text:
High doubt on Buddhist teaching
I hope you can clarify my doubts:

If one is skeptical concerning enlightenment (because no one besides the Buddha and mysteriously only those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practice Buddhism? The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?
I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermanence is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isn't that true? If you go by that belief it's quite bitter because monks that are long in their business haven't already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?
Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough times due to getting bad karma otherwise?
If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightenment
Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?
What if rebirth truly doesn't exist? The whole point in striving for enlightenment is then pointless.
Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.

It seems to me like you have at least 5 different questions here. Maybe it's good to separate them into individual questions?

Why not just answer a question you could answer? It's better to post several question here than to post 5 different.

For what it's worth, I consider myself a buddhist (sort of), but I don't believe in reincarnation. Also I am not practicing with the specific goal of enlightenment. Admittedly quite paradoxically I think that practicing buddhism with this specific goal (enlightenment) in mind kinda defeats the purpose, as it's just another craving. Also, there is this other painful craving for some kind of logical understanding. Just let these cravings go. Sit. Practice meditation. Show compassion to other beings. Help them in practical ways that make their lives better. Then sit again. Practice. Repeat.

I have reopened the question.

Good honest question, love it. Let me give you an honest answer.

If one is skeptical concerning Enlightenment (because no one besides the Buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism?

Enlightenment is attained by a lot more people than you realize. It's just not advertised for reasons of political correctness and compassion. It's like telling kids there is no Santa Claus - kinda pointless and only hurts the kids.

The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?

This is not how it works. You don't literally "escape impermanence", instead your perception of reality changes in such a way when impermanence no longer matters. Enlightenment is not becoming a Superman. It's more like getting able to see the true nature of "The Matrix". Again, this is not a literal change in how you see stuff, it is a fundamental change of one's mental framework and therefore of one's interpretation.

2 I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermanence is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we can't cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isn't that true? If you go by that belief it's quite bitter because monks that are long in their business haven't already realized Nirvana/Awakening and the chances are high that they won't. So why then believe in Nirvana and Enlightenment?

This seems to be a misunderstanding of the attitude of detachment/revulsion, promoted by Theravada and the lower yanas of Mahayana for the sake of motivating beginners. Accepting Impermanence is not all there is to [Mahayana] Buddhism, far from it. It's more about seeing how things truly work and learning to work with them.

Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale meant to trick people who live poorly to keep quiet in the tough times through fear of getting bad karma otherwise?

There is an element of fairy tale in Buddhism, and there is a real element. And the real element is pretty damn real and mindblowing.

If Enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightened.

It's much more than that, both in the sense of intellectual realization, and in terms of actual personal mastery in real life.

Why does it take so long to become Enlightened if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?

It takes a long time because we have some deeply lying conceptual mistakes about reality, due to which we have accumulated much emotional baggage rooted in those conceptual mistakes, and on top of that we tend to actively fight it when anyone tries to show us our mistakes and delusions. We have all these explanations and rationalizations that we cling to, and they are connected with events in our personal lives, providing support and sustenance to delusion. It's like a tangle of hair made from wrong concepts, emotions, and karma - very difficult to untangle.

What if rebirth truly doesn't exist? The whole point in striving for Enlightenment is then pointless.

Rebirth of individuals does not exist. There is rebirth of information. Because future lives are made from information left by the past lives, Enlightenment is not pointless.

Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.

That is true. Most people are unfortunately pretty closed-minded - not because of a fault of their own or inherent weakness, but (quite counter-intuitively!) out of their best intents. People try to make sense of it all using their logic and common sense, and filter out all nonsense. But because it is so tangled up, it is not always obvious what is nonsense and what is real. Deferring to authority is infinitely easier than trying to make sense of it all by oneself.

Unfortunately this entire Buddhism thing is a mess. It has this extraordinarily valid and useful stuff in its core, lots of confusion around that, and even more fairy tale stuff on the outside. I was very confused by it for decades and suffered a great deal. Now that I got it, the purpose of my life is to help people avoid wandering in the jungle as I did, and go straight to the well. Sometimes when doing this I wonder if by my efforts I only contribute to the jungle, as did my predecessors before me. But alas, I do what I can :))))
Let us know if we can help you here and please don't hesitate to start asking specific questions about Buddhist concepts and their application to real life.

Good to know that you also stumbled a lot on your path. Can you be more precise: Which doctrines do you accept, which not or rather metaphorically. One can undoubtedly interpret rebirth, samsara and nirvana differently but I dont think that the Buddha meant it that way? Though I have heard that the Buddha taught to different people and therefore use concepts like heaven or hell to encourage them to do good rather than bad. Im not sure on the last sentence though.

Can't answer that in a comment, would either be too long or else too simplified. I think... I hope it won't be an overgeneralization to say that I accept all or almost all doctrines of Buddhism, but most of them not in their literal/superficial sense.

Information is not reborn because it doesn't die to begin with.

Sure. You're right but that's nitpicking :) When you start thinking about information... and causation... playing out over time... things get kinda less rigid... So familiar notions like "entities" and "events" become very naive simplifications. Not to mention folksy concepts like birth and death.

Big questions begs for big answers :)
"If one is skeptical concerning enlightment (because no one besides the buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism?"
First a small correction: there are many who, through time, had declared to have reached the same enlightenment that the Buddha declared. The Buddhist tradition (literary and cultural) does talk about past and present arahants, those people who brought the buddhist training to it's conclusion during their lifetime. Speculations about who is arahant is a favorite "past times" of buddhists.
As to the question itself, many people see the benefit of a large number of buddhist practices and assimilate them in their lives even if they don't believe they would get enlightened during their lives. So, I suppose it's a personal choice based on other things, not only in the belief of nirvana "here and now".
"The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?"
Well, bhikkhu Bodhi is not the only bhikkhu ever lived. He is notorious in the west for his scholar work and social engagement. But being notorious, scholar, or engaged have very little to do with how far one is on the path. Besides being notorious, do you think he is a model of accomplishment?
"[...] but impermance is always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the extreme.."
The bitterness understanding of Buddhism is quite unfortunate and buddhists who take that stance often seem to flirt with depression. But I don't think that's a good understanding of the doctrine. See this thread: Buddhism is kind of depressing.
""well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isnt that true?"
I guess if we stick only to genuine motivations that lead people to ordain, than perhaps, yes...it's a decision to be fully dedicated to the way out of suffering -- and, more often than not, to help people as well to ease their own suffering.
"If you go by that belief it's quite bitte because monks that are long in their business havent already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?"
I think it's safe to say most monks are monks in the formal sense: they wear robes, and they are affiliated to a sangha. That says nothing about their day to day. Are they committed to training the doctrine of their own religion, do they even know what these are and how to practice them? Or are they doing something else? I think, more often than not, it is the latter case.
And then, there's another kind of monks, people who are often hard to encounter. And these can be quite special people.
"Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough times due to getting bad karma otherwise?"
It could. Are you sure, though?
"If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencig them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightenment. Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?"
Perhaps a more informative description of Nirvana (arahatship) is the destruction of ten fetters. Studying what they are might give a glimpse on how hard it is to accomplish this goal.

Some Mahayana sects might add a few extra requisites to characterize final liberation.
"What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for enlightement is then pointless."
Maybe enlightenment would be pointless in this case, but would the entire teachings as well? After all, there's this very life still to take care of.
In one of the discourses, the Kālāmas put forward similar questions to the Buddha. While talking to them, the Buddha found the Kālāmas agreeing that good deeds lead to welfare and that bad deeds lead to harm. In other words, that being a good person has benefits in this lifetime. Then, using a hypothetical person who has strived to become greatly virtuous, he offered the following argument:

“This noble disciple, Kālāmas, whose mind is in this way without enmity, without ill will, undefiled, and pure, has won four assurances in this very life.
“The first assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is another world, and if there is the fruit and result of good and bad deeds, it is possible that with the breakup of the body, after death, I will be reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world.’
“The second assurance he has won is this: ‘If there is no other world, and there is no fruit and result of good and bad deeds, still right here, in this very life, I maintain myself in happiness, without enmity and ill will, free of trouble.
“The third assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil comes to one who does evil. Then, when I have no evil intentions toward anyone, how can suffering afflict me, since I do no evil deed?’
“The fourth assurance he has won is this: ‘Suppose evil does not come to one who does evil. Then right here I see myself purified in both respects.’
-- AN 3.65

Basically, he is saying that being virtuous has, at least, benefits here in this very life. And if turns out there are intrinsic harmful effects of evil actions, one won't suffer them because one does not do them. Now, if there is another life after death conditioned by the previous one, the effects of bad actions won't drag one to a suffering realm. So, in essence, being virtuous is a win-win situation.
Notice the Buddha is not asking the Kālāmas to believe rebirth at face value. He is just teaching them to be intelligent with their choices in a situation where they don't have the knowledge to be certain about things they are uncertain.
"Most people and monks dont question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority."
I think there are people who take what the texts and their teachers say as "working hypothesis" and put them to test. There are also people who take them as authority. And there are people who take them as authority and filter out contrary evidence.
Perhaps the majority is in the blind belief side. Then again, for one example, I read it's pretty much the same scenario in the mathematics circles when Bertrand Russell was studying, when no one questioned the foundations of mathematics or saw it's fragility. It was pure blind belief.
Cracking wrong beliefs is not an easy thing, anywhere.

Appreciate your comment Thiago. However, the list about the 10 "to be abandoned fetters" alarmed my bullsh*t sensor. Why? Why is belief in buddha or abandonment of rites the causation of 7 rebirths? Literally, this is pure nonsense. I'm sorry to say it. Buddhism is in this regard in the same way subdued as the western religions. "If you do good and belief you go to heaven, but if not or you do even a single tiny bad thing you will roast in hell". This is distorted black/white thinking... Buddhist talk about objectivity and questioning but they defend their teaching as well out of clinging.

You might get more clarifying responses by posting a new question about  fetters, if you like. As for heaven and hell, that was the point of the passage of the Kalama Sutta: the idea that "being good" has benefits in this very life. Not all buddhists "have faith" in afterlife. As for the remaining remarks, you are, of course, free to judge buddhism and buddhists however you like, and perhaps some individuals you've personally met may fit your criticism, but I don't think your assessments are fair in general, nor are they based on a fair, careful understanding of buddhism.

Firstly, if you look at this answer, even one Arahant cannot recognize another Arahant, so no one can confirm the attainments of another definitively.
Secondly, monks are not allowed by the Vinaya to tell their true attainments to the lay people, but they can tell it to other monks. Monks are not allowed to claim to attain something that they did not (that is, to speak the untruth about attainment), to anybody.
Thirdly, you are not forced to attempt to become enlightened or to try to leave suffering (as defined by the Buddha). You can continue as you were. If you're having a good time in samsara and you're quite satisfied with it, you don't have to feel coerced to let go of it.
Fourthly, there are some Secular Buddhists who say that there is no rebirth. This question of your's is best redirected to them: "What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for enlightement is then pointless."

"Monks are not allowed to lie about their attainments to anybody."  ... And thus, If he would be enlightened he would have said it. Suppose he said he truth (which I believe he did), then he probably wont become enlightened in this life time (suppose). If that's the case, what is the point in living in a monastery. Dont get me wrong. Giving, loving and compassion, doing good deeds are good because they feel good both for you and most of the time for the other as well (if the intention is on point) However, the end goal is liberation from rebirth. Otherwise the dhamma is pointless?

Monks can tell their true attainments to other monks, but not to lay people. However, they cannot claim to attain something that they did not.

1) If one is skeptical concerning enlightment (because no one besides
  the buddha and mysteriously ONLY those people in his time got
  enlightened) does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism? The
  whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned,
  Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized
  enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?

It is true that enlightenment is very rare, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive our best. We all strive to be educated, but there are only few who are exceptional, in the same way, we do our best to maintain our health but there is no one fully perfect and healthy. So, we take courage and try our best to be enlightened if we succeed well and good if not the way itself is blissful.

2) I agree on the whole point concerning anicca, but impermance is
  always used in a bitter way. Yes, we are going to get sick, old and
  then die at the end. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can
  recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why
  loving kindness works. Impermanence is always exploited to the
  extreme.. "well since everything is impermanent I give up on
  everything and better become a monk." Isnt that true? If you go by
  that belief it's quite bitte because monks that are long in their
  business havent already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are
  high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?

anicca /dukkha/anattaa are higher knowledge and should only be approached by a saintly man who is filled with virtue and his disenchantment with anicca should be based on virtue, not fear or indifference as you put it.
I must admit, especially on this platform, there is a huge amount of intellectual discussion about these ideas, but, in my opinion, it's just a smoke and nonsense to most of us because one has to be truly virtuous to meditate on these higher ideals. For example, for a saintly man who lives for the benefit of other who has no desire of his own in this world except fulfilling other peoples desire, for him the idea of anatta is easy to comprehend.

3) Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that
  want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough
  times due to getting bad karma otherwise?

Buddhism is not a fiction and contrary to what you noted the idea of Karma grants the power of what you become in your hand no external things which are independent of your intention (Karma) can affect what you become and this is freedom, the greatest freedom given to man.
Even if it's a fiction as you say, for my part I should like this fiction,  by the aid of which I should live happily and undisturbed. But you must consider for yourselves what you wish.

4)If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and
  experiencing them during meditation then even an "evil" person can
  become enlightenment

As a said above, only a saintly man should contemplate on these three marks of existence. An evil man or even an ordinary man contemplating on these truths will profit noting and will not lead him to enlightenment but confusion.

5)Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about
  seeing the 3 characteristics?

The three marks are said to describe the whole existence, so if it takes half a lifetime to earn mastery of say medicine which is a thin subset of mundane scientific knowledge, understanding the whole of existence will sure take a very long time.

6)What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for
  enlightement is then pointless.

Rebirth is true and there is progress to hope for from this life to the next, but even if it doesn't exist and if we can't achieve enlightenment in this life, the path itself is blissful. We live virtuously, free and  untroubled if we follow the noble eightfold path.

7)Most people and monks don't question every doctrine. They use it as
  Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter
  out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are
  succumbed to an argument of authority.

Well, until you know the truth the best option to follow is what is declared by the all-knower, so faith is needed and filtering out true opinion which leads to knowledge is also needed.

How do you know answer 7?

@Val be courageous and remain inquisitive as you did here and you will know the truth. Volition the ability to discern doesn't get hindered by ignorance, although ignorance prevented it from knowing the correct answer immediately.

The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana. If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to
  have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?

Both in the Buddha's time & today, only a relative few people are able to attain enlightenment; which is the official teaching of Buddhism (refer to Dhammapada 174). Buddhism itself is not deceiving people (although many modern so-called teachers are deceiving people).

"well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and
  better become a monk."

Buddhism does not teach this to all people. For ordinary people who cannot abandon sex & family, due to instinctual drives, urges & fears, Buddhism teaches them to make good kamma so they can go to "heaven" (DN 31).

So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?

Buddhism is not about belief. Buddhism is for people who desperately need to find peace because the world is not an attractive place for them. If you still believe TV, movies, sex, luxury, fancy cars, boats, video games, porn, family, God, Jesus, etc, are attractive, desirable & worthwhile things, enlightenment is probably not for you.

Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough
  times due to getting bad karma otherwise?

Yes, Buddhism is another fairy tale but only for puthujjana (the blind masses). Refer again to Dhammapada 174.

If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencig them during meditation then even an "evil" person can
  become enlightenment

No. An "evil" person cannot even see the 3 characteristics because the mind of an evil person has too many hindrances.

Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?

It doesn't take long. It only takes a long time for ordinary people who have lots of instinctual drives ("hindrances"), such as sexual lust, fear of death & selfishness.

What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for enlightement is then pointless.

Reincarnation is not related to enlightenment. Further, reincarnation does not exist. The only real "re-birth" is the rebirth of thoughts of egoism.

Most people and monks dont question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter
  out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are
  succumbed to an argument of authority.

Thanissaro has done many wrong translations and given many wrong teachings however his PDF internet book called 'Shape of Suffering' is true & real. Buddhism teaches its followers to question every doctrine (AN 3.65; MN 95; MN 38; etc).

On rebirth

The continuity of the self experiencing process may arguably be described as a fabrication, a weaving together of arisings and passings of conditionally determined moments of consciousness, a stream of deaths and (re)births funnelled through stages of becoming by the psycho physical aggregates of the 'experiencer' tightly knit together by the energy of craving. Following that line of thought, the break-up of the body is nothing but a moment of that process, albeit a more noticeable one.
SN 22:100
SN 22:22
Now, about the kammic energy of craving fueling the rebirth process, there is a nice sutta using the metaphor of the jumping off sparkles of a fire that, carried away by the breeze, can ignite another raging fire, even a long way away... But for the life of me, I just can't remember the precise reference right now.
With Mettā

Many of your questions are well-addressed in the Kalama Sutta. The tl;dr of the Sutta is that a group of people, who are overwhelmed many different spiritual paths, ask the Buddha how they should evaluate the truth of one path over another. The Buddha provides a response indicating morality and mindfulness as paths that lead to benefit, regardless of doctrinal differences (e.g. belief in afterlife, etc). Paths of greed and hatred will not be beneficial in this life or in another.
This Sutta also establishes a general principle in Buddhism: we are not expected to believe in doctrines; rather, if we wish to improve the conditions of our lives, the Buddha gives us tools that we can put to the test directly. You don't need to believe in impermanence, rebirth, kamma, nibbana, etc. to practice meditation or live by a moral code. But if you do practice morality and mindfulness, your life will improve precisely because your mind, meaning how you see the world, will have changed fundamentally.
This might answer some of your questions on, e.g. on impermanence: The Buddha teaches that impermanence is a fact of life. Recognizing or rather experiencing this is not about giving up on life; it's about understanding what you can and cannot control in life, which in turn may help you understand what things are truly valuable in life. We learn from this that pursuing money, wealth, and fame, for example, simply cannot lead to true happiness because these things are impermanent, subject to change, and beyond our control. Monks are (possibly) not people who have given up on life, but rather people who have decided to pursue the things in life that really are valuable and within our control, viz. morality and purification of the mind through meditation. Obviously, this is not an easy thing, but no one ever said it would be. Nevertheless, there are so many grades of benefit that moral living and meditation bring, that even one who does not attain nibbana in this life will benefit in the here and now from good conduct.
This also (hopefully) answers many of your other questions: Enlightenment is not just about "academically" or "theoretically" understanding the Four Noble Truths or the Three Characteristics. It is really about incorporating them fully into one's experience of life, which can only be done by personally testing them through moral living and meditation. This is why an "evil" (i.e. immoral) person cannot attain enlightenment; by definition such a person has not really let go of the defilements that prevent us from experiencing these characteristics as a reality.
Happy to clarify where needed.

If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?

There are even lay people who have this attainment friend. Venerable Bhikkhu Bodhi is a good translator, unfortunately he is not famous for his meditation skills or achievements. Which may be plentiful, i would not know as monks are not allowed to claim any.
I read that, The Buddha would not die before he had lay people and monks of both genders firmly established and capable of upholding. So
The monastic community has no monopoly on attainments. If you are looking for attainments look for meditation monks in last 100 years. You can look for lay people too but that is probably impossible to verify in any way as they rarely explain their views and often weird people in general in that group who claims such things among normal people etc

Do you mean by attainment "enlightenment"? You didnt answer my question really.  How do you know that laypeople achieved realization? Just because someone says so or is regarded as an authority person doesnt make it so. Just because one knows the dharma and practises for 30 years there is no proof that they are enlightenment. Actually you can't proof enlightenment and if you cant proof it, believing in rebirth becomes pointless.

read the litterature i suggested, then we can talk more.

1. If one is skeptical concerning enlightment does it then even makes sense to practise Buddhism?
I think it does (make sense): because the Dhamma is meant to be "good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end" (references).
So even if you're skeptical (or unclear) about the end, you might practice the beginning because you understand the beginning as good.
The whole point is to escape impermanence and attain the unconditioned, Nirvana.
Also I'm not sure that enlightenment is the whole point (see Nirvana fallacy).
And I'm not sure that the goal is to escape impermanence ... I think that it (a goal) may be to escape dukkha (i.e. suffering or unsatisfactoriness), and/or to become a better person (or a better teacher).
If monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi even claim not to have realized enlightenment how are lay people going to realize this?
In case it helps, there's a theory of stages of enlightenment ... even a little is better than none (remember, "good in the beginning").
2. Yes we cant cling to experience, but we can recall positive experiences and they change our brain.. this is why loving kindness works.
Yes. Recall (recollection) is important in Buddhism ... including recollection of virtue which is said to be associated with concentration (references here and here and here).
Also on page 82 of this:

Thus, the Commentary notes, a bhikkhu talking to a dying patient should be
  82
  very circumspect in how he chooses his words, focusing not on how to speed up
  the dying process but on how to inspire the patient with the following thoughts:
  “The attainment of the paths and fruitions is not out of the ordinary for a
  virtuous person. So, having formed no attachment for such things as your
  dwelling, and establishing mindfulness in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, or the
  body, you should be heedful in your attention.” The Vinita-vatthu to Pr 4
  contains a number of stories in which bhikkhus comfort a dying bhikkhu by
  asking him to reflect on what he has attained through the practice, which was
  apparently a common way of encouraging a dying bhikkhu to focus his
  thoughts on the best object possible. The suttas also contain advice on how to
  encourage patients facing death. See, for example, MN 143, SN 36.7, and AN 6.16.
  In all of these cases, the advice is aimed not at precipitating death but at inspiring
  calm and insight.

"well since everything is impermanent I give up on everything and better become a monk." Isnt that true?
Maybe not true. For a start, there is a place for lay people in Buddhism ... I presume a majority of Buddhists are lay people ... though in some Buddhist countries, I think a majority of lay people have become monks temporarily (reference).
Also I think you don't "give up everything" ... instead perhaps you "take on" the Noble Eightfold Path ... or "take refuge" (also known as "go for refuge").
If you go by that belief it's quite bitte because monks that are long in their business havent already realized nirvana/awakening and the chances are high that they wont. So why then belief in Nirvana and Enlightenment?
Perhaps because you have belief in the Buddha and the Dhamma too, and because what you know of the Dhamma (in "the beginning" and/or "the middle") makes sense to you, agrees with your experience).
3. Couldn't it be the case that Buddhism is just another fairy tale that want's to trick people, to live poorly and to keep quiet in tough times due to getting bad karma otherwise?
Yes and no?
Published characteristics of the Dhamma are:

Svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo:
  sandiṭṭhiko akāliko
  ehipassiko opaneyyiko
  paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī ti.
The Dhamma is well declared by the Bhagavā:
  visible here and now, immediate,
  inviting to come and see, effective,
  to be individually ascertained by the wise.

In other words I think you're supposed to understand it, make sense of it, use it, not just believe it.
4. If enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics and experiencig them during meditation then even an "evil" person can become enlightenment.
I'm not sure that enlightenment is just about grasping the 3 characteristics. I think it's more about the (two or) three poisons, the ten fetters, and so on -- see also Buddhist Paths to liberation.
5. Why does it take so long to become enlightenment if it is just about seeing the 3 characteristics?
That reminds me of this sutta:

If that's so, Master Ananda, then it's an endless path, and not one with an end ...

Another theory is that some (or many, or all) people only have to reattain an enlightenment which has already occurred.
Another theory is that cessation happens frequently; but there's "rebirth" (of, for example, a sense-of-self etc.), and what takes a while is practice which allows those "births" to cease.
6. What if rebirth truly doesnt exist? The whole point in striving for enlightement is then pointless.
Some people reckon it's important for (during) this life.
7. Most people and monks dont question every doctrine. They use it as Thanissaro Bhikkhu said as a "working hypothesis" and therefore filter out any contrary evidence. What I mean by this is that they are succumbed to an argument of authority.
If I can try to think of an example, think of two different bits of doctrine:

"The noble truths"
The first two or three noble truths sound plausible to me ... relevant, important, accurate ... and so, I think, let's take that as a "working hypothesis" and find out more about that.
"Arahants can fly"
Conversely "arahants can fly" is a bit different ... I don't know what to do with that doctrine, how to make use of it ... I don't want to question it, exactly, but it's not a bit of doctrine that I try to use ... even though I don't question it, I don't think it's right to say that I have "succumbed to an argument of authority". Instead it's a subject I'm agnostic about i.e. something which I literally don't know about.

I think one does sometimes see people expressing a bit of scepticism about this and that; or saying that they take a non-literal interpretation of so-and-so.
A lot of people though may be reluctant to get into big arguments about doctrine ... it might seem like they "succumb" quietly (by not arguing) but I might interpret that instead as people quietly making way.

Let my person "answer" with a counterquestion: Does sceptic gives any lasting release and how - for sure such times can remembered - doesn't faith and vision gives more to hold on and to not let oneself fall into a meaningless hole with all it's effects afterwards? At least, here what could be lost aside of rebirth while not living a visionless death life? Who ever could give such a "money back guarantee"?

"So it is, Blessed One. So it is, O One Well-gone. One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires four assurances in the here-&-now:
"'If there is a world after death, if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world.' This is the first assurance he acquires.
"'But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.' This is the second assurance he acquires.
"'If evil is done through acting, still I have willed no evil for anyone. Having done no evil action, from where will suffering touch me?' This is the third assurance he acquires.
"'But if no evil is done through acting, then I can assume myself pure in both ways.' This is the fourth assurance he acquires.
"One who is a disciple of the noble ones — his mind thus free from hostility, free from ill will, undefiled, & pure — acquires these four assurances in the here-&-now.
To the Kalamas

Following just that much, associating with people of firm convidence, one arives at doubtlessness naturally. Is there any reasonable argument not to seek and associate with skillful deeds and those firm with it?
So the famous Mangala-Sutta starts not out of reason with the root condition of being really blessed:

Not consorting with fools,
  consorting with the wise,
  paying homage to those worthy of homage:
      This is the highest protection.

One in doubt seeking for an end of doubt may always feel welcome and give it a challenge for release. It's not the case that the Buddha did not invite to test and give him, his Dhamma and the Sangha a challenge or good prove. But it's not the case that there will be sacrifices of that without duties for the sake of resist in the middle of doubt.
So even seeking for a firm vision is ones personal choice, ones personal sacrify, ones personal giving for a better "gain".
First Things First and Respect, Confidence and Patient are by the way two useful talk if that much sacrify and devotion, giving, can be given to be able to take.
If associating with those of doubt, approaching and asking "fools", honor what actually does not hold to be worthy of being honored, how can unshakable confidence, such based on "when you know for yourselves" be ever expected? How can security be found if no refuge is taken? And again: how does doubt feel?
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other low trades and exchange for the world.]

The purpose of buddhist practice is to put a end to dukkha (a.k.a. suffering, stress, unhappiness, discontentment). Full enlightenment is the culmination of this practice. Knowing that every sentient being has interest in live at ease free from dukkha as much as possible, even if you can't attain full enlightenment, reducing dukkha will increase peace and contentment, so the practice still profitable.
If you train the mind appropriately, renunciation is blissful

Ud 2.10
  [The Buddha:] "Is it true, Bhaddiya that, on going to a
  forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, you repeatedly
  exclaim, 'What bliss! What bliss!'?"
[Ven. Bhaddiya:] "Yes, lord."
"What meaning do you have in mind that you repeatedly exclaim, 'What
  bliss! What bliss!'?"
"Before, when I was a householder, maintaining the bliss of kingship,
  I had guards posted within and without the royal apartments, within
  and without the city, within and without the countryside. But even
  though I was thus guarded, thus protected, I dwelled in fear —
  agitated, distrustful, and afraid. But now, on going alone to a
  forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, I dwell
  without fear, unagitated, confident, and unafraid — unconcerned,
  unruffled, my wants satisfied, with my mind like a wild deer. This is
  the meaning I have in mind that I repeatedly exclaim, 'What bliss!
  What bliss!'"

Renunciation is contrary to popular opinion because lay people live their lives indulging in worldly sense pleasures. But the sense pleasures are not inherently atractive, its apparent attractiveness actually is conditioned by the mind and its concomitants through giving attention only to the brief agreable aspect of the of the sense experiences and being unaware of the disagreeable aspect.

MN 149
"For him — infatuated, attached, confused, not remaining
  focused on their drawbacks — the five clinging-aggregates head toward
  future accumulation. The craving that makes for further becoming —
  accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now this & now that —
  grows within him. His bodily disturbances & mental disturbances grow.
  His bodily torments & mental torments grow. His bodily distresses &
  mental distresses grow. He is sensitive both to bodily stress & mental
  stress."

As the Buddha investigate the nature of dukkha, he did the opposite:

AN 9.41
"So it is, Ananda. So it is. Even I myself, before
  my Awakening, when I was still an unawakened Bodhisatta, thought:
  'Renunciation is good. Seclusion is good.' But my heart didn't leap up
  at renunciation, didn't grow confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it
  as peace. The thought occurred to me: 'What is the cause, what is the
  reason, why my heart doesn't leap up at renunciation, doesn't grow
  confident, steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace?' Then the thought
  occurred to me: 'I haven't seen the drawback of sensual pleasures; I
  haven't pursued [that theme]. I haven't understood the reward of
  renunciation; I haven't familiarized myself with it. That's why my
  heart doesn't leap up at renunciation, doesn't grow confident,
  steadfast, or firm, seeing it as peace."

He find out that the pursue of the wordly sense pleasures is inevitably entangled with a mass of dukkha and as he meditates further, he became gradually and naturally disenchanted with them.

SN 56.31
"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is
  the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This
  is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is
  what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they
  are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life,
  and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
  direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have
  taught them."

This means that those monks whom renounce and practice properly will not bitter for had renounced to lay life because they will naturally lose interest in worldly sense pleasure and stay satisfied.

It seems that you distrust the Buddha's teachings because (maybe) you lack understanding and familiarity towards the mechanics of the mind.
It can't because a evil person is highly passionate for sense pleasures to the point of harm other beings.
I think it takes more than just "seeing the 3 characteristics", the Buddha teaches a gradual training.
If there is no rebirth, enlightenment still worth as unconditional peace, contentment, freedom and fearlessness in this life.
At the end of the day, the subjects that really matters are those which have pratical implications in our lives and the range of the problem of dukkha encompass all our live (from birth to death), so the resolution of this problem is what really will determine our happiness or unhappiness. Worrying about "not succumbed to an argument of authority" is just another form of craving for sense pleasure of self-identification entangled with dukkha. As long as you make the right questions to evaluate your deeds by mind, body and speech everything will be alright.

Do they (the deeds) lead to stress and suffering, or to the end of
  stress and suffering?
If they lead to stress, are they necessary?
If not, why do them again?
If they lead to the end of stress, how can you master them as skills?
                       With each & Every Breath by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

These are the questions that really has pratical implications in our lives. Belief in rebirth is harmless and it may actually propel the practice to end suferring, if it is not appealing to you, just put it aside for now.


text:
Can humiliation be liberation?
Do you think that pointing out ego fixations publically serves to free students of their egos? What do you think are the advantages, and drawbacks of this teaching method? Why do you think it works or does not work? In more ancient times, it was very common for aspirants to be repetitively humbled by teachers, in an attempt to free them of ego attachment. That is a less common tactic nowadays, but I have seen it still show up occasionally. I had two experiences in which a teacher has pointed out my ego fixations in front of a group, leaving me to feel humiliated. The first time it happened I ended up more cemented in my own suffering. The second time I was able, later in my own meditation, to take a perspective on the experience and see how my false-self was keeping me stuck in fixation.  Now I find myself standing more firmly in my own truth, but less confident in the teaching I was given. Does anyone have a similar experience?

Do you think that pointing out ego fixations publicly serves to free students of their egos?

In general, no. To me, it is cultish behaviour.

What do you think are the advantages, and drawbacks of this teaching
  method?

No general advantages. Probably some drawbacks, such as making the student project ego onto the guru. The student that cannot free the mind from ego will abandon their ego & take up the ego of the guru.

Why do you think it works or does not work?

The Buddha, according to the Pali suttas, simply pointed the way/path & the student went off & practised alone. The capacity to give up ego can only occur in a mind ready & prepared for it.

In more ancient times, it was very common for aspirants to be repetitively humbled by teachers, in an attempt to free them of ego
  attachment.

Possibly in Hinduism, Mahayana or Zen but I do not recall reading this as something that commonly occurred in the ancient Pali suttas. While I have read public admonishments in the Pali suttas by the Buddha for monks publicly preaching wrong views (e.g. MN 22; MN 38), I don't not recall many of these public admonishments leading to enlightenment (although there might be some, somewhere). For example, in SN 22.85, Venerable Yamaka was publicly preaching wrong views and the Venerable Sāriputta approached Venerable Yamaka, in private, addressing Venerable Yamaka as "friend", to rectify the wrong views, which resulted in Venerable Yamaka attaining enlightenment.

I had two experiences in which a teacher has pointed out my ego fixations in front of a group, leaving me to feel humiliated.

Indeed.

The first time it happened I ended up more cemented in my own
  suffering.

Indeed.

The second time I was able, later in my own meditation, to take a perspective on the experience and see how my false-self was keeping me
  stuck in fixation.

Yes, in your own meditation. If the teacher gently pointed out the ego-fixation in private, the same result may have occurred. I think public humiliations give a bad example to students. Often students imitate their teachers.

Now I find myself standing more firmly in my own truth, but less confident in the teaching I was given. Does anyone have a similar
  experience?

Yes. Teachers can disappoint us when they do not act with the virtue & care we expect however this gives us an opportunity to be more firm & mature in our own virtue & care. Even if a public humiliation resulted in your mind eventually abandoning 'false-self', this does not mean you should engage in this cultish behaviour.

Thank you for your answer. This is very interesting and appropriate. The term "cult" never occurred to me, but I see how this is a dynamic that goes on in such circumstances. This teacher is definitely not a cult figure, but I do see how she has internalized some institutional pathology.

Also, I want to say that I completely agree with you about not engaging in this behavior! (I am resisting the urge to add 10 more exclamation points)

Here's another perspective.
My core practice and a teaching that got me into Buddhism was radical annihilation of ego. I suppose normally it is considered an advanced practice but that's what I got from day one. Murder the ego.
No egoistic thoughts were allowed, no defending self, no saving face, no looking better, no emotional revenge, no congratulating oneself on achievements, no feeling superior - none of that stuff that normal people do to feel themselves strong and whole was allowed in my life. Don't ask why.
In the hindsight I'm not sure I wish anyone go through that, but I must admit it was very effective. Having no room for ego takes away the clear goal behind all decision making, and forces oneself to always try and evaluate everything from different perspectives. It requires one to always try and be perfect, without ever feeling entitled to own position.
Traditionally, ego is considered the biggest obstacle to Enlightenment. Not because accepting anatta is some sort of requirement. Not even because un-identifying with "I" removes the context in which death could apply. It is mostly because ego is the very tangle of attachments and illusions that we are trying to liberate from. The act of maintaining a consistently flat social image is the opposite of opening to one's true multidimensional nature.
So when Buddhist teachers shatter one's social image, they only do one a service, by helping destroy that which holds one down like an anchor.
Now, I don't say it's not painful. But you have to understand that pain and humiliation is not the point. It's not that ego is killed by making one look bad or feel bad in front of others, that's just a side effect. Ego is murdered by shattering it's consistent model of the world (and by implication, consistent idea of oneself as a person, cuz the two are related like mirror and its reflection).
Those models cannot always be explained away. Oftentimes the teacher does not have time or energy or conceptual vocabulary to deconstruct one's illusions step by step. It could take years, like it does sometimes with therapists you know.  Instead, Buddhist teachers take karmic responsibility for playing a tribal surgeon and causing much pain, with the hope of helping one break out of the box.
So please, focus on your model of the world and image of self, and not on humiliation. Feeling offended will only serve to lock you in your own prison. The more someone gets enlightened, the more difficult they are to offend or humiliate, because they get so round and fluid that there's nothing to grasp them by. Enlightened people are so down to earth and no nonsense, and can navigate situations so well, that they are never even in a position when they can be embarrassed, because they don't get attached, they don't fight themselves into a corner. In this sense they seem like the simplest and most normal people you ever met. Authentic and comfortable in their own skin, regardless of circumstances.
Why don't we try to imitate that rather than getting offended?

Very interesting thoughts. This gives me another way to consider the situation.

And if you have written anything about your journey to ego annihilation, I would be interested to read it.

The first comment sounds like passive aggressive way to say you found my thoughts disagreeable ;) For the second part, no I'm not normaly in the habit of talking about my dear self, and I think I said enough already.

:D Since I read your comment I have been trying on the perspective of going willingly toward ego annihilation. I discovered that my ego is guarded by cosmic terror--that is why I asked about your story. I was curious if you had experienced the same thing. But I understand everyone's journey is their own.

Try "Cutting through Spiritual Materialism". I don't remember if it's really that good, I read it 20 years ago, but that's what got me started on annihilation of ego.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Usefulness of Madhyamaka to personal practice?
In my opinion, the Sutta Pitaka and Mahayana Agamas (the Mahayana equivalent of the Pali suttas) discuss the nature of the self (anatta, empty of self, dependent arising) in such a way that it is useful to the path towards liberation from suffering (such as overcoming self-view or sakkāya-diṭṭhi).
Meanwhile, the Sutta Pitaka and Mahayana Agamas (the Mahayana equivalent of the Pali suttas) do not discuss the nature of other non-sentient things (e.g. a chair, the universe, atoms, five aggregates), beyond noting that other things are conditioned (sankhara) and impermanent (anicca).
On the other hand, Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka seems to have expanded on these concepts to cover the nature of all reality (empty of inherent nature / svabhava, dependent arising, dependent designation). On top of this, Madhyamaka also posits that emptiness itself is empty of inherent nature.
To a non-Mādhyamika practitioner, Madhyamaka's discussion on the nature of all reality may appear to be an exposition on the "poisoned arrow". That is to say, it is not useful to the path towards liberation from suffering. Some might even say that the nature of all reality falls under the fourth imponderable (Acintita Sutta).
From a Mādhyamika practitioner's perspective, how is Madhyamaka useful to the path towards liberation from suffering? How is it useful to personal practice?
This should not be seen as negative criticism towards Madhyamaka. Rather, I seek to understand its usefulness to personal practice.

Madhyamika posits that both persons and phenomena (i.e. phenomena other than persons) are empty of true existence. While traditional text do not mention the emptiness of chairs, table, etc. They do say that persons and phenomena [other than persons] are empty of true existence. The Heart Sutra says:

Phenomena also are empty.

This citation means that both persons and phenomena are empty of true existence. Thus, it is not true that "Mahayana Agamas do not discuss the nature of other non-sentient things".
In his Commentary on Aryadeva’s Four Hundred, Chandrakirti says:

Through the division of phenomena and persons [selflessness] is understood as twofold, “a selflessness of phenomena and a selflessness of persons.”

In addition, traditional Mahayana texts explicitly posits that phenomena one encounters and "deal with" on the path to enlightenment are empty. For instance, the objects of abandonment are empty, nirvana and samsara are empty, afflictions are empty, minds are empty, and so forth. Why? This is because while our misconception of the nature of a cup is not that which binds us in samsara, seeing the afflictions, etc. the way they exist is most relevant.
phenomena the way they exist is relevant, while it is not so much our misconception of the nature of a table that binds us in samsara.
Nagarjuna’s Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness says:

Compositional activity is caused by afflictive emotions.
   The afflictive emotions that motivate actions have a nature of [contaminated] actions.
  The body is caused by [contaminated] actions.
  All three are empty of inherent existence

The types of phenomena of which emptiness is usually emphasized, though, are the aggregates. According to Madhyamika tenets, one cannot obtain even the path of seeing without directly realizing both the emptiness of person and that of phenomena [simultaneously]. Here, phenomena refers to the aggregates.
In Precious Garland, Nagarjuna says:

As long as conception of the aggregates exists,
  So long is there conception of an I in them.

This is because we posit that the conception of self of person is based on the conception of self of phenomena, and that it is not possibly to eradicate one [ignorance] without eradicating the other.

When I wrote Mahayana Agamas, I meant the equivalent of the Pali Suttas, not the Heart Sutra, Avatamsaka Sutra, Prajnaparamita Sutra etc. This is a very good answer, especially this excerpt: "As long as conception of the aggregates exists, So long is there conception of an I in them."

Sorry for having mistaken what you meant with "Mahayana Agamas", a polysemic expression. I might rephrase my answer a little, but Madhyamika is exclusively based on the Prajnaparamita sutras (they are 17 and the Heart Sutra is one of them).

How is Madhyamaka useful on the path towards liberation from suffering?

The traditional answer in Tibetan Mahayana (esp. in Gelug) is that for certain personality types, Liberation from suffering requires deep intellectual understanding of, and liberation from, one's own conceptual obscurations (kleshas).
In other words, some people are just not satisfied by a simple statement like "there is no self or core in anything", they need to really see it in detail before they can internalize it and therefore let go of grasping. So Madhyamaka systematically shows examples of this statement and analyses them in great detail, until the person is not only convinced, but his/her very vision of life in all its aspects changes in light of this deep realization.
In my own practice, I started getting first glimpses of what "corelessness" could mean way before I officially studied Madhyamaka, picking it up from casual remarks from teachers and books. I must say, seeing how deep the habit of reification goes in everything we humans do, has changed my perspective and attitude dramatically. Nearly every frustration we face in our personal lives as well as in our public social discourse, can be traced to, or is made difficult by, mistaken reification somewhere up the chain.
Buddha himself said:

He who sees Dependent Co-Arising, sees the Dharma.

And Nagarjuna explains that Dependent Co-Arising refers not to the regular causation, but to the logically relative and context-dependent nature of all experienced phenomena.

“It is Dependent Co-Arising
  Is what we call Emptiness.
  Understanding this point
  Is walking the Middle Way.”

Now, some schools of Buddhism, such as Zen and some lineages of Nyingma, do not really emphasize philosophical analysis of Emptiness. Instead, they get you to an intuitive vision of the same, through practical examples in one's immediate life. So in the traditional Buddhism, Madhyamaka had its niche as special medicine for intellectual types.
However, the world nowadays is a lot more sophisticated than it was ~2600 years ago, or even just 200 years ago. We live in a realm of concepts to a lot greater degree than we used to back in the Buddha's times. So not understanding the major flaw and danger of the deepest perceptual/interpretative assumptions that our entire civilization is built upon, puts us in a very weak position as far as getting deluded and losing the way.
So in my opinion, solid understanding of Emptiness is a broad requirement in this new era, critical for helping the common people not just be less attached and more open-minded, but most importantly to obtain a much needed immunity to manipulations by non-human forms of existence - the conflict of interests that is only beginning to unfold.

So the Gelug approach is like "top-down", while the Zen approach is like "bottom-up"? Top-down and bottom-up

You can say that, sure. Generally speaking Gelug is  pro-intellectual and Zen is pro-directly-pointing-out but there are different approaches within each.

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


text:
A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are?
Samadhi Sutta
(Concentration)
[Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.]
“Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are present...
Is this an accurate translation of this part of the sutta? Isn't seeing things as they are mindfulness territory or mindfulness and concentration territory?
My understanding is that a  strongly concentrated monk usually focuses on concepts not actual reality. When one concentrates on reality as it is(reality without concepts) then it's difficult to get strong concentration but when one concentrates on a concept that doesn't move around and is more stable than actual impermanent reality then the concentrated monk can reach those great blissful jhana states.
Only meditation of reality will lead one to the understanding of reality or panna.
I don't know but it kinda  sounds like this translation is implying that concentration always shows one reality as it actually is but usually, concentration meditation involves one pointed attention on one concept not reality as it is.
The kind of concentration that is usually used for "seeing things as they are" is khanika samadhi or momentary concentration. This kind of concentration is used in Satipathana Vipassana meditation. It's like one pointed concentration only when a distraction comes, the distraction becomes the new focus until the distraction falls then it's back to the original focus that is often the sensation  breath as it happens, moment by moment.

To really understand the terminology, you would need to study the Abhidharma. There is a recent book by Beth Jacobs about that, I have just begun reading it.

I'm not sure what you're asking -- are you asking whether it's correct to translate samadhi as "concentration"? Or, asking whether it's normal for a sutta to associate yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti with  samadhi?

Some would argue that a  concentrated monk does not discern things as they actually are present because of concentration.

A strongly concentrated monk usually discerns concepts not actual reality. When one concentrates on reality as it is(reality without concepts) then it is difficult to get strong concentration but when one concentrates on a concept that doesn't move around and is more stable than actual impermanent reality then the concentrated monk can reach those great blissful jhana states. Only meditation of reality will lead one to the understanding of reality or panna.

You are making a dualism v. non-dualism argument while at the same time using both dualism and non-dualism to support your premise.  I venture that the source of your cognitive dissonance over the sutta (extract) is that you have paused where you should have continued study.  If you are going to hold to one position then you need the context offered by the "Group" of discourses presented in the Salayatana Vagga.  If you are going to hold to another position then you need to shift over to the parallel suttas (MN 52; SN 22:5; AN 3:74; AN 4:41; AN 5:28; AN 9:36).

Sounds interesting, could you please elaborate?

@Wermske Please post an answer instead of a comment.

Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are present.
Samādhiṃ, bhikkhave, bhāvetha. Samāhito, bhikkhave, bhikkhu yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti

Seeing things (pajānāti) is the terrority of wisdom (panna indriya), similar to seeing the signs, traffic, bends, dangers & safety in a road while driving a motor car in the rain.
Concentration is the mind undistracted & clear; similar to the clear windscreen of a car in the rain.
Mindfulness remembers to keep the mind undistracted & clear; similar to the windscreen wipers of a car constantly moving back & forth, keeping water off the windscreen of a motor car in the rain.
Mindfulness does not engage in 'seeing things'. The word 'sati' ('mindfulness') means 'to remember'; 'to bring to & keep in mind' (refer to MN 117).
The false idea that mindfulness 'perceives', 'sees' or is 'bare awareness' is possibly the greatest error in Buddhism, made by many notable mass-market 'teachers', including Ajahn Brahm, Henepola Gunaratana, Bhikkhu Yutadhammo & Joseph Goldstein.
Ajahn Jayasaro provides a correct explanation of mindfulness in this short video.

Where do those teachers teach that false idea or have a market? When by concentration one is absorbed into a kasina, that is seeing things as they actually are?

You can ignore the question but your always so eager to answer questions with technical brilliance that you got to have something to say. Ignoring is not in line with truth , is it? It's not nice. If I have ever done it, it's because I am not perfect.

That's how those teachers teach. http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/mindfulness_in_plain_english_15.php

Where? You expect me to read Bhante G's book? You made the claim, I know all the other teachers but not Bhante G.

Maybe it's just me but this issue seems important because if you are right then a lot of western Buddhists are wrong and spreading wrong Buddhism. I hope your mistaken but  I would hope I would be delighted when I learn something new or I am redirected from going the wrong way.  I could try to find examples of what you mean and I hope it's just a misunderstanding. I appreciate you being real to what you believe or know and not pulling any punches, that is in line with truth.

I'm here burning the mid-night oil for the bounty!! :))))
Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the corresponding Agama Text, else it would be more clear, to me at least.
However, Samadhi normally remained as "Samadhi" (三昧/三摩地) in Chinese, not translated, despite the rich knowledge of meditation inherited from the Daoist understanding what's going on in the mind and body. I very doubted if "concentration" can capture all the intrinsic meanings of Samadhi.
Samadhi is a state of mind. This state of mind is not working on the ordinary intellect level. If one able to abide in Samadhi, he knows things not via his five senses, nor by his thinking. He just simply knows it. I had the experience when 1st time trying out meditation (of course Mahayana style!) that inferred to my understanding of samadhi. It was a 12 days intensive retreat, we did all day Dynamic Meditation in a dark room... but it was bright. It gave me idea that correct meditation was to induce different state of mind... to access higher dimension. The desirable state of mind should be cultivated is Samadhi; a mind so bright that it knows thing as it is directly.
Now it seems you concerned that meditation as concentration needed to concentrate on a concept, yet how concentrating on a concept that will arrive at "seeing things as they are", for concept an abstract, not reality. This is unnecessary. I suggest you emptied all those jargons dumped by those "teachers" in your mind. A concept is just a tool for you to focus, like a rubbish bin for collecting rubbishes (interfering-thoughts). Finally you should throw away the rubbish bin too! Then you will be able to access the deeper mind. It's also like a lake, when there are six rivers filling the lake, they create ripples, can't reflect the clear image of the sky. If the rivers emptied (one concept), no ripples, clear image - seeing things as they are. So using one concept to remove all conceptions (fetters, chit-chats, thoughts...), like using a wedge to get out another wedge stuck in the hole (以幻修真). To understand the above more properly, I'm afraid you will need to have knowledge on Yogacara.
Those who never experienced the "bright mind" in meditation, I'm afraid unlikely these graduated from the primary school, no matter how many 20-30 years they meditated. Likely their method is incorrect, else how come spending decades but not arriving at anywhere? Some people don't like this truth, but the Sutta-nikaya suitable for Bhikkhus only, just like notes dropped in a lecture, the complete instructions not written down... Still those "scientists", a supposed intelligent mind is not necessarily more conducive to meditation, in fact a hindrance. Simply, Samadhi is not abiding on the intellectual mind. Neither Ariya Jhana is anything more "advance" in the wisdom cultivation sense, for Ariya Jhana just a static state of mind. Why don't these people understand it but sending out "troops" to proclaim (if it's even real, or violating the precept of falsely claiming attainment?) to allure others? Because they don't have Nagarjuna and his treatises to teach them the correct understanding of meditation :D.

I agree. It seems that every person arrives at insight / realization / calm abiding etc differently. I think some people are predisposed and have similar experiences throughout life, others not, and they will have a harder time getting to an awareness beyond concepts and discursive thought. So, methods are just "It worked for me!" and not much more, like weigh loss methods or anything else. Beware what you buy in to.

My father had a sign on his desk at work that said: "There is no reason, it is just our policy." So I do not try to explain anymore. I am a terrible student too :)

;)) @nocomprende

(...) good one, nocomprende, methods are just "It worked for me!" :). i don't believe any experts/ professionals/ "teachers"... most time i'm a terrible bad student. we have "assets" (good+bad) inherited before we born here, else how could we explain the unexplainable?

It is all "Multi-Level Marketing" - a big pyramid scheme.

i had severe headache so i deleted part from my comment above @nocomprende ;). we are codifying... i understood your "Multi-level Marketing", all "marketing" going on. i would appreciate much rumbling more with you... adding my new twitter account to the profile not sure if that help?

You may also use a chat room to chat.

In this context Samadhi stands for "meditation". So a better translation of that passage would be:

Cultivate meditation, monks. One who meditates gets clear vision into the nature of things as they really are.

Or as my teacher said, "in order to have clarity you need to sit".
Here "as they really are" does not mean the raw appearance which Theravada tradition emphasizes so much, it means how things work at a deeper level, that can only be seen with the wisdom eye, not with the regular sight.

I once translated the Bible verse "Where there is no vision, the people perish" as this: When people don't meditate, they become materialistic.

Sometimes things mean more than one thing.

A concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are…
Lets try to understand the importance of a concentrated mind.  A mind that is not concentrated creates a lot of heat. A defiled or wayward mind creates actions that lead to “heat” or “thäpa” in us in the longer term. Long after that “initial satisfaction” gained by such actions, if for instance it is one of aversion, one will be “burning inside” for long times, even if one does not realize that. Removal of this thäpa or “fire” in us is what is meant by the phrase “athäpi sampajano” in the Satipattana Sutta. That will in the case of aversion, help reduce our tendency get “worked up” at the slightest provocation, i.e., to change our 'gathi' in the right direction.
Just as angry thoughts unleash a high degree of heat which results in feelings filled with suffering, when the mind attains the state of Samadhi (concentration), the mind releases low intense heat, resulting in peaceful, happy feelings. What is important in this state of mind is the clarity of mind. Such a state helps to cultivate a clear, unbiased mind. The mind maintains an unbiased, calm state which is devoid of attachment and hostility. In other words, this is the state of Samadhi (concentration) which gives rise to a clear vision. A concentrated person is able to view the truth, depending on the degree of wisdom gained by Samadhi.
Let us take for example, a concentrated person (meditator) practicing dhatu manasikara (reflection of elements). When this is practiced in a practical way, a meditator ought to have developed a stable mental state where he could perceive his respiration very clearly. In other words, the meditator needs a strong Samadhi (concentration) to accomplish the practice of dhatu manasikara.
The meditator who contemplates the mental phenomena with a strong mindfulness based on Samadhi, would perceive the changes in the mind on the basis of ‘dhatu manasikara’. Accordingly, the meditator perceives two types of consciousness within the mind. First is the consciousness produced as a result of amplification of ‘pathavi’ effect. Second is the consciousness produced by diminishing effect of ‘pathavi’ element. The mediator keeps identifying and analyzing these two types of consciousness during the course of the dhatu manasikara practice. Now, this is his primary aspect of meditation.
The meditator who experiences a blissful mental state, now, begins to catch the first glimpse of the transient nature (anicca) of the mind, the inability to maintain anything to ones liking, the repeated arising/destruction of all things, and thus the  worthlessness of worldly things. He begins to observe the changes that take place even in the blissful mental states.
He perceives slight differences of bliss he experiences during Samadhi states which give rise to the understanding of the characteristic of dhukka (altering the current state and transforming to a different state) inherent even in blissful mental states. Thus, a meditator begins to realize, for the first time, the characteristics of anicca the transient nature and the inability to maintain anything to ones liking, dukkha (alter & transform nature) and anatta (no-self) as one who is trying to find refuge in this world will become truly helpless in the long run. This is first hand wisdom that one gains when one is concentrated and through the reflection of one’s mind.
This is the positive outcome or gain that a meditator achieves through the practice of dhatu manasikara while in a concentrated state of mind. Mere discussions aimed at the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta or reciting the nature of anicca, dukkha, and anatta would not bring any fruitful benefits to an individual. One needs to realize the nature and characteristics pertaining to anicca, dukkha and anatta through a direct reflection of one’s mind based on the meditation techniques prescribed by the Buddha while in a concentrated state of mind. That is the only approach for an individual to attain Nibbana.

I was taught that you do not get wisdom from just  clarity of mind (Samadhi). You get wisdom from "seeing things as they are"(Panna) supported by khanika Samadhi.  Would you agree?

We must always have the momentary mindfulness or khanika samadhi. But this is the lesser of the 3 types of samadhi, and is not considered a formal meditation. Access concentration (uapacara samadhi) is more focused, such as when listening to a Dhamma discourse or reading about a Dhamma concept. What is most important is the appana samadhi or absorption in mindfulness that can lead to a jhanic state with practice. The focus should always be a Dhamma concept or Nibbana itself, such as when one comprehends anicca, dukkha, anatta. To be mindful is easier if the five hindrances are not there.

It is an accurate translation.
Concentration is needed to achieve mindfulness.
Thus, it makes sense saying "a concentrated monk discerns things as they actually are present".
A mindful monk, must be concentrated. There is no other way. Only a very concentrated monk can be mindful enough to discerns things as they actually are present.
Maybe study more the difference between the word sati (translated as mindfulness) and samadhi (translated as concentration):
https://palidictionary.appspot.com/browse/s/sati

"Now what is concentration, lady, what qualities are its themes, what
  qualities are its requisites, and what is its development?"
"Singleness of mind is concentration, friend Visakha; the four frames
  of reference are its themes; the four right exertions are its
  requisites; and any cultivation, development, & pursuit of these
  qualities is its development."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html
Only with concentration one can discern things as they actually are.

It depend on your theravāda-tipitaka culture skill. Your question begin from reading study system. Although you trust in abhidhamma and commentary, but the question still going on. Because the reading let you lose many tipitaka culture which is require to access the tipitaka's content.

Samādhiṃ   bhikkhave  bhāvetha  .  samāhito  bhikkhave  bhikkhu Yathābhūtaṃ   pajānāti   .
Develop concentration, monks. A concentrated monk (not meditating concentration monk) discerns things as
  they actually are present.

Also, in abhidhamma, 3 characterizes are concepts, paññatti, too.  6th's and 8th jhāna's objects are reality, too. Another, both jhāna-mind and vipassana-mind must be arising with paññā.
So, it doesn't means paññā can understand only reality, but it means paññā understanding both the concept-object, such as 3 characterizes or jhāna-object, and the reality-object, such as 5 aggregates and nibbāna, as each object is.
But the main object of each meditation is difference. The vipassanā-meditation require the reality-object as the main object, because 3 characterizes are the concepts of reality-object, 5 aggregates in paṭiccasamuppāda cycle.
Therefore, the vipassanā practitioner require reality-object to understand the 3 characterizes concept.
Note: most of sources from the path of purification, concentration meditation chapter, and abhidhammatthasaṅgaha 8th/9 chapters. You can require me the pāli, if the translation version is not understandable enough.

The concept, paññatti, is almost the hardest part of tipitaka. I try to explain it to everyone. But just the jhāna&vipassanā-teachers in tipitaka-memorizer-school, such as pa-auk forest monastery, can understand it. After you understand the concept, paññatti, you will receive the actually open-mind, which is very important tool to destroy 3 below saṅyojana.
Another, no translation good enough for me, included my translation, because no just one translation can keep the whole tipitaka's meaning.

According to the Kimsuka Sutta:

“So too, bhikkhu, those superior men answered as they were disposed in
  just the way their own vision had been well purified. “Suppose,
  bhikkhu, a king had a frontier city with strong ramparts, walls, and
  arches, and with six gates. The gatekeeper posted there would be wise,
  competent, and intelligent; one who keeps out strangers and admits
  acquaintances. A swift pair of messengers would come from the east and
  ask the gatekeeper: ‘Where, good man, is the lord of this city?’ He
  would reply: ‘He is sitting in the central square.’ Then the swift
  pair of messengers would deliver a message of reality to the lord of
  the city and leave by the route by which they had arrived. Similarly,
  messengers would come from the west, from the north, from the south,
  deliver their message, and leave by the route by which they had
  arrived.
“I have made up this simile, bhikkhu, in order to convey a meaning.
  This is the meaning here: ‘The city’: this is a designation for this
  body consisting of the four great elements, originating from mother
  and father, built up out of boiled rice and gruel, subject to
  impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to breaking apart and
  dispersal. ‘The six gates’: this is a designation for the six internal
  sense bases. ‘The gatekeeper’: this is a designation for mindfulness (sati).
  ‘The swift pair of messengers’: this is a designation for serenity (samatha) and
  insight (vipassana). ‘The lord of the city’: this is designation for
  consciousness. ‘The central square’: this is a designation for the
  four great elements—the earth element, the water element, the heat
  element, the air element. ‘A message of reality’: this is a
  designation for Nibbāna. ‘The route by which they had arrived’: this
  is a designation for the Noble Eightfold Path

Samadhi and samatha are related words. You practise samatha (serenity meditation) to achieve samadhi (concentration).
The ATI glossary defines samadhi and vipassana as:

samādhi: Concentration; the practice of centering the mind in a single
  sensation or preoccupation, usually to the point of jhāna.
vipassanā: Clear intuitive insight into physical and mental phenomena
  as they arise and disappear, seeing them for what they actually are —
  in and of themselves — in terms of the three characteristics (see
  ti-lakkhaṇa) and in terms of stress, its origin, its disbanding, and
  the way leading to its disbanding (see ariya-sacca).

So the message of the Kimsuka Sutta is that you establish mindfulness (sati) which then needs BOTH serenity (samatha) and insight (vipassana) to show reality clearly.
I would use the analogy of a camera. There are three parts of a camera you must control to take a photo.
First, you open the camera shutters to allow light to come in. That's mindfulness (sati).
Next, you have to control the zoom of the camera, while simultaneously moving the camera around and finding the right subject.
The zoom setting is the concentration (samadhi). Adjusting the zoom setting is serenity meditation (samatha).
Moving the camera around to find the right subject is insight (vipassana).
If you concentrate on the wrong subject, you will not get the photo that you originally intended to get. You want to take a photo of the sunset, but instead you zoom onto a tree, then you would see a tree clearly.
When you point to the right subject, but if you don't zoom correctly, you would see the right subject, but not clearly. You point your camera to the sunset but you did not correctly adjust the zoom, so you would inevitably see a blur image.
The main point of the Samadhi Sutta is not about seeing things, but it's about seeing things CLEARLY.
The Pali version of the sutta says: "Samādhiṃ, bhikkhave, bhāvetha. Samāhito, bhikkhave, bhikkhu yathābhūtaṃ pajānāti."
"yathābhūtaṃ" means "in truth; in reality; in its real essence."
"pajānāti" means "knows clearly".
So, without concentration, you cannot see reality CLEARLY.
Use concentration to see reality CLEARLY (pajānāti).
Use not only serenity (samatha), use BOTH serenity (samatha) AND insight (vipassana).  With vipassana, you see reality, but with vipassana AND samadhi, you see reality CLEARLY.
From the Samatha Sutta:

"If, on examination, he knows, 'I am one who achieves internal
  tranquility of awareness but not insight into phenomena through
  heightened discernment,' then his duty is to make an effort for the
  maintenance of internal tranquility of awareness and for insight into
  phenomena through heightened discernment. At a later time he will then
  be one who achieves both internal tranquility of awareness and insight
  into phenomena through heightened discernment.
"But if, on examination, the monk knows, 'I am one who achieves
  insight into phenomena through heightened discernment but not internal
  tranquility of awareness,' then his duty is to make an effort for the
  maintenance of insight into phenomena through heightened discernment
  and for internal tranquility of awareness. At a later time he will
  then be one who achieves both insight into phenomena through
  heightened discernment and internal tranquility of awareness.
"But if, on examination, the monk knows, 'I am one who achieves
  neither internal tranquility of awareness nor insight into phenomena
  through heightened discernment,' then he should put forth extra
  desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, &
  alertness for gaining those very same skillful qualities. Just as when
  a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra
  desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, relentlessness, mindfulness, &
  alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way,
  the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor,
  relentlessness, mindfulness, & alertness for gaining those very same
  skillful qualities.
"But if, on examination, the monk knows, 'I am one who achieves both
  internal tranquility of awareness and insight into phenomena through
  heightened discernment,' then his duty is to make an effort in
  maintaining those very same skillful qualities to a higher degree for
  the ending of the effluents.


text:
Do transformation bodies appear before a buddha reaches enlightenment?
Do transformation bodies appear before a buddha reaches enlightenment?
So that the many bodies of Shakyamuni that the fan Wang ching (Sutra of Brahmas net) claims Vairocana manifests may have appeared before our Gautama Buddha?
If the Buddha bodies do not all manifest at the same time then can two transformation bodies of the same Buddha appear in what will be the same Buddha field, at different times?
I'm interested because I want to understand the lotus sutra and e.g. its claims about the Buddha's eternal life.

i've forgotten the word for what precedes a pure land, if anyone can help me with that

if i understand your concern correctly, are you asking about 佛剎 (Fú shā)? that is the "structure" (lands, beings, things) where a Buddha abided?