text:
Should/Would the Noble Sangha let go of the Dhamma?
Supposed that respect, veneration and any kind of wisdom has gone missing; and that the Sangha has become a group of householder wearing robes; and the leaders of the Sasana are all but householders. In that case, should the Noble Sangha, the Savaka Sangha, let go of their heritage, like one with Sila would give up a book that has become a target of white ants?
It's a serious question.
While the Buddha did not allow his monks to give up Sangha heritage, generally he allowed it in case thieves and robbers would destroy things and harm in cases the monks would hold on it.
Is that, the degeneration, actually the reason why such as householder movements became that popular?
Spoken in numbers, there are about 99% of laypeople (incl. those in robes) who are engaged in depriving the Dhamma from the Sangha, making a livelihood from it; and somewhat 1% who dedicate their sacrifices toward the gems, and respect the recluses.
I doubt that any at large had understood the meaning of "making the Dhamma your own", yet, with total confusion, running after it out of context.
Should the Noble Sangha let them follow their inclinations which brings not only them long time suffering but for many? Resting simply in "Beings are heirs of their kamma..." or still share as much as compassion as possible to keep those able away from doing really grave wrong doings?

I'm afraid I cannot quite understand the question.

That's probably the problem, @PeterJ.

I'd say so. But anyway I'm a householder so not qualified to answer. .

Would you like that your refuge, if having taken refuge, would let go of the Dhamma and leave it a matter of traders and householders (thinking you have made the Dhamma yours anyway(? @PeterJ

I'm sorry, but I cannot understand your way of speaking. I don't know what you're asking here and I'm not trying to be difficult. .

I think that comment was asking, "If you have taken refuge (in the Triple Gem), would you like it if your refuge (presumably the Sangha) would let go of Dhamma, and leave Dhamma to be a matter of traders (e.g. people who sell books and/or make their living as a teacher, trading their knowledge of Dhamma e.g. for food-security)"? I'm not sure I understand "let go of Dhamma", I presume it means something like "not be as thoroughly homeless, without regular support/supporters, as a monk ought to be". I'm not sure what "made the Dhamma yours" means in the comment. And assuming I've described ...

... the problem/situation accurately (in the first sentence of my comment above), I still don't know what the question was asking about that problem (in the OP the quesion is, "would the Noble Sangha give up the Dhamma if..." perhaps that's the same meaning of "give up the Dhamma" as I identified, e.g. "would the Noble Sangha live with some security/support?" And in the comment to @PeterJ the question was "Would you like if ...?").

Perhaps the question was meant to be rhetorical, i.e. if the question is asking, "would the Noble Sangha give up the Dhamma", then the expected answer is, "No, you must be properly homeless (as the Dhamma tells you to be), you can't make the Dhamma yours if you live like a house-holder".

@ChrisW - That helps a little thanks. I don't worry about who is trying to exploit the Dhamma and who is trying to helpfully disseminate or explain it and tend to focus only on whether they know what they're talking about. Your quoted article elsewhere shows that a monk may not always be more trustworthy than a householder. But at the same time i see the danger of a situation where anybody can publish for profit and talk nonsense. There's a lot of it about. Indeed, this is why I feel metaphysics is so important as a guardian against error. . .  .

@PeterJ If the OP is a question, then maybe his comment implies that it isn't about "serving house-holders" (i.e. that isn't or shouldn't be the Sangha's main concern), and certainly not trading on Dhamma. And if it is a "rhetorical" question, perhaps it's saying, "you people ought to understand that to make the Dhamma your own, you can't really do that as a house-holder -- everything you do on this site, anyone you call a teacher, all you think about Dhamma, is corrupt".

@ChrisW - Ah. Rhetorical is how I read it but I thought I must be misunderstanding.

@PeterJ Its being rhetorical like that would be inline with previous questions, if I recall correctly.. I think this comment says there was something inadequate and wrong-directioned about my trying to answer it as a question ... but I understood no portion of that particular comment or question, so.

Although "Dhamma" is in the title, the text of the question seems to be asking instead about the Discipline:
If the Sangha has become a group of householder wearing robes, should the Noble Sangha let go of their heritage? ...
Would the Buddha allow monks to give up Sangha heritage in that case?
I read The Broken Buddha so it's not completely new to me to hear of someone saying something like, "the leaders of the Sasana are all but householders".
I wouldn't want to say that, and I couldn't say it about anyone (because I don't know them), but I suppose that what's written in the book has some truth in it, even if only that it's as-witnessed.
Similarly I read a little of the "austere Forest Tradition" -- specifically as contrasted with the living and so on in towns.
I don't have a specific answer for you -- I think there are several:

You might want to find a monastery which you approve of -- a bikkhu, a group of bikkhus, who you approve of. People's biographies, monks and nuns too, often include their visiting and studying in several places, studying under several teachers.
It's common to disrobe -- not that I'm recommending that, but perhaps that's what you meant by "give up Sangha heritage". Perhaps some people who do that give up parts of the the Discipline, but not the Dhamma.
Perhaps consider being less critical of others -- I assume you are critical of others, "You shouldn't practice/live that way", "You don't have a proper teacher", "Your motives aren't proper", etc. To pick an example almost at random, there's this Wikipedia article about Ajahn Sumedho -- which describes him as "engaging and witty communication style", and pictures him and the monk who he's talking with laughing together. Then again the biography of Ajahn Chah says, "He sometimes initiated long and seemingly pointless work projects, in order to frustrate their attachment to tranquility" -- possibly you have some attachment to the way things ought to be, how other people ought to behave.

Is that, the degeneration, actually the reason why such as householder movements became that popular?
How popular is "that popular", what "householder movements"? Perhaps what you're talking about is an "observation bias" i.e. if you observe householder movements then that's what you see; and if you e.g. read the internet less then you wouldn't see them so much -- but I don't know what you're talking about. You see different things than I do, and perhaps you see them differently -- the all.
There are articles in the Appendix which say e.g. (in 1931) that ...

Already prominent laymen in Burma, Siam, Ceylon, and elsewhere, view with misgivings the present state of affairs and know that sooner or later some alterations will have to be made. Nearly everyone sees signs of decay in the Order, that Order that has continued for 2500 years, but today there are new conditions and forces in the world and unless something radical is done this decay will increase until either the Sangha dies out, or becomes a dead letter, the refuge of the ignorant and unworthy.

It isn't only monks of Western origin who say this. Anyway you might want to read The Broken Buddha assuming you haven't already. I think it talks about issues (i.e. problems within Sangha) which you question here, and quote various people who suggest solutions, and maybe you can find in it some people or organisations who you might concur with.
I don't know that I can answer this question, though, since I don't know what you mean by "householder movements".
I suppose that everyone (householders too) must practice on their own (as "islands"), AND that the Sangha is, has been, will be important.
Should the Noble Sangha let them follow their inclinations which brings not only them long time suffering but for many?
I don't know that it's possible to prevent people from doing what's harmful -- if you knew how to, perhaps you could help drug addicts? -- and if you can't prevent them then I don't see how it's a question of "letting them".
If someone only sees you as getting into arguments, and scolding people, etc., I suppose that's not effective.
Resting simply in "Beings are heirs of their kamma..." or still share as much as compassion as possible to keep those able away from doing really grave wrong doings?
I think the theory is that it isn't one OR the other (i.e. compassion OR equanimity) -- instead it's both (i.e. "and") -- or rather, all four (mudita and metta too).
Also you practice one whenever you can't practice another -- or perhaps one is an antidote to an excess of the other.

The Broken Buddha is one of the most destroctive writting from a sectarian without faith. Poor if poisoned with that stuff by exactly householder in robes.

"Jesus..., better Ananda... what a chatter this answer... obiviously neither matching the question nor who askes...

My person does not think that Nyom is aware that it's not a Noble one who has actually a problem. What does that mean to Nyom Chris? Sure, if feeling secure...

I suppose I see that it could seem or be destructive to someone who didn't have faith. I think it warns that the ideal, the idea you might have e.g. from reading suttas, doesn't match the reality of what you see, doesn't match the behaviour of people on the ground when you travel there. Still I don't read the author as "a sectarian without faith", he seems to be an idealistic (and faithful) person who expressed dismay at some of the practices he saw -- and wrote the book for the Sangha, not for laypeople.

Also it's curious that you say "sectarian", perhaps it's the opposite, i.e. that he used to identify as a Theravadin monk, now just a Buddhist monk.

You are an householder and feel fine with that. How would you ever regard the Sangha and the Dhammas attributes? It's about you, the question. Dhammika is grave alajji "monk". There is possible not a single rule he does not transgress intetional.

@SamanaJohann I knew before I wrote this that it would be presumptuous for a house-holder to answer a question about the Sangha, and the Noble Sangha, and whether and how monks should react to that. A guideline on this site is that answers "should be based on something, either personal experience, or a reference". So I tried to base this answer on references. There are four parts (four questions) above, the first two reference The Broken Buddha, and the last is paraphrasing Dhamma talks about the brahmaviharas. The third (that it may be ineffective to scold an addict) is personal experience.

So my person follows Nyoms advice here, in regard of ineffective... do fine.

Firstly, you may need to choose your monastery or teacher carefully. Ajahn Brahm once said in a talk that he visited various monasteries and teachers and found that most of them were gloomy or stoic. He finally chose Ajahn Chah because Ajahn Chah and his disciples were happy and smiling, so they must be doing something right, he thought.
But if you listen to more of his talks, you will find him mentioning about abbots or senior monks who take the best food for themselves, and then mix the rest of the food together for the rest of the monks. So, there's no perfect situation with regards to the monastic order, I suppose.
Secondly, the last resort is to take the Buddha's Words (Buddhavacana) as your teacher and to take refuge in (and take example of) the ideal Sangha and not the conventional Sangha.
If you feel that you cannot trust some or all of the members of the Sangha, please use the Buddha's Words (Buddhavacana) in the suttas as your teacher, as it is said in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

Now, if it occurs to any of you — 'The teaching has lost its
  authority; we are without a Teacher' — do not view it in that way.
  Whatever Dhamma & Vinaya I have pointed out & formulated for you, that
  will be your Teacher when I am gone.

From Thanissaro Bhikkhu's essay on Refuge, we understand that we should differentiate the conventional Sangha from the ideal Sangha, and use the ideal Sangha as our example (since "not all members of the conventional Sangha are reliable models of behavior"):

The word Sangha, on the external level, has two senses: conventional
  and ideal. In its ideal sense, the Sangha consists of all people, lay
  or ordained, who have practiced the Dhamma to the point of gaining at
  least a glimpse of the Deathless. In a conventional sense, Sangha
  denotes the communities of ordained monks and nuns. The two meanings
  overlap but are not necessarily identical. Some members of the ideal
  Sangha are not ordained; some monks and nuns have yet to touch the
  Deathless. All those who take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha
  become members of the Buddha's four-fold assembly (parisa) of
  followers: monks, nuns, male lay devotees, and female lay devotees.
  Although there's a widespread belief that all Buddhist followers are
  members of the Sangha, this is not the case. Only those who are
  ordained are members of the conventional Sangha; only those who have
  glimpsed the Deathless are members of the ideal Sangha. Nevertheless,
  any followers who don't belong to the Sangha in either sense of the
  word still count as genuine Buddhists in that they are members of the
  Buddha's parisa.
When taking refuge in the external Sangha, one takes refuge in both
  senses of the Sangha, but the two senses provide different levels of
  refuge. The conventional Sangha has helped keep the teaching alive for
  more than 2,500 years. Without them, we would never have learned what
  the Buddha taught. However, not all members of the conventional Sangha
  are reliable models of behavior. So when looking for guidance in the
  conduct of our lives, we must look to the living and recorded examples
  provided by the ideal Sangha. Without their example, we would not know
  (1) that Awakening is available to all, and not just to the Buddha;
  and (2) how Awakening expresses itself in real life.
On the internal level, the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha are the skillful
  qualities we develop in our own minds in imitation of our external
  models. For instance, the Buddha was a person of wisdom, purity, and
  compassion. When we develop wisdom, purity, and compassion in our own
  minds, they form our refuge on an internal level. The Buddha tasted
  Awakening by developing conviction, persistence, mindfulness,
  concentration, and discernment. When we develop these same qualities
  to the point of attaining Awakening too, that Awakening is our
  ultimate refuge. This is the point where the three aspects of the
  Triple Gem become one: beyond the reach of greed, anger, and delusion,
  and thus totally secure.

Also from the ATI Sangha page, it clarifies that the ideal Sangha is composed of those who are of the 8 types - those who are genuinely and sincerely trying to attain the four stages of enlightenment, and those that have successfully attained the four stages of enlightenment (stream entry, once-returner, never-returner and arahant):

In the suttas the word sangha (lit. "group, assembly") is usually used
  in one of two ways: it refers either to the community of ordained
  monks and nuns (bhikkhu-sangha and bhikkhuni-sangha) or to the
  community of "noble ones" (ariya-sangha) — persons who have attained
  at least stream-entry, the first stage of Awakening. The definition
  (ariya-sangha)

"The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well...
    who have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced
    methodically... who have practiced masterfully — in other words, the
    four types [of noble disciples] when taken as pairs, the eight when
    taken as individual types — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's
    disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of
    offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the
    world."
— AN 11.12

My person could not find any connection to the question at all, aside of the word "Sangha". Maybe Nyom Ruben likes to express a possible "hidden" message.

@SamanaJohann I have updated my answer to make it clearer for you. I am only a lay person without direct experience of the inner-workings of the monastic order, so my answer refers to the words of Ajahn Brahm and Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

It's praiseworthy to give effort, Nyom. However: Neither Ajahn Brahm nor Ajahn Thanissaro are pabbajitas, and both are serving householders and not that much the Sangha and their heritage, the Dhamma. Both, like most, have given up the Dhamma and use it for their homes, to maintain it.

Should/Would the Noble Sangha let go of the Dhamma?

When Nibbana (the far shore) has been attained, one can let go of the Dhamma, with reference to Buddha's Raft parable, MN 22: Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile.

Should the Noble Sangha let them follow their inclinations which brings not only them long time suffering but for many? Resting simply in "Beings are heirs of their kamma..." or still share as much as compassion as possible to keep those able away from doing really grave wrong doings?

A being that has commited e.g. murder in a past life is not the same being that experiences the effects of that action later in that life or in future lives. The aggregates are constantly changing and renewing themselves until they are once and for all extinguished.
Therefore one should still help a person who is now suffering from the effects of unwholesome past actions. One should still practice compassion and wholesome intentions towards that being.

Sure, when telling you, you wrote nothing worthy at all, you would not believe that you did... Good that there are some who care about the Dhamma so that those with Nissaya could benefit from it, and they remember well before liberated.

I don't understand what you are saying.

It is not wise to fight decay & death. It is not wise to crave for what is not achievable. The Noble Dhamma says:

Enough friends! Do not grieve, do not lament! For has not the Blessed
  One declared that with all that is dear and beloved there must be
  change, separation and severance? Of that which is born, come into
  being, compounded and subject to decay, how can one say: 'May it not
  come to dissolution!'?"
DN 16

But it is difficult for undeveloped minds, full of self & lust for life instinct, undeveloped in emptiness (sunnata), to have such necessary wisdom. The Buddha his noble disciples have: "Disenchantment towards all of the world". It is very easy to type this saying of the Buddha but it is much more difficult to realise & embody it.
There is no rest in simply reflecting: "Beings are heirs of their kamma..."; because the very notion of "beings" is "self-view" and thus bondage to suffering. MN 117 says quite plainly that the doctrine of "kamma" is "defiled"; leading to "acquisitions"; and only siding in unliberated "merit". SN 12.51 says the Noble Disciple destroys "meritorious formations" via non-clinging.
The suttas clearly say the view of "beings" is the view of Mara or Satan. Mara is the Wicked One; the Evil One; the Destroyer of enlightenment. To quote:

Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, have you grasped a view? This
  is a heap of sheer constructions: Here no being is found.
Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So,
  when the aggregates are present, There's the convention 'a being.'
It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls
  away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.
SN 5.10

The Buddha did not teach Mahayana Compassion for all beings. The Buddha taught liberation from the world. Today, in the year of 2019, the world no longer has mainstream morality. Today, a bhikkhu, even an Arahant, is powerless to help the world. Talk of compassion is pointless. It is not wise to fight decay & death. It is not wise to crave for what is not achievable. The Noble Dhamma says:

Enough friends! Do not grieve, do not lament! For has not the Blessed
  One declared that with all that is dear and beloved there must be
  change, separation and severance? Of that which is born, come into
  being, compounded and subject to decay, how can one say: 'May it not
  come to dissolution!'?"
DN 16

Soon, the Totalitarian Asura will terrorise the world; like they are terrorizing many nations today. The only bhikkhus that will survive are those who do not offend the Asura, such as the LGBT promoters at Sutta Central. The bhikkhus teaching real Dhamma will end up like Jesus - crucified. The Buddha praised his Noble Bhikkhus who praised meeting an assassin.

These Sunaparanta people.. but if they take your life with a sharp
  knife…?
I will think, ‘There are disciples of the Blessed One who—horrified,
  humiliated, and disgusted by the body and by life—have sought for an
  assassin, but here I have met my assassin without searching for him.’
  That’s what I will think….
Good, Punna, very good. Possessing such calm and self-control you are
  fit to dwell among the Sunaparantans. Now it is time to do as you see
  fit.
MN 145

It's not about Nobles fearing no more return and continue, Nyom.

And, to request the wisdom a little: So you have stopped to eat and wash your body, because it's up to decay? Stopped to think, because thoughts are anicca? So what is beyond the Punnas way?

Knowing thieves, if using their thieves, does one not join the thieving, btw. Some are even grateful.


text:
Doubt and contradiction in buddhas teaching
I have few doubts in buddha teaching. Just wondering my mind since i start reading the various teachings.

Lets assume we all achieve the enlightenment then what will happen to world? No one will exist .. no life will exist... that will be the end of this universe.
If we really know the path then why even one percent leaves behind and could not achieve nirvana.
Buddha says we lose what we cling to. But he talks about love too.
Loving your son or wife will bring attachment for sure.
What one should do when a person rapes/molest your close one in front of you? Anger and emotions will take over.

Nirvana is not end of life. Thich Nhat Hanh explains here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo

No need to worry about this scenario. Even during the Buddha's time, at the peak of the Dhamma, how many people attained enlightenment and how many did not? By the way, with or without enlightenment, the universe will go thru periods of birth, decay, and destruction. It's inevitable that one day life as we know it will cease to exist. And one day, life will spring up again. Hence the endless cycle of Samsara.
Well, as the saying goes, there's a big difference between knowing the path and walking the path.
One can equanimously execute countermeasures to incapacitate a rapist or molester without letting anger arises. Matter of fact, martial arts practitioners are trained to keep a cool head. Anger, rage, fear, etc. only cloud one's mind and make it much harder to handle rough situations.

1.
I think that Buddhist doctrine is that ...

There's no such thing as an "independent" nor "permanent" self -- and that what people often call "self" (e.g. body, feeligs, etc.) exist depending on other things
Holding a view of self, and/or selfishness, leads to suffering

I think that the suttas have little or nothing to say about the "end of the universe".
I don't think they even say that it's possible that "we all achieve the enlightenment" -- only those who see clearly and who make the effort, and even then not immediately.
Maybe something like this topic is relvant too: Should a Buddhist have Children?
3.
Buddhism teaches morality and harmlessness -- if everyone practised that then I suppose there would be no rape.
On the subject of resisting violence, this says ...

If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.

... perhaps something like that would be applicable, i.e. that you could make an effort to stop the crime if you see it.
I'm not sure that "anger taking over" does any good.
I think that accepting hypotheticals as real can be a source of harm, e.g. "We'd better kill these people now because they might have hurt us in the past, or they might hurt us in future".
So either try to see the world as it actually is without imagining catastrophe; or when you're daydreaming try to imagine instead how you might do better than participate in or initiate violent conflict.

Nirvana is not disappearing as a being. Nirvana is state of mind that one has no attachment to their mind and body. Being that Buddha meant was not this physical or mental phenomenon but a state of mind that gives you a hard time due to your failure to properly handle the situation.
Most of all sufferings from having a physical body is not the one Buddha meant to eliminate but the mental is. Buddhism is not the ultimate solution to all problems humans are facing either. There is no such a thing in the universe.

This is just my humble opinion as a buddhist. Please accept it if you think it's correct. All sorts of problems come with the birth of a sentient being. If there's no birth, how would there be a problem? There's a reason why we are here. We are here in this right moment to stop re-appearing in this long Samsara. There's an ultimate solution for this and the path is well preached and clear. That is, "Attaining Nibbana".

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Maximum productive time for a meditation sit?
I've been searching around forums for the maximum time that is productive to do a single meditation sit. There are lots of comments around over 20 minute mark for effectiveness and sitting for the hour is the most I've seen anyone say they sit. But what is the maximum that one should reasonably sit for before it becomes counter productive or at least diminishing returns set in?
As a side note I remember Jack Kornfield relating that a retreatant of his declared that he was going to sit for as long as it took to get enlightened. He didn't get enlightened and the whole episode didn't go that well for that individual

Related: What is the minimum amount of time needed for a productive meditation sit?

At the Zen Temple, we used to sit for two hours, in three 35-minute periods with 5 minute "walking meditation" breaks in between. In my experience, the first hour is not "it" yet, it is only by the third period when it gets seriously deep.
During the sesshin (retreat) we would meditate for longer stretches of time, probably about 5 hours, in roughly the same manner with 5 minute breaks for walking meditation.
In Tibetan Buddhism it is customary for advanced students to go on a Two Year Retreat during which they basically do nothing but meditate. Not saying you have to do it or that I would do it - but if they do it, they probably consider it useful, I think?
All this is to say, I don't think there is a "maximum" time - the more the better, subject to practical considerations and your own personal limits.
That said, in the temple we meditated twice a week, not daily. With daily meditation, I noticed I need less time to get going, also, for many people two hours every day may not be very practical. So when you do it daily at home, 1 hour is enough, fine, very good. If you can do it daily for an hour, you don't need to worry about doing more.
P.S. Of course, if someone is obsessed with meditation, has craving for the meditation highs, or is treating meditation as a kind of competitive body-building, that's a case of Spiritual Materialism and should be treated accordingly - but I don't think that's what your question is about, is it.

I've down-voted because your meditation seems to have some sort of goal in mind.

To say either "yes" or "no" would be a lie ;-)

@GavinSerra - I wonder when the Buddha gave up his goal for enlightenment when he sat under the Bodhi tree.  ;-)

I find daily sits of an unbroken hour and a half to be optimum.  The first half hour is normally just enough to settle my mind and loosen the hold that the day has on me.  The next half hour is spent really honing in on my concentration object (i.e. cultivating sustained thought).  It's here that my mind begins to unify into something resembling one-pointedness.  The next half hour is where the magic happens, so to speak.  During that part of the sit - and really depending on the day - is when my body starts to drop away and rapture begins to arise.
Some days I may push toward two to three hours, but unless you are in a retreat situation, those longer sits don't necessarily get much deeper.  Your karmic obstacles simply have too much of a hold on your mind.  Only extended periods of silence and multiple 8+ hour days of meditation will allow you to progress into jhana.
Side note: my teacher's teacher knew a monk who would just randomly sit for two days.  48 hours.  No sleep, no food, no bathroom.  In full lotus.   I can't even imagine doing that!

At home I think sitting for 20 - 40 mins once or twice a day is ideal. If you want to sit for longer, then the best thing to do is to go on an organised retreat somewhere.
I would also suggest having a look at this series of articles by Shohaku Okumura (a dharma grandson of Kodo Sawaki), who says:

...zazen itself can be a poison and cause sickness. If our motivation
  to practise is influenced by the three poisons, that is, if we
  practise for the sake of making this person more important, more
  powerful, more enlightened or for anything else, then it is motivated
  by greed, ‘I want to get this or that.’ It may not be for wealth or
  power that we practise, but for something spiritual. If we practise in
  order to get something desirable, however, our zazen is generated by
  greed.

https://buddhismnow.com/2014/10/22/zazenshin-acupuncture-needle-of-zazen-shohaku-okumura/

well the legend says that the citta sits in samadhi for 7 days max, so strive for that.
for sati sampajanna, ie mindfulness, there is no need to sit. You do it when you eat, when you walk , when you clean the house,  and it is the continuous activity: each hour of each day of each week you track thoughts and sanna and vedana, in order to swap bad thoughts, which are that

And what, bhikkhus, is the unwholesome? Destroying life, taking
  what is not given, misconduct in sensual pleasures, lying, malicious
  speech, frivolous talks, covetousness, ill-will and wrong view: this
  is called, bhikkhus, the unwholesome.
And what, bhikkhus, is the wholesome? Abstaing from destroying life,
  abstaining from taking what is not given, abstaining from misconduct
  in sensual pleasures, abstaining from lying, abstaining from malicious
  speech, abstaining from frivolous talks, non-covetousness,
  non-ill-will and right view: this is called, bhikkhus, the wholesome.

The fruits of mindfulness are that:

Bhikkhus, heedfulness should be practiced in four instances. Which
  four? Abandon bodily misconduct and develop bodily good conduct; do
  not be negligent towards it. Abandon verbal misconduct and develop
  verbal good conduct; do not be negligent towards it. Abandon mental
  misconduct and develop mental good conduct; do not be negligent
  towards it. Abandon wrong view and develop right view; do not be
  negligent towards it.
Bhikkhus, heedfulness, mindfulness and protection of the mind should be practiced by oneself in four instances. Which four?
  Heedfulness, mindfulness and protection of the mind should be
  practiced by oneself [thinking:] 'May my mind not become avid on
  account of things that induce avidity.' Heedfulness, mindfulness and
  protection of the mind should be practiced by oneself [thinking:] '
  May my mind not become averse to things that induce aversion.'
  Heedfulness, mindfulness and protection of the mind should be
  practiced by oneself [thinking:] 'May my mind not become deluded on
  account of things that induce delusion.' Heedfulness, mindfulness and
  protection of the mind should be practiced by oneself [thinking:] 'May
  my mind not become intoxicated by things that intoxicate.'

When you get good at mindulfness, the citta will sit in samadhi and the sañña and vedana will become good, meritorious, and when you have those jhanas,  you do vipassana like that

Venerable sir, is there a single quality declared by the Blessed
  One—the one who knows, the one who sees, worthy & rightly
  self-awakened—where the unreleased mind of a monk who dwells there
  heedful, ardent, & resolute becomes released, or his unended
  fermentations go to their total ending, or he attains the unexcelled
  security from the yoke that he had not attained before?”
“Yes, householder, there is…”
“And what is that one quality, venerable sir…?”
“There is the case, householder, where a monk, withdrawn from
  sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in
  the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied
  by directed thought & evaluation. He reflects on this and discerns,
  ‘This first jhana is fabricated & intended. Now whatever is fabricated
  & intended is inconstant & subject to cessation.’ Staying right there,
  he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. Or, if not,
  then—through this very Dhamma-passion, this Dhamma-delight, and from
  the total wasting away of the first five Fetters—he is due to be
  reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again
  to return from that world.
  https://suttacentral.net/an11.16/en/thanissaro

Sitting for an hour is the maximum productive time for a meditation sit. Sitting in a meditation position for longer than an hour can be unhealthy for the physical body and it can reduce the effectiveness of the meditation. I think in some traditions people are sitting for long periods of time but it requires special training. I think that in formal meditation walking must be done as much as sitting. So it is better to do walking meditation before and after the sitting meditation. Then when you return back to the sitting meditation, you'll be refreshed and you'll be able to meditate effectively.
The chances of enlightenment increases when the mindfulness becomes continous in daily life. So doing intensive meditation for many hours and keeping the mindfulness all day long is the gateway to liberation.

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


text:
Who said 'if you haven't started on the Buddhist path then don't start at all'?
I recall a story that goes something like this

A Buddhist monk was giving a lecture on Buddhism. At the start he said
  'Who hasn't yet started on the Buddhist path?' Half the audience
  stands. He continues 'To those people I say if you haven't started
  then do not start. Please go to the entrance and your entrance fee
  will be refunded'. Half the audience then leaves. He says 'to those of
  you who are left who have started on the path I say you must continue.
  Do not stop.'

This is paraphrased but that's the essence of it. Has anyone heard of this and get the reference, the exact story and who said it. Is it true at all?
Many Thanks as always

The book Meditation for Everyone: a 12 Step Guide attributes it -- without any certainty -- to the Dalai Lama.

That's all I found, via a quick Google search.
I guess the attribution is plausible, compare it with this quote for example, and so on.
But "plausible" doesn't mean "true", and that may be only a paraphrase.


text:
How do visualisation meditation practices relate to insight?
A while ago I attended a Tibetan Buddhist group. They were very nice but I just couldn't get on with the visualisation practices. I find it reasonably clear how mindfulness of breathing becomes an insight practice and metta bhavana. But I just couldn't see how an intricate visualisation practice would lead to an understanding of conditioned existence, suffering, no fixed self or any of it really. How do visualisation practices relate to insight?
Additional detail - the practice involved the Buddha in a bright blue sky on a throne and I remember there were snow leopards under the throne and light was going out of the Buddha.

My answer does not rely on scriptures. I am a practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism too, doing Ngöndrö, so I have to visualize a lot. In fact visualisation "repels" me first from Tibetan Buddhism (I was in Zen a long time.)
Now I value it:
1.) Visualisation strengthen your concentration. It does not exclude breathing meditation. Both are strengthening each other. And sometimes visualisation prevents you from dullness. It also may strengthen your mental capacities like memory. -> So it helps you, to gain insights indirectly.
2.) In some books about the Bardo – I think it was one from Ponlop Rinpoche – visualisation helps you to stay concentrated, when you are losing your sensual experiences, because of dissolving - dying. (Sorry, for not being eloquent enough to make it sound less weird.) -> So it helps you to stay on your path.
3.) I also think it helps to understand some more philosophical topics like "Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form" - because you are going to construct an image out of a "light" form of emptiness. ("Light" like "Light Cigarettes" not like "illuminating".) -> This is directly related to the insights you mentioned. But this is not an argument I've heard from a kind of authority. It's my own thought.
5.) Personally I "feel"/"see" movements of my mind better before the backdrop of a mental image. -> Which makes you know your mind better, which obviously is good for Buddhists
All points are highly subjective. Except 2. Imagine to stay calm etc. without a sensual anchor like breathing. So it makes sense for me to train visualisation meditation as preparation for dying.
Best

1)
Ultimately, the "core" of Tibetan Buddhism is the Mahamudra system of practises, where they also include the Samatha and Vipassana systems/methods as described in the Theravada texts.
The practise of visualizing "Buddha on a levitating throne flanked by snow lions" (paraphrase) is an overly-promoted for-absolute-beginner entry practise mainly because it could be taught under 15 minutes. Having said that - under the guidance of a qualified teacher, it can lead to results similar to those of the kasina practises.
For a variety of psychological reasons, most individuals find it more exciting to visualize some made-up super-beings instead of pieces of earth or colour discs.
2)
The Visudhimagga prescribed and recommended different Samatha meditation objects depending on the individual's intellectual and habitual dispositions. While anapanasati works for most people, kasina works for the others. In a meditation retreat, the teacher may not prescribe the same practise for everyone.
3)
Samatha meditation practises is not unique to Buddhism, and they have been around even before the historical Buddha. The main difference is that the Theravadin's Samatha practises are stripped of all mysticism (incantations/rituals/super-entities) - leaving only what truly matters.
4)
Vipasana is what sets Buddhism aparts. It is vipasana that leads to genuine insights and liberation from dukha. The Theravada texts tell of bikkhus who obtained final liberation just on vipasana practise alone, but the same texts strongly recommended the cultivation of Samatha skills to support and to "supercharge" the practitioner's vipasana experience.

I don't know so much about Tibetan Buddhism but I just wanted to share some informations about visualisation and related meditation methods.
Ven. Yuttadhammo talks about Samatha and Vipassana meditation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDDY4gOexVA
Visualisation is a Samatha meditation object. If a person can completely focus his/her mind to that concept(visualisation) then the mind enters to a trance state and become tranquil, peaceful. Also the person then naturally is capable to have magical experiences like seeing the past lifes, astral projection, reading other people's minds, seeing the future etc. If the person decides to look to the nature of the reality with that clear and sharp mind then gaining insight and letting go would be very easy. So some people start with Samatha meditation to gain tranquility first to make the insight meditation easy. But just doing Vipassana meditation is more practical.


text:
Is there a kind of "pop Buddhism"?
Similarly to pop psychology, do we have the same effect for Buddhism? I have a feeling that many people subscribing to Buddhism because it seems to explain psychological phenomena that they (unfortunately) can't explain. It is also said that the Buddha taught the disciples in three levels, and in level 1 the goal is just to help the students overcome their problems in life, so I think this level is indeed pop Buddhism.
Therefore I think pop Buddhism is a version of pop psychology. I wonder if my understanding is correct.

What are the other two levels, or where/what is this teaching?

The first level is that you accept everything is real, and the goal is just to solve the practical problems. I think this is simply a form of therapy. The second one is when you realize that dharma has no self-nature. At this level we start to use more Buddhism philosophy. The third one is to realize that the idea that everything is impermanent is also a kind of clinging. I hope that answer the question?

Yes it answers the question. The "dharma has no self-nature" probably implies Nagarjuna and later, which explains why I didn't recognise that "taught in three levels" as part of the Pali canon. I don't know whether what you're describing is also known as Three turnings of the Wheel.

oh, I thought that "dharma has no self-nature" is a basic foundation in Buddhism? I am new to Buddhism and currently reading the Middle Way. The link seems more like a historic division, while in this case it is more about the complexity of the teaching, like how @santa100 answers.

I think Nagarjuna's Middle Way is influential, famous, foundational; even so I more familiar with the suttas of the Pali canon, so I didn't recognise what "the Buddha taught the disciples in three levels" was alluding to (and it seems to almost contradict some sutta where the Buddha says that he didn't keep anything important secret, so I was curious to find out what you were alluding to).

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

@ChrisW - I think the OP must be talking about the Three Turnings. It makes sense to think of the first as 'pop-Buddhism' except that in this case it is understood (hopefully) that it is a dumbed-down version to be used as a stepping-stone.  .

I don't know what "pop Buddhism" means exactly but I guess yes -- I suppose I could assign  one or more of the following definitions to the phrase.
"Pop Buddhism" is:

Any reference to Buddhism that I might encounter in a not-explicitly-Buddhist context -- for example:

This CBC article is "pop" Buddhism because the CBC isn't explicitly Buddhist -- but it is popular i.e. it is a national broadcaster though of a not-explicitly-Buddhist country
The word "zen" is now used colloquially in France -- in phrases like rester zen and être zen (i.e. "to remain zen" and "to be zen") -- as an adjective meaning something resembling calm or detached or serene or even engaged (or whatever you imagine the word "zen" might mean as an adjective) in everyday life
Anything like "Fake Buddha Quotes" e.g. if you see someone reposting them on Facebook, would probably have to count as "pop"

Any popular (though explicitly Buddhist) book, which appears to be aimed at a general non-Buddhist audience, and (especially) written by a modern author. I'd include e.g. books by the Dalai Lama (e.g. the Art of Happiness) or by Thich Nhat Hanh -- maybe also books by Alan Watts or Philip Kapleau or Daniel Ingram (not saying that all these authors are the same, nor their books).
I'm inclined to privilege a book like In the Buddha's Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon as being a slightly different category -- perhaps it's aimed at a naive but interested audience (and therefore popular), but it's based on (or is nothing but, little more than) a translation of and anthology from the canon of a Buddhist school and therefore it's not exactly a "modern author". Other translations of or introductions to any canonical works might belong in this same category.
A comparative term ("pop" versus "non-pop"), therefore e.g. a term or form of conceit (e.g. "They practice pop Buddhism, I practice the real Buddhism")
There are professional (or whatever the opposite of "pop" is) psychologists -- e.g. licensed therapists (e.g. psychotherapists, or people advising schools and parents about difficult children/students), and academics (e.g. professors, researchers), not to mention any commercial and other applications. So analogously "non-pop" Buddhism might be whatever is studied and practised by some monks, perhaps studied by academics, and "pop" Buddhism is anything/everything else e.g. what is known to lay people.

I think that (some) Buddhist doctrine states that there is such a thing as properly understanding Dhamma (or the Dhamma) -- that's called the "Dhamma eye", or the arising of the Dhamma eye or something like that, and associated with "stream entry".
The Kalama sutta includes a phrase (some other suttas do too),

explained the Dhamma admirable in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end

An interpretation of that phrase is that "pop" or "beginner" Buddhism is good and not bad (see also this answer for example).
Topics like the following might be relevant too:

How to explain what Buddhism is?
Did the Buddha teach the four noble truths to laypeople?

The above two topic are based on Buddhism as it's described in the Pali suttas. Perhaps there's another form or school of Buddhism, called Mahayana (which may or may not include Vajrayana, depending on your taxonomy) -- and perhaps Mahayana deserves to be called (though not as a term of disrespect) "pop" Buddhism.

Not every Buddhists are ready to renounce everything and single-mindedly pursue enlightenment with all their heart and mind. Different folks have different goals and so it's only natural for for the Dhamma to benefit all followers at all levels from low to high, whether that's happiness visible in the present life, or the way to a fortunate future rebirth, or deepening one's perspective on the world and eventual attain total complete liberation. The Lotus Sutra compared the Dhamma to the rain. When it rains, plants of all types, shapes, forms, or sizes all benefit from it:

The great cloud ascended in the sky, giving out rain and moisture equally to various types of trees and plants on Earth. The various types of plants are the three kinds of medicinal herbs (i.e. superior, mediocre, or inferior) and two kinds of trees (i.e. large or small). All of them, by virtue of their distinctive natures, absorbed moisture differently and grew at varying rates. ~ Chapter 5 – Parable of Medicine Herbs ~

do you think that the simplification of the teaching will unavoidably make it oversimplified and misinterpreted?

As mentioned, the Teaching is simplified only when it needs to be simplified. It's like   Mathematics. There's Algebra for grade school, Geometry for high school, Differential Equations, Toplogy, etc. for college level. But they are all Mathematics. It's just that the levels of the audience are different.

But I think there is a difference between simplification and misinterpretation?

I don't think so. Buddhism is all about what is suffering, why we are suffering, how to get out of this suffering. That's all. Even if you understand this law or not this law of nature is there. Just like gravity even if you accept it or not gravity is there. These are eternal truths which means it will apply for all living things.

I see. So in your view any method to reduce sufferings is Buddhism?

No not something to reduce suffering. Budhism is about ending the suffering.    You suffer because you get attached. Eg: when you eat a fruit if its for your liking you get attached to that experience taste. Then every time you eat same fruit in mind you try to compare with the best memory you had on that experience. Get attched again. If you dont like the experience still you get attached for thr bad feeling. All our lives we live getting attached to good or bad feeling judged by our taste buds and experiences. Its complicated to explain I would recommend talking to therawada monk about it.

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

Recovery of an unpopular answer:
What ever Buddh-ism would be a Pop-version of Dhamma-Vinaya.
Where ever popular there will be pop-Dhamma. Asking on popular sites... what does one assume to gain in an outer land, far from borderlands, not having left popularity?  Touch? Would it help?
It's the very nature of Dhamma-success to first give (up) to be able to receive.
Those teachings which are actually deed teachings are not thought for those after popular, "much after people" how the normal people are called, of householder in a deeper sense. Once householders take on something, what else than pop could it be, could it grow.
This Dhamma is not one graspable by many, yet it would make the many much busy with what they are incapable it taught just right, since they would suddenly lost interest to think that it something for them and what they are actually after.
Less are those who even come in touch with the Gems perceiving it at such. Many are those who grasp after what is populating the amass.
Searching after pop, one gains pop. So it's important to think clear of the causes of ones situation and try to uproot ones wrong tendencies being clear of where one stands.

"Through an element it is, monks, that beings flow together, meet together. Beings of low tastes flow together, meet together with them of low tastes. They of virtuous tastes flow together, meet together with them of virtuous tastes. So have they done in the past. So will they do in the future. So do they now in the present." (SN, Niddana-vagga)

[Note that this is not given toward Buddh-ism, trade, exchange and population but for liberation]


text:
What sort of infinite regress to birth is Nagarjuna's MMK arguing for?
I start with some quotes, to show how I got to two specific questions about Buddhism, then a question that is more philosophical and general.
Batchelor's translation of Nagajuna's MMK:

I bow down to the most sublime of speakers, the completely awakened
  one who taught contingency (no cessation, no birth, no
  annihilation, no permanence, no coming, no going, no difference, no
  identity) to ease fixations.

Looking at the section on birth, 7.4 (I'm more or less choosing interesting parts at random to get to my particular point, below)

The birth of birth gives birth to the root birth alone.  The root
  birth also is that which gives birth to the birth of birth

That seems like an infinite regress of births, suggesting birth is caused (7.19)

If another [thing] that has been born gives birth [to it], this would
  be endless.  If it is born without [another] which has been born [OR
  if it is born without being born], everything would be born like that
  [i.e. causelessly].

which may be why he concludes (7.34)

Like a dream, like a magician’s illusion, like a city of gandharvas,
  likewise birth and likewise remaining, likewise perishing are taught.

perhaps via support from 1.3

The essence of things does not exist in conditions and so on.  If an own thing does not exist, an other thing does not exist.

birth is not an other thing, its essence is not in others, and in conjunction with the argument in 1.5

Since something is born in dependence upon them, then they are known as “conditions”. As long as it is not born, why are they not
  non-conditions?

we're back to birth being an infinite regress, but the apparent way out, it being caused, makes no difference, because cause too is a birth: birth is no birth.
My questions:
We can pile up adjectives as long as we want. The red of the rose is a red that is red, and so on. Whereas actions, verbs, take up time, and suggest an infinite number of tasks, births, need to occur for one to.

Is there, in Nagarjua's Sanskrit (different grammars teach different rules), an adjective for the past tense of born?
Even if we do use an adjective for birth does this offer any problems? Does the meaning of "born" always involve an incomplete infinite regress of actions, or can that be avoided if it itself is not an action?

I suspect that we can get out of the infinite regress only through the claim that the born thing exists to have such and such aspects. Am I right?

Does my presentation of the idea that born things must exist because they are caused, unlike nirvana, makes sense to yogacarin theories of trisvabhava?

maybe nonsense... good fun though!

Regarding your last sentence, I think your difficulty may arise from assuming things that are born exist, while for Nagarjuna nothing would really exist and nothing would really be born. Thus 'Like a dream, like a magician’s illusion, like a city of gandharvas' is birth and remaining taught. That is, these things are discussed as if they exist, (conventional analysis) but with the metaphysical proviso that they don't (ultimate analysis).  .

not sure that the ultimate analysis needs to be read as a mere negation of conventional existence, i don't think many schools claimed that anyway @PeterJ

Mahayana is the view that nothing really exists or ever really happens. I'd agree that this is not merely a negation of conventional existence, since there would be a sense (obviously) that existence exists. It is, rather, the view that metaphysically or 'by reduction' (and in experience/non-experience) the conventional world is empty and reduces to Unity lying 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories' and the world of manifestations. This is a complete solution for metaphysics. Whether it is the case is another matter, many would say not, but logic is on its side.

i don't think that's really the case... mahayanists tend to subscribe to a middle way between nihilism (nothing exists) and Being @PeterJ

Quite so. This is why the claim is 'nothing really exists', where the 'really' denotes an avoidance of Nihilism.

i suppose that is fair @PeterJ the ultimate, when thought of different to the conventional, is usually a negation of something

In my understanding, everything Nagarjuna talks about endlessly revolves around one theme - that is of imputation and reification of abstractions, which leads to confusion of the phenomenological with the ontological, which leads to conflicts, and suffering. As was customary in the ancient times he goes over endless examples of the same kind of argument over and over again, to make sure the reader is left with no doubts about the points made.
The initial verse introduces the subject of liberation from reification (paraphrasing Garfield's translation):

I prostrate to the Perfect Buddha,
  the best of teachers, who taught that everything is dependently arisen --
  not dying, not born, not subject to annihilation nor permanence,
  not coming, not going, with no delineation, no [fixed] identity; -- to liberate from reification.

With arising/birth, just like with every other topic, Nagarjuna uses 'reductio-ad-absurdum' to show that discrete things are reified abstractions we impute onto reality, confusing them with reality itself.
Specifically, speaking about arising/birth, he tries to show that the notion of birth as a moment when something is born is incohesive under close scrutiny. He says, if something arises at point T1, then what is the moment T0 when this arising itself begins (arises). If we look at any such point, we see an infinite regress - not into the past, but into splitting each moment of arising into its "beginning" and the rest of the moment.
Equally, when we look at the moment when something has fully arisen... This notion of "having arisen" is absurd as well. This is where he gives that simile of the lamp, saying that where lamp with its light has fully arisen there is no darkness (absence of light), therefore arising of the lamp could not have possibly caused illumination of the darkness, because by the time lamp with its light fully exists, darkness has gone. This is a similar argument to the "initial moment of arising" argument, except now we're scrutinizing the final moment. As we look closer we see that there is no concrete point in time when something is "fully arisen".
All of this is meant to illustrate that the notion of arising, and therefore the notion of entity, is an abstraction, and that we should stop reifying things as solid and having clear boundaries, because in reality they do not.
In Yogacara's theory of three-fold-svabhava, reality can be analyzed from a perspective of how it appears to a mind of naive reification (i.e. that entities are real), from an analytical perspective of dependent-origination (which explains how entities gradually become more solid as a result of development of the mind of reification), and from an enlightened perspective of Buddha, who look at all this stuff with full understanding of how it works and therefore clearly sees the true "quantum" reality behind both the confused perspective as well as the analytical dependent-origination perspective.
P.S. to those wondering how all this relates to Noble Path and liberation from suffering: in Mahayana, reification of entities as something real and solid is considered the root cause of attachment, therefore of suffering. In Mahayana's interpretation, the ignorance Buddha spoke about, is exactly this naive ignorant reification, not understanding that entities are imputations and therefore grasping onto the phantoms. This in turn leads both to objective conflict because of clashing points of view, and to subjective suffering when things turn out to be different from the way we imagined.


text:
Is mano or mind function of brain? Then what we perceive is mere creation of brain
If brain cease to function all phenomenon also cease to function as well.
Body including brain is so vulnerable to break up and Buddha emphasized that no one should cling to this body and its function to avoid all sufferings.
Evolution is truth and all religions are mere fantasy which originated from ignorance to the scientific findings.
Everything which is brought about should perish in no time. That's the essence of Buddha's teaching(Dhamma).

The question "is mano or mind a function of brain" is irrelevant.
There is a sense organ with the function of knowing what are called 'mental objects', namely, feelings, perception, thoughts, emotions, mental images, etc. These mental objects, unlike many physical phenomena, can last for merely a moment. This sense organ is called 'mano'.
The sense organ also develops 'intelligence'; based on its experience of these mental objects, particularly in how these mental objects accord with or produce another mental phenomena called 'happiness' & 'suffering'. Thus, from the accumulated experience of this "mano" arises "mental intentions" that produce actions (as described in Dhammapada verses 1 & 2).
Buddhism has its own view on the Indian term "nama-rupa". "Nama-rupa" in Buddhism means "mind-body" (as defined in SN 12.2). This term is used as a compound to highlight the inseparableness of mind & body. Not only are 'mind' & 'body' inseparable; but also the consciousness (sense cognition) is inseparable from this 'nama-rupa' (per SN 12.67).
While "mano" probably functions dependent upon the brain, its role is "mental" rather than "physical". What is "physical" is explained in MN 62; in the paragraphs about 'earth, water, fire & wind property'.
SN 12.61 may help here understand the difference the 'mental' ('nama') & 'physical' ('rupa'):

It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind (citta),' 'intellect (mano)' or 'consciousness (vinnana)' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
  swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
  it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
  Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
  called 'mind,' 'intellect' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
  arises as one thing and ceases as another.
SN 12.61


text:
Buddhism on We are all one
As explained here Buddhism does no belong into pantheism because God can be interpreted no as oneness but a creation of the mind as the fourth aggregate explains (eg. "an invisible man who lives in the sky who is separated from you etc") that implies something separated from you.  Nevertheless the third mark of existence "Anatta" tells you that there is no self that is to say the idea of you (ego) is illusory.
Is is right from a Buddhistic point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only one consciousness playing different minds(egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving all the cars at the same time in present, past and future"

I'd say so. If we recognise Nagarjuna then he logically proves it. This unity would be our natural and intuitive source of empathy and compassion according to Schopenhauer, and how can God watch every sparrow that falls unless he is that sparrow? The knowledge claims of mysticism and the Perennial philosophy depend on a doctrine of Unity for their plausibility and it is the only solution for metaphysics that works. All distinctions and divisions would be creations of mind. But not all Buddhists agree about anything, so there will be some who would not endorse this view.  .

OP: Is it right from a Buddhist point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only one consciousness playing
  different minds (egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of
  all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving
  all the cars at the same time in present, past and future"

No. That's a classic teaching of Hinduism.
According to the Hindu text Shvetashvatara Upanishad:

God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings.
  He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures.
  He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him.
  He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness

According to the Hindu text Bhagavad Gita 13.14:

Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes and faces, and He hears
  everything. In this way the Supersoul exists.

What did the Buddha teach?
(from the Theravada perspective)
From MN 38:

"Just as fire is classified simply by whatever requisite condition in
  dependence on which it burns — a fire that burns in dependence on wood
  is classified simply as a wood-fire, a fire that burns in dependence
  on wood-chips is classified simply as a wood-chip-fire; a fire that
  burns in dependence on grass is classified simply as a grass-fire; a
  fire that burns in dependence on cow-dung is classified simply as a
  cow-dung-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on chaff is classified
  simply as a chaff-fire; a fire that burns in dependence on rubbish is
  classified simply as a rubbish-fire — in the same way, consciousness
  is classified simply by the requisite condition in dependence on which
  it arises. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the eye & forms
  is classified simply as eye-consciousness. Consciousness that arises
  in dependence on the ear & sounds is classified simply as
  ear-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the nose
  & aromas is classified simply as nose-consciousness. Consciousness
  that arises in dependence on the tongue & flavors is classified simply
  as tongue-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on
  the body & tactile sensations is classified simply as
  body-consciousness. Consciousness that arises in dependence on the
  intellect & ideas is classified simply as intellect-consciousness.

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.
Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It does not exist independently connecting all beings. The consciousness in every being may be of a similar type, but it's not the same consciousness.
For example, I can say that every candle has a similar flame, but it's not the exact same flame that appears on every candle. Each flame is different.
From Sabba Sutta (also see this question):

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will
  speak."
"As you say, lord," the monks responded.
The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear &
  sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,
  intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would
  say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on
  what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable
  to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it
  lies beyond range.

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

The vinnana of the teaching of the Buddha is different from that of the Consciousness of the Hinduism.

@ruben2020 do the Buddha mention anywhere how does this Consciousness arise? I mean how does it come into being.

No, that's not the theravāda point of view. That's a fallacy or wrong view called, "He assumes consciousness to be the self", in twenty self-indentification-views.
Each arising aggregate is different from the other aggregates, different from e.g. other people's aggregates, past aggregates, far aggregates.
They all are the aggregates, but no one is the same.
Although there is a conditional relation which is called "Decisive Support" i.e. upanissaya (or in this clip that's translated as "Powerful Dependence"), so that past consciousness is a Decisive Support condition of present consciousness, but that is not the same as saying that the past consciousness "is" the present consciousness (i.e. the consciousness which it affects in the present).
Preceding states are related to subsequent states by the "Decisive Support" condition.
The aggregate is the Conditional Relation and Dependent Origination. Every relation has more than one cause and more than one effect, so don't find "the one" in Buddhism because it's self view.

Would it be correct the reword the paragraph as, "Although there is a conditional relation which is called "Decisive Support" i.e. upanissaya, the Decisive Support conditions past consciousness, but that is still not the consciousness which it affects in the present"? That rewording would be more grammatical and therefore easier for me to understand, but I'm not sure whether that is what you meant to write (e.g. because I don't know what upanissaya means or how it's relevant).

This clip has an english subtitle. Please, help me to modify it. Thank you. Upanissaya paccaya is the vanished aggregates maybe a long time ago but it still is able to cause the present effect to arise. It's like a habit because the present effected aggregates is able to look similar to its causes, upanissaya paccaya, but the upanissaya paccaya has vanished a long time ago, while its effect is arising, so they are not the same one.

From Mahayana perspective:
"We are all one" is a simplified step in the right direction - but ultimately is not true. It can be used as a stepping stone from the mainstream primitive materialism, but must be transcended eventually.
In Mahayana we recognize that things are interconnected and interrelated. In this sense, yes, every thing (implicitly) has (hidden relationships with) all other things in it, including sentient beings, so in this sense "we" (sentient beings) are "one" (interconnected).
This non-dual perspective is a lot more virtuous than the usual worldly ethics based on the materialistic assumptions like "Winner takes all", "Man vs nature" etc. It leads to more harmonious relationships through greater awareness of the big picture. It reduces the risk of Tragedy of the commons.
However, and my Zen Master was exceedingly clear about it, even this perspective must be transcended ("get over it!") on the way to complete Enlightenment.
This is because, at the end of the day, self-identifying with "All" is still a prison. It's a very tightly controlled prison too - where everything works strictly in accordance with the Law. As you yourself said "same driver driving all the cars at the same time in present, past and future".
Instead, what Buddhism proposes (and Mahayana is very vocal about it) is freedom of perspective, or freedom from all fixed positions. This means getting rid of attachment to concepts like "I am a sentient being" or "We are sentient beings" or "We are this Universe" etc. and even transcending the concepts like "Mind", "Matter" and "Universe".
At the end, there is understanding of how things work, without putting it into any dualistic boxes and without thinking that "You" are that or any part of that.
As my Zen Master used to say:

From the perspective of All, "God bless you" - but from the perspective of Enlightenment: you bless God.

Meaning, when you're out of the cosmic prison, you're free to choose your perspective, you "got over" the non-dualism, you got over "you", and even got over "Enlightenment" and "Nirvana". As the Buddha character says in my novel:

There is an infinite number of ways to see reality, each valid from its own side, each incompatible with the others, but each having its own internally consistent logic. Every one of these different views leads to corresponding decisions, corresponding actions, and corresponding results. You must decide for yourself what to believe in and how to see the world.  Do not let anyone force their judgements on you, however rational and experience-based they might seem. Do not assume anything to be obvious and not requiring critical consideration - even your own thoughts! This is because, having assumed a thought, you pick your path and not only yours.
You can choose to think thoughts that would bring suffering to both yourself and to others. Or, you can choose to look at things in a way that brings peace. However, there is no single point of view that would fit to all situations in life. Point of view is like a tool - there's right tool for each job.
Remember: by picking your point of view, you change your future. Not just your own, the future of the entire world depends on your choice of perspective. Choose your reality well!

I think the last paragraph isn't quite right, because it implies:

I exist and you exist
We're the same because we are consciousness and there is one consciousness
There are several cars, each car has a driver, every car has the same driver, the same driver persists across past, present, and future

I think Buddhism has a different emphasis, e.g. that, "consciousness is dependently originated, impermanent, and non-self" -- also, speaking of cars, that there is "no chariot" and only "an assemblage conventionally called a chariot".
I think I've seen the Dalai Lama say that "we are not different", though, that he is "like" everyone else, and that if were to see himself as a unique -- e.g. as "the Dalai Lama" or "the Nobel Laureate" -- then that view-of-self would be a "prison".
I think Buddhism also uses it as an argument for compassion and ethics, e.g. ...

All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

... whereas, in my opinion, the Bhagavad Gita maybe doesn't say that.

Also to the extent that "we are one" is a view which may attempt to erase conventional distinctions, perhaps that's identified as one of the wrong views.

And what is wrong view?

'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no brahmans or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.'

This is wrong view.

You wrote, "playing different minds". I seem to remember reading that kind of doctrine (i.e. "playing") a long time ago, I'm not sure where -- in the kind of modern book which tries/tried to popularise Buddhism and Eastern thought in general. I don't think I've seen that in the suttas. I think it might have been a view that, "an immortal one God is playing at being mortal and being different people" -- perhaps that's a Hindu view, or something, I don't know? Or perhaps there is a Buddhist view a bit like that, somewhere? But I don't think I've met it since in any kind of canonical Buddhist text.
Yes here -- Lila (Hinduism)

Lila can be loosely translated as the "divine play". The concept of Lila is common to both non-dualist and dualist philosophical schools of Indian philosophy, but has a markedly different significance in each. Within non-dualism, Lila is a way of describing all reality, including the cosmos, as the outcome of creative play by the divine absolute (Brahman). In the dualistic schools of Vaishnavism, Lila refers to the activities of God and his devotee, as well as the macrocosmic actions of the manifest universe.

I'm not saying that Buddhism is always joyless, but I don't think I've read that particular kind of play is part of the Buddhist doctrine.

I quote from the article "Buddhism and Nondualism in Mahayana Buddhism"

According to the monk and scholar Bhikkhu Bodhi, Theravada Buddhism is neither dualistic nor nondualistic. "In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world," he wrote. The Buddha's teaching is pragmatic, and not based on some grand, speculative philosophical theory.
However, dualisms exist for Theravada Buddhism -- good and evil, suffering and happiness, wisdom and ignorance. The most significant duality is that between samsara, the realm of suffering; and nirvana, liberation from suffering. Although the Pali Canon describes nirvana as a kind of ultimate reality, "there is not the least insinuation that this reality is metaphysically indistinguishable at some profound level from its manifest opposite, samsara," Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote.
Nondualism in Mahayana Buddhism
  Buddhism proposes that all phenomena inter-exist; nothing is separate. All phenomena are perpetually conditioning all other phenomena. Things are the way they are because everything else is the way it is.
Mahayana Buddhism teaches that these interdependent phenomena also are empty of self-essence or inherent characteristics. All distinctions we make between this and that are arbitrary and exist only in our thoughts. This doesn't mean that nothing exists, but that nothing exists the way we think it does.
If nothing is separate, how do we count the myriad phenomena? And does that mean everything is One? Mahayana Buddhism often comes across as a form of monism or the teaching that all phenomena are of one substance or are one phenomenon in principle. But Nagarjuna said that phenomena are neither one nor many. The correct answer to "how many?" is "not two."
The most pernicious dualism is that of the subjective "knower" and an object of knowing. Or, in other words, the perception of "me" and "everything else."
In the Vimalakirti Sutra, the layman Vimalakirti said that wisdom is "the elimination of egoism and possessiveness. What is the elimination of egoism and possessiveness? It is the freedom from dualism. What is freedom from dualism? It is the absence of involvement with either the external or the internal. ... The internal subject and the external object are not perceived dualistically." When the dualism of subjective "knower" and object of "knowing" does not arise, what remains is pure being or pure awareness.
What about the dualities between good and evil, samsara and nirvana? In his book Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy (Humanity Books, 1996), Zen teacher David Loy said,
"The central tenet of Madhyamika Buddhism, that samsara is nirvana, is difficult to understand in any other way except as asserting the two different ways of perceiving, dually and nondually. The dualistic perception of a world of discrete objects (one of them being me) which are created and destroyed constitutes samsara." When dualistic perceptions do not arise, there is nirvana. Put another way, "nirvana is the nondual 'true nature' of samsara."
The Two Truths
  It may not be clear why the answer to "how many" is "not two." Mahayana proposes that everything exists in both an absolute and relative or conventional way. In the absolute, all phenomena are one, but in the relative, there are many distinctive phenomena.
In this sense, phenomena are both one and many. We can't say there is only one; we can't say there is more than one. So, we say, "not two."

https://www.thoughtco.com/buddhism-and-nondualism-450010
I wrote my opinion about this subject in another topic:  https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/30402
Buddha rejected people's questions about the structure or origin of the universe, existance etc and he directed his disciples towards freedom from suffering/Nibbana.


text:
Why Buddha lined up four brahmavihara in the chronological order 'metta, karuna, mudita and upeksha'
It might have been from easiest cultivatable brahmavihara to the most difficult. Such that equanimity is the hardest and metta being the easiest. Is there any indication in the sutta to answer this question ?

The practitioner wishes to let the being took the benefit&happiness, lovingkindness, so the practitioner wishes to help that being when that being is suffering, wishes to congratulate with that being when he is happy, and is equanimity when whatever happen.
Upekka, equanimity, is not easier than the other three. The practitioner is ignoring, doing not care, when he practices Upekkha without practicing the other three before, i.e. the healthy practitioner is not equanimity but he is ignoring when he doesn't care the standing old woman on the bus while he is sitting.
See the path of purification brahmavihāraniddesa:

Ñ(IX,109): One who wants to develop these four should practice them
  towards beings first as the promotion of the aspect of benefit—and
  lovingkindness has the promotion of the aspect of benefit as its
  characteristic;
Ñ: and next, on seeing or hearing or judging that beings whose
  benefit has been thus wished for are at the mercy of suffering, they
  should be practiced as the promotion of the aspect of the removal of
  suffering—and compassion has the promotion of the aspect of the
  removal of suffering as its characteristic;
Ñ: and then, on seeing the success of those whose benefit has been
  wished for and the removal of whose suffering has been wished for,
  they should be practiced as being glad—and gladness has the act of
  gladdening as its characteristic;
Ñ: but after that, there is nothing to be done and so they should be
  practiced as the neutral aspect, in other words, the state of an
  onlooker—and equanimity has the promotion of the aspect of
  neutrality as its characteristic;

Ñ: therefore, since their respective aims are the aspect of benefit,
  etc., their order should be understood to correspond, with loving
  kindness stated first, then compassion, gladness, and equanimity.

I believe the answer to your question is found in  SN46.54: Full of Love

But reverends, how is the heart’s release by love developed? What is its destination, apex, fruit, and end? How is the heart’s release by compassion developed? What is its destination, apex, fruit, and end? How is the heart’s release by rejoicing developed? What is its destination, apex, fruit, and end? How is the heart’s release by equanimity developed? What is its destination, apex, fruit, and end?’

The sutta explains how these releases progress with their associated liberations starting with:

The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

Each release requires the releases that precede it and the progression is therefore one of difficulty. Finally, we end with:

The apex of the heart’s release by equanimity is the dimension of nothingness, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

If you are interested, your question can lead further, since per AN8.66, going beyond the dimension of nothingness, one achieves the seventh and eighth liberations.

Only Mara, Sujato, could translate metta as love... they love him. :-)

You seem to have some questions about metta. Perhaps you would like to post a question for the forum? I'm not sure how your comment helps answer the OP.

Sure that my person would ask on BSE? It's not thought to help the OP.

Actually, BSE is just Buddhist Stack Exchange. I did not think there was any affiliation with Bhante Sujato, who is found on suttacentral.net.  I would certainly welcome your question about metta since I have seen much controversy about the translation of metta. And if somebody else voted your question down, I would protest, since asking about the meaning of metta is certainly an appropriate question.


text:
Other types of consciousness (viññāṇa) in Theravada?
There are the six types of consciousness (viññāṇa) based on MN 38, namely those related to the six sense media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind.
In MN 49, there was a "consciousness without surface" (viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ), which turned out to be a mistranslation, according to the answers of this question. The sutta was talking about Nibbana.
So, are there any other types of consciousness (viññāṇa) in Theravada outside the six sense media consciousnesses?
What about rebirth linking consciousness? Is that a type of consciousness outside the six sense media?
I know in Mahayana, there are still two more types of consciousness according to this Wikipedia page. But this question is asking more from the Theravada perspective (including Abhidhamma).

Are there any other types of consciousness (viññāṇa) in Theravada outside the six sense media consciousnesses?

According to Theravada perspective, there are only six types of consciousness (which you've already mentioned). This is a categorization of consciousness based on its sense base. Every consciousness falls into one of these six. In Abhidhamma, there are many categorizations [based on wholesomeness, sphere of the being (kāma-loka, rūpa-loka, arūpa-loka), worldliness, etc...] can be seen of same consciousness which mentioned in Suttanta desana.
In Abhidhamma,

Considering all the consciousness, there are 89 consciousness in brief and 121 consciousness in detail.
By considering wholesomeness and unwholesomeness, there are 12 unwholesome consciousness and 21 wholesome consciousness in brief (37 in detail).
By considering worldliness, there are 81 mundane consciousness and 8 super-mundane consciousness in brief (40 in detail).
By considering the sphere, there are 54 sense-sphere consciousness, 15 form-sphere consciousness, and 12 formless-sphere consciousness.
There are 20 functional consciousness and 36 resultant consciousness in brief (52 in detail). [Note: These consciousness won't make kamma.]

What about rebirth linking consciousness? Is that a type of consciousness outside the six sense media?

No, it falls under mind consciousness and we can say it also falls under resultant consciousness more precisely according to Abhidhamma.
There are 10 consciousness (*) arise in eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body sense bases (2 consciousness in each with the division of wholesome resultant and unwholesome resultant). All the other consciousness arise in mind base.
Note 1:
(*) :-

Rootless Wholesome resultant eye consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant eye consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant ear consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant ear consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant nose consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant nose consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant tongue consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant tongue consciousness with neutral feeling.
Rootless Wholesome resultant body consciousness with pleasant feeling.
Rootless Unwholesome resultant body consciousness with painful feeling.

Hence,

Eye consciousness = 2
Ear consciousness = 2
Nose consciousness = 2
Tongue consciousness = 2
Body consciousness = 2
Mind consciousness = 79 in brief (111 in detail)

Note 2:

One consciousness may fall into more than one category above mentioned.
In abhidhamma, the word citta used instead of viññāṇa to mention consciousness.
This Dhamma is well preached. So there's no contradiction between Suttanta desana and Abhidhamma desana. Hence every sutta can be explained with Abhidhamma.

Note: This is what I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

Are the 121 types of consciousness in the Abhidhamma all falling within the six sense media categories or are they outside the six sense media consciousnesses?

They are all falling under six sense media categories.

"These consciousness won't make kamma", given that mind is intention a vage declaration...

Even-though intention is a universal mental factor, all intention don't make kamma. It's clearly mentioned in Abhidhamma. Intention in resultant and functional consciousness don't become kamma. Intention in super-mundane consciousness can be also considered as not kamma because they ease the burden of aggregates and shorten the Samsara.

Both, Abhidhamma and Suttanta traditions, trying to follow the Buddha, are informed about 7 kinds of "knowing", while the 7th does not relay on a (of the six) sensual surface, does not grasp after being touch.
Bhante Thanissaro elaborated well on the topic  "consciousness without surface".

Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around:
Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing.
Here long & short
coarse & fine
fair & foul
name & form
are, without remnant,
brought to an end.
of (the activity of) consciousness,
each is here brought to an end.
— DN 11

As mentioned in the question, there is no such thing as consciousness without surface. Apparently that is a wrong translation.

Who says? The Buddha didn't.

Oh, an ex-monk on BSE... sure relatable...

Well, the Buddha did not say that there is a translation error, because the Buddha didn't speak English.

Smarty, hmm...?