejecting things. And with the maturity/realisation/wisdom (get the correct word here) the math student uses positive-number or negative-number or both-numbers accordingly in his applications. Because now he has the knowledge to use correct number (+/-) in correct places. Like wise, once you realised the core, your wife is like +2 (in maths student's example). So you won't reject her. Because it's an understanding.

As soon as I clearly see impermanence and dukkha, I can no longer let
  myself be caught up in the flow of life and love unconsciously.

Impermanence & dukkha is not the main/core thing in buddhism. Keep finding about this. When you realise the real truth, everything becomes so clear.

Buddhism broke up my marriage
The four "Brahmaviharas" are said to describe the right attitudes for all social contact.

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.
The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, etc.

Each has a so-called "far enemy" (i.e. a complete opposite) and a "near enemy" (i.e. a counterfeit, which can be mistaken for the real thing).
Searching online for a detailed description of those I found this summary:

The reason why I searched for it was that your description -- i.e., "To love one's wife romantically: it is to discriminate, it is to love her more than a cat or a neighbour for example, it is therefore to judge and prioritise." -- sounded like it might be making a mistake of thinking that being "indifferent" is a good.
Even if in theory the disciple can reach the sotapanna stage by staying married, isn't it hypocritical to stay married with that in mind? To love your wife until that stage knowing that you'll have to abandon her afterwards?

Is that a self-centred view?
How do you feel about her being (or becoming) a sotapanna?
What about the Zen story titled Is That So?
Does conceit remain a consistent problem?

How can you love your wife romantically, find her attractive, desirable and endearing, when you know that sooner or later this relationship will lead to pain and dissatisfaction and come to an end?
I think you can do that with compassion.
And perhaps because you love or loved her for many reasons (including mudita for example).
And not necessarily because or only when you find her endearing and agreeable, but putting oneself in the place of another.
The lyrics of an old American pop song start with,

You always hurt the one you love
The one you shouldn't hurt at all

But here's the thing, now I'm married, and I feel trapped.
I think an enlightened person could be imprisoned but still "liberated". That's a different case, but still, it illustrates that "liberation" isn't all about your external circumstances.
Though the suttas say it is affected by the company you keep.
Either I stay with her and make a cross on the Nibbana, or I leave her to become a monk like the Buddha did and I make her suffer.
Every time I read, "either/or" in a description of a problem then I think of, "false dichotomy", and, "middle way" (i.e. "neither of the two opposite extremes").
How do you tell your wife that you will love her forever? How can you love her when you know it won't be forever and you directly perceive the dukkha of this relationship?
The expression that my wife learned from her mother was, "I love you forever and a day."
I suppose that "a day" means "today" -- sempre oggi in Italian.
As soon as I clearly see impermanence and dukkha, I can no longer let myself be caught up in the flow of life and love unconsciously.
When you're a sottapana you have a handle on "unconscious" hatred/anger -- and see craving as a source of dukkha.
I expect the usual answers "it is not all black and white, a married disciple can reach sotapanna" etc., but this kind of arguments do not work with me, I live them as pure hypocrisy.
I recommend this topic -- Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose? -- its answers summarise advice for laypeople from the suttas. I hope it gives an idea of how marriage might function in Buddhist society.
I should forget the impermanence and the dukkha of our relationship, stay in the sweet reassuring illusion of our romantic love and tell her that I love her knowing that I should abandon her after sotapanna?
I'm not sure I agree with your "knowing that I should".
I'm pretty sure I agree that doing what you "should" do is important -- I am only not sure that "abandoning her" is what you "should" do or well understood (by you). That which you "should" abandon might be something else.
I'm mindful of a theory (from Western non-Buddhist society) that some couples benefit from competent counselling (e.g. to help them communicate better and to get a "good friend"'s perspective), and some benefit from a divorce lawyer or two (e.g. for the same reason).
I think Buddhists are taught that generosity and "virtuous behaviour" are fundamental, and are the condition for "no remorse" and so on -- and I think that, being fundamental, that's as true for laypeople as it is for monastics.
To put it plainly: how can one love one's wife romantically when this act contradicts all the truths of Buddhism? By deliberately remaining lukewarm and settling for half-truths?
One way is to try to remember "wisdom" and "virtue" and to behave "appropriately". Your having good-will towards your neighbourhood cats doesn't mean you "should" have exactly that same behaviour with/towards everyone. It might be appropriate to have different relationships (behaviours) with different people -- family (parents, children, partner); friends; employees; teachers; etc.
I think the "middle way" isn't all about "half truths" -- it is about bewaring of extremes.
Also I looked into the Dhamma as a raft parable yesterday, because I wanted to understand how to reconcile "the raft is to be abandoned" with the Buddha's saying that he dwells in dependence on the Dhamma, whereas others dwell in dependence on someone else "more consummate in virtue".
Anyway I guess that Buddhist ideals like unselfish generosity -- even-tempered, light-hearted, altruistic self-control -- can as easily "save" a marriage as break one up.
Also you might want to (together and alone) look for good friends and role models who are doing good.

loving her as much as anyone else

I believe you got that precisely backwards... You are supposed to enter a state of mind wherein one's heart is able to feel for all beings (and non-beings) as much love and compassion as one would usually feel for loved ones, rather than a state of mind wherein one feels, even for loved ones, as little love and compassion as one would (sadly) usually feel for total and complete strangers... (You are neither the first nor the last to commit this particular misunderstanding; most people usually do; I believe it's what one would colloquially call a rookie mistake).

To love one's wife romantically: [...] it is to love her more than a cat or a neighbor for example

Yes... and the reason for this is because human beings are (unfortunately) not usually born within a sublimely noble state of mind, which would allow them to naturally or automatically feel any particularly great amount of compassion for either cats or neighbors...

it is to discriminate [...] it is therefore to judge and prioritize. [...] The Buddhist ideal love is not romantic.

Yes... but discriminate and imperfect love is better than no love at all, wouldn't you agree ? It serves as a stepping stone to even greater forms of compassion, until one (finally) reaches the summit.

Buddhism clearly contradicts romantic love.

Of course it does. But in what sense ? Running the marathon is a significantly different task than toddlers taking their first steps, for instance. So what would you suggest, then ? That babies not even bother walking in the first place, since they clearly can't crawl as fast as Usain Bolt is able to run ?

To love your wife until that stage knowing that you'll have to abandon her afterwards?

Why abandon her afterwards ? One does not have to be an alcoholic to share a nice bottle of wine over a romantic dinner with one's spouse. The same applies to physical intimacy as well.

How do you tell your wife that you will love her forever? How can you love her when you know it won't be forever

Your love for her will (hopefully) be forever, and, upon reaching nirvana, it will be at a maximum. At that point, your love will encompass the entire universe, and you will love each atom and each being as if each were your only child.

I leave her to become a monk like the Buddha

But you are not the Buddha ! :-) At least not yet... Nothing good can come from leaving your wife ! Allow me to unpack :

If you have already reached that unspeakable freedom, then, even if you were to have a hundred wives, and a thousand concubines (!), your mind will nevertheless feel no romantic, erotic, or sexual compulsion, since it has been completely liberated from all attachment.
If, however, you have not attained dispassion, then this means that the mind is still assailed and afflicted by romantic, erotic, and sexual desires; but, if so, then having a lawfully wedded spouse is the only morally acceptable way of (occasionally) engaging in them.

I'm really frustrated and angry.

And that's a good thing ! :-) When frustrated, let your wife caress you with her gentle touch. When angry, let her soften you with her feminine kindness. Thus, allow yourself to be taught by her how to comfort and support others in their time of need.

Visaka was a Sotapanna and got married and had many children. (about ten) Only an Anagami person will not have sexual relations. Are you sure you have become Anagami? Before that test yourself to see whether you are a Sotapanna at last.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/into_the_stream.html

Is reaching Sotapanna really possible when engaged in a committed relationship involving sexual intercouse ? As mentioned on the webpage you've inserted stream-entry seem to occur with the Noble Eightfold path which includes right action "And what is right action? Abstaining from taking life, from stealing, & from sexual intercourse: This is called right action. "SN 45.8

It is sexual misconduct, not sexual intercourse. Sexual misconduct is having a relationship outside a committed (married) relationship.

And yet it is clearly mentioned "sexual intercourse", how come would it be only sexual misconduct ?

SarathwW is talking about the five precepts, @Fedeverovitch is talking about the eight -- the "third of five" is worded slightly differently than the "third of eight" -- see e.g. this answer.

I agree with Chris. Lay people are expected to observe eight precepts only occasionally (Uposatha days)  unless you have taken eight precepts for life.

Or actually @Fedeverovitch was talking about SN 45.8 which is addressed to monks -- in that context, "right action" is defined as avoiding the types of misconduct which "defeat" a monk and expel them from the Sangha -- there were previous topics on this site about that.

Perhaps he has to understand the rules for laypeople and rules for monks are different.

I found The Buddha's Teachings to Laypeople: Practical Advice for Prosperity and Lasting Happiness. interesting -- written by a Theravada monk in Texas, it's a summary of the suttas which gave advice to laypeople.

Thank you for your kind, instructive and clearing comments, I did happen to know the differences of precepts for monks and lay people (having been a monk myself), my inquiry was more about whether a lay disciple, being engaged in sexual matters can still realize stream-entry.

Since I started reading the suttas, I've noticed that my wife gives me bigger hugs. And the sutta I have read that most directly pertains is MN8. MN8 describes how one can become obsessed with Buddhist practices to the detriment of progress.

MN8:5.4: But in the training of the noble one these are not called ‘self-effacement’;

I will make a short answer but i am sure you will get my point : in life there are many things we don't like at all. That doesn't mean they aren't true.
You ask a question hoping that life isn't made in a way that will make you feel uncomfortable, yet it is.
However i thought about this on my own and i came to think the solution is to have a wife and a relationship that is not based on romance / passion / sexual desire. As long as you don't have those then basically marriage isn't a problem.
But most people seek passion and sexual gratification, this leads to toxic relationships that are ultimately harmful.

I can imagine what you're going through, but definitively I haven't experience anything like that in my own life. I can only contribute with a few general observations:

We cannot always get what we want; sometimes, we have to choose between to -apparently- incompatible things. But sometimes, that incompatibility is merely a lack of perspective.
We alone are responsible for what we do with "our" minds (i.e. with the inner world of subjectivity).
Unless we have full conviction in whatever we're putting our energies into, there'll always be tension in "our" minds between different values. The most powerful value (i.e. the one that moves our emotions with more intensity and the one that makes the most sense to us) will be the one that translates into actions.
Values change if we change our system of beliefs; belifs change through experience, reflection and learning. If our values change, our deeds, feelings and perceptions will change as a consequence of that.
Due to the lack of control in the external world (remember that 'control' is not the same as the possibility of having influence), one is constantly "jumping into the void", because, in practice, there's no certainty about the results of our deeds. In sum, you just have to trust in your deeds, take responsabity on them, and be open to accept your mistakes in case they arise.

I don't know if this useful at all. But I wish only peace for your mind.
Kind regards!

Your wife is your personal Koan. She is your barbell. Just as strength training requires heavy weights, enlightenment requires big challenges. You can learn to love everything just as you love your wife, she is your benchmark. And you can learn to see that the feelings of sadness when she is not around are just chemicals in your brain and can be ignored/forgotten/trained-out through meditation. Part of loving something is learning what it needs from you, and working hard to fulfill those needs.

I attained arahantship 2 years ago. I speak from a place of personal experience and pray you take what I say to heart.
There are no requirements to see Nirvana. It is present in every moment and therefore every moment is an opportunity to awaken. It is for this reason that spontaneous enlightenment is possible. You are not required to lessen your attachment. It helps, but it is not mandatory.
Part of the human experience is attachment. As long as you believe yourself to be a self, you will continue to be attached. Attempting to rid yourself of attachment before seeing Nirvana is an impossible task.
In my experience, non-attachment is a good practice in as far as it lessens your grip on the material world, and thus allows for nirvana to be seen more easily. But when taken too far, it causes behavior like this, throwing away tangibly valuable things like human relationships for the pursuit of something that you don’t even know what it is yet. When you awaken, you will still have a human life. Becoming enlightened won’t make you stop missing your wife. It will only make that missing feeling stop from hurting.
I awakened 2 years ago and all suffering has ceased. I have seen the other side and it is more beautiful than any description can give, yet it is completely unimaginable, and I guarantee it is nothing like what you imagine it to be. I normally don’t answer questions like this, but I felt compelled to for the sake of you and your family. I have a wife and son I love very much, and I can tell you without a doubt they were both instrumental to helping me awaken. Without their life struggles and loving support, I would have never been able to live the life of freedom I do now.
Nirvana provides the end of suffering. It does not provide endless happiness or bliss. If you abandon all you love in pursuit for awakening, when you get to the other side you will be content, but the story of your life will have no substance. Do not fall into the trap of thinking  transcendence means you will no longer observe a human life. You will know the experience of not living as a self. You will not stop observing the life of the character you are currently embodying.
I send this message because I love you with all of my being. I know who you really are, and I know the freedom you seek. You will see clearly this lifetime if it is your desire. My advice to you is this.
Do not try to be anything other than what you are. You have all the faculties you need to awaken right now, in this moment. Everything you need is within you. All you need to do is observe your non-existence. Observing requires no action.
In this human world, true love is nirvana knocking at your door. Do not make the mistake of not answering. Simply observe and analyze your experience. Meditate. If you are on the right path, love will grow. Be weary of any belief that tells you that the rejection of love, compassion, and caring is the path to enlightenment.
I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime. Please feel free to contact me any time, my email is on my profile.

Hi w33t! I'm not trying to question your attainments, just trying to understand and clarify some terms, for the sake of the argument given: is your definition of 'arahantship' the same as the one given in the EBTs? Because, depending on the understanding of the concept, arahantship and romantic love might not be compatible. Kind regards!

The answer would be clearer without the first and third sentences.

authors: Bob Jarvis - Слава Україні