text:
Are social interactions always helpful in solving problems?
Whenever there is a problem we socialize. When we are sick we go to a doctor. When we are hungry we go to a cook. When we want to laugh we go to a movie.
My question is : are these social interactions always helpful in solving our problems ? Is "if problem then socialize with right people" formula always helpful ?

Not always:

If you're sick and go to someone who's not a doctor, who's incompetent or a thief, that won't help (except perhaps as a placebo)
If you're sick with an incurable (untreatable) illness and go to a doctor, that won't help (well it might help with managing symptoms and explaining what's happening)

The Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) details long lists of examples and differences, between "good socialising" and "bad socialising" for lay people.
I think Buddhism includes two themes:

Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
Maha-parinibbana Sutta (DN 16)

and:

As he was sitting there, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."
"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.
Upaddha Sutta (SN 45.2)

It really depends on the nature of the problem.
It also depends upon whom you are approaching.
Sometimes its best to sit in meditation to ponder on the problem whose answer is subjective.
Some problems are solved through prespective of other people.
Its not really a good idea to go public with your problems all the time.
Also that will annoy other people and create bad image about you in them. Which just matters in social life.

You are a strong social supporter it seems but Buddha has praised seclusion every now and then.

@DheerajVerma you misread me. Infact I am telling the other way round. Also I am saying it is dependent on the problem at hand. Neither total seclusion nor total public dependance. The middle way. Follow the middle way.

@DheerajVerma If Buddha praised total ascetic seclusion he would not have followers, nor would he go back to Rahula and his father, nor preach Dharma. How else make the world better if not by acts of Selflessness?

@DheerajVerma ok now I got what you meant by your comment....I am not a social supporter...you have no idea about what goes on at my end...savvy.

@FriedrickNietzsche Correct me if I am wrong but essentially what you are saying is that it is not a good idea to spoil your image in the minds of people by taking your every problem to them. You agree that it is a good idea to take at least some of your problems to people. But isn't there mindfulness in public conversation? Yes. Yet Buddha says develop love for seclusion and solitude.That is manage all of your problems by yourself over time. This is true independence unlike socialist attitude towards life where we throw a problem to public and expect a solution.

@FriedrickNietzsche I wonder whether we even recognize the problem I have poised. "if problem then socialize with right people" formula seems to acceptable by all!! However we must discriminate between right people and wrong people. Anyways I found it profound that most of our problems get resolved by socializing. Yet Buddha says develop love for seclusion and solitude. Buddha asks us to be independent. Have no fear of poverty. Have no fear of dishonor. Have no fear of walking alone like a Rhino or Elephant. When does one become superior to the idea of socializing with right people?

@DheerajVerma ummm u r right...

@DheerajVerma "This is true independence unlike socialist attitude towards life where we throw a problem to public and expect a solution. " isn't that what we are doing here? :) There is nothing wrong with that, we are all here to help each other in a Selfless way.

Householder Dheeraj Verma, interested,
yes, seeking for refuge and socialize much with it is always needed. No change to progress without making debts, and the main question is simply toward whom.
socializing with the right people begins with seeking and increasing ones going for refuge and gratitude:
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
Dheeraj Verma asked: Is "if problem then socialize with right people" formula always helpful ? Yes, and if no wise can be found, or one is not capable to find: stay alone, for there is no benefit from sozialicing with foods at all.

AN 3.26: Sevitabba Sutta — Should be associated
"Associating with someone low
  is deterioration,
  Associating an equal
  there's no deterioration
  Therefore bend down to a superior,
  It is quick growth."

Therefore people in traditional countries say, that one you may have traced a wise, do all that you don't lose his track, even if he casts you away.
The Pali word for socializing is Sangama and nothing more conductive for long term happiness to seek and nourish, give into, socialization with the Sublime Buddha, his Dhamma and the carrier of the heritage, his monastic Sangha, something hard to find, hard ever to meet, hard gained possibility.
Extended talk on especially this matter, socializing, incl. transcriptions, can be found here (current in German only): Sozialisieren - សង្គម [Sangama].
May no one, being that blessed to trace of what is worthy to associate miss the requirement to nourish that inwardly and outwardly, since they are headed to do no more come back soon, and would wait till you my come one day into the right mood!
Large topics on admirable socializing can be found given also here: Admirable friend [kalyāṇamitta] and a generouse talk on how to learn to judge good association is: The Power of Judgment, right next to the collection of advices to become independent in need to invest further into new association: Association with People of Integrity.
Once having gained independency for further progress toward liberation, althought still conductive to stay in strong association with The Noble Ones, then one, having reached the stream, and only then, one can make oneself, with the Dhamma, to an island. So put all effort into letting go of bad sozializing and association with fools and to seek with all effort sozializing which is headed to liberation, unbound. That's the meaning and reason for Buddhas (re)legion (bound, robe).
(Note that this gift of Dhamma is not dedicated for trade, exchange, stacks or entertainment but as a means to make merits toward release from this wheel)


text:
Need better examples for assuming self to be non-form aggregates
Based on the River Sutta below, I can definitely understand assuming the self to be the body. So, when the body becomes old, diseased and approaching death, one assumes that "I am" becoming old, diseased and approaching death. If his body dies, he ceases to exist. This makes him suffer.
However, I need much better examples for the other four aggregates.
For example, if one assumes the self to be perception, it could be like she assumes the beauty of her body to be her self. "I am this beautiful woman". So, if she loses her beauty due to ageing or disease or accident, then she would suffer. Is this assuming self to be perception (about the body) or is this assuming self to be the form? Or both? Or is this mental fabrications?
Another case is let's say, there is a priest of a religion that is strongly based on the belief of God. So, this priest assumes his self to be the "God believer and servant of God". He often prays, "Oh God, may I never stray away from believing in you." Then what if one day, he discovers that God actually doesn't exist? So, does this make him suffer because he assumes his self to be his mental fabrication of "God believer and servant of God"? Is this right?
Or how about another case of a renowned surgeon who assumes his self to be the "surgeon"? If one day, he gets Parkinson's disease (while he is still young and at the peak of his practice) that causes his hands to not be steady, then he cannot practise surgery anymore. This makes him suffer. This would be assuming the self to be the mental fabrication of "surgeon". Is this right?
What about feeling? If a person loves to listen to music, then he assumes his self to be this "music lover", but if one day he loses his sense of hearing due to disease or accident, this causes him to suffer. Is this right?
Consciousness may not be be too hard to understand. If one assumes his self to be the being that continuously is aware and senses the world around him, then idea of death and non-rebirth would cause him to suffer, because he thinks this would cause him to stop being aware of his surroundings. Is this right?
But then again, assuming self to be mental fabrications can be reframed in this way: If one assumes that "I think, therefore I am", so if anything could cause him to stop thinking as he does now, like death or coma or brain injury, then he suffers from worrying about that. Is this right?
Or, perhaps, all these examples indeed fall into multiple categories simultaneously? Maybe I cannot easily isolate a case of assuming the self to be only one aggregate, and not the other?
From the River Sutta (SN 22.93):

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, suppose there were a
  river, flowing down from the mountains, going far, its current swift,
  carrying everything with it, and — holding on to both banks — kasa
  grasses, kusa grasses, reeds, birana grasses, & trees were growing.
  Then a man swept away by the current would grab hold of the kasa
  grasses, but they would tear away, and so from that cause he would
  come to disaster. He would grab hold of the kusa grasses... the
  reeds... the birana grasses... the trees, but they would tear away,
  and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
"In the same way, there is the case where an uninstructed,
  run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men
  of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma —
  assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing
  form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. That form tears
  away from him, and so from that cause he would come to disaster.
  (and the same applies to the other four aggregates - feeling,
  perception, mental fabrications and consciousness)

The sutta goes on to say that the five aggregates are inconstant and impermanent, and should be seen with the right discernment: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.' Seeing thus, the noble disciple becomes disenchanted with the five aggregates.

"beauty" is a nimitta (theme) and obviously a mental formation (sankhara).

I need much better examples for the other four aggregates
I guess a non-canonical example for "perception" might be, imagine you're living somewhere: a city or a village, a house. And you're there, you live there, for a long time. And you see it frequently. And sometimes when you see it (see a bit of it, a familiar sight) you may think, "this is me!"
Later you're living somewhere else, and you remember where you used to be, you remember seeing what you used to see (what was a familiar sight), and you think "that was me", and maybe you're sad because you no longer perceive that.
An example of "feeling" might be "love", perhaps: "I love this person", "I'm the husband of this person", "I'm the son of this person". Or perhaps negative feelings, "My parents didn't like me, I feel rejected and unloved, and that is me, that is who I am".

You might need to expand your definition too: to not only "being" but "having" -- from your quote, SN 22.93:

assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form

For example, perhaps you're happy with the perception of music or something, but the music stops. You might not think "I was the perception and the feeling" but might think "I had the perception of music". I suspect people view "possession" instead of "being" if or when they view the self as somehow separate from, or less impermanent than, the object or the aggregate in question -- so you might say "I have a bicycle (because I remember a time when 'I' existed and I didn't have a bicycle), rather than I am a bicycle; or, I am a possessor of a bicycle."
I think the distinction between 'being' and 'having' is specially slippery when it comes to "consciousness" -- is it that you are a consciousness, or is it that you have a consciousness? Does consciousness have whatever it's conscious of, or is it that it is whatever it's conscious of?
Anyway the definition of 'right understanding' covers/includes both being and having (SN 22.59):

You should truly see any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
Yaṃ kiñci viññāṇaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ viññāṇaṃ: ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṃ.

Maybe I cannot easily isolate a case of assuming the self to be only one aggregate, and not the other?
I read recently (though I don't remember where) that the boundaries between the aggregates are indistinct or fuzzy -- it wasn't a statement about "self" but about the aggregates themselves, but if that's so then that corroborates what you said (i.e. "cannot easily isolate ... only one aggregate").

All self-conceiving is mental formation - SN 22.81

Assumes five aggregates to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is
  the birth (jati), what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To
  an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt
  born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is
  born of that.
SN 22.81

This includes conceiving self from the other aggregates - SN 22.79

And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they
  fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they
  fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness,
  they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of
  perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of
  consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated
  thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called
  fabrications.
SN 22.79

SN 22.1 is the most clear sutta about this matter.

Ven. Sariputta said: "Now, how is one afflicted in body & afflicted in mind?
"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
  their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not
  well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body)
  to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the
  self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his form
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He is
  seized with the idea that 'I am feeling' or 'Feeling is mine.' As he
  is seized with these ideas, his feeling changes & alters, and he falls
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over its change &
  alteration.
"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in
  perception. He is seized with the idea that 'I am perception' or
  'Perception is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his perception
  changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self
  as in fabrications. He is seized with the idea that 'I am
  fabrications' or 'Fabrications are mine.' As he is seized with these
  ideas, his fabrications change & alter, and he falls into sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair over their change &
  alteration.
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in
  consciousness. He is seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or
  'Consciousness is mine.' As he is seized with these ideas, his
  consciousness changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow, lamentation,
  pain, distress, & despair over its change & alteration.
"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body and afflicted in mind.
"And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind? There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has
  regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma;
  who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in
  their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as
  possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is
  not seized with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is
  not seized with these ideas, his form changes & alters, but he does
  not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its
  change & alteration.
"He does not assume feeling to be the self...
"He does not assume perception to be the self...
"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...
"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self
  as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am
  consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with
  these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall
  into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change &
  alteration.
"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Mahayana view on why Theravada's anatta is insufficient to uproot ignorance?
A Mahayana-practising member wrote this comment:

With respect, the Theravada generally has a much more coarse
  understanding of emptiness and anatta and is confused as to the object
  of negation. In much the way that placing a bag of ice on a gushing
  head wound has some efficacy, yet is utterly incapable of actually
  curing the wound the Theravada understanding anatta doctrine is very
  helpful, but insufficient to provide a genuine antidote to ignorance
  and hence suffering ..... The Mahayana tenet systems ...
  believe Theravada adherents are not ready to understand,
  but will understand the selflessness of phenomena eventually as they
  continue to progress on the path.

I would like to understand the perspective of Mahayana Buddhists on why Theravada's anatta (and dependent origination) doctrine is "insufficient to provide a genuine antidote to ignorance and hence suffering" compared to Mahayana's sunyata (emptiness) doctrine?

I want to criticize Mahayana but I don't know it's subtleties and things I might be over looking. Even if one is enlightened doesn't necessarily mean one will  understand all approaches to the Buddha's teaching.

Ruben and I have sussed out a seemingly genuine and respectful disagreement between the two of us and also between what we think many of our respective Theravada adherents and Mahayana adherents believe. Not that all Theravada adherents or Mahayana adherents believe or agree with all the contours we are putting forth. In sussing out this disagreement, we are both obviously setting forth our own views in contrast to others and you can call this criticism, but it is done respectfully and is two-sided with a mutual goal of understanding. At least that is what I think is going on.

The Buddha said,

Look upon the world
as a bubble
or a mirage,
then the King of Death won’t see you.
Dhp 172
Look upon the world as empty,
Mogharājā, ever mindful.
Having uprooted the view of self,
you may thus cross over death.
That’s how to look upon the world
so the King of Death won’t see you.
Snp 5.16

When talking about the distinction between the selflessness of persons and the selflessness of phenomena you've stated that Theravada does not necessarily believe the selflessness of phenomena is an important topic:

Whether non-self phenomena are truly existent from its own side or
not, is (probably) not important towards the path to the end of
suffering.

I'm editing my previous answer as it was full of unnecessary exposition and elaboration. The simple answer is that depending upon ignorance of the selflessness of phenomena, clinging or aversion arises. You can find myriad cases on this very forum where adherents venomously object to the idea of the selflessness of phenomena because of this clinging. Clinging after the reality of phenomena necessarily leads to suffering. This is precisely why the Buddha taught the Phena sutta and gave the instructions above in Dhp 172 and Snp 5.16 and can also be found in MN 15.
Some Theravada adherents object so strenuously to the straightforward selflessness of phenomena dependent upon this clinging. Why else would it be a point of contention if not for clinging to the reality of phenomena? Not knowing the selflessness of phenomena aversion can also arise.
The Buddha himself says in the sutta above that clinging to the reality of phenomena is a killer and people should treat this desease as though their head was on fire which is a good indication that understanding the unreality of phenomena is important to the elimination of dukkha.

IMO someone who experiences the young girl's dreams might see for themselves that, as we fabricate dreams, so we fabricate waking life. Is Mahayana doctrine a necessary addition to that experience? But saying it's "an illusion holding no objective reality whatsoever" may seem too extreme, unless perhaps in some technical "knife-edge" sense that Mahayana carefully explains -- a wrong view per the suttas (MN 117: "There is nothing..."), maybe Mahayana too (Nothing Exists).

@YesheTenley Here's Snake Allegory 2: Two friends walk on a moonlit night. Suddenly, one of the friends gives a jump and yells, “snake!” The other looks in the same direction and notices the (real) snake, but also a big glass wall separating them from the snake. She begs her friend to look closer. He does and now sees the glass wall and is relieved as his heart slows. In both versions of the allegory, he is not afraid because the snake was real. He is afraid because the snake can harm him. He is afraid, because he clings to his five aggregates, not because the snake was real or unreal.

@YesheTenley In Theravada, it doesn't matter whether the snake is real or unreal. As long as he clings to his five aggregates, he will suffer. He has the instinctive fear that "oh no! the snake will harm me!" What is "me"? The body. That is assuming the self is the form. It's an identity view. The problem is with the "me", not with the "snake".

@YesheTenley Actually, a conceptual understanding of anatta is insufficient in Theravada. One has to "see it through wisdom" using vipassana. This is explained in the Khemaka Sutta (SN 22.89).

Yeshe the Phena Sutta does not mean what you think it means

Clinging is not the same as experiencing. Experiencing Nibbana is not clinging to Nibbana. Even speaking the word 'Nibbana' is not necessarily clinging to Nibbana.

why anatta is insufficient to uproot suffering? Here is a simple answer:
One type of suffering comes from craving. In other words, if I am sitting over here and in my mind I crave for something over there that I can't obtain - that very experience of painful mismatch between the two is suffering. Another type of suffering comes from fear of losing something. This is the same mechanism at play as with craving, just in reverse:  I sit over here having something nice, feeling good - and I know that over there in the future I will inevitably lose it. Hence, that experience of the painful mismatch between the two is suffering.
Oftentimes (but not always!) these two scenarios occur with our sense of "I" as the object of craving or loss. In case of craving, let's say I want to become a great Buddhist teacher, or a successful businessman, or a big boss, or a father of a big happy family. The mismatch between what I want to be and what I am now is experienced as suffering. Or, in the case of a loss, let's say I already feel that my state of being is good, however what if I know that in the future, due to a sickness or war or simply due to old age - I will lose my happy peaceful state of being. Again, there is a mismatch in the mind, and this mismatch is experienced as suffering.
Anatta can help us become immune to this type of suffering. If we stop identifying ourselves with any social role or any lifestyle or even with this body or this mind - then, if we start losing any of it, we will not regret and we will not suffer. If we are not attached to any idea of "I", any particular manner of being, we will be at peace with who we are now and with whatever happens in the future.
However, there is another type of suffering that cannot be fixed with anatta! This type of suffering comes from attachment to forms other than oneself, forms that have nothing to do with "I". For example, consider the situation when your teenage son suddenly declares that he is a gay person (a homosexual). Because you are so attached to an idea that your son should be a proper man, there is a great mismatch in your mind between expectation and reality. Because of this mismatch you experience dukkha, suffering. This type of dukkha has nothing to do with your sense of "I", it is about your son. But because you have a fixed idea of how things are supposed to be, you suffer whenever there is a mismatch.
So anatta can't help with this type of suffering. But shunyata can. According to shunyata, an idea (a form) such as "man" is a stereotype or a reified generalization. In reality, there are all kinds of qualities: such as strength, rationality, joy, sense of beauty etc. - that are present in  both man and woman to various degrees and should not be lumped into "man qualities" or "woman qualities". The example of "man" vs "gay" is just one example. Our everyday social life is full of examples when we attach to some form, some idea, some concept of how things are supposed to be, some idea of "rightness" that is based on some overgeneralization - and then from this attachment there comes all kind of conflict and suffering.
When you understand shunyata, you understand the principle behind all generalization, all delineation of entities. You clearly see that every human concept in this civilization is some kind of convention, abstraction, or generalization. You also see that our subjective perception, from our limited experience and single point of view, is always partial - it never includes everything that possibly exists. Because we don't know that our experience partial, we assume that our understanding of the world is how it really is - and then based on this we engage in action that leads to conflict and suffering. Deep understanding of shunyata uproots this source of trouble.

Ah! Now this argument makes sense, which has led me to create this question.

@AndreiVolkov The example of a random stranger should have been used instead of "my son".

@ruben2020  agreed, but even if we keep it as one's son, how would anatta help remove this suffering?

@AndreiVolkov I think we can explore this in the question that I have created. In my view, all types of suffering must have something to do with the self, however obscure this connection is. Why would I feel anger or revulsion at a concept or idea if it doesn't have anything to do with ME?

@AndreiVolkov I have added this answer that tries to provide an alternative perspective.

Coming back to this topic, you are saying if someone is strongly homophobic they would look at two kissing men and not have revulsion-dukkha if those two men are not relatives, friends etc, and have no connection with oneself? Let me assure you that's not how it works. If someone can't stand seeing the kissing men on TV, I'm pretty sure anatta won't help.

From what I read, the issue is that although Theravada realizes emptiness of self, it is still attached to dharmas where Mahayana strives to realize emptiness of self and dharmas.
I remember a quote like this: emptiness is like a bubble in the sea of great enlightenment. I can look it up if you want.
The practical implication is the goal (Arhat vs. Bodhisattva/Buddha) and range of practices (afaik Mahayana has a wider range of practices that can be used for a lot more situations).

I on the other hand, think that it actually is best of short and concise answers. If I were to post up the shortest possible answer, that'd be something like it. For the first sentence alone, you can see clear aim of Mahayana, emptiness of all forms is the liberation, and realisation of Bodhicitta is compliment to it.

Hi Yeshe, thanks for your comments but unfortunately I'm not learned enough to comment much more than that. I'm still wrapping my head around Pali/Sanskrit terms, and even my practice isn't good enough to provide an answer with more insight. I just provided a quote I read from Ven. Master Hsuan Hua, which I think describes the differences, up to my current level of understanding. @bodhihammer thanks for the kind words.

In both Theravada and Mahayana, strong sense of Self is present in observer, sense that pollutes the object with Self grasping and reference. This ignorance is the root of perceiving objects in a deluded or intrinsically existent way, way that does not subject itself to Three marks of existence of a conditioned thing.  Example, the right perception is:

Seeing that chair is an impermanent phenomenon
Seeing that experiencing a chair is inherently unsatisfactory
Seeing that chair is neither Self (me), nor truly mine

Mahayana elaborates the last point of perception (Anatta) because we cannot escape such view of things quick enough, not before we are fully liberated from Self. Achieving Arahantship is not easy. To stop suffering practitioner needs to go beyond concepts, as the afflictive ones are typically rooted in ignorance of Self.
Therefore, great mind expansion happens in Mahayana school as it attempts to describe how our conceptual reality occurs by the faculty of Self (by grasping and craving, by prejudice...). Such expansion encompasses all the material and immaterial things, since perception of any phenomena may afflict suffering. For each phenomena to stop causing affliction one has to realise it voidness or emptiness of Self-centered, inherent essence. If coming by a train station [outer phenomenon concept] gives one a traumatic memory - just image of a train might trigger a panic response due to historical background. There has to be something immediate to do about clinging to concept of a train, such as more realistic realisation. By realisation, the example of a train loses its footing - it is not the same train, but recollection of concept itself that causes affliction.
It is a given in Mahayana that meditative experience gives something simply beyond prajna - an intuition past conceptuality (also referred to as jnana). The root here is that prajna is still discriminative and dualistic whereas jnana (intuition) is free of it. So alayavijnana (elaboration of bhavaṅga) is a key point of interest in all Mahayana schools since it is a point of contact with something beyond the dualistic, conceptual perception, and that is Tathata (suchness). Thus, here all beings are said to have Buddha nature, just removing obscurations is process available to ordinary beings. And realisation of Emptiness means reaching this "mundane" state and ultimately - entirely losing oneself in it.
Emptiness is form, form is Emptiness.
It might be realised by non-analytical means, like insight into Emptiness, by koans, or Tibetan chöd. At the same time, it might be accompanied by analytical methods, like paratantra. The latter, analytical methods consider firstly outer phenomena dependent origination that mark something lacking intrinsic essence and secondly, realising non-duality beyond extremes of aversion or strong inclination via understanding both deeply (middle way). Thich Nhat Hanh often says that without experience and teaching suffering (Samsara) gives us, we cannot reach Nirvana.

Conclusion arises in Mahayana that the mind should be expansive, including all the things:

sentient, by developing relative Bodhicitta, as it uproots Selfishness and thus vanquishes Self.
non-sentient (mostly), by developing realisation of Emptiness, as it uproots ignorance of Self (of the way things are).

That leads to ultimate Bodhicitta. Note that this standard Mahayana approach, approach of relative shortcuts.

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


text:
What is a skillful way to meditate in the midst of a migraine headache?

When the Bod-hisattva Quan the Am, who has been such a source of
  inspiration of peace workers in Viet- nam, saw into the reality of the
  five aggregates giving rise to emptiness of self, she was liberated
  from every suffering, pain, doubt, and anger. -- The Miracle of Mindfulness, p. 48

I have been practicing mindfulness for less than a year. I have had some deep experiences and found benefit. However, when I have a migraine headache my mindfulness feels completely useless.
Any guidance or any good resources that would teach me to practice my mindfulness in the midst of a bad headache would appreciated.

As a fellow migraine sufferer who feels one coming no right now, I would also be very happy to hear good answers :) Thanks for asking!

Read this story by Ajahn Brahm about dealing with intense bodily pain (toothache).
Read the following exercise only after you read that story.(otherwise you will mis-understand)
Exercise
When you have a migrane attack, take a deep breath really deep, fill your lungs completely. Now, hold this as long as you can. Initially this time is 4-5 seconds but it becomes 10 seconds which is enough.
What happens is your body goes in shock and some 'fight or flight' harmones are released. This focused attention gives extream boost for mindfulness of migrane itself.
In this situation become mindful of your migrane and do what Ajahn Brahm has told to do.
When you cannot hold the breath any longer, let go of all the breath, empty the lungs and repeat the exrecise. This is bit difficult than holding the breath, you can do the first step.
Preferably keep your eyes closed.
Pain goes away.
Don't do this while driving or doing anything else. Just make sure you are just sitting doing nothing while doing this.

Thank you! I will read the story and try the techniques suggested.

Theravada Buddhist Answer based in the Burmese method as taught by the Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw.
The following method is based in Vipassana meditation. This type of meditation is characterized by taking reality as an object of meditation, meaning that one directs attention towards the most apparent object in the present moment.
In terms of a migraine attack one might focus on the pain, nausea if present, a feeling of lightheadedness or ones reaction towards those objects.
One would note whatever object is most predominant and change object when another object becomes predominant. One notes the pain by mentally and slowly saying to oneself "pain, pain, pain". This is done while keeping attention on the object. One notes in order to create clear comprehension about the object, so to not fall into either liking or disliking of the object.
When this is done repeatedly over a period of time the mind will come to see the pain as merely an object. One will come to understand that the pain is not a problem. Instead its our own reaction to the pain that creates suffering for us.
For more in-depth information on the method in relation to dealing with pain, I recommend the following video teachings given by Ven. Yuttadhammo:

Ask A Monk: Dealing With Pain and Using Suffering as a Vehicle for Enlightenment
Ask A Monk: Pain
Monk Radio: When Pain Becomes Unbearable

He also made a booklet, which is available here.
May you have a fruitful practice.

This is very interesting, but it almost sounds like concentration meditation instead of vipassana. To try to focus on the object ... being pain ... and establish one pointed concentration on that. You know, I never considered doing this, but it sounds fascinating. Like, I wonder if my monkey mind could finally concentrate single pointedly if I used pain as the object! I could also potentially use my aching knees as one of them is constantly in pain when sitting in half lotus.

They are in fact complete opposites. In Samatha (concentration) meditation on focuses on a single object to the exclusion of everything else. In Vipassana meditation one changes object depending on whatever object is most predominant. Vipassana meditation is designed to allow the meditator to gain insight into how reality functions, ie. how conditioned reality is impermanent, unsatisfactory and uncontrollable (devoid of any self-essence).

I see. Same with the pain in headache I guess. This object is also arising, changing, and decaying constantly. But Samatha is often done with the breath as the object which also has that character...?

That is correct. The difference in Samatha meditation is that the object is a concept, in a way its artificial, since one tries to make it stable and permanent (which it isn't). In Vipassana meditation one takes reality as an object. One experiences how reality is ever-changing and not under our control. They are two different types of meditation designed for different purposes.

Thanks @Lanka, I think this is excellent and I have not seen the difference between serenity and insight meditation defined in this way. In my school, it is taught that one must unite serenity and insight meditation to perceive reality as it actually is. Does your school say the same? Using your definitions it I imagine it sounds something like, "To see in an (artificially) permanent and stable way the utterly impermanent and unstable nature of all things."

Yes, there are 3 approaches and all are equally valid. I can't find the sutta (Theravada Buddhism) now but I will insert it when I locate it. In the sutta the Buddha teaches that there are 3 vehicles to Enlightenment. One can practice Samatha first then Vipassana or Vice versa or Samatha and Vipassana togther, ie. in tandem. The former sounds like the approach in your tradition.

Wow, @Lanka! I had never heard of Vipassana meditation! Can't wait to do more research and study on it.

@Stanley. I'm happy that you found it useful. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Hey @Lanka, I have been using this technique over the last 2 days for some other things as well: hey fever, sinus pressure, post nasal drip, etc. I find that it is very useful unless I am trying to go to sleep. I am then faced with a choice: stay mindful of the current reality or take medicine so I can sleep. Any guidance on how to fall asleep while using Vipassana meditation to remain mindful? I can't turn my mind off enough to go to sleep when I am meditating like this. Thanks!

@Stanley. That sounds very good. This technique is pretty powerful and even after a short time of practicing one feels the benefits. Be aware that you are far from the only one that experiences challenges when going to sleep. Especially when practicing intensely for a while, ones sleep becomes very light and meditative in nature. I have heard Ajahn Punnadhammo explain that one should try to keep a more general mindfulness when going to sleep. So applying a broader, general and not laser-like mindfulness when going to sleep can be more fruitful. That's my own experience too...

... You could try that and see if it works out. Remember that the body will fall alsleep if it needs it. The thing is that when we practice mindfulness of the present moment, i.e. the current object of reality (fever, sinus pressure etc.) we are not reacting. We are only experiencing, observing. So we are not weighed down by all the bagage (judging, liking, disliking) we usually associate with these objects. That means we do not spent energy on e.g. getting angry and then reacting to that anger and then feeding of it, until it baloons out of control...

... We all know the snowballing effect these phenomena can lead to. When simply observing without reacting, we let go, we don't cultivate further addiction (clinging, aversion) to the object. Instead we just see the object for what it is and let it go.This way a healing and a cultivation and preservation of mental energy takes place, which in turn will result in less need for sleep. After having practiced for a while the mind will begin to understand and realize how burdenless and peaceful it is to dwell and establish itself in the present moment. It becomes inclined to stay there.

Ven. Yuttadhammo made some videos on sleep too. These are: Monk Radio: Need For Sleep, Ask A Monk: Meditation Before Sleeping, Sleeping Well, Ask A Monk: Falling Asleep While Meditating, Ask A Monk: Sleeping and Bedding for Meditators.


text:
Suffering due to non-self-related preconceived notions in Theravada
According to this answer:

However, there is another type of suffering that cannot be fixed with
  anatta! This type of suffering comes from attachment to forms other
  than oneself, forms that have nothing to do with "I". For example,
  consider the situation when your teenage son suddenly declares that he
  is a gay person (a homosexual). Because you are so attached to an idea
  that your son should be a proper man, there is a great mismatch in
  your mind between expectation and reality. Because of this mismatch
  you experience dukkha, suffering. This type of dukkha has nothing to
  do with your sense of "I", it is about your son. But because you have
  a fixed idea of how things are supposed to be, you suffer whenever
  there is a mismatch.
So (Theravada) anatta can't help with this type of suffering.
  But (Mahayana) shunyata can.

Now this is a question directed to Theravada practitioners.
Let's say, somebody suffers from aversion when they see any person practising the gay lifestyle, because they have preconceived ideas about what is right or wrong about sexual orientation. This kind of suffering seems to be unrelated to craving or the self (because this is related to other unrelated people). Here, I use the example of a random stranger, not "my son".
Sexual orientation is just an example of a non-self-related preconceived notion. It could easily be something else like Brexit or communism or news of a natural disaster taking lives in a distant country.

According to Theravada and the Pali Canon, what is the cause of this suffering? Is it in any way related to the self, craving and dependent origination?
According to Theravada and the Pali Canon, how can this suffering be eliminated? According to the third noble truth, to end suffering, one must end craving. How does ending craving end this suffering?
Please provide references to the Pali Suttas, if possible.

Just to be clear are you open to answers entirely from the Pali Canon informed from a Madhaymaka viewpoint?

@YesheTenley This question is directed to obtain a Theravada perspective. But I guess, you are not prevented to answering from the Pali Canon using the Madhyamaka viewpoint.

I will refrain and let self-identified Theravada adherents respond, thank you.

Clinging to any concept, sign and so on, might cause suffering. Clinging to concept of Good vs Evil makes people do atrocious things for the greater common good. Example: Bolshevik revolution, or whatever happens in Myanmar now.

Related: Are all forms of Dukkha related to a sense of self?

I tried to do some research on this, from the Pali Canon, so I will post an answer.
A person may have a preconceived notion like the homosexual lifestyle is wrong, only the heterosexual lifestyle is correct. Or, communism and socialism are wrong, only democracy with capitalism is correct. Or, the view that the government must improve public transportation instead of building more roads is correct, while the view that the government must build more roads instead of improving public transportation instead is wrong.
The Mahayana view in general is that these preconceived notions or views are unrelated to the self and cannot be solved using anatta. Instead, the Mahayana shunyata must be used. If one can see that the sexual orientation, or political ideology, or government policies are truly without inherent substance, then one can avoid clinging to them, and thus be free of suffering.
While this sounds logical at a first glance, if we analyze this from a Theravada perspective, it is actually analyzing the wrong root cause. In my opinion, all types of suffering must have something to do with the self, however obscure this connection is. Why would I feel aversion at a concept or idea if it doesn't have anything to do with ME? There is obviously a clinging and I am clinging to it. I suffer not because a political ideology is real or unreal. I suffer because I cling to it. It has something to do with ME. The problem is that all of a person's views are relative to one's self or associated for or against one's self.
The following quotes from Sutta Nipata 4.5:

When dwelling on views as "supreme," a person makes them the utmost
  thing in the world, &, from that, calls all others inferior and so
  he's not free from disputes. When he sees his advantage in what's
  seen, heard, sensed, or in precepts & practices, seizing it there he
  sees all else as inferior.

When one makes one view as correct, and all other views as incorrect, it's because he sees some advantage or something related to himself. There's a reason why he clings to it. For e.g. I may have other arguments why new roads should not be built, and instead public transportation must be improved. The real reason could be that I am afraid that if a new noisy highway is built next to my house, the property value of my house will drop. Hence, every argument that I have to support my view, has something to do with me.
For e.g. if I argue why Theravada is better than Mahayana, it may be because I associate myself with Theravada. If someone disparages Theravada, then I feel disparaged, because I assumed my self to be the mental fabrication.
So, this connection, may not be obvious. It may be obscure. But the connection of my view to my self definitely exists. And clinging of anything to the self, is related to one of the three types of craving.
Perhaps a person has strong views and scorn towards homosexuality, because he either feels it as challenging his own heterosexuality, or perhaps he is trying to hide his own closeted homosexuality. Or perhaps it conflicts with the teachings of the religion that he belongs to, or it conflicts with his father's teaching to him, which he clings to, because it comes from "my father". If it has nothing to do with him, then why would he be for or against it?
If news that trees in the Amazon rainforest got chopped down illegally in huge quantities reaches a person who stays in Russia, he might feel angry. Why? He may be a self-identified environmentalist who feels that nature and the environment belongs to him and his descendants, that his descendants are being deprived of their rightful inheritance. So, it has something to do with his self-interests.
A person disagrees with high taxation and good social welfare. Perhaps he works hard and makes a good income and does not want to share it with others. It's HIS income. Perhaps another person is poor and jobless, and would love to receive state help, so he publicly sides high taxation and good social welfare. It always has something to do with self-interests.
To be part of a religion or to be an environmentalist or to identify with a sexual orientation, sounds like craving of becoming. To enjoy sexual pleasures or state help in the form of food stamps, sounds like the craving of sensual pleasures. Craving leads to clinging. Clinging leads to becoming. These are part of dependent origination. Due to clinging, we may feel aversion when what we cling to is removed from us or is challenged.

That, too, say the skilled, is a binding knot: that in dependence on
  which you regard another as inferior. So a monk shouldn't be dependent
  on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor
  should he conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge or
  precepts & practices; shouldn't take himself to be "equal"; shouldn't
  think himself inferior or superlative.
Abandoning what he had embraced, abandoning self, not clinging, he
  doesn't make himself dependent even in connection with knowledge;
  doesn't follow a faction among those who are split; doesn't fall back
  on any view whatsoever.

And so the Buddha tells that a monk should not become dependent on what is sensed, conjure a view in the world in connection with knowledge and compare himself or his interests against it.
The idea of comparing views and ideas against himself or his interests is continued in Sutta Nipata 4.9:

Whoever construes 'equal,' 'superior,' or 'inferior,' by that he'd
  dispute; whereas to one unaffected by these three, 'equal,'
  'superior,' do not occur. Of what would the brahman say 'true' or
  'false,' disputing with whom: he in whom 'equal,' 'unequal' are not.

From Sutta Nipata 4.13:

"Those who, dwelling on views, dispute, saying, 'Only this is true':
  do they all incur blame, or also earn praise there?"
"[The praise:] It's such a little thing, not at all appeasing. I speak
  of two fruits of dispute; and seeing this, you shouldn't dispute —
  seeing the state where there's no dispute as secure. One who knows
  doesn't get involved in whatever are commonplace conventional views.
  One who is uninvolved: when he's forming no preference for what's
  seen, for what's heard, why would he get involved?

Here, we see that one dwelling on views, saying "only this is true", is actually because he developed a preference to it. Preference indicates that he formed an association with himself i.e. he assumed his self to be a mental fabrication, that is related to his view, or aligned with his self-interests.
From MN 22:

"What do you think, monks: If a person were to gather or burn or do as
  he likes with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta's
  Grove, would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is
  gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes'?"
"No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self, nor do
  they belong to our self."
"Even so, monks, whatever isn't yours: Let go of it. Your letting go
  of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness. And what isn't
  yours? Form isn't yours... Feeling isn't yours... Perception...
  Thought fabrications... Consciousness isn't yours: Let go of it. Your
  letting go of it will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.

If a view has nothing to do with ME, why would I suffer from it? If a person burns leaves in a garden, why would I suffer from it, if I did not feel like those leaves belonged to me some how?
So, we only suffer from thought fabrications, preconceived views and opinions, because we think they are our's, or because they support something that belongs to us, or is aligned to our self-interests. That they are associated with us. We have to let them go. We have to stop clinging to them. They are not associated with our self. That's the way to end suffering from them.
From MN 1:

“Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for
  noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has
  no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their
  Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he
  conceives himself as earth, he conceives himself in earth, he
  conceives himself apart from earth, he conceives earth to be ‘mine,’
  he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood
  it, I say.
“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant with taints destroyed, who has
  lived the holy life, done what had to be done, laid down the burden,
  reached his own goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and is
  completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows
  earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not
  conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he
  does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth
  to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he
  has fully understood it, I say.

Here, earth is just an example. It can be any theme. Any theme is a mental fabrication. The sutta has many more such themes including unity and disunity, and things which are heard or seen or cognized. One should see the theme as-it-is. He should not form associations between his self and the theme.
In AN 10.96, Ananda knew this very well, when he said to another:

"'The cosmos is eternal. Only this is true; anything otherwise is
  worthless,' is a viewpoint. 'The cosmos is not eternal... The cosmos
  is finite... The cosmos is infinite... The soul & the body are the
  same... The soul is one thing and the body another... After death a
  Tathagata exists... After death a Tathagata does not exist... After
  death a Tathagata both does & does not exist... After death a
  Tathagata neither does nor does not exist. Only this is true; anything
  otherwise is worthless,' is a viewpoint. The extent to which there are
  viewpoints, view-stances, the taking up of views, obsessions of views,
  the cause of views, & the uprooting of views: that's what I know.
  That's what I see. Knowing that, I say 'I know.' Seeing that, I say 'I
  see.' Why should I say 'I don't know, I don't see'? I do know. I do
  see."

Ananda did take up any of those viewpoints. Instead he knows how one can become obsessed with them and how to remove those obsessions. He does not cling to those views. He does not associate his self with those views.
EDIT:
From Sutta Nipata 4.14:

"I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer,
  about seclusion & the state of peace.
  Seeing in what way is a monk unbound,
  clinging to nothing in the world?"
  "He should put an entire stop
  to the root of objectification-classifications (papañca):
  'I am the thinker.'
Commentary (Thanissaro):
  On objectification-classifications and their
  role in leading to conflict, see Sn 4.11 and the introduction to
  MN 18. The perception, "I am the thinker" lies at the root of
  these classifications in that it reads into the immediate present a
  set of distinctions — I/not-I; being/not-being; thinker/thought;
  identity/non-identity — that then can proliferate into mental and
  physical conflict. The conceit inherent in this perception thus forms
  a fetter on the mind. To become unbound, one must learn to examine
  these distinctions — which we all take for granted — to see that they
  are simply assumptions that are not inherent in experience, and that
  we would be better off to be able to drop them.

Yes there are suttas which associate doctrinal arguments (of the form "only this is true", especially those intended to "wound with weapons of the mouth") with "conceit" (which might include trying to make yourself look good by showing off a superior knowledge). And I agree with your examples of selfish views (self-identifying and becoming). Only, when you mention MN 22 your answer might imply that all fixed views are selfish self-views; I think in context MN 22 was talking about (specifically) views-of-self -- I'm not sure that's also true of right views, for example.

@ChrisW Yes, you are right. Ditthinissaya refers to one of the wrong views from DN 1 according to this commentary. So I have removed that part of the answer.

+1, very good analysis @ruben2020. And, of course, this is correct: all our clingings have something to do with our Self. However, in order to let go of such clinging, how can the teaching of anatta be helpful? Let's say you have a clinging to democrats and strong aversion to Trump. You suffer greatly every time you hear or think about politics. You know you should let go. How can the teaching about the five aggregates help letting go?

I was going to pipe in and object that 'general' Mahayana doesn't say that those ideas have nothing to do with the self. I was thinking about this a lot with Andrei's answer as well and concluded that no, a definite sense of self comes along with, "how dare they violate my preconceived notions of how the world ought to be!" But it seems the two of you got there faster :)

Was going to add that of course Andrei's position still stands... that to see other objects as inherently existing in opposition to the non-true existence of the self is untenable. Why? Because you are seeing a dualistic separate and true existence that is other than you. And if you do that, the mind can't help but posit if the other is true and real, then what it is other to must also be true and real.

@AndreiVolkov do you concur?

In a way, Ruben you've come to this conclusion as well. You've identified that all notions of self and its existence are inextricably strung up with our notions about the world and its objects and how they exist. All is in reference to me so in the same way all thoughts about the selflessness of phenomena are also strung up with me. How can you see the non true existence of the self if you think that things other than the self are truly existent?

@YesheTenley In my answer, I did not assume whether things other than the self are truly existent or not truly existent. Such an assumption is unnecessary and irrelevant. All that was discussed is that all preconceived notions which result in suffering, are inextricably associated to the self. There can be no suffering from a preconceived notion that is completely unrelated to the self. It is true that the self is an illusion. Preconceived notions are papañca and therefore also illusion. But physical objects are not necessarily illusions.

@ruben2020 I can't tell if you just disagree with my point or if you don't understand what I'm saying... again, I get that you think that question of other things is irrelevant. This is established. I'm pushing back on this by noting Andrei's point:  To see the question of whether objects are truly existing as irrelevant is untenable. Why? Because you leave open the question of a dualistic separate and true existence for that which is other than you. And if you do that, the mind can't help but posit if the other is true and real, then what it is other to must also be true and real.

IOW, other and self form dualistic opposites. All you've done to answer Andrei's point is to point this out... that all thoughts about other are inextricably linked up with self via this dualistic formulation. And your thesis is that refuting self is enough since other is linked up with it. And I've said, actually you can't just refute self because ... other is linked up with it. Perhaps we disagree, but do you get my point?

I have edited the answer - I found the "smoking gun" evidence from the Sutta Pitaka - Sutta Nipata 4.14 states that the root of objectifications-classifications (papanca) is 'I am the thinker'. I am still thinking about Andrei's question on what is the technique advocated in the Pali Canon to get rid of these preconceived notions.

Hehe, I see your new "smoking gun" and again I say, how can you refute "I" without refuting "the world" since they form a dualistic pair :)

Look at the very next sutta: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.15.than.html where he says, "The world was entirely without substance." Samantamasāro loko

@YesheTenley How can you refute the mirage in a desert as being an illusion, without refuting the desert, since they form a dualistic pair. Does that make any sense? Just because the mirage is an illusion, doesn't mean that the desert must also be an illusion.

I think I shouldn't pretend to be Theravada but the doctrine I know is mostly from the Pali suttas.

The Anatta-lakkhana Sutta says that if aggregates were self then they would be obedient, e.g.:

Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.

I think that implies two things:

You get used to what-you-perceive not being what-you-want-it-to-be, train yourself to beware of that mismatch, blame yourself when a craving for things to be other than as they are occurs, so perhaps become immune to it, maybe analgous to what Andrei might say about "suchness".

Any residual "aversion" that arises in a new situation can (IMO) be blamed on I-making and grasping, and perhaps dispelled with the view "that (other person) is not me and not mine".
Doing this isn't other than anatta, IMO, though perhaps Mahayana might say "no, I'd call that (more generally) sunyata and not (very narrowly) anatta".

After you remove your own, personal prejudices or attachment, other (Theravada) doctrines remain:

Sila -- a lay-person's having a[ny] sexual orientation isn't necessarily wrong, sinful, or abnormal; though people rightly consider the third precept (which protects children, and prior established relationships), and the moral character of any specific person chosen as a partner (e.g. here)

The four brahmaviharas

Specific social duties -- e.g., for a parent, to protect and/or instruct

Just the four noble truths -- "I want my son to up grow to marry a princess!" -- with due respect that's kind of a childish fantasy, isn't it? A fantasy you might even reject yourself, a little nibidda? Instead you're doing well if he (or she) grows up to be good.

I suppose people's views on sexuality and gender are influenced by their social/family upbringing, and their personal experience (e.g. the people they've met); and that ...

somebody suffers from aversion when they see any person practising the gay lifestyle, because they have preconceived ideas about what is right or wrong about sexual orientation

... doesn't apply to me very strongly (so my upbringing on this topic may or may not be typical). I know that some people make doctrinal arguments for and against what I'd call sexism -- but I think that What is the attitude toward homosexuality in Buddhism? says the doctrine permits me a laissez-faire (or "live and let live") attitude towards other people's sex-lives (may they be safe from emnity), i.e.:

we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is

Sexual orientation is just an example of a non-self-related preconceived notion. It could easily be something else like Brexit or communism or news of a natural disaster taking lives in a distant country.

@ChrisW, oh? I thought you self-identified as Theravada... what should you pretend to be? :)

@YesheTenley "Pretend", meaning like "pretender" -- i.e. claiming to be something that I'm not, or falsely representing that I am. I led with that here as a caveat, partly because of your comment about this topic being exclusively for people who "self-identify as", ...

... and partly because this comment distinguishes between the ("pragmatic") Pali Canon versus (the "speculative analysis and obsessive nitpicking" of) the Theravada as well as Mahayana schools; nevertheless I allow myself to post in topics tagged [tag:theravada].

I see, you don't self-identify as a theravada adherent, but your practice involves Pali Canon as primary source. Many people equate Theravada and Pali Canon, but I do not.

Take an uneducated ordinary person with a non-self-related preconceived notion. It's simply a thought. From MN1, we have delight in thought as one root of suffering.

They perceive the thought as the thought. But then they conceive the thought, they conceive regarding the thought, they conceive as the thought, they conceive that ‘the thought is mine’, they take pleasure in the thought.
Why is that?
Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

For those on the path, the cure is to relinquish the delight and directly know the thought as the thought.

But they don’t conceive the thought, they don’t conceive regarding  the thought, they don’t conceive as the thought, they don’t conceive that ‘the thought is mine’, they don’t take pleasure in the thought.

If we have a thought "only good people are blue and I am blue", delight in that thought, attach to that thought, rejoicing in blue, then we suffer when we see red people. They are not blue. How bad.
With direct knowledge that "only good people are blue" is just a thought, we let go and happily welcome good red people, and good green people, etc.


text:
Swapping around the three Jewels
The Buddha stated in SN 6.2 that he doesn't have a teacher but instead look up to the Dhamma, and in MN22 he states:

Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati
  seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find
  anything of which they could say: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone
  is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is
  untraceable here and now.

If the Buddha pointed more to Dhammaism than Buddhism, is taking refuge in the order of Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha - placing the messanger in the position of the message - a mistake along the lines of idolatry?

Here is the reference (SN 6.2).

Reading the reference might answer this question.

So if 'lead by example' stands, then what is good for the teacher is good for the pupil?

This is the way my teachers have explained it:

The Buddha is like a Doctor on who we rely to correctly diagnose our condition and to prescribe a treatment.
The Dharma is like the actual medicine and is thus referred to the supreme jewel or true jewel.
The Sangha is like the nurses who aid us in our treatment and recovery.

Just as we take refuge in our Doctors, Medications and Nurses when we become sick just so we should take refuge in the Buddhas, Dharma, and Sangha to shelter us from the sicknesses of samsara.
That said, the Dharma jewel is considered the Supreme Jewel because it is the actual antidote to our suffering. And we must choose to take our medication. The Buddha cannot force us to take our medicine nor can the Sangha. We must choose to listen to the Doctor's advice and take the actual antidote and listen to the Nurses as they help us take the medicine and recover.

So, basically the standard form advises against self medication when the Buddha's message is extant.. makes good sense! :)

Yes, I asked much the same question to one of my teachers once after I heard him say the Dharma is the actual refuge in contradistinction to the Buddha and Sangha. Without the Dharma jewel we'd all be utterly lost and beyond hope like if the Doctor ran out of medicine.

BTW, personally that's why I think Buddha's don't continually manifest in the world at all times revealing themselves as Buddhas. We'd all be lazy and neglect taking our medicine thinking the Doctor could magically heal us without us actually taking our medicine :)

Realising the Dhamma is not easy, which is why the Buddha is the Buddha, who achieved a close to impossible achievement.
But, yes, the only reason to take refuge in the Buddha and Noble Sangha is to find the Dhamma.
The supreme refuge is the Dhamma.
Thus Buddha said to Vakkali (SN 22.87; against idolatry): "Seeing the Dhamma; sees the Buddha".
In SN 45.2, the Buddha said He was as the Noble Friend the whole of the Holy Life because it would be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path (the Dhamma).
In DN 16, the Buddha said make the Dhamma the only refuge.
But the Buddha reveals the Dhamma and the Noble Sangha perpetuates the Dhamma. We can't do it without the Buddha or maybe the Noble Sangha.
If we have keen intellectual comprehension of the Pali suttas (similar to Dhammadhatu), we can avoid the discordant diversity today that calls itself "The Sangha".

although your insertion in the brackets is with conceit, you are still right concerning your comprehension skills. bowdown

I think a clear example of it is e.g. here -- Exclusive interview with Oprah, May 2010:

Oprah: I see. I know that you were born in Vietnam in 1926. Is there any wonderful memory of your childhood that you can share?
Nhat Hanh: The day I saw a picture of the Buddha in a magazine.
Oprah: How old were you?
Nhat Hanh: I was 7, 8. He was sitting on the grass, very peaceful, smiling. I was impressed. Around me, people were not like that, so I had the desire to be like him. And I nourished that desire until the age of 16, when I had the permission of my parents to go and ordain as a monk.

That reminds me of this paragraph of the Bikkhuni Sutta ...

This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? There is the case, sister, where a monk hears,

'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now.'

The thought occurs to him,

'The monk named such-and-such, they say, through the ending of the fermentations, has entered & remains in the fermentation-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known & realized them for himself in the here & now. Then why not me?'

Then he eventually abandons conceit, having relied on conceit.

'This body comes into being through conceit. And yet it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned.'

Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

... where "conceit" is as defined in this topic: How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
Also the triple gem/triple refuge is mentioned/identified in the canon.

If the Buddha pointed more to Dhammaism ...
I don't think he did -- see for example the Upaddha Sutta: Half of the Holy Life (SN 45.2)
Per SN 6.2 his dwelling in dependency on the Dhamma only was a consequence of his being a Buddha and an arahant.