text:
How does one Realize emptiness?
Are there specific practices, meditation instructions, intended to identify and realize/experience emptiness? Is this different than realizing non-self, or the emptiness of the self? or the emptiness of other/objects?

What lineage?  Us Zen folk, for instance, would give you a very different answer than what you might get from the Elder Tradition.

Yes, I'm interested in how different lineages instruct students to practice for identifying and realizing or experiencing emptiness.

Well then you are definitely in luck.  I think you managed to stimulate quite a bit of interest on the topic!  :)

Yes, this is amazing - such depth and incisiveness of responses!  It has been really helpful, seeing that the practices I've been doing as reflected in various perspectives.

So now we go for the Zen view.  Or I should say Rinzai view.  I want to first pat you on the back. You are absolutely right to say "realize" emptiness.  Please do not try to understand it.  That's a complete waste of time.  I'm not sure if you intended the question this way, but what you are asking for, specifically in your inquiry regarding the emptiness of other things/objects, is nothing less than a request for a full exploration of the path.  I will try to be brief as I can.  The short answer is that you need to sit and that you need to find a teacher.  The long answer follows.
When you first walk into the zendo, your teacher will normally tell you to watch your breath much in the way taught in anapanasati.  Here, you begin to develop and collect your mind.  As your sitting deepens and your focus improves - and this may happen over the course of months or even years - you will begin to notice one of any number of phenomenon.  For some people, it feels like your body is expanding, for others your body may disappear, and for still others, your head may feel like it's twisting.  What you experience isn't necessarily as important as that the experiencing is happening.  This is your first glimpse of samadhi.  In the ten oxherding pictures, this is seeing the ox's tracks for the first time.

Upon seeing the tracks, the next thing that your teacher will do is give you the Mu koan.  This practice uses the collected mind you developed with anapanasati and directs it toward an actual experience of emptiness.  On every out breath, you will say "muuuuuuuu".  As the Pali suttas say, you will follow this for the whole body of the breath with the most important place being the very end of your exhalation right before you inhale.  As this practice deepens, you will begin to notice a blankness.  This is your first glimpse of emptiness and it usually happens completely by accident.  In the ox herding series, this is seeing the ox's butt sticking out from behind a bush.  Your next task is to make that experience habitual.  This is grabbing the ox's reins.  To hold the reins is to generally know where the ox is at all times and how to find him when you need him.  With the ox's reins firmly in hand, your next task is to gain mastery over the experience.  In essence, you are deepening your command of body, breath, and mind.  This is taming and leading the ox.  With the ox tame, you may now ride him.  This is becoming one with emptiness or one with Mu.  As Master Mumon says, here "all the illusory ideas and delusive thoughts accumulated up to the present will be exterminated, and when the time comes, internal and external will be spontaneously united. You will know this, but for yourself only, like a dumb man who has had a dream."  At this point, you will be asked to call Mu by your teacher.  Your calling of mu will demonstrate how well internal and external are united...how well you, the ox, mu, the body, emptiness, the breath, and mind have all become one thing.  Getting to this point can take years.
And with that, your Zen training wheels come off.  From here on out, emptiness is no longer a realization.  Instead, it becomes a tool that you will use for the remainder of your training.  After you answer the Mu koan, you will begin to work through any number of other koans.  Zen calls this climbing the mountain of swords that is riddled with the skulls of the fallen.  And it can be every bit as daunting as that description implies.  Each koan forces you to confront some aspect of yourself - some fear, attachment, belief, etc. - that is keeping you from true enlightenment.  But rather than working with these things intellectually as you might in therapy, you approach these karmic impediments from the experience of emptiness.  The deeper you go into mu [emptiness], the better the insight you gain, and the more likely you are to unshackle yourself from these obstacles.  The entirety of this practice is a dance between the world of form and the world of emptiness.  You delve into emptiness in your sitting and you bring it back to the world of form in your probing of the koan you are working with.
Bit by bit, koan by koan, year after year, sesshin after sesshin, the wall between you and enlightenment breaks down.  Eventually, it will fall away completely.  At the moment of enlightenment, the very separation between the world of form and emptiness dissolves entirely.  You will know, just as intimately as the feeling of your butt against the cushion, what the Heart Sutra means when it says that "form is emptiness and emptiness is form".  You will directly see the emptiness of all things - of yourself, objects, thought...the entire universe.
And then you get to be the fat old Buddha who gets drunk with the butchers and generally causes a nuisance in the town below.  Happy sitting!

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

Pali Buddhism offers the following instructions for realising emptiness (suññatā):

And what is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or into
  an empty dwelling, considers thus: 'This is empty of self or of
  anything pertaining to self.'
MN 43

And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self?
The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.  Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of
  anything pertaining to a self.
The ear is empty...
The nose is empty...
The tongue is empty...
The body is empty...
The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Mind objects... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty
SN 35.85

There is this (mental) dwelling discovered by the Tathagata where, not attending to any themes, he enters & remains in internal
  emptiness...If...dwelling by means of this dwelling...no covetousness
  or sadness...will take possession...In this way he is alert
  there...keeping track of arising & passing away (thus): 'Such is form,
  such its origination, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such
  is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such
  its origination, such its disappearance.' As he stays keeping track of
  arising & passing away with regard to these five aggregates, any
  conceit that 'I am' with regard to these five aggregates is
  abandoned...
MN 122

A monk, not attending to the perception of village, not attending to the perception of human being — attends to the singleness based on the
  perception of wilderness...not attending to the perception of
  wilderness — attends to the singleness based on the perception of
  earth...not attending to the perception of earth — attends to the
  singleness based on the perception of the dimension of the infinitude
  of space...not attending to the perception of the dimension of the
  infinitude of space — attends to the singleness based on the
  perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness...not
  attending to the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of
  consciousness — attends to the singleness based on the perception of
  the dimension of nothingness...not attending to the perception of the
  dimension of nothingness — attends to the singleness based on the
  theme-less concentration of awareness...he
  discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is
  inconstant & subject to cessation.' He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality, empty of the effluent of (self) becoming, empty of the effluent of ignorance....his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is
  undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.
MN 121

Suññatā means more or less not/non-self. Therefore, the instructions is the Anatta-Lakkhana Sutta may also be followed.
In summary, to realise emptiness, as described in MN 121 (above), the mind first be made empty or clear. Then the clear mind can observe everything it observes is empty/vacant/void of any self.
For example, if the mind observes a rock, cloud or tree, it can see clearly there is no 'self'/'ego' in a rock, cloud or tree. When the mind is clear, empty of thoughts & judgments, it can see the breathing & body are the same as a rock, cloud or tree, namely, empty of any self. Observing like this, the breathing will calm & feelings of rapture will arise, which are observed like a rock, cloud or tree, as empty of self. When rapture calms, the mind will be even clearer & all mental phenomena are observed the same as a rock, cloud or tree, as empty of self. This is how to realise emptiness.
To realise not-self & emptiness, the mind must do vipassana.

Through vipassana, by observing carefully with a concentrated mind, we see the Truth of all things. We realize that everything is
  impermanent. Anything that we are experiencing now is impermanent.
  Even the things of which we are unaware are impermanent, that is,
  continually changing and transforming. The single exception is
  nibbana, the only thing that does not change. Thus, we know the
  aniccam (impermanence) of everything. Furthermore, the fact of impermanence
  oppresses and forces us to experience dukkha (unsatisfactoriness)... This state of dukkha
  can not be endured by anyone; there is no self or soul that can stand
  up to it. This is anatta. And so we realize aniccam-dukkham-anatta.
  Together we call them sunnata, voidness of self. Then know tathata,
  suchness or "just like that." This is the first step of the fourth
  tetrad. It is called "aniccam-nupassi." Just this one word encompasses
  the realization of aniccam-dukkham-anatta-sunnata-tathata!

My teacher has a straight forward 4 steps method to learn and realize the Dharma

Listen - Learning the Dharma is frequently described in the scripture to hearing. ("Thus I have heard", "Savaka - one who hears"), essentially coming across teachings whether by paying attention to teachers, reading and so forth.
Contemplate - You reflect on the meanings of the Dharma, slowly making sense of it
Application - You apply the Dharma in your practice and your daily life.
Affirmation - You affirm the truth of the teachings through your practice.

Rinse and repeat as necessary.
With regards to emptiness:
You can study sutras, listen to lectures. But the fundamental break through I had with understanding emptiness in the context of Mahayana came from Nagarjuna famous stanza.

All things arise through causes and conditions.
That I declare as emptiness.
It is also a provisional designation.
It is also the meaning of the Middle Path

This is essentially rephrasing dependent origination

This is because that is
This is not because that is not

Prior to this I could hardly make sense of the Heart Sutra or the Diamond Sutra. But now more often than not feel like very much self evident truth.
And there you have it, this simple concept is all there really is into understanding emptiness. It's not some mystical transcendental experience. It is essentially a rehash of the truths of impermanence and selflessness that is staring at our face everyday. Yet the issue is actually what one do with this realization. It is not that the common person doesn't see impermanence, the common person simply refuse to accept and acknowledge these truths. As I have deepen my practice I start to observe how my friends and family including myself often act in ways that are unenlightened as if we are blind to the truths in front of our face. Our mindless cravings and anger when we don't get what we want. Our selfishness. Our attachments to very impermanent things.
The teaching of emptiness is there to break our attachments to personal views of the world which we construct, even doctrines which are held sacred such as the perfection or infallibility of the Ariyas (Stream Entry, Arahantship). We treat Stream Entry as a magical state where the Stream Entrant no longer have any feelings of doubt, in contrary to what the Buddha have stated from the beginning, that all phenomena are impermanent, and why should doubt and confidence be any different. We treat Arahants as someone who's infallible with no shred of ignorance and other afflictions, someone who attained Nirvana and will never suffer again. Even when the Buddha said that the five aggregates are impermanent, so how can the birth of sankaras be permanently ended? Wisdom is dependently originated, attainment is dependently originated, end of suffering is dependently generated, how can any of them actually be permanently attained or ended? The realizations essentially allow us to see things we ought to have seen before but couldn't due to our ignorance and delusive state of mind.
Ultimately learning the Dharma is to benefit ourselves and others. And maybe just maybe next time we face a difficult situation, we can calmly keep in mind that the situation we are facing is too impermanent and dependently generated, so that we can plant good causes and conditions while being unattached to our troubles and handle them with wisdom.

Maybe. Most powerful.

The most concise answer I have found comes from Nagarjuna:

That which arises dependently we explain as emptiness.

Although this peculiar question seemed got a Mr./Ms. Right to claim the bride/groom, I, however, would like to offer a short answer, sometimes one's patience boiled when reading too much words. Here, my short little trick of how to realize emptiness:
It's both easy and difficult. Easy part is, to understand that the world is mind constructed; the difficult part.... hmmm... is to then walk into a wall and through it, for it's "made of" emptiness :D ~!!

Listening, Studying, Reflection are vital.
Assuming you practice sitting meditation with joyful investigation for ~30min a day, you can probably have a direct insight into emptiness from one of the excellent sutras such as the Diamond Cutter Sutra or the Heart Sutra.
It will take a lot of consistent practice but every step is closer, so in short:
Grow your bodhicitta.  Cultivate a deep compassion and weep for the sufferings of all countless sentient beings.  Rest in the absolute nature.
Love your teachers

A non-Buddhist answer, perhaps:
My sense of Realization is that it is part of a process of development, or maturation. We simply grow in to it eventually. Glimpses might come earlier, and even be imparted, but then it takes time to stabilize and fully develop the realization, as other answers state.
Seen this way, many approaches will work, as will "no approach" eventually, if the person is so inclined to recognize and value realization. "Seek and ye shall find." Perhaps this is why there can be so many different teachings and schools, all of which worked for someone.
The last stage, I think, is simply letting go. Or, "be let go-ed". As the old Zen story puts it, you release your hold on the cliff edge, only to realize that you were standing on firm ground all along! Ego cannot do this letting go, it arises spontaneously. So maybe the answer to your question is: "One doesn't." Or, "Oneness does" or something silly like that.

Suññatā means more or less not / nonself, i.e., the aggregate and empty as they are not self (they are empty of self, there is no self in it), meditation attainments are empty as they are not self, sense bases are empty as it is not self, the world is empty since it is not self. Anything you call self cannot be absolutely controlled and does not last for ever and the experience always ends misery.
Also the world is made of vibrations and heat hence in this sense the world is empty, as in this answer.
To realise not self you have to do Vipassana to achieve the state of yathā-bhūta-ñāna-dassana. When progressing further in stages of sainthood you will experience Phala Samapatti where all perception and sensation stops. This is also know as empty. Even before this any attainments like Jhana is not self, hence empty. Also higher meditative attainments can be considered empty when there is no roots.
See: (1) Kāma,bhū Sutta 2, (2) Cūla Vedalla Sutta, (3) Mahā Vedalla Sutta, (4) Maha Sunnata Sutta, (5) Cula Sunnata Sutta, (6) The Greater Discourse on Voidness: The “Mahā-Suññatā Sutta” (Majjhima Nikāya No.122) And the Commentary from the Papañcasūdanī
1:

“When a monk has emerged from the attainment of cessation of perception and feeling, houselord,
3 kinds of contacts touch him, that is,
the empty contact,
the signless contact,
the undirected contact.”

3:

This is empty of self or what belongs to self
...
This, avuso, is the way of explaining by which these states are different in meaning and different in
  name.
Same in meaning, differing only in name
“And in what way, avuso, are these states same in meaning, differing only in name?”
(1) THE UNSHAKABLE FREEDOM OF MIND THAT IS FREE OF MEASURING
Avuso,
lust is a measure-maker;
hate is a measure-maker;
delusion is a measure-maker.
For a monk whose influxes are destroyed, they are cut off at the root, made like a palm-tree stump,
  done away with so that they are not subject to further growth.
Avuso, of all the immeasurable freedoms of mind, the unshakable freedom of mind is declared as
  the foremost. Now, that unshakable freedom of mind is empty of lust, empty of hate, empty of delusion.
(2) THE UNSHAKABLE FREEDOM OF MIND THAT IS FREE OF “THINGS.” Avuso,
lust is a something;
hate is a something;
delusion is a something.
...

6:

Voidness internally: in himself internally; the meaning is: produced in regard to
  his own five aggregates. [Commentary to MN 122]
“And which, friend, is the mind-deliverance of voidness? Here, friend, a bhikkhu,
  gone to the forest or to the root of a tree or to an empty place, considers thus: ’This is
  void of self or property of a self’. [MN 43]
Of self: void of self, called personality, man, person, and so on. Or property of a self:
  Void of anything belonging to self called requisite of robes and so forth … . The minddeliverance
  of voidness belongs to the sense-sphere as to plane, and its object is
  formations; for it is insight that is here meant by “voidness.” [Commentary to MN 43]
Possessed of full awareness: fully aware through successfully knowing the
  meditation subject. Externally: in regard to another’s five aggregates. Internally and
  externally: at one time internally, at another time externally.

This follows Universal Teaching of the Buddhism as preserved in the Pali Canon.

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

WHAT IS A ANYWAY?
A PLAY OF THE MIND?
THE PLAYERS

The Hero & Our Weapon, The Pervader –
Non-conceptual consciousness PERCEIVING
whether things inherently exist or in other
words whether they can be found under
analysis
The Henchman - Consciousness that normally
PERCEIVES inherent existence, as if things
can be found
The Damsel, The Reason – A (or anything
else), The Reason we will realise emptiness
The Villain, The Subject – The inherent
existence of A, Our Target
The Happy Ending, The Predicate – Emptiness
or NO A

THE SCENE
At the moment we cannot help but
APPREHEND things as if they inherently
existed as if they can be found (the other two
ways are nominally, to one side for a moment,
and as illusion-like or void).
Because a Non-Conceptual Consciousness
perceiving whether things can be found under
analysis, finds nothing upon analysis the
subsequent pervasion of a/the reason by a
predicate (Emptiness) will invalidate the
subject. So because the reason is “where” it is,
in the subject, a successful pervasion of the
reason by the predicate will contaminate the
whole subject category, INHERENT
EXISTENCE. Each player must fill the roles
assigned above with no cast changes. The
reason why the players do what they do, the
action (the analysis); the success of the
pervasion is entirely up to you.
STORYLINE (PLAN) B
If we are to understand the Emptiness of A we
first need to acknowledge A’s appearance as
inherently existent.
STORYLINE (PLAN) A
We gain an EXPERIENCE of emptiness by
attacking/refuting the findability of A.
SCENE 1 The Villain has The Damsel –
Presence of Reason in subject
A or / - \ has been kidnapped by its appearance
as inherently existent or as if there is an entity
that can be found amongst / - . Until we
realise that the Damsel cannot be found with
The Henchman (in fact cannot be found at all),
A exists in the category INHERENTLY
EXISTENT.
SCENE 2 Introducing our Hero
If we want to find Inherent Existence it would
make sense that the only weapon we can use is
our consciousness that analyses WHETHER
things exist inherently or whether something
can be found under analysis. When, finally,
we do try to find A, because it happily sits in
the inherently existent category the realisation
that we cannot find it should contaminate the
category inherent existence for us.
SCENE 3 Payback Time
Because we accept things exist the way they
appear we never have reason to look for them.
But if we use our hero to try and find
something simple like A then we should come
to the conclusion that it cannot be found.
Why? We want to profit, to experience
Emptiness, so we must activate our hero to
look for the A that in fact has been kidnapped
by the appearance (The Henchman) that it can
be found. If A exists it cannot exist separately
from its parts because of a very fair criterion;
to find A we must be able to point to A. But
we can never point to A or / or – or . There is
no A we can point to. To realize emptiness
you must be utterly devoted to this criterion
and look for yourself over and over and
over…..
So if we 1) keep looking at A and 2)
simultaneously decide enough pussy footing
around we want to look for A, we activate our
hero. Then 3) sorry, you cannot find/point to
A either separately, outside its parts and not in
its parts either. It is no good to decide that if
we look for A we should find it; we must
employ our hero to go and look for the
damsel, A. Not finding A the category
inherent existence is incidentally
contaminated. So put aside valid
establishment, conventional and nominal
existence. The masters are clear – emptiness
means not finding something, remember we
are not looking for emptiness because it will
do for now to say that if you cannot find
something, it doesn’t exist! See The
TantricDistinction,Jeffrey Hopkins Chapter1
WHAT IS A ANYWAY?
A PLAY OF THE MIND?
WHAT THE CRITICS THOUGHT!
Critic A writes that when the hero comes
along, conceptual play is made redundant
because he doesnt find an A, amongst / - , a
true damsel amongst the aggregates.
Critic B has an alternative understanding – the
hero is a hero because he is searching for a
specific damsel and not just coming in with his
gun ratta-tat-tat, refuting everything in sight
so that even the damsel “dies” & the play
ends!
Critic A understands the skilled reasoning
work of the hero could be used in another play
or to refute another self because the
story/pervasion has a good ending.
Critic B sees the performance of the hero as
focused and enough because the hero is only
looking for a specific inherently existent
A/damsel and that this is only successful as
focused confirmation of the non-existence of a
specific inherently existent A/damsel, nothing
else – because even after we stop looking at
“the play” in everyday life things like A are
seen all the time, they continue.
Critic A sees the space-like non-finding of A
under its basis of designation, / - , as a green
light to write - “...because the hero's
performance is so strong reason undoubtedly
refutes as untrue the damsel and by extension
all other “plays” and productions, the play of
cause/effect, the I, an independent self, mine,
objects etc in the realization of the ultimate
ending (space-like non-finding Emptiness), so
final it beats all ignorance in all plays and
their accompanying philosophies”.
Critic B on the other hand allows themselves
to be deeply affected by the ending, for them,
because they allow the play to have a full
focused impact, the continual non-finding of
an inherently existent A acts as very freeing
confirmation of the utter non-existence of an
inherently existent self (the root of actual
innate ignorance) that serves as the basis of
the afflictions that contaminate experience
rather than seeing another philosophical
implication. Emptiness is not looked for or
“found”!
Critic B writes – “...the space-like realization,
the non-finding of an inherently existent A
achieved by the hero, is fundamental not just
to the way The Damsel and all conceptual
play is perceived but to the way “A” is
produced and hence to the way all “play” is
produced because the realization of the
Emptiness of one thing is as good as
realization of another’s Emptiness – the truth
pervades all existent things equally”.
Critic B then takes away the point of the
performance allowing it to pervade their
understanding of reality (what comes up) to
reach a hidden meaning, not just how we
perceive A as inherently existent.
Critic B writes “...A, / - , is an analogy for
reality, so this “play” is trying to tell us
something deeper”. Reality is all existent
things that arise at once together but are empty
(of inherent existence) at once together (even
emptiness itself is empty). So it is said the
actual difficult meaning of the non-finding of
inherent existence, Emptiness, is dependent
arising as only by this view all cause and
effect is possible rather than annihilated by it!
Critic B most critically understands if we
dont qualify the performance of the hero and
if they dont exist as dependent arising’s - as
do-able conditions - the much higher
experiences of the actual existence of Ultimate
Truths via direct perception of Emptiness
couldnt be True Cessations of afflictive
experience and the achievement of cessation
of afflictions couldnt entail Nirvanas, so
pursuit of the irreversible experience of
Nirvanas as the complete liberation from
suffering would be a fools game.
(See The Great Treatise on the Stage of the
Path to Enlightenment Vol.3 Lama Tsongkapa
esp chapters 16&17)

I edited -- the "markdown" format uses empty lines to separate text into paragraphs.


text:
Discussion with Chih-Tao in the Platform Sutra

... does not have the appearance of origination and does not have the appearance of cessation, much less the cessation of origination and cessation. Thus, nirvana is right here. But although it is right here, there is no
  concept of it being right here, which is why it is called everlasting
  bliss. This bliss is not experienced by anyone, nor is it not
  experienced by anyone. So how could anyone say there is one body much
  less...
ordinary fools call it death
other sects claim it's the end
those who follow the Hinayana
think of it as non action....

From Red Pine's translation page 283.
Are ordinary fools right to call "Maha Nirvana" death: is that an aspect of it?

wow, this quoted English Version of Platform Sutra is so blurred, one can't make any sense out of reading these sentences.

@Bhumishu米殊 sorry, the book i have has no preview on google, and it seems a lot to type out

i'm in doubt of this translation. the whole thing about Chan (zen) or Buddhist emptiness like Diamond Sutra is - to make the wordings like saying nothing and rejecting everything... this is my raw impression reading some Eng sutra related articles. But this is not.

red pine is an important translator! if you like, answer with a different translation, that would be amazing, especially if you can keep the question. i didn't get that just "rejecting everything" sense at all, really! @Bhumishu米殊

i just find the piece about this Chih-Tao (志道)'s Q&A, let me read and revert...

@Bhumishu米殊 you can edit the question however you like. the key point for the question is the first lineated phrase, tho i also like the phrase about it being "right here, there is no concept of it being right here", so would welcome a correction. cheers

it's rather long thus put in the Answer. my answer is just a reference. after i read the original Chinese Classical Platform Sutra's words, i would have much doubt about how those you quoted could convey the correct meanings of Great Huineng's teaching. unfortunately your favourable phrase "right here.... right here" was completely an alien wordings, when referring to the original ;)-

From the Platform Sutra in Classical Chinese:

T48n2008_p0357a19(05)║...剎那無有生相，剎那無有滅相，
  T48n2008_p0357a20(04)║更無生滅可滅，是則寂滅現前。當現前時，
  T48n2008_p0357a21(05)║亦無現前之量，乃謂常樂。此樂無有受者，亦無不受者，
  T48n2008_p0357a22(01)║豈有一體五用之名？何況更言涅槃禁伏諸法，
  T48n2008_p0357a23(00)║令永不生。斯乃謗佛毀法。聽吾偈曰：
  T48n2008_p0357a24(00)║「無上大涅槃，　　圓明常寂照，
  T48n2008_p0357a25(00)║凡愚謂之死，　　外道執為斷，
  T48n2008_p0357a26(00)║諸求二乘人，　　目以為無作，
  ...

In 'a split second' (ksaṇa (क्षण)) there is no sign (相, logo, form, nama) of arising; in a split second there is no sign of ceasing; further, there is no arising-ceasing [impermanent activities] to be annihilated (extinguished, ceased, terminated, stopped); thus 'absolute annihilation' (寂滅 Nirvana) emerges. When this emerged, it does not have the quality of emerging {亦無現前之量}, thus this is called constant bliss. For this bliss that is not obtainable, nor that is not unobtainable...
The above is equivalent to your quoted "... does not have.... not experienced by anyone". The bold Chinese quote are the words that's been translated.
This comes from the episode about Chih-Tao inquired the 6th Great Huineng his unable to understand the Mahanirvana Sutra (涅槃經), about the "arising-ceasing (or birthing-dying) annihilated, absolute annihilation as the constant bliss" (生滅滅已，寂滅為樂). It's too much too complex to explain in full. In short, in Nirvana, all signs (logos) created or conceived by the intellect and consciousness ceased (extinguished, annihilated). There, it is not even intellect or consciousness. In the whole one Ksana, it is constant bliss, this is Nirvana. Ksana has to be hinted for our intellect and consciousness created the space/time, Ksana is the minimal unit we could infer when using words to explain ideas. In the other way to say, in Nirvana there is no space/time; no space/time, thus no birth/death, for any change must have the element of either space or time, but space/time is an illusion, the absolute is Śūnyatā, Emptiness, it is beyond all the human intellect categories. Therefore "Maha Nirvana" has nothing to do with death. Death is only applicable to body, form, sign, existence, impermenance, and it's viability depended on the Birth.
Remark:
The newly bold are:

無上大涅槃，圓明常寂照，
凡愚謂之死，外道執為斷，
諸求二乘人，目以為無作， ...

These are part of the lines of Buddhist Hymn (偈) given by Great Huineng, to summerize what he taught Chih-Tao. The purpose of Hymns is to let students easily memorize, thus it's always concise, poetic and rhythmic in nature, for at that time people used to learn by heart instead of using CPU for data and search engine!
It goes as:

The unsurpassed Maha Nirvana, Perfect and bright, in constant absolute splendor;
unenlightened laity said that is death {凡愚謂之死}, heretical stuck that is cessation;
those secondary practitioners, regarded it as non-Doing...

In simplicity, Great Huineng commented those laity (your "oridnary fools") said death is Nirvana, which is incorrect.

thanks. a bit disappointed you didn't quote the statement about death and fools, it was the point the rest doesn't seem to be what the red pine translation is saying, i think you're right

@user3293056 u asked: "Are ordinary fools right to call "Maha Nirvana" death: is that an aspect of it?" i said: "Therefore "Maha Nirvana" has nothing to do with death." it's hard to define fool, not to say ordinary fool, neither death nor nirvana, thus i was playing smart by not answering it directly ;). or, i didn't really understand what intrigued u about the notion "death and fools"? maybe u could be more specific...

i saw you answered but you didn't quote, that's all i meant. why i asked the question is somewhat irrelevant, and maybe dumb, but i was wondering a) if death or the end is impossible and b) if that is entailed by maha nirvana

@user3293056 i was a bit rush thus bypassed ur quoted wordings about the "fools", i just added in the remark. to answer ur a) & b), "because of nirvana therefore death/ end is impossible" this analogy doesn't stand. death is, the body deceased, but "I" unharmed, this can be easily realized by doing a mind experiment: if my leg chopped off, is this still "I"? My eyes removed... my head cut... with all these the "I" is unscratched; if my eyes removed although i can't see but my category of seeing is unscratched... this is shown in Surangama Sutra about the undying "self" by the Buddha

agreed it is easy to show but really very very difficult to demonstrate. on your last sentence in your answer, isn't he saying these fools think that nirvana is death?

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
what is zen's attitude / teaching on keeping a journal?
Not much more to elaborate than just the question. But the website is making me type more stuff. So here it is.

Keeping a journal to what purpose?

just to write down thoughts and explore them... no purpose really

There is no "Zen" attitude about anything. That in itself is not Zen. If someone keeps a journal, then someone keeps a journal. That's all it means, and it is neither good nor bad. It is just keeping a journal.

Zen is indescribable. Where do you get these thoughts like zen has some rules or attitudes towards anything you do apart from maybe sitting meditation?
Look most of the things we do in this world has not much point apart from the ideas and concepts we are creating in our minds. I don't see why journal keeping is any different unless you unsuccessfully try to write Zen everyday in your journal.
Let's take for example tea-making. It is done with great attention and care and sipped with great attention and care. Such a simple thing is a ceremony. So, you could also sit there and write a journal with focus and attention if you would like to. Why are you bothered about Zen? Throw it and write your journal.

wow. that really rings true.

It's not necessary.  In fact, it might even be an impediment.  Thoughts about your experience/practice have a pesky way of being wildly wrong.  Any idea or theorizing generally just gets in the way.  I remember working with one koan in particular that I was damn sure I had nailed down.  I began ruminating over it and extrapolated that experience into all sorts of crazy theories.  Sure enough, in the dokusan room my teacher told me that I was barking up the wrong tree.  With that, my entire theory crumbled into dust.
So no, a journal isn't necessary.  Not unless you want to laugh at yourself and your overwhelming stupidity somewhere down the road!  :)

When I was a novice monk in a monastic retreat at my temple in Taiwan, which lineage wise is Linji Chan although they embrace all forms of Buddhist practice, as well as modern methods and technology to propagate the Dharma, one of the activity was to keep a daily diary of our experiences. And generally I tend to have a lot to say just about everything that occurred as well as my personal thoughts, this was handed over to our teachers for feedback. My teacher thought it was good that I have a lot to say, maybe even a bit too much to say that it has become a stream of consciousness. I distinctly recall an acquaintance new to the Dharma that struggled badly to write anything down and end up doodling on the page. It was through this comparison that I realized I really did mature as a person through my practice. Good diaries were further shared on the notice board to benefit other participants.
Generally it can be wonderful to reflect on and share important special moments. It can cultivate a mind of gratitude, appreciation, good will and resolve. When you begin to cultivate yourself, your writing likewise show your personal refinement.
You can even find inspiration from seeing enlightened thoughts within your peers, their resolution to become better people and so forth. Our temple even publish diaries of young novice monks which are just wonderfully heart warming.

I think writing a journal is okay. I'm not so keen on the idea of comparing one's own writings to someone else's 'doodles' to bolster ideas of one's own maturity. Some people might be more confident in expressing themselves in other ways. The idea of using it to become a better person seems contrary to the spirit of Zen.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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


text:
What should we say when someone asks 'What is your religion?'
Recently I faced such thing. Occasionally I faced an orthodox guy. We were talking about marriage, then he came on this thing "My religion is xxx what is yours?"
First I ignored him but he asked me again so I answered "Buddhist." He didn't really understand me and was pretending like he did. So if someone asks me this question in the future what should I say?

Do you mean, when we are talking with "someone who we are considering as a possible marriage partner"?

He have to say in his religion they can't get women to marry due to lacking of them then he said in yours there are women. Conversation could be simple than this but he pulled into it. Here are people living orthodox their perspective only is religion. May you wouldn't believe some are killing if someone married with different religion partner.

The Dalai Lama said, "My religion is kindness."

Determine what you will say based on what you can learn from the other person with whom you are talking. Listen carefully to what they say and presume nothing about what they mean. Ask careful questions about what a religion is and see whether what you are part of is a religion by this meaning. You may discover that while Buddhism is a religion the Dharma is something greater and more heartening.
The opportunity for sharing of the Dharma includes as much a listening attitude as it does an attempt to explain what we understand and know. Often meeting people on level ground is as much of an assist to others to find their way as comparing views or values may support our own.
When someone asks a personal question, this is an invitation from them (for whatever reason) to get to know us better, to bring our mind to front and show them who we are. Unless they are already our spiritual guide or filial teacher then we owe them no compliance or explanation in any final sense. Our answer can be "I do not know." and this may become an embrace of humility from which we will persistently benefit.
These categories are not rooted and cemented for all time. What is a religion? Is Buddhism one? Is that what it has always been called? By whom? Perhaps the orthodox guy was bold and yet helpful, and his secret instruction to those he was asking was to cause us to wonder whether religion is valuable and how it helps us to come to a wakeful mind. Are 'isms' generally good at doing this?

Yeah your saying right sharing Dhamma and beyond religion but here orthodox people can't think beyond it(super religious). They think thing like marriage can't happen without religion. May I could make him speechless but I simply go with flow. When he was an orthodox and religious I avoid to start with him may it could hurt his ego. I understand. There's no problem sharing things with wiser people.

Part of the challenge is engaging people where they are. If encountering super-religious people, then they are wanting to reinforce the right doctrines and right practices. One option is to try to learn how these are described and justified by the variety within that culture. My experience (with Christian, Pagan, and Muslim peoples) is that they enjoy discussing these things as much to reinforce what they know as to consider minor alternatives from the same set of justyfing principles. Learning about these can aid one's social kindness and bring humility when facing those who are judgemental.

In your current social context maybe it is safe to shy away from religious talk considering people may be religious bigots. But you may also want to reel them in on their religion and attitude.
And as for such talk about other religions having more women or whatever, you can just dismiss it for yourself. Sometimes it may be wise to not try and penetrate the other person's ignorance. You may prick the ego instead. And that's dangerous.
And one more thing, Buddhism has certain practices and goals. And that must be all. Try not to identify too much with it or defend it. Know for yourself that you are going on the path you feel is right.

I could have answer like this. Religion? What is it if there's love between them, religion doesn't matter for us or humanity is our religion.

Yes but answer according to the situation. If you know the nature of the person asking you this question , it's better. That's what I mentioned in the second paragraph. You might not be able to say much to ignorant people.

Yeah I was confused, need to be wise. Thanks


text:
Can Cyborg/ Trans-human reach enlightenment? When enlightenment is depended on a Human Body
The world is going to a point of no return, with the thirst for materialistic grandeur and power to rule over nature; after the conquered of Oriental by the Occidental. This article talks about Cyborg. Cyborg, Bionic Man, Clone, Trans-human... these could be the future of you and me, friends and colleagues walking on the streets. Or programmed, or with specific "functions", or one prototype of "human resources", it could all be tailor-made. When human falls into such situation, are Buddhist self-cultivation practices such as meditation, mantra chanting, concentration of mind... etc still viable; can enlightenment still be reachable for these types of humans?
Explanation Added:
Especially for certain schools of practices, it's about the Wind (氣), Nadi (脈), Bindu (明點) related to the human body, e.g., the Tibetan School. Certain other schools, included is the Hinayana, that the practice of the White Skeleton Visualization is depended upon working on the body to transform the consciousness - can a "Re-made Human" (Cyborg, Trans-human who has his body parts enhanced, replaced by organic or inorganic components, partially human partially machine, with devices implanted to achieve certain supernatural abilities such as remote viewing, mind control with micro-wave... all could be imagined... in short, Iron Man or Wolverine type of human) do the Buddhist practices and achieve enlightenment?
Remarks Added 14/02/2017
Excerpt from MarketWatch:

Musk also touched one of his favorite topics: artificial intelligence. Specifically, he spoke of humans eventually merging with machines, like something out of a "Terminator" movie. ...merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence ...the bandwidth, the speed of the connection between your brain and the digital version of yourself...

The future human destiny is approaching us with rapidity:
In a beautiful name called upgrading human.

I cannot understand why this question is downvoted??! The engaging in manipulating the DNA, child-birth selection and design (by In Vitro Fertilization, IVF), enhancing human abilities and intelligence by implanted devices or alteration... these are challenging the volition/free-will of human, and the very core nature of human, i.e., able to liberate from Samsara/World of Forms/World of Illusions, by enlightenment. The Sutras said "to be born as a human is difficult" (人身難得); the Tibetan practice involving the wind (氣), nadi (脈) and bindu (明點) are at first based on the human body...

i also have no idea why the downvotes

Do think people's answer should based on references, or based on personal experience? What kind of information should be in an answer? Is this a question about Buddhism, or is it mostly a question about so-called "cyborgs"?

@ChrisW My intent is to discuss this issue based on the Buddhist principle. For enlightenment is all about being a human; all Buddhas first born as a human then reached Buddha-hood in their last lives, even though they were already the Great Bodhisattvas dwelling and teaching in the Inner Tusitas (兜率天內院). Maybe phrase it in a different way: Can a Trans-human, i.e., half man half machine like Iron Man or Wolverine sort of man, become an arahat, or a buddha? Although "I" is not my body, but 'human body is the medium between the Form and Emptiness' - in my own words...

@breath Thx the concern. Maybe naturalism advocators of some Buddhists get offended when seeing the word Cyborg/ Trans-human?

In comments you wrote, "My intent is to discuss this issue", and "To get deeper into this issue etc." Please note that for various reasons we try to keep this as a Q+A (Question and Answer) site and not a discussion forum. So ideally each topic has one question at the top, one or more answers to that question, and few or no comments. There are presumably other discussion-oriented sites. Try to have a well-defined question, and not a discussion where the topic under discussion varies and progresses as time goes by.

If you want to "get deeper into this issue", do you want to edit the question to clarify that what you're actually asking about is "subtle body channels besides veins and nerve systems"?

@ChrisW Thanks. My title is it not a valid question? To get deeper or not is not dictated by me, it's by the answerer, although I can "intend" for it to happen - this is the not-Self principle(!!), ahhaaa. I don't intend to restrict the answer therefore I will not specify "subtle body channels" etc. or not, I have no idea if this is the issue or not.

@Bhumishu米殊. Title says "Can Cyborg/ Trans-human reach enlightenment?". In the question-content there is no mention of "... subtle body channels besides veins and nerves systems ...". This last part you mention in a comment to an answer. If you are asking about that it should at least be contained in the question-content.

@Lanka Thx. For that, I've edited my question.

This question is actually unanswerable. However a human being is vastly more complicated than a mere cyborg. The ability to achieve enlightenment. Whereas a cyborg would be created artificially, and is merely a mind and a body to accomplish some tasks. Therefore it doesn't seem plausible that a cyborg achieves enlightenment/Nirvana.
Edit:
Understood the clarification. The changes you mention, like enhanced body parts or something, may enhance man's capacity in the outside world but the alterations to the body structure/parts will have lots of unintended consequences. We don't clearly understand the ramifications and chemical
imbalances in the system. In the same way that we are able to interact seamlessly with mobile phones in our age of technology, man's capability will increase but seemingly at a cost of his/her own natural technology called the mind and body. It is still an artificial way rather than a natural style.
Let's take a simple example. Are you able to meditate well with all the interactions you are having with your computer and mobile phone and Facebook/Twitter etc.,? If you are able to think about this you will understand how spiritual goal is unrelated and artificially enhancing life spans or body parts will be detrimental to a person's spiritual growth. Understand that man's body is already a well engineered machine. Just because we are insensitive to that and don't treat it well, doesn't mean our body is not an awesome machine. Our bodies are a vehicle too. We must oil it well and consume well in order to keep it running. But it has its life span and capabilities and we must respect that.

Thanks. Maybe I haven't phrased my question clearly. Cyborg here meant not merely a machine, but half man half machine, is a man but with certain body parts altered, enhanced; imagine a man with only his brain but most of his body parts are replaced, some organ-transplants, some inorganic organs, even his brain is enhanced with, say wifi sort of device so that he could "connect" to the Big Data?

Edited my answer.

Thanks for the edited. To get deeper into this issue, I'm wondering how those concepts related to wind, nadi, bindu, or 經脈 (subtle body channels besides veins and nerves systems) work when a human body is artificially altered. In meditation practice, not only breathing or concentrating, but also with other methods which involved the human body. It may be too specific though...

I understand where you are getting at. But I know very little about the energy channels and the elements composition (like wind, water, fire) of our body so I will not venture into that. Perhaps Tibetan monks or yogis or some texts would be able to help with that.

I am doing a yogic practice related to the nadis and the chakras with a breathing technique. But I am not well informed. I am just doing as instructed.

Buddha has said, “Dear Bhikkhus, ones who would not realize this Dhamma is like this earth (in amount). Ones who realize this is like this small amount of soil on my finger nail.” If it is so for you and I, for us normal humans, what are the chances for a Human Cyborg to get to hear the True Dhamma?
For those who are not familiar with the term Cyborg - Cyborgs walk among us, though we see them as ordinary people. People who have robotic prosthetics generally qualify as cyborgs. Even people with pacemakers qualify as their existence depends partly on the continuing function of the electronic device that keeps their heart’s rhythm.
This Cyborg then has to be one who has cultivated the five ‘Sēkha Bala Dhamma’ – Saddhā (faith), Sīla (virtue), Sutha (Dhamma knowledge), Thyāga (generosity), and Paññā (wisdom of the Dhamma). Also this has to be a Cyborg that has religiously gone through the stages of listening, remembering, constant reciting, mental observation and ideologically understanding the Dhamma (Sutha, dhata, vacasa paricita, manasanupekkhita, ditthiya suppatividdha). Still when trying to put into practice in daily life, what this Cyborg has learnt, s/he faces many obstacles, difficulties, emotional pain, and conflicts that throw one away from this Dhamma path. This is due to the “Evil eye, evil mouth and evil tongue” of ones own making. So what do you think are the chances of this happening in this short lifespan?

Oh, here Cyborg is the real manufactured "being", could be a highly intelligent man, with high moral and self-control, but enhanced/upgraded by scientific devices. Example, when a normal practitioner (human) doing the White Skeleton, if he sinned, his body has some defects, at that part he would not be able to see the bright bones - how about a Cyborg who has his organs replaced?

There is a precedent that the Buddha set for letting in a 'different' set of humans, when he allowed women to join the Sangha, and his reasoning there we that the female mind had the capacity to reach the goal. Arguably, you can use this for any other 'different' life form.
The question is not whether AI (I assume cyborgs with human brains are human and ones with non-human brains are AI) will have access to the logical and reasoning aspects of the intellect that are necessary to recognise the Four Noble Truths. This is likely because the Truths are empirical and the human mind already has access to all empirical evidence within its frame of reference (subject to technology). So I don't think AI will be substantially different from 'Intelligence' to justify the 'Artificial`.
The question is whether all life, that has the capacity to comprehend the Noble Truths, can meditate and experience cessation (as the process of Jhanna may be dependent on the human intellect, I don't think it is initially necessary for distinct life forms in their exact form).
Personally I think this will happen soon enough with some animal species like dogs, which are already getting to 3-5 year old intelligence through cohabitation with humans - so they are not far from having a right to access to the Dhamma imo (being carbon based, their minds shouldnt be too different from human's).
Cyborgs and AI are too speculative at this point imo (although AI is heading down the neural network route, so same architecture as the human brain really), but I would find it difficult to believe that a conscious non-human intelligence would not be able to find a secluded place, sit down, and learn to have a peaceful abiding.
(though specifically for Cyborgs - since post human upgrades will have individualistic motives and end up dependent on the purpose of those upgrades, some Cyborgs may find themselves more stuck in Samsara.. militarily enhanced human minds, if they appear, will likely find it useful to have cognitive empathy downgraded.. This will obviously not help along the path. On the other hand, a Cyborg who's mind has been specifically enhanced for medical practice (the Buddha described himself as the doctor (not that one! ;) ), is likely to benefit from his enhancements in the practice of Buddhism.)

i don't understand why this answer is -1! whether agreed with the opinion or not, this is a well learnt and intelligent answer, imo

first of all, i disagree that because buddha accepted female into the Sangha thus assuming Cyborgs are just another type besides female. Female and male are just, ordinary humans. In the Buddhist tradition, not just what you said abt dogs (a saying that dogs living in the temples are usually previously Bhikkus), naga (dragon/snake), animals (fox, weasel, toad), plants they could also in certain extend do self-cultivation, if they live long enough and spiritually advanced, however they are forbidden upto a certain stage, for they must then earn the chance to re-incarnate as a human first...

I wonder whether this part of the message is open to interpretation though - evolution, as the theory currently is understood, was not available to the Buddha - if an animal evolves a mind that can perform the same tasks and actions as a human mind, is that mind then limited from progress along the path solely because of its non-human body?

Also, whilst females and males are ordinary humans - are cyborgs and AI, given the Buddha's instance on the regularity of experience, any thing more or less than ordinary? That the conditions for their birth differ a bit from the conditions for the birth of humans doesn't take away the fact they will face anicca, dukha and anatta, as that is what this world is. The question then is, if they face these conditions and have the mental capacity to break free from them, why treat them differently from any other life form that fulfills those conditions?

You may like all the rest who's went through academia being enchanted by the notion of "evolution". There're some axioms in the "evolution" that are sound, yet the whole notion is more like a myth to be believed by some infantile minds. It can't explain the giants where bones and skeletons are discovered over the world; humans are walking side by side with dinosaurs in some ancient graffiti; do you believed that your grand grand... grand father was a - certain sub-class of chimpanzee, honestly?

Yep! If the scientific analysis is reasonable, there is little reason to push  personal conceptions into the explanation. Enchantment is not necessary - that is little more than attachment, and would limit any mind from seeing things as they are. It is also a reasonable theory (when examined with regards to Buddhism), in that it does not allow for Essential differences between species.. the differences  between species are conventional, dependently originated, and can arise and cease.. Here's a fun link about the "gray zone"! https://phys.org/news/2016-12-genome-reveals-gray-zone-animals.html

Btw, Buddha has explained graphically His version of "evolution" in the - famous - (some blemishing this Sutra for it's only the Chinese version found and the language was, too beautiful :\ ) Surangama Sutra. The births was grossly classified into 4 types: embryo 胎, egg 卵, humidity 濕, metamorpohsis 化. Example, embryo type is due to of emotions (情), egg type is due to of thoughts (想)... And the original human was coming down from the Realm of Brilliance and Sound (光音天), at the beginning of a new cosmos after the end of a kalpas destroyed by the Fire...

yes, but the Buddha also considered ghee a medicine! The core teaching of the Buddha however, was the revelation of a path away from suffering, specifically for beings who are capable of comprehending the Four Noble Truths. In addition it is said that the Buddha is "..incomparable teacher of men to be tamed, teacher of gods and humans, enlightened, blessed...", and that he has compassion for all. Now he would have to contradict himself if he refused to teach a mind capable of comprehending the Four Noble Truths, regardless of what body it came with. Such an action would not be compassionate.

(Hence my thought that enlightenment is dependent on the 'human mind') ... but how to define the mind of Man? Aristotle said it was a mind that had 'access to reason' (but did not have to choose to use it, of course!). Such a definition will likely only be slightly dependent on the physical build of the mind itself.

What is the inside, what the outside, a form is the reflection of the invisible content (emptiness?). Thus a human form is the reflection of a certain development in terms of intellect/reason/consciousness. If a being reached the stage of a human being's intellect/reason/consciousness, it will thus reincarnated into a human being... for the cycle of rebirth is unbiased for any species (whether they are "God's Chosen People" or not ;) It doesn't take such a pain to ponder a being who's born as a weasel yet he/she is "qualified" as a human being - this won't happen...

...(continued) One more esoteric notion, that only the human are upright with the spine pointing up to the heaven and down to the earth, for this is vital to certain practice that's needed to get the "energy" flowing in the Central Channel (which is virtual). And the Buddha said, "no one could see the top of my head (無見頂相)", And the Buddha is called Lord of the "Two Fulfilled Feet"(?) (兩足尊) - some Sutra scholars like to explain this meant both Ethically and Fortunately perfect, yet I'm stubbornly held that it meant Two Feet - human.

I think we differ only in how we define 'human mind'. I see your point- if a weasel's mind reached a level where it could reason like a human (pass the Turing test etc), then it would be reasonable to equate its mind with that of a human mind.. as such, the Buddha would still be correct in his statement that you need to be human to understand his insights. but this effectively broadens the definition of 'human' to any being that has a mind that can be reasonably shown to process information in an equivalent way to an actual human mind.

This is fair imo as I like Aristotle's definition of Man (access to reason), and I'm not too bothered about the body aspect of the human condition!

A cyborg will not have volition and without volition it can’t reach enlightenment!
I think volition is grossly misunderstood, I wouldn’t say in Buddhism, but mostly in this platform.
Volitional action as explained on some Buddhist texts or as understood by the Stoics (Prohairesis) can not happen in a cyborg.

Would u expain more on volition, even whatever u unstand on this term from any schools? For cyborg what if it's a gradual development? Not a cyborg manufactured from lab, but a human gradually changing body parts? How about lab-created human with flesh: all components are developed from cells to whole body - do they have volition?


text:
How do kōans work?

A kōan (公案?) (/ˈkoʊ.ɑːn/; Chinese: 公案; pinyin: gōng'àn; Korean: 공안 (kong'an); Vietnamese: công án) is a story, dialogue, question, or statement, (1) which is used in Zen practice to provoke the "great doubt" (2) and test a student's progress (3) in Zen practice. (4)

Kōan Wikipedia

What are these stories, dialogues, questions, or statements? Where do they come from? How are they formulated?
What is "great doubt"? What is the goal of provoking "great doubt"?
What is being tested? What are the possible responses? How does the response quantify progress?
What is the overall goal of kōans?

Perhaps considering a few kōans it is possible to illustrate the process from choosing or formulating the story, question, statement, or dialog, inspiring "great doubt", and how this measures progress and ultimately relates to the goal kōans / "great doubt" is supposed to achieve.
Looking for an explanation based on any tradition using kōans including but not limited to zen or mahayana. Objective is to better understand the following content.

Other topics about "great doubt" include "What happens after the great doubt of koan practice?" and "The role of doubt in Zen Buddhist practice?"

I'm going to try my best and not give too much away, but unless I use a specific example, I'm not sure how else to proceed.  Let's use:

Mumonkan - Case 4: The Western Barbarian With No Beard
The Case:
Wakuan said, "Why has the Western Barbarian no beard?"
Mumon's Comment:
Study should be real study, enlightenment should be real
enlightenment. You should once meet this barbarian directly to be
really intimate with him. But saying you are really intimate with him
already divides you into two.
Mumon's Verse:
Don't discuss your dream
Before a fool.
Barbarian with no beard
Obscures the clarity.

First, some preliminaries.  So what is a koan?  Koans are usually a secondhand account of an exchange between a master and a student or between two enlightened masters.  Read as literature, these exchanges were either teaching moments or a test of another's quality of experience and/or current state of mind.  Practically speaking, koans are teaching tools.  Every koan points to something.  Sometimes it's an aspect of the enlightened mind (like in Gutei Raises a Finger or The Buddha Holds Up a Flower), other times it can be some psychological hang up like in The Western Barbarian Has No Beard or in The Golden Carp Falls Out of the Net. There are also what are known as break through koans that are designed to mess your head up completely to really advance your practice.  These would include things like Mu or Nansen Cuts the Cat in Two.  (I think Hakuin breaks koans into five classes, but this is the general gist.)  Like a legal precedent (koan literally means "legal case"), koans are records of past insights that can help a student form a basis of enlightened understanding (or supramundane knowledge as the Theravada would have it).
Each koan is broken into two basic parts.  First, you have the case (the quoted text above).  To go with it, there is what is known as the "turning phrase" (hua tou in Chinese) that express the essence of the koan.  The hua tou is given to you by your teacher when you begin to work with a particular case.  In meditation, you simple say that phrase on your out breath.  In the case above, on every exhalation you'd just say "no beard".
Koans are an insight practice.  In order to work with them effectively, you first have to develop some mastery over working with mushin or emptiness.  In Theravada, this would roughly equate to an extremely deep state of access concentration.  We Zen folk believe, much like you Elder folks, that unless the mind is quelled, there is no way for insight to occur.  It would be an exercise in futility to ruminate intellectually over a koan although this remains a problem that many students run into.  To avoid that and guide the student toward an experience of emptiness (e.g. deep access concentration), we use the mu koan to tame the mind (you can read more about that here).
Once mu or emptiness is established, the student can then start working with other koans.  Working with a koan can be hell or heaven.  If you've practiced jhana meditation at all, you know how oppressive deep concentration can sometimes feel.  In the case of our example, saying "no beard", "no beard" to yourself, sincerely, on every out breath, with no intellectualizing over what "no beard" means, gives rise to a very deep experience of emptiness.  The Mu koan equates this with "swallow[ing] a red-hot iron ball, which you cannot spit out even if you try."  This is the Great Doubt.  It's important to distinguish this kind of Doubt from the small doubt you'd have of, say, the Falcons winning the Superbowl. The Great Doubt is visceral and is the product of a full suspension of intellectual examination and the concentration of the mind in a state of emptiness.  And it can suck.  (That being said, sometimes piti can arise and become so menacingly strong that it can sweep you right into the 1st jhana.  But still, you say "no beard", "no beard".  Sometimes you'll be able to relax into the 2nd jhana, other times you go right back to the suck.  But always - "no beard", "no beard".)
So that's the meditation side of things.  Now we come out of meditation with our minds made calm and apply it to our Barbarian.  First, some context.  The Western Barbarian is, of course, Bodhidharma.  He has a beard.  Everybody knows that.  To say he doesn't is like denying the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room who is throwing feces at you while ripping up your first edition copy of The Fellowship of the Ring.  This simian is an asshole and you really need to acknowledge him.  As a student works with "no beard" things are going to come up (we are yogacara peeps so we'd say that they arise from the alaya-vijnana or store house consciousness).  For this koan, what arises will probably be something about your psychological makeup or habitual patterning that you'd rather sweep under the rug.  This koan says no, no sir.  Tell me what's there.  You leverage emptiness to pry something out of your psyche.
I would actually say it's unwise to try to use koans to quantify progress.  Some people can answer hundreds of koans and not reach enlightenment.  Other can get there with just a handful.  It's kind of like a game of psychological Jenga.  There are pieces that can be taken quite easily at no risk to our mundane selves.  You'll answer those very rapidly.  Other pieces - danger!  These can take longer to dislodge, but when you pull them out the entire structure can come toppling over.  Your teacher is basically like the foreman of a wrecking crew.  It falls on his or her experience to select those koans that will cause your little Jenga tower to come down in the least amount of moves.  Koans can also be used to prod or gauge a student's mind.  If you are having trouble with a particular koan, it can help point to those areas where your teacher might want to attack.  In post-enlightenment practice, they also help demonstrate where you are still blocked.
Koans really aren't all that mystical.  They are actually very practical in their purpose and execution.  I hope that gave you at least some inkling into how they "work".

The original connotation of the term in Chinese pertains to public records. Koans are often accounts of pupils interacting with masters, or their expression which was part of such interaction, and is contained in such classics as "The Blue Cliff Record." By their character and what has been preserved within them, they are thought to catalyze a shift in consciousness toward waking up in those who contemplate them during meditation and labours. Formal ceremonies, whereby pupils assigned such koans discuss them with their teacher and within the brief exchange disclose glimmerings of insight, have become part of specialized Buddhist tradition, particularly amongst monks in Rinzai Zen.
The problem of embarking on any great adventure of humility is that it takes an effort of ego to initiate. The great mystery of waking up is that at some point an effort must be made, and then, in its aftermath, a collapse. One of the essential qualities of Zen Buddhism is its emphasis on arationality, transconceptual process, or transcendent insight. These koans, acting as rocks for a nutcracker, become a catalyst around which awakening might emerge, and in part due to the arising of this collapse, a return to unknowing (great doubt).
In the context of the interview with the master, nothing is being tested, though the ceremony may give the impression of this having occurred. There is no real limit to possible responses, though social constraints and protocols will have a bearing on the outcome. Since there is no clear, predetermined response requested or specified, it becomes the role of the teacher to act as an authoritative 'spotter', inasmuch as all are monks present but some have more experience at recognizing the qualities of realization.
There is a trope that koans are riddles, puzzles, with particular solutions, and some of them are even presented in such a fashion, recursively inquiring as to the rationale of some simple, ambiguous, or confusing remark. Yet koans are only incidentally instructive or quizzing by character, and the response cannot, because of the very human and artistic form of that which they are part, quantify anything. Instead, progress is always qualified and conditioned.


text:
Buddhism, Reincarnation, and Doubt
Is it possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant?

Reincarnation is NOT Rebirth. The many links that I've provided are about re-birth, as opposed to  reincarnation. Reincarnation implies all of us were here before, in a prior life. There is no transmigration or reincarnation of an enduring, unchanging soul. Nothing substantial is transferred from one life to the next, only the good and bad karmic effects in the form of thought energy.  Reincarnation can be taken as Christian equivalent of Buddhist Re-Birth.

Is it possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant?*
Yes it's possible.
Skeptical doubt about the (whole) Dharma, about Buddhism (in general), is a hindrance (I think it would hinder "continuing to work").
The fact that you do continue, sincerely, suggests  a certain absence of doubt.
I'm not sure what you mean by "maintaining" a doubt. "Reincarnation" might be a topic where you'd find it more useful to be agnostic (i.e. "I don't know, I'm not sure, I don't understand, let's put that topic aside for now") rather than either believing or disbelieving. It's apparently a topic on which different people disagree (though you'll often find people try to emphasize that the dharma is "birth" or "rebirth" and not "reincarnation"); leaving that aside, perhaps there are other (perhaps, even, more important) topics that it's good to ascertain.
The topic (of rebirth) might become clearer as you understand other aspects of dharma.
There's even the Kalama Sutta, which suggests that "doubt", at least initially, about doctrines you find doubtful, is proper:

It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; etc.

To be honest I fear that "reincarnation" is a topic which puts many Westerners off Buddhism. All they know about it is, "Oh, Buddhism: that's something to do with reincarnation, isn't it? Well I don't believe in reincarnation, so I'm not interested in Buddhism." I think that's a mistake, though. Obviously a disbelief in reincarnation does prevent (some) people learning more/anything about Buddhism, but I think that isn't necessary so.
To "cross the stream" I suggest it makes sense to concentrate not (or not only) on what you doubt (e.g. "reincarnation").

I need to review Kalma sutra and revert to you. Looks like it doesn't ask us to doubt dhamma accordingly a trustworthy source. However, I need to back it up so I'll read the sutra first

The Cūlahatthipadopama Sutta, although speaking of the Tathagata, is pretty neat if understood more broadly. That is, that we must be careful and avoid taking something as true after seeing only some footprints of it, without seeing it.

Is it possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant.
However, to sincerely & vigilantly work towards stream-entry, it is preferable to have the absolute conviction there is no 'reincarnation' (i.e., life after the termination of life) at all because the basic realisations of stream-entry are:
(i) there is no real self (to continue when life ends); and
(ii) all that is subject to arising is subject to cessation.
About 'vigilance', the Buddha's final words were:

Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with vigilance!
Maha-Parinibbana Sutta

The fetter of doubt (vicikicchā) in respect to the teachings (which must be broken for stream-entry) is not related to any perceived (interpreted) teachings about reincarnation. Instead, it is related to the noble or transcendent (lokuttara) teachings, such as the Four Noble Truths & the Three Characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self (which are not about reincarnation).
The Teachings or True Dhamma is described as follows:

The Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless (immediately effective), inviting verification (inspection), pertinent, to be realized (verified) by the wise for themselves.
Sanditthika Sutta: Visible Here-&-Now

If the Pali scriptures are read, there will be no account of stream-entry found based on teachings about reincarnation. Accounts of stream-entry are as follows:

The Blessed One discoursed to him a graduated sermon. He spoke on the subjects of generosity, virtue, the heavens (mental states of happiness), on the
evil consequences, the vanity and the depravity of sensual pleasures,
and on the advantages of renunciation.
When the Blessed One perceived that the mind of Upāli, the householder, was prepared, pliant, free from hindrances, elevated and
lucid, then he revealed to him that exalted doctrine of the Buddhas,
viz. Suffering, its Arising, its Ceasing and the Path.
Just as a clean cloth, free from stain, would take the dye perfectly, even so, to Upāli, the householder, whilst seated in that place, there
arose (in him) the spotless, stainless vision of Truth. He knew:
Whatsoever has causally arisen must inevitably pass utterly away.’
Then Upāli, the householder, having thus, in the Dispensation of the Exalted One seen the Truth; attained to the Truth; comprehended the
Truth, penetrated the Truth, overcome doubt; cast off uncertainty and
gained full confidence without dependence on another.
Upali Sutta

The Pali scriptures, particularly MN 117, state any teaching that infers reincarnation is only a teaching that supports the practise of morality but not liberation; that such a teaching is polluted (by asava; defilements), is not 'noble' & results in attachment/acquisition (upadhi), as follows:

And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents (asava), siding with merit,
resulting in acquisitions [of becoming; upadhi]; there is right view that is
noble, without effluents, transcendent (lokuttara), a factor of the
path.

Stream-entry is a 'noble' attainment therefore can only be attained by following the noble transcendent (lokuttara) teachings, as follows:

Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning,
transcendent (lokuttara), connected with emptiness (sunnata) — are
being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them,
will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how
you should train yourselves.
Ani Sutta

To start the practice of Vipassana you do to believe in the teaching of rebirth if you subscribe to another line of thought:
(1) Nigrodha, you may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to win disciples.’ This is not so.
        Let whoever is your teacher remain as your teacher.
(2) You may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to make us fall from our rules.’ This is not so.
        Let your rules remain as your rules.
(3) You may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to make us fall from our livelihood.’ This is not so.
       Let your livelihood remain as your livelihood.
(4) You may think,
    ‘The recluse Gotama says this to make us do unwholesome things and follow unwholesome teachings.’ This is not so.
       Let what you consider unwholesome continue to be so considered.
(5) You may think,
    The recluse Gotama says this to separate us from wholesome things and wholesome teachings.’ This is not so.
        Let what you consider wholesome continue to be so considered.
—I do not speak for any of these reasons.

Udumbarika Sihanada Sutta
Your belief can be conditioned by contemporary thinking, other religions beliefs or maybe you logical deduction. Holding on to these beliefs generate caving and aversion hence misery so as you practice let go of them and let the right view develop in your mind based on understanding. Every moment rebirth is happening where mind and matter disintegrates and reforms, were taking a new body at death is only a special case or rebirth. Until you understand this these are also view so do not get too attached to it. The Dhamma is Universal hence you do not have even categorise this as Buddha Dhamma, X school dhamma, Y lineage dhamma, Z teacher's dhamma, this view of dhamma, that view of dhamma, this view of reality, that view of reality, this view of truth or that view of truth, this school of thought, that school of thought in which case the efficacy of the universal teaching is lost as it becomes sectarian.1 As the working of Dhamma is Universal regardless of whether you believe in it or not it happens. A person who believe in gravity or and on who does not will, be equally hurt when you fall and hit the ground. The same is true if you label yourself physicist, X_ist, Y_ist or what not.
As iterated before, through you can start without the doubt about rebirth. To progress in the 8 Fold Noble Path, you will have to straighten you view:

And what, bhikshus, is wrong view?
  (It is the view) that ‘there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or
  result of good or evil actions. There is no this world, no next world; there is no mother, no father, there
  are no beings that are reborn, there are no brahmins and recluses who, living rightly and practising
  rightly, having directly known and realized for themselves this world and the hereafter, proclaim them.’

Maha Cattarīsaka Sutta
This does not imply that you cannot practice Vipassana if you hold this view but to progress you have to straighten you view. Also you cannot be completely skeptical about the teaching as then you will not practice in earnest.
The Noble 8 Fold Path being the path to walk to get to stream entry, if you hold on to this view then you cannot reach this goal, though at the start this is not necessary. Even this in stages where faith will be inspired through leaned understanding or wisdom, logical understanding and experientially understanding.

1

Words like Hindu-dharma, Buddhist-dharma or Jain-dharma, were never used in our ancient literature. Other sects came much later, but even when these three were there, nobody used these words.
...
What do these universal characteristics have to do with Hinduism? What have they to do with Buddhism, or Christianity, Islam, Jainism or Sikhism? Fire burns; ice cools. This is a universal law of nature. If fire does not burn itself and others, it cannot be fire. If it is fire, then its characteristic must be to burn itself and to burn others. The dharma of the sun is to give light and heat. If it does not give light and heat, it cannot be the sun. The dharma of the moon is to give a soft, cool light. This is the dharma, the nature of the moon. If it does not do that, it is not the moon.
...
This is a wonderful technique of India. Unfortunately, our country lost it because we lost the real meaning of the word dharma. Now these crutches, these scaffoldings of Hindu-dharma, Buddhist-dharma, Jain-dharma and Muslim-dharma have become predominant for us. When we say Hindu-dharma, then Hindu is predominant for us. Poor Dharma recedes behind the curtain into the darkness. Dharma has no value, because Hindu is more important. When we say Muslim-dharma, Muslim is important. When we say Buddhist-dharma, Buddhist is important; Jain-dharma, Jain is important. It's as if Dharma is not an entity of its own. But what a great entity Dharma is! It is the law of nature, the eternal truth; and we are missing it when we give prominence to these false scaffoldings, crutches. We are forgetting the real essence of Dharma.
...
When someone starts giving importance to Hindu-dharma, he never gives importance to Dharma. Hindu-dharma and all the rites, rituals, ceremonies and appearances become more important for this person. He performs them and feels that he is a very Dharmic person. Similarly, if one gives importance to Muslim-dharma, Sikh-dharma, or Buddhist-dharma, one feels that he is a very Dharmic person.
...
Dharma is nothing but a pure science, a super-science of mind and matter: the interaction of mind and matter, the cross-currents and the under-currents happening deep inside every moment. Things are happening inside every moment, but we remain extroverted, giving importance to things outside.
...

Dharma and Sectarianism by S.N. Goenka, The Gracious Flow of Dharma by S.N. Goenka

I don't find Buddhism to be a faith based practice, so skepticism really diesn't figgure in. Quite the contrary, the greater part of the practice tends to deal with letting go of preconcieved ideas and opening your mind the the possibility of seeing things as they really are.
Preconceptions, blind the mind to truley understanding anything that can not be likened to something that we already know (or think we know).
If you're skeptikal, that may well be the best case senerio. People who are NOT skeptical, are burdened by their preconceptions (not based on experience) of what it is exactly that they claim to believe.
To progress, you need to throw out every single idea about everything you ever thought you knew about anything.

No. The definition of a Sotapatti stream winner is about Lokotthara/Arya Samma Ditti.
You can read and explore further about this in
Samyutta Nikaya - Ditthi Samyutta - Sotapatti Waggo (which are translated here)

All the sutta here explain how people give rise all these doubts through and with the help of Pancha Upadhanakkandha;
Go on to explain their impermanance, hence sorrow, and thus not suitable to assume as me, mine our my soul;.
Followed by explaining who is a Sotapanna.

You might also notice how simple it is to be sotapanna if you strictly adhere to right view (get rid of Sakkaaya Ditti as a first step).

If I am to use the very same words that you used, but to convey the opposite of what you said…. It is NOT possible to maintain certain skeptical doubts about literal reincarnation and continue to work towards stream-entry, even if assuming one's practice is sincere and vigilant. Re-birth is not a concept. It is the truth. So I hope that I will be able to shed some light on Re-birth as only in this acceptance will you be able to go forth towards Stream Entry.
Without knowing about the Buddha’s world view (31 realms of existence and the suffering in the four lower realms) you will not comprehend the “sansaric suffering” as most suffering is incurred when one is born in any of the four lowest realms. To have faith in the Buddha’s world view, one needs to spend some time examining the evidence for it.
Please check out the work of the late Professor Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia who conducted over 20 years of research on the authenticity of rebirth accounts.  Professor Jim Tucker continued on this and you will find several books on rebirth by these two professors. Ex.  “Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation” by Ian Stevenson. Also read “Rebirth as Doctrine and Experience” by Francis Story (2003); first edition 1975). THIS video discusses their work.
In “Soul Survivor: The Reincarnation of a World War II Fighter Pilot”, Bruce and Andrea Leininger detail the story of their son’s recount of a past life. HERE is a ABC News report on the story. HERE you will find another story of the rebirth of a Civil War General.  . HERE is a three-year old chanting Buddhist suttas . Can a three-year old memorize such complex suttas? Check out the lives of other  child prodigies. HERE is a list of child prodigies from Wikipedia.
There are many cases of people remembering past lives when hypnotized. Then there are Out-of-Body Experiences and Near-Death Experiences that you could read about on internet. A living being, upon exhausting the kammic energy for one existence, grabs hold of another strong kammic potential for the next existence. If the energy of that kammic potential is large, the being may be reborn many times in that existence until that kammic energy is exhausted. It is important to remember that in Paticca Samuppada, it is “upadana paccaya bhavo“, i.e., grasping or craving (upadana) that leads to existence (bhava). When the kammic energy for your “bhava” has run out by the time your death occurs, then a new “bhava” will be grasped at the death moment.
In accepting rebirth, and in contemplating on it, when one begins to clearly see why it is not fruitful to stay in “this world” of 31 realms, he/she has understood the true nature, the three characteristics anicca, dukkha, anatta, of “this world”. Almost all of us have mis-understood and mis-interpreted the meaning of these three words - anicca, dukkha, anatta. That is why the True Path is hidden to all of us.