text:
Questions on the five Skandhas
I find that the five Skandhas can be very confusing at times, as the Western idea of mind and perception is very different to the Buddhist idea of mind and perception. On top of that, many explanations of the five Skandhas online seem vague and sometimes seem to be interpreted differently, depending on where you go.
The first Skandha: Form
Does this refer to physical form? Can we only know form through the sense organs?
The second Skandha: Sensation
Are these just sensations from the sense organs?
One description online describes sensation as follows:

... it is the sensation experienced through the contact of eye with
visible form, ear with sound, nose with odor, tongue with taste, body
with tangible things, mind (manas) with ideas or thoughts.

If this is the case, does emotion fall under sensation?
The third Skandha: Perception
A description I found:

Samjna is the faculty that recognizes. Most of what we call thinking fits into the aggregate of samjna.
The word "samjna" means "knowledge that puts together." It is the
capacity to conceptualize and recognize things by associating them
with other things. For example, we recognize shoes as shoes because we
associate them with our previous experience with shoes.

My understanding is that the faculty to recognize is consciousness. However, consciousness is said to be a different Skandha. My understanding is that consciousness is that which perceives the world around it. More broadly, how is perception and consciousness different?
The fourth Skandha: Mental Formation
A description I found:

This aggregate includes all mental factors except feeling and
perception, which are two of the possible fifty-two mental factors
noted in Buddhism.

I'm assuming this is where emotions exist? Is happiness an emotion? Is loving-kindness an emotion? If not, were do they exist, in terms of the Skandhas?
The fifth Skandha: Consciousness
A description I found:

Vijnana is a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object. For example, aural consciousness -- hearing -- has the ear as its basis and a sound as its object. Mental consciousness has the mind (manas) as its basis and an idea or thought as its object.

If this is the case, then is consciousness that which observes sensations, mental formations, perception and form, or that which experiences sensation, perception, mental formations and form? Can the experience of sensation exist if we are not conscious of it? Are animals conscious? Maybe a more important question is: what is the difference between consciousness and self-awareness, in the Buddhist context?
I realize there are a lot of questions here, so thank you to whoever takes the time out of their day to answer them. Have a good day!
Comment: This is a very cogent, very important, even fundamental issue in the process of direct inquiry. The last question haunts me: what is the true definition of consciousness when referred to as a Buddhist skanda? Specifically, self reflexive awareness--for lack of a better term--seems fundamental, even unitary. Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all". Consider Turyia. The Tibetan term, Rigpa, seems to point to the same realization.

Where are you getting these excerpts from? For a complete explanation of the 5 skandhas, one of the most valuable things to understand from Buddhism, I recommend this book. There is an excerpt online.

Ajahn Brahm explains the five aggregates: (1 hour talk) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VTzlXna8I0

If you really want, I mean really want to reach Nirvana, it's better to learn Pali and read the original books yourself. That's when you really see the original teachings. Sometimes people try to make something easier to understand. But they make it worse. So it's always better to go to the source.

Rupa

Does this refer to physical form?

Yes, anything physical is included in this category. Ex: light, sound, aromas,earth element, water element, heat element, air element  etc.
However, with regards to the five skandhas, a thought is also called a rupa when it becomes the object received by the mind sense faculty. Ex: a memory

Can we only know form through the sense organs?

Yes, there'll be no knowing without the 6 senses.
Vedana

Are these just sensations from the sense organs?

Sense organs cannot produce sensation by themselves. The contact should occur. That is the union of Rupa, sense organ and the relevant consciousness.
ex: light, eye and the eye consciousness
There are basically 3 kinds of sensations: pleasant, painful and neutral.

If this is the case, does emotion fall under sensation?

No, that is Sankhara(Mental Formation).
Sanna(Perception)

My understanding is that the faculty to recognize is consciousness

No. Consciousness is just base awareness.

how is perception and consciousness different?

Sanna(perception) is what recognizes the object specifically. Awareness cannot tell what it is. But awareness is present at this stage as they all rise together.
Sankhara(Mental Formation)

I'm assuming this is where emotions exist? Is happiness an emotion? Is
  loving-kindness an emotion?

Yes, that's right. Happiness, loving kindness, hatred, jealousy, craving etc. belong to this group
Vinnana(Consciousness)

If this is the case, then is consciousness that which observes
  sensations, mental formations, perception and form, or that which
  experiences sensation, perception, mental formations and form?

A single experience contains all 5 of the Skhandas. They make up the whole experience. Think of it as drinking a chocolate milk shake. When you drink it, do you feel the taste of milk, chocolate, sugar separately? No. You feel them all together. Consciousness is like the water they are all mixed in. Consciousness cannot separately observe anything. Observing itself is an experience where all 5 skandhas are present.  In an experience, consciousness simply plays the role of being aware. When you are asleep, the ear consciousness may not be present at the ears. That's why you won't be able to hear, even if the sound hits the ears.

Can the experience of sensation exist if we are not conscious of it?

No. Every experience has all the 5 skhandas.

Are animals conscious?

Yes, they are beings. It's Panchaskhandha for them as well

what is the difference between consciousness and self-awareness?

Consciousness is what plays the role of being aware in an experience. Self-awareness is an experience(5 skandhas) in which the perception identifies the object of the experience as a self.
To give a common example to illustrate the functions of the Skandhas, say you are smelling something delicious. The smell and the nose here are Rupa. When they get together with the nose consciousness, contact happens. At that moment the Vinnana is aware that an object is present at the nose sense door. Vedana tells that it is pleasant. Sanna tells what it is: whether it's a pudding, cake, ice cream etc. Sankhara tells it's good and desires for it. Keep in mind that the event of smelling here involves many instances of five aggregates rising and passing away.

Note that you said "six senses": which I think means that we know "form" by using the "intellect" (i.e. mind and thought) as well as by using the other five senses.

Yes, ex: space element (aakaasa dhaatu). You cannot sense it with  5 senses. Also if we consider thought objects as Rupa.

very good answer! could you please give an example of an experience illustrating how all 5 skandhas play their individual role from start to end.

Updated the answer.

There is a lot of questions in one question. You might consider splitting them up and asking separate questions. This ensures that other users will find it easier to answer the question and you will get better and more precise answers.

My answer is based on the last section of your question, i.e. the part about the 5th aggregate of consciousness.
Consciousness exists a taker of objects. Without consciousness there would be no awareness of the object.
You might have experienced this before, e.g. if you have been fully absorped in a good book or movie and someone calls your name and you dont hear it. That is not because the sound of the voice is not there, its just because consciousness was not at the ear-sensebase at that moment.
There are 3 factors that must come together in order to talk about conscious experience.

The sense base, e.g. The eye-sensebase.
Visible light which is the corresponding object for the eye
Eye consciousness

Consciousness is further divided into the 6 types according to it's bases:

Eye consciousness cognizes light, i.e. visible forms and objects.
Ear consciousness cognizes sound
Nose consciousness cognizes smell
Tongue consciousness cognizes taste
Body consciousness cognizes tangible sensations
Mind consciousness cognizes mental objects such as ideas, concepts, thoughts, volitions and other mental formations

To gain more knowledge about this i would recommend listening to this dhamma talk on the 5 aggregates by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi. This talk gives a detailed explanation of all the aggregates.

Is there a difference between consciousness and perception? I would have guessed that "hearing, that is my name being called" is simply perception and not consciousness ... "consciousness" would be a bit more elaborate (e.g. who's calling me and why, and where, and what I should do about it).

@Chris. Yes there is a difference but it will be too lengthy to write about it in a comment. In short perception and consciousness work closely together in the cognizing of an object. Consciousness is only a taker of objects meaning its the basic awareness of an object. Perception is more refined. Perception is what grasps the distinguishing features and qualities of an object. For example if you meet a person today and next week you see the same person then it is Perception that recognizes that it is the same person. Perception works based on previous experiences. Did that clarify it a bit?

There's an article, The Five Aggregates
(A Study Guide
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu), which quotes what the Pali suttas say about the aggregates (i.e. the definitions of the aggregates in suttas), for example:

§ 9. Feeling. "And what is feeling? These six bodies of feeling — feeling born of eye-contact, feeling born of ear-contact, feeling born of nose-contact, feeling born of tongue-contact, feeling born of body-contact, feeling born of intellect-contact: this is called feeling."
-- SN 22.57

I could try to define them in my own words but, as you said, "many explanations of the five Skandhas online seem vague and sometimes seem to be interpreted differently, depending on where you go".
Oh well.
I suppose you could read many definitions and try to synthesize them; or read or listen to definitions by reputable teachers.
And/or, there's something called the Abhidharma (which I haven't read): I think the Abhidharma is not Buddhavacana but are a (only slightly later) more elaborate and perhaps more precise description of what various mental phenomena are and how they're related... and so if you want a detailed (or more detailed) description, perhaps (I don't know) you could look into the Abhidharma's description instead of the description implied by the list of Skandhas.

My new theory is as follows: that it's a simple list, into which you shouldn't try to read too much.
There's an article Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha: I suppose that (collection of three suttas) is a very high-level summary of the buddhavacana. In the The Not-self Characteristic (Anatta-lakkhana-sutta) uses but doesn't define the list of skandhas. It uses words like "form" and "feeling" without defining them, except to say that they're "not self".
So my theory is that the skandhas are a list of things which a person could possibly view as self (my form, my sense-impressions, my thoughts, etc.), but the purpose of this list is in order to say that these are "not self": so that a person becomes "estranged" from (perhaps instead of "entangled" with) each skandha, and with estrangement is able to become dispassionate and therefore liberated.
IOW it may not exactly matter what the skandhas are and the boundary of each one, how they map to English concepts such as "emotion", or whether a dog has Buddha-nature: what matters (for the purpose of this lesson) is that they're all "not self".

I noticed in this comment you were asking about dukkha. Because I just mentioned "not-self" I should clarify that Buddhism calls these the "three characteristics" (or three facts or three marks) of existence -- i.e. is says that all conditioned things (sankhāra) are impermanent (aniccā), unsatisfactory (dukkhā), and not-self (anattā).
Here is another quote which says that the purpose of analyzing the human being into skandhas is (merely) to show that these things (form, senses, perceptions, etc.) are impermanent:

Although the concept of anicca applies to all compounded and conditioned things, the Buddha is more concerned with the so-called being; for the problem is with man and not with dead things. Like an anatomist who resolves a limb into tissues and tissues into cells, the Buddha, the Analyzer (Vibhajjavaadi), analyzed the so-called being, the sankhaara pu~nja, the heap of processes, into five ever-changing aggregates, and made it clear that there is nothing abiding, nothing eternally conserved, in this conflux of aggregates (khandhaa santati). They are: — — material form or body; feeling or sensation; perception; mental formations; consciousness.
The Enlightened One explains:

The five aggregates, monks, are anicca, impermanent; whatever is impermanent, that is dukkha, unsatisfactory; whatever is dukkha, that is without attaa, self. What is without self, that is not mine, that I am not, that is not my self. Thus should it be seen by perfect wisdom (sammappa~n~naaya) as it really is. Who sees by perfect wisdom, as it really is, his mind, not grasping, is detached from taints; he is liberated.

-- SN 22.45

So the important thing to notice about the skandhas is that they're impermanent (and unsatisfactory and not-self).

Welcome to the world of Buddhism where nothing is clear, everything is totally vague and confusing and where everyone has conflicting and contradictory opinions about how it should be practiced. Some people will tell you there is no right way to meditate, others will tell you you must make sure you are adhering strictly to a technique.

What......... ?

I don't agree with you.

There's only one bace method. Different people show it in their own respective. That's why there are many contradicting things. Find the bace method. Go to Pali Damma books. Or their 100% direct translations. Not books wrote by different different people.

There's no contradiction in Buddhism. It's people (which has no actual understanding) put it to different different perspectives.

If you look at Sri Lanka, you will see that, there are very clear Damma books. Without any contradiction. Any question is welcome. Thanks.

I mean, I can give you like crystal clear view of Buddhism and it's methods / teachings.

"Vedantic teachings inevitably lead to the direct discovery that "consciousness is all."

The above is a fitting distinction between Vedanta & Pali Buddhism. The short answer is, in Pali Buddhism, consciousness is not all. Many Pali suttas (MN 18, MN 38, MN 148, SN 12.67, SN 22.53, etc) explicitedly state consciousness is dependent on the physical body, sense organs & sense objects, that:  "Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness"; that: "a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications ...would be impossible.".
'Rupa' is defined as the elements of earth, wind, fire & water & the physical body composed of them (MN 9, SN 12.2, etc); that is fed with rice & porridge (MN 74) & is anything physical that is subject to inevitable decay (SN 22.79). MN 62 provides an excellent description of 'rupa'.
'Feeling' is best understood as the basic pleasant, unpleasant & neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feelings that arises from sense contact. For example, a massage feels pleasant; the sight & smell of a rotting corpse feels unpleasant.
'Perception' is the labels placed on sense objects, such as 'blue', 'green', 'man', woman', 'beautiful', 'ugly', etc, which are learned & memorised.
'Mental forming' is anything formed from feeling & perception. For example, pleasant feelings & the perception of 'beautiful' can give rise to the mental formations of lust, greed or love and thinking & making images (mental pictures) about those objects of feeling & perception (refer to MN 18). Therefore, defilements (greed, hatred & delusion), active thoughts, images and positive virtues, such as metta & wisdom, are mental formations. What are called 'emotions' in English are a mixture of defilements & thoughts or otherwise 'mature emotions', such as metta.
'Consciousness' is a mental capacity that allows cognition via the senses. Thus the scriptures state: "There are these six classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness" (MN 9, SN 12.2, MN 148, etc)
Just because consciousness is required to experience the other four aggregates does not mean 'consciousness is all'. To believe so would make consciousness like 'God', 'Brahma' or 'Atman'. In a possible response to Vedic ideas, SN 35.23 states 'The All' is sense organs & sense objects rather than consciousness or Brahma. In Pali Buddhism, consciousness only facilities experience, that is all. For example, AN 3.134, SN 12.20 &  SN 12.65 each state the Laws of Dhamma inherently exist whether or not they are discovered, cognized & revealed by a Buddha or any other human being. Therefore, unknown/unexperienced things can exist outside of consciousness.
In summary, the five aggregates are described in SN 22.79:

And why do you call it 'form'? Because it is afflicted, thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger &
  thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun & reptiles.
  Because it is afflicted, it is called form.
And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called 'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it
  feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called
  feeling.
And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it
  perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it
  perceives, it is called perception.
And why do you call it 'fabricating'/'fabricator'? Because it fabricates fabricated things, thus it is called 'fabricating.' What
  does it fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, it
  fabricates form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness,
  it fabricates feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of
  perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of
  consciousness-hood, it fabricates consciousness as a fabricated thing.
  Because it fabricates fabricated things, it is called
  fabricating/fabricator.
And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is
  sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, &
  unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.

I will try to explain how one should understand this

“Monks, there are these three topics for discussion. Which three?
“One may talk about the past, saying, ‘Thus it was in the past.’ One may talk about the future, saying, ‘Thus it will be in the future.’ Or one may talk about now in the present, saying, ‘Thus it is now in the present.’

“Bhikkhus, there are these three pathways of language,
pathways of designation, pathways of description, that are unmixed,
that were never mixed, that are not being mixed, that will not be
mixed, that are not rejected by wise ascetics and brahmins. What
three?
“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has passed, ceased, changed: the term,
label, and description ‘was’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or the
term ‘will be.’
“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional
formations … Whatever consciousness has passed, ceased, changed: the
term, label, and description ‘was’ applies to it, not the term ‘is’ or
the term ‘will be.’
“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has not been born, has not become manifest:
the term, label, and description ‘will be’ applies to it, not the term
‘is’ or the term ‘was.’
“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional
formations … Whatever consciousness has not been born, has not become
manifest: the term, label, and description ‘will be’ applies to it,
not the term ‘is’ or the term ‘was.’
“Whatever form, bhikkhus, has been born, has become manifest: the
term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the term ‘was’ or
the term ‘will be.’
“Whatever feeling … Whatever perception … Whatever volitional
formations … Whatever consciousness has been born, has become
manifest: the term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the
term ‘was’ or the term ‘will be.’
“These, bhikkhus, are the three pathways of language, pathways of
designation, pathways of description, that are unmixed, that were
never mixed, that are not being mixed, that will not be mixed, that
are not rejected by wise ascetics and brahmins.

“The past, reverends, is one end. The future is the second end. The present is the middle. And craving is the seamstress …
“Contact, reverends, is one end. The origin of contact is the second end. The cessation of contact is the middle. And craving is the seamstress...

what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

In short when one talks about something, that something will be spoken in terms of past, present & future tense.
Whatever it is we are talking about will fit one of these categories but it will also be connected to everything else because it will have a past cause (origin is one end), it will be the caused in present tense (being in the middle) and it is a requisite cause for a future.
Therefore when we talk about there being 'consciousness', it will normally be associated with 3 points of reference as to the cause of it's coming into play, as to it's coming into play and as to the consequences of it's coming into play. The three are not one and the same consciousness.
The abnormal circumstances are the states associated with the cessation principle and the contact there is analogical because that seeing isn't classes among the 6 classes of sensory perception but as 'a seeing with dhamma eye' or 'consciousness unestablished [which doesn't land]'. In the Sutta Consciousness is also as conjoined with the Discernment faculty and discernment is that which discerns the change & persistence of the conditioned and it is said that no change is discerned in the persistence of the unconditioned.
Consciousness is that which cognizes, it cognizes eg 'a sour taste' but the sour sensation is also something one feels, perceives & fabricates (conceives to perceive) and these terms are in that conjoined but aren't the same in meaning such that a difference can be delineated but one can not separate them after the having done so, if one is true & real then the other is also true & real.
Form means generally the four elements are and are  needed to grow a plant. Heat, solids, liquids and circulation. These elements and whatever is derived in dependence on these four elements will either be form or be associated with it somehow.
In the circumstance of 'eye-consciosuness'. Even tho the consciousness aggregate and the form aggregate aren't conjoined as the form aggregate doesn't have an object & is the object of the other 4 aggregates which are  conjoined as they always accompany eachother.
Therefore eye-consciousness refers to any consciousness also accompanied by form, associated with form, generating form and cognizing it.
The aggregate of form is sometimes conceived & perceived, sometimes isn't conceived & perceived, it doesn't always accompany consciousness.
In the Sutta Consciousness is also as conjoined with the Discernment faculty and discernment is that which discerns the change & persistence of the conditioned.

The four great elements which are included in Form What is that form
which is not derived? The sphere of the tangible, the fluid
element—this is that form which is not derived. What is that form
which is the sphere of the tangible? The earthy (solid) element, the
lambent (calorific) element, the gaseous (aerial) element; the hard
and the soft; the smooth and the rough; pleasant (easeful) contact,
painful contact; the heavy and the light — such a tangible, invisible
and producing impact, as, with the body-sensibility, invisible and
reacting, one has touched, touches, will, or may touch … … against
which tangible, invisible, and producing impact, the body-sensibility,
invisible and reacting, has impinged, impinges, will, or may impinge …
… such a tangible, invisible and producing impact, as has impinged,
impinges, will, or may impinge against the body-sensibility, invisible
and reacting … … in consequence of which tangible and depending on the
body-sensibility, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise bodily
contact … and … born of that bodily contact, a feeling … [or] a
perception … [or] thinking … [or] cognition of body … [further,]
having a tangible as its object and depending on the body
(-sensibility), there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise bodily
contact … and … born of that bodily contact, a feeling … [or] a
perception … [or] thinking … [or] cognition of body; this that is the
tangible, the sphere and element of the tangible—this is that form
which is the sphere of the tangible. What is that form which is the
fluid? That which is fluid and belongs to fluid, that which is viscid
and belongs to viscous, the cohesiveness of form—this is that form
which is the fluid element.
[All] this is that form which is not derived.

What is that form which is derived?
The spheres of vision
Smell,
Hearing
Taste,
body sensibility;
the spheres of sights, Odours, Sounds Tastes;
the faculties of femininity Masculinity, Vitality; intimation by act,
intimation by speech; the element of space; the buoyancy of form
plasticity of form wieldiness of form integration of form Maintenance
Decay impermanence solid nutriment.

What is that form which is the sphere of vision?

The eye, that is to say the sentient organ, derived from the four
Great Phenomena, included in the self-state, invisible and reacting,
(i.) depending on which eye, in consequence of some visible form,
there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise
visual contact; … (ii.) and depending on which eye, in consequence of
some visible form, there has arisen, arises, will, or may arise—(born
of that visual contact)
a feeling … [or iii.] a perception … [or iv.] thinking … [or v.] a
visual cognition … [further, vi.] depending on which eye, and having a
visible form as its object, there has arisen, arises, will, or may
arise
visual contact, (vii.) and depending on which eye, and having a
visible form as its object, there has arisen, arises, will, or may
arise, born of that visual contact,
a feeling … [or viii.] a perception … [or ix.] thinking … [or x.]
visual cognition —this that is sight, the sphere of sight, etc. https://suttacentral.net/ds2.2.3/en/caf_rhysdavids


text:
Mind moving too fast to note?
What to do when the mind starts moving so fast that individual experiences cannot be noted? And as far as I have experienced, the mind can only be in one place at a time, but it begins moving so fast between different experiences that it is as if there is awareness of nearly the entire body at once and all experience blurs together and the body feels like its humming?
edit: there seems to be some confusion..this didn't seem like a distracted state; it seems as if I was able to be mindful of multiple things happening at once all over my body. The normal areas where sensations occur that I'm only able to be mindful of one at a time i.e. sensations on my head, my arms, pain in the back, legs, I was nearly fully aware of all at once.

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding, updated my answer, hope it helps.

Just a clarification to this sentence "I was able to be mindful of multiple things happening at once all over my body". It is not possible to be aware of more than one object at a time. What happens is that the mind moves so fast that it can seem like one is aware of multiple objects at once.

To add to what @Lanka says, I've often felt I can make my whole body glow with sensations, it can feel like the entire body is alive with little vibratory sensations, but what is really happening is the sensory mind is moving very fast to gather all that data, and the interpretive mind bunches it all up into one group.

yea i misspoke, I meant that with the qualifier i had in the initial question of the mind can only be in one place at a time, it should be something like "it seems as if"

There are always many things happening in the body, your mind is getting distracted trying to focus on everything.
You need to spend more time on your samatha (ex. anapana) practice, so that your mind can focus better on whatever object you direct it at in Vipassana.
> edit: there seems to be some confusion..this didn't seem like a
> distracted state; I was able to be mindful of multiple things
> happening at once all over my body. The normal areas where sensations
> occur that I'm only able to be mindful of one at a time i.e.
> sensations on my head, my arms, pain in the back, legs, I was nearly
> fully aware of all at once.

Apologies I misunderstood, then this sounds like Bhanga nana - knowledge of dissolution. The best way to confirm this is if sooner or later you start hitting the bhaya (fear) nana.
Note: Identifying the nana category with certainty is difficult for the yogi himself/herself, let alone for a third party, so don't take any nana diagnosis as correct until it is verified a few different ways.
http://www.buddhanet.net/knowledg.htm

What happens next? The meditator’s awareness and concentration
  continues to develop. As a result, he now sees only the passing away
  of phenomena. It is as if his awareness is so fast, it is faster than
  the experiences he is examining, As soon as he places his attention on
  some aspect of his experience, it disappears. This is the knowledge of
  dissolution (bhanga-nana). In a weak aspect, this can take the form of
  the meditator apparently losing his concentration. It seems like he
  can no longer focus on anything; his attention keeps sliding off
  whatever he tries to look at. It can be lie trying to grasp something
  that slips out of your hand the moment you touch it. In a stronger
  aspect, it can be like falling into the black hole of Calcutta.
  Wherever you look, there is nothing - only blackness. The meditator is
  shocked, because he used to be able to focus on anything. Now, it
  seems, he can focus on nothing at all. All his good work has dissolved
  into nothing.

I just want to add the excellent advice that the same page gives about the nana categories - there are an infinite ways to map this journey, and the 16 nana map is good, but may not identify every sensation you encounter. The only way to practice is to continue the practice undaunted, whatever the feeling.

The 16 nanas constitute another way to categorise our experience.
  There are any number of ways we can analyse our experience; there are
  a potentially infinite number of categories we can invent into which
  we can classify our experiences. What is important is that we remember
  the difference between category and experience, and avoid becoming
  lost in the category. Our tendency is to get lost in the categories,
  and in doing so, lose touch with experience. When we create a system
  of categories we freeze the process of living experience and create a
  solid something in which our experience must now conform. We now
  divide our experience into two basic divisions: those experiences
  which we can fit into our system of categories, and which is therefore
  valid, real and useful; and those experiences which we cannot fit into
  our system of categories. Of course, in the act of meditating, we put
  more attention to our valid, real and useful experiences than we do to
  the other type. In brief, we become stuck in attachment and aversion,
  and instead of investigating our experience, we revert to manipulating
  it. We take the practice of freedom and turn it into a prison. This is
  inevitably the case when we project reality into the categories of
  analysis - whatever system we use - and not into the actual, living,
  stream of experience. Hence we must treat this system with great
  caution. We must learn to use it, and not be used by it.

I'd also like to add something by Bodhipaksa, of Wildmind.org - it's more general advise, but I think you can make it work in your situation too.

Our meditation practice never changes in a constant, linear way. There
  are always ups and downs. One day you’re sitting there and you
  unexpectedly find that you’re blissfully happy and almost totally
  without distraction. The next day your mind is all over the place.
  This is normal, and it’s good to relax, and not be obsessed about
  “getting somewhere.” Yes, it’s good to have the aspiration to move in
  the direction of greater calm and happiness, but the expectation that
  this is going to happen will bring us nothing but pain. Bearing in
  mind the aspiration to move in the direction of greater calm and
  happiness, we simply work with whatever arises, not worrying about
  whether it’s a “good” meditation or a “bad” meditation.

so I should just continue doing what I'm doing? How do I deal with being unable to note? Is it fine that I'm having awareness of multiple things at once? All the pain in the body is gone and all i'm left with is a humming sensation, so just be aware of that and let my awareness and mindfulness grow?

Yes, continue to practice, don't bother about the greater or lesser ability to note. The lack of pain adds weight to my suspicion that you are in nana 5 - concentration will get more difficult for a while - you may get restless, feel like giving up - just hang in there and persist.

Ok thank you. I don't want to read the 16 stages myself because I feel I'll get caught up in a head game about them, so I appreciate you referencing this for me :)

Reading it won't help much anyway - my own experiences of several nanas don't match the descriptions very much, so I am only able to fill in the gaps in analysis of my own practice only based on the nanas that do match the descriptions. It's useful to know, but not necessary.

Any advice on this loss of concentration? It's even coming up in walking meditation! My mind is going everywhere!

Very good :-) just keep practicing as always, no special intervention needed. As a rule that's my policy on anything, learn to let go. We cannot ever control anything in life, we must do our duty and learn to accept results, whatever they are :)

How sure are you on this diagnosis Buddho? It's hard to tell what I'm supposed to be doing. Noting falls away. I try to be aware of where the mind is but that falls away. Then I find myself thinking, and then that falls away. I try to bring it all back to the breath but that falls away. There is nothing here under any control!

Good. Why doesn't your agony and frustration that nothing is under control also fall away? Note that agony until it falls away too.

Regardless of what comes up in meditation, keep doing what you're trained to do. You haven't forgotten to meditate, but you are approaching meditation with expectations, and that is causing you self created misery. We must practice right effort without expectation of anything, off the cushion as well. There are two insights here - one, there is no self - it is just a composite reality, two, through agony your mind is creating a cognizable reality to grasp on to. See through the compounded agony as well.

I'm guessing by the direction my practice is taking, this is the same dissolution Goenka describes during his retreats?

Yes, this is what he frequently refers to. How's your practice?

It's going better now! I had some turbulence in my daily life, switching jobs and changing from 3rd to 1st shift, but I'm back on track and getting deeper into dissolution, I believe. My concentration seems to be deepening and stabilizing , to the point that my body is almost completely saturated with it.

Glad to hear. Sic transit gloria mundi. Keep practicing while expecting nothing, being attached to nothing. The enlightenment is in the practice as the Zen masters say. Good luck.

A way to deal with this is to restrain the mind by choosing to note only experiences from e.g. the 1st and 2nd foundation of mindfulness. One could also start with only one foundation and then add more when mindfulness grows.
It's similar as to when one is starting to do walking meditation. One will start by noting only the "stepping" movement of the foot. When one gets better one can begin to include the "lifting" movement too and with more practice one can include the "placing" movement of the foot.
This way one is building more steps into the practice as mindfulness grows and one gains the ability to be aware of more phenomena.

these experiences were only bodily experiences for the most part, with some sound mixed in and a thought here or there

Try one of these to slow down your mind:

Follow your breath
Follow the representation of your breath
Walking meditation
Concentration meditation (upon an object)
Keep the body still with eyes closed

Practice these in a quiet place. Usually within five to ten minutes you will notice a difference.

as if there is awareness of nearly the entire body at once and all
experience blurs together and the body feels like its humming

This sounds like knowledge of dissolution. Do you have a meditation teacher? Its best to consult them on how to continue once you hit this stage.
You might want to check out the Visuddhiñana-katha which details the various stages & sensation you may experience on the path (do note its written from a Vipassana perspective)
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html#ch6.5
You may also wish to check out DhammaOverground's An Idiots Guide to Dharma Diagnosis & see if you relate to anything there
https://www.dharmaoverground.org/discussion/-/message_boards/message/98873

Signs of overthinking, fast thinking, speed thinking.
Fix it by doing things that make you forget about world.

source: Stack Exchange

license: 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/

sort: votes


text:
7 lives/years: maintainability and significance of the number 7
How valid or verifiable is the claim that a sotapanna leads no more than seven lives? Or a once returner returns once?
There is another claim that practicing earnestly for seven days or seven weeks or a maximum of seven years should be enough to attain nibbana.
Whereas as far as I can see, nibbana doesn't seem too common at all. Certainly not the kind of numbers one would expect if it was possible in a few years.
Is there present day evidence for the latter? If there isn't then shouldn't it also lead me to wonder about the former?
(Note: I'm not saying arahatship or lesser ariya states are impossible, just not very sure about the maintainability and significance of the number 7)
What is the learned opinion here?
The Zen approach of nowhere to go, nowhere to arrive seems more commonsensical to the extent that there is nothing to disprove. On the flip side one can be really only wearing out one's cushion in the Zendo, and there'd be no way to verify one's attainment.

("No way to verify one's attainment" in Zen reminds me of this story).

By 'verifiable' do you mean to be able to test in a lab and find out or to be able to meditate yourself and find out? AFAIK, science has no idea of Nibbana :)

@SankhaKulathantille the method works, maggas are attainable, I'm not disputing those, that much my experience supports, but the 7 year maximum seems questionable because of the numerous spiritual seekers, who after decades of practice remain without signs of arahatship, still getting angry, still getting hurt.

@ChrisW I'm not saying Zen doesn't have its method, or its great masters, I've practiced under Thich Nhat Hanh, and it changed my life, but it's also a system that can succumb more than others to crazy ideas or approaches. In short, all I'm asking is, why did the Buddha say seven years maximum to arahatship when the vast majority seem to not even get to stream entry in that time?

Maybe they didn't practice proper Vipassana

@SankhaKulathantille sure that's always possible. One can't know for certain, but I've heard that SN Goenka alluded to being a sakadagami after forty years of practice, Daniel Ingram claims becoming an arhat took him fourteen+ years, dipa ma was supposed to be an anagami when she died, and several vipassana teachers who've passed decades meditating say they haven't yet reached arahatship. Clearly it's nothing like say medical school or something where people spend 10 years studying day and night and get a degree. So what made the Buddha say seven years max?

AFAIK, the Goenka tradition only practices Vedananupassana. So they skip 3/4 of the Satipatthana sutta. If someone claims of being an Arahanth, you should surely doubt his attainment and practice. Anyways, the Abhidhamma and the Anguttara Nikaya list 4 kinds of individuals. The last kind is called 'Padaparama'. It is said, they can't attain enlightenment within this life even if they tried.

The Goenka tradition yes, and it is by design to keep it simple and quick like fast food, but perhaps not Sri Goenka's personal practice. It is true there are concepts of individuals of lesser capacities, but often this isn't highlighted, instead quite the opposite happens- Angulimaala Thera is held up as the low water mark - if you've not committed a thousand murders, then you too can be an arhat :-) Daniel has his valid reasons to publicly claim to be an arhat. I'm not saying that means he is one automatically, but one can't decide one way or another merely because of the public claim.

Any high profile modern career or material success takes intelligence, sacrifice and sustained day and night labor for several years. So several people have the diligence and intelligence, so why don't even a fraction of dharma farers reach the peak? In the time of the Buddha even ordinary people were attaining maggas quite easily. I don't think the Buddha has said anywhere that the dharma will be harder to learn after his death, so why the sudden drop off.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

Ajahn Brahm addresses this in his book Mindfulness, Bliss, And Beyond. He notes that most people are not correctly practicing mindfulness such that it will allow them to attain stream entry.
Although this is an alluring promise from the Buddha, understanding it requires a measure of brutal personal honesty: Are we in-fact practicing true, unwavering mindfulness during all waking moments of our lives for seven days straight? Such a task is actually quite difficult; even when we get a good, mindful groove going, it is exceedingly easy to lapse out of mindfulness and have to start again.
I imagine that much of the meditation average folks do is primarily aimed at cultivating (i.e. learning, developing, and strengthening) mindfulness. It takes full mastery of mindfulness to be able to apply it long enough to break down our delusions to attain enlightenment.
One final point Ajahn Brahm notes: depending on an individuals level of attainment (i.e. once-returner, arahant, etc) it may be very difficult to truly identify them. Traditionally, only the Buddha himself could verify these attainments. Thus, we should be careful in assuming how likely or unlikely occurrences of enlightenment are, though it is clear that even basic stream-entry requires serious work.

Of course, external validation is always going to be problematic - I recall a well known (name withheld) monastery in Burma that was or maybe still is handing out stream-entry/once-returner certificates. Laugh! Anyway,so that being the case, one of the so-certified people, I heard, ran away with the monastery's petty cash and a nun in tow. Either the certification is broken, or the virtuous conduct of the ariya is not 100% perfect. Ariya states do make it easier, IMO to be well behaved, but I'm careful like Shantideva, in the belief that all it takes is one moment of carelessness.

It's better to be careful, and consider oneself unenlightened, than to imagine certain acts are beyond one now and forever, and drop all guard. Shantideva's humility in his Bodhisattvacharyavitara is illuminating and humbling - for all his attainment, the palpable caution he exercises is remarkable, because he knows all it takes is one slip of his mind to damn him. Zen mind, beginner's mind indeed. One is never enlightened, for one is never unenlightened. One is ever arriving in the present, and finding Buddha nature in it.

Part of the problem arises when one uses the Abhidhamma influenced Visuddhimagga map of nanas to determine path and fruition. It's self reported, and one can delude oneself without meaning to, by making mistakes in assessment (even assuming the maps are fully correct). There are of course critics who I've just been reading, who don't think too much of the abhidhamma and commentaries, and would dispute any claim to attainment based on the Visuddhimagga.

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


text:
Why would anyone ever want to go to the heavens?
References to a rebirth in the heavenly realms seems to be viewed in a positive light in Buddhism. It's easy to see why it would be considered more favorable than a rebirth in the hell realms of course. But my understanding is that beings in heaven don't practice the dhamma as there is no suffering to create conditions for them to seek the cessation of suffering, so they will not become enlightened there. Is there something positive that comes of a rebirth in the heavens other than a temporary respite from suffering? I realize we don't get to choose our rebirths, but I would like to know if heaven is considered to be a truly beneficial place and if so, why? Thank you.

Great question. I have made myself the same question many times. From a Buddhist's point of view (escaping samsara as ultimate goal) going to heaven seems like a distraction. Of course it is good, but not for escaping samsara into PariNibbana, therefore it is just a "waste of time". Maybe I'm missing something...

Incidentally, those on the Bodhisattva path actively wish for hell and lower realms, to guide those who have no opportunity to learn the dharma. There is a story of a yogi who meditates in the Himalayas until he has perfect peace, a halo, psychic powers and all that. Now he decides to head down to the nearest town. As soon as he is in the middle of the jostling crowds and the bustle and noise of the market, he realises he has lost all his peace and tranquility. Like steel being super heated and hammered before being cooled down, spiritual practice needs to be tempered in suffering.

My Guru has said that we spend time in Astral realms until it is right to be reborn on the physical plane. In that sense, it is like resting, or a vacation, returning us renewed for more effort. But in itself, I do not see benefit, or have any desire to go there. People talk about reaching their "true self", but to me, any self just kicks the can down the road: another me that needs perfection... Why not make do with this one, now? Why not make effort, here? "Take no thought for tomorrow, for tomorrow will take thought for itself."

Very good question and comments. But there are "more" heavenly realms or you can say "higher heavens" that enlightened beings goes after death. These higher heaven beings are destined to attain parinibbana and it is not possible to come back to earth(maybe few come back to earth with their choices to help few people). Also in the spirit world there are no boundaries, every being in the spirit world can shift their awareness to the higher realms, but only enlightened beings stay there untill attaining parinibbana

There is suffering in heaven. They still have to eat to maintain their bodies. They feel frightened when they get to know that their lives are running out. I've heard that there's a divine tree with flowers in the palaces of the Devas. When an year of their world comes to completion, a flower will wither and fall down. That is how they know that they are ageing. When they see this, they get upset and worried. Then they come to human world to acquire fresh merits. Also, their radiance diminishes as they age. When they are about to die, the flower garlands around their necks wither and they start to sweat as well. It is also said that they can perish if they get angry or forget to eat because they are too caught up with other pleasures.
Yes, there are greater distractions to the path in heavens due to the extreme sensual pleasures, but there are Devas and Brahmas who spend their time meditating. Especially the ones who have attained Magga Phala. Also, in the suttas we hear about many Devas and Brahmas attaining enlightenment after listening to the Buddha's sermons. Ex: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, Anatta Lakkhana Sutta etc.
Here are some of the advantages of being a Deva or a Brahma with regards to practicing the Dhamma

They are born in full form with palaces and all the other requirements. They are not clumsy like humans at birth. So they don't need to spend a childhood orienting themselves to the world, studying and acquiring skills to make money just to get food, clothes and lodging. That saves a lot of time.
They don't get sick. It can be difficult to meditate if you get sick often.
They don't have bodily discomfort. So they can sit in one position for a long time. This is actually more useful if you do Samatha first and then turn it to Vipassana.
They don't have to take bath or cleanup as divine food has no excrements. So while meditations like Patikulamanasikara won't work in heavens, it saves time for other meditations.
Their life spans are huge. So once they learn a meditation technique, they can keep practicing it without having to learn it all over again.
They don't get angry easily, so they can possibly attain concentration faster, if they seclude themselves (helpful for samatha pubbangama vipassana).
They possibly get to meet other Devas and Brahmas who have directly heard the Dhamma from the Buddha. The Abhidhamma was fully preached at Tavatimsa heaven. So there are Devas and Brahmas who have heard the comprehensive version. We humans only have the summarized version.
The higher chance of meeting enlightened beings in heaven compared to human world nowadays.
The ability to read the minds can help them recognize enlightened beings easily. The divine eyes and the divine ears can be used to listen to all the sermons of the Buddha even from the palace.
The chance to hear the Dhamma from several Buddhas

Also, bear in mind that suffering in the first noble truth doesn't just mean pain. A pleasurable experience is also an instance of suffering as it is subjected to change and death.

Yes, so much I didn't know. Thank you Sankha! :)

Added a few more ;)


text:
Transforming the three poisons
This collection of Dhamma Lists includes the following,

Three Poisons/Defilements (Kilesas – lit. torments of the mind)

Greed (lobha) – mindfulness transforms this into Faith
Aversion/hatred (dosa) – mindfulness transforms this into discriminating Wisdom
Delusion (moha) – mindfulness transforms this into Equanimity

What do the statements like "mindfulness transforms this into Faith" mean? Where else (in literature) is this explained? Why these particular pairs (Faith from Greed, Wisdom from Aversion, and Equanimity from Delusion), what is the connection or how is the transformation between each pair?

Wikipedia gave a different set of pairs as Opposite wholesome qualities, which seem more obviously connected/related/opposite than the pairs or "transformations" listed above:

The three wholesome mental factors that are identified as the opposites of the three poisons are:

amoha (non-bewilderment); prajna (wisdom)
alobha (non-attachment)
adveṣa (non-aggression, lack of hatred); mettā (loving-kindness)

The principal aim of the Buddhist path is to cultivate these and related positive qualities.

That's a good question. I have also been wondering about these descriptions and where they have obtained the information.

I found some explanation.

The article titled The Way of Wisdom says the following, which explains a connection between greed and faith,

It is usual to classify types of personality according to whether they are dominated by greed, hatred or confusion. Those who walk in greed are said to be more susceptible to faith than the other two, because of the kinship which exists between faith and greed. To quote Buddhaghosa (Visuddhimagga III,75):

"As on the unwholesome plane greed clings and takes no offense, so faith on the wholesome plane. As greed searches for objects of sense-desire, so faith for the qualities of morality, etc. As greed does not let go that which is harmful, so faith does not let go that which is beneficial."

So then, looking at the next section of Visuddhimagga, that explains a connection between aversion and wisdom (literally intelligence and understanding),

One of intelligent temperament is parallel to one of hating temperament
because understanding is strong when profitable [kamma] occurs in one of hating
temperament, owing to its special qualities being near to those of hate. For, in an
unprofitable way, hate is disaffected and does not hold to its object, and so, in a
profitable way, is understanding. Hate seeks out only unreal faults, while
understanding seeks out only real faults. And hate occurs in the mode of
condemning living beings, while understanding occurs in the mode of condemning
formations.

Reading further in the Visuddhimagga I don't see a similar relation delusion and equanimity. Paragraph 77 relates delusion with a "speculative" temperament:

One of speculative temperament is parallel to one of deluded temperament
because obstructive applied thoughts arise often in one of deluded temperament
who is striving to arouse unarisen profitable states, owing to their special qualities
being near to those of delusion. For just as delusion is restless owing to perplexity,
so are applied thoughts that are due to thinking over various aspects. And just as
delusion vacillates owing to superficiality, so do applied thoughts that are due to
facile conjecturing.

I'm not sure that "speculative" is good nor related to equanimity.
There is one paragraph later on, though, which clearly relates delusion with equanimity ... because, it says, delusion is an equanimity cased by unknowing,

And by seeing and so on: when one of greedy temperament sees even a slightly
pleasing visible object, he looks long as if surprised, he seizes on trivial virtues,
discounts genuine faults, and when departing, he does so with regret as if unwilling
to leave. When one of hating temperament sees even a slightly unpleasing visible
object, he avoids looking long as if he were tired, he picks out trivial faults, discounts
genuine virtues, and when departing, he does so without regret as if anxious to
leave. When one of deluded temperament sees any sort of visible object, he copies
what others do: if he hears others criticizing, he criticizes; if he hears others praising,
he praises; but actually he feels equanimity in himself—the equanimity of
unknowing. So too with sounds, and so on.

In summary:

Greed searches for and tries to keep for objects of sense-desire – faith searches for and tries to keep qualities of morality.
Aversion rejects things because it's of a hating temperament, and looks for unreal faults – wisdom rejects formations, and looks for real faults.
Delusion feels equanimity because it's ignorant.

The context comes from a previous paragraph, i.e. they're meant to be descriptions of different "temperaments".

But mundane concentration should be developed by one who has taken his
stand on virtue that is quite purified in the way already stated. He should sever
any of the ten impediments that he may have. He should then approach the good
friend, the giver of a meditation subject, and he should apprehend from among
the forty meditation subjects one that suits his own temperament. After that he
should avoid a monastery unfavourable to the development of concentration and
go to live in one that is favourable. Then he should sever the lesser impediments
and not overlook any of the directions for development. This is in brief.

this is correct. now you can accept your own answer! :)


text:
What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'?
This page of Dhamma Lists includes,

Four Brahma-viharas (Highest Attitudes/Emotions)
Heavenly or sublime abodes (best home). Near enemy is a quality that can masquerade as the original, but is not the original. Far enemy is the opposite quality.

Lovingkindness, good-will (metta): Near enemy – attachment; far enemy – hatred
Compassion (karuna): Near enemy – pity; far enemy – cruelty
Sympathetic joy, Appreciation (mudita), joy at the good fortune of others: Near enemy – comparison,hypocrisy, insincerity, joy for others but tinged with identification (my team, my child); far enemy – envy
Equanimity (upekkha): Near enemy – indifference; far enemy – anxiety, greed

Given that "pity is the near enemy of compassion", then what is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity' (e.g. what is present in compassion but absent in pity, or vice versa)? Does knowledge/awareness of that difference somehow inform your intentions and/or actions?

The dictionary descriptions of compassion and pity are similar. But in modern English usage, pity has an element of holding yourself superior to whatever conditions are affecting the person you feel pity towards.
So you may feel sorrow for someone and pity them, but at the same time feel they are in some way responsible for their predicament. It's a subtle thing.
Compassion and sympathy are the words used to express the sorrow or concern you feel for someone when you don't have this same feeling of superiority or feeling that the person is somehow to blame for their misfortunes.
An example of this is that to say to someone, "I pity you" is quite an insult while to say to someone "I sympathize with you" or "You have my compassion" is comforting or reassuring.
I've seen karuna described as compassionate pity. And with the qualifier of "compassionate" it works around this subtle element of superiority/blame.
None of these words necessarily mean taking action to help or relieve the suffering of the being who has prompted your compassion, pity, or sympathy. You may feel moved to help or you may feel unable to help. Your decision to help, or not, is different than the feeling of sorrow for another being. An example: two people watch a documentary on drug addiction. One feels pity for the addicts as they believe them to be responsible for their predicament. The other feels compassion for the addicts as they view addiction more as an illness. Neither one takes any action to help but they have each experienced the emotion of sorrow for another being in different perspectives.
From a Buddhist point of view, feeling superior to someone else (by looking on their misfortunes with pity instead of compassion) would be short sighted as the ripening of our own karmic fruit is always unknown until it happens.
Edit
It's possible this view of pity, as being sorrow touched with superiority to that which is being pitied, is not universal. However here in the United States, if a person were to say, "you have my pity" an expected response might be, "I don't need your pity!" or "I don't want your pity!". Actually those words are said even in cases where a person suspects they are being pitied. In these parts, "pity" definitely has negative aspects which are not present in "compassion" or "sympathy".

This answer is based on my own understanding of compassion and pity.
Compassion is an honest and true way of wanting to help another being. One sees and understands this beings situation and wants to help. In this type of help there is no attachment involved. This way of helping is pure.
Pity is different. In pity there is an element of attachment present. One might even feel guilty or obliged to help. One helps because one wants to ease the bad conscience that has arisen.
So compassion is a pure and genuine wanting to help while pity is wanting to help based on attachment in order to ease ones own guilty conscience.
If i can make a comparison then compassion is like having a real rose and taking care of it because of its gentle nature. Pity is like having a plastic rose that one does not need to give any special care.

I stumbled upon a video by Ven. Yuttadhammo that you might find useful. It's called "Ask A Monk: Compassion vs. Pity".
A little summary of it is as follows:

The question was, "It's easy to feel compassion for someone who's worse off than I am; but how can I feel compassion for someone who's better off, who I don't pity?"
The answer started by saying that the brahma viharas are meditations in their own right which you can practice if you feel yourself lacking in them; but that according to the tradition which he follows they are not considered to be crucial or essential because the more important thing is wisdom: if you have wisdom then you'll naturally be compassionate.
Compassion manifests as "non cruelty"
When someone else does evil things then you feel compassion because you know they're suffering or are going to suffer
Compassion has no bearing on whether someone people is badly off or someone is well off: it's a state of non-cruelty, it's a state of wishing to help people who are in suffering and not wishing to hurt people; it's a state that's in harmony, that's free from the evil where we do hurt other people and try to get the better of them.

So you think that one difference might be "a guilty conscience". I read elsewhere that a difference is "condescension" (if you feel condescending towards the person you're helping).

I'm not sure about "self" or "ego": is there inevitably some ego in "I want to help" or "that person could use my help" or "... some help from me"?

It was a unclear use of words from my side. What i meant by self or ego is attachment. Answer updated.

I think that is a good perspective on pity too. Condenscension and guilty conscience.

Pity has self and other, compassion is eliminating the self and the other, and seeing both as the same. The important aspect of the shared pain, though not shared suffering.


text:
Are there pictures/paintings of Nirvana?
I´m writing an article about pictures of the afterlifes/havens in different religions. But I wasn´t able to find pictures/paintings/artworks that picture Nirvana on the internet. So my question is: Are there pictures of Nirvana?

Hi, and welcome to Buddhism.SE - please read the guide for new users, if you haven't already.

You probably use a pic of an extinguished oil lamp.

You can leave a page blank and as caption write nirvana.

You could draw a picture of a bonfire that has gone out.

I think the OP meant to say 'heavens' instead of havens...although 'havens' is eminently appropriate...in fact more appropriate when discussing nibbāna (-:

Nirvana isn't a heaven, but a state or condition where there is no
  death, because there is also no birth, no coming into existence,
  nothing made by conditioning, and therefore no time.

See Wikipedia - Nibbana
It isn't a place of pleasures, like heavens typically are, but a state of no becoming, no dualities like pleasure and pain. It neither is, nor isn't.

In a famous passage in the Nibbana Sutta (Udana 8.1), the Buddha
  states:
There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor
  fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor
  dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of
  nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception;
  neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there,
  I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing
  away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support
  [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress (dukkha;
  suffering)

Does that mean there are no heavens in Buddhism? Not like the Christian idea, as a final destination, no.
However, there are realms (ex. Trayatimsa) which are more pleasurable than earth, where one can with enough merit be reborn and eventually die to be reborn again, ad inifinitum till Nirvana i.e. cessation. See Wikipedia-Buddhist Cosmology
Here's an artist's imagination of Trayatimsa realm, however there can be no picture of Nirvana. (Image source: Wikimedia-commons)

EDIT:
Considering it some more, I think the abstract expressionism of the Zen Ensō or circle is what you want.

The ensō symbolizes absolute enlightenment, strength, elegance, the
  universe, and mu (the void). It is characterised by a minimalism born
  of Japanese aesthetics.

Source: Ensō - Wikipedia

On traditional bhavachakra images, Nirvana in its "peace of mind" aspect is symbolized by the full moon.
While sentient beings down in the realms of Samsara are busy chasing desires and experiencing fruits of their own actions, Buddha points his finger at the moon as if saying: "if only you could let go of your attachments, you would get it right here and now":

It is interesting that a recent movie called The Tale of Princess Kaguya depicts exactly the quote you used. The movie is about the princess' attachments to the Earth which make her actually prefer to avoid that travel with Buddha.

And from this movie, the Nirvana "is" the moon.

There are depictions of after-lifes (e.g. heavens and hells etc.).
However Buddhism teaches that these too are impermanent and not ultimately satisfying.
Nirvana is meant to be instead of afterlives such as those. It supposes a turning away from form, from sense-impressions, and from mental imaginings (and so I don't see how to depict it as a picture).
If you need an equivalent, an equivalent might be a representation of the Buddha (there are many pictures of that).
Or the only other pictorial symbol I can think of, that's sometimes used to represent enlightenment, is the Ensō.

Only conceptual ones, IE only artists interpretations.

I think the fact that only artists interpretations can exist is a given; the OP wasn't asking for a photo from a postcard sent to Earth from Nirvana! You touch on how it really is with your "conceptual" comment, though.

As others have mentioned, Nirvana is not a type of heaven, it's more of an extinguishing of conditioned things. It wouldn't make a very good picture. However Buddhism is not without its heavenly places. Some schools of Mahayana Buddhism have a Pure Land practice or consider the Pure Land to be a destination on the way to becoming a Buddha. Both the descriptions and depictions of the Pure Land are quite lovely.

Moreover, Shariputra, in that Buddhaland there is always divine music and the ground is yellow gold. In the six periods of the day and night a heavenly rain of mandarava (white lotus) flowers fall, and throughout the clear morning, each living being of that land, offers sacks full of the myriad of wonderful flowers, to the hundreds of billions of Buddhas in the other directions…
Shariputra, in that Buddhaland when the soft wind blows, the rows of jeweled trees and jeweled nets give forth subtle and wonderful sounds, like one hundred thousand kinds of music played in symphony. The hearts of all those who hear are naturally inspired with mindfulness of the Buddha, mindfulness of the Dharma, and mindfulness of the Sangha… Source: http://cttbusa.org/buddhism_brief_introduction/chapter7.asp

Although not quite nibbāna, I will contribute a drawing inspired by the experience of the base of neither perception nor non-perception by Tina Rasmussen, student of Pa Auk Sayadaw.


text:
The formless jhanas in this world
When a meditator achieves e.g. the 5th jhana of infinite space, is he or she still in this world?
Obviously the body is, but what about the mind?
I ask this question for a broader one: can sentient beings perceive the world of form as something formless? i.e. can we imagine a termination of form as something which can happen to this mind?

The first two questions seem clear, but I am struggling with your last sentence... Any way you can clarify what you are asking? "termination of form as something which can happen to this mind" - meaning, can I imagine that I will cease to exist? Like, REALLY imagine it? I think I have read that an Ego cannot really posit that thought, that it is simply impossible for an ego to hold it. The Nondual perspective is that form cannot terminate, having not properly been. Then there is the Heart Sutra: "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form." Am I getting warm?

yes i was asking about the "ego" in the (broadly) cartesian sense. i've looked into more secular philosophies which make the claim you can't "posit that thought" but the results were sparse. what about buddhism?

I always thought that "I think therefore I am" was fishy, or outright nonsense. It appears that the one Answer does not touch on this aspect of your Question. I am not sure if Buddhism addresses it. My guess would be that it is regarded as Vexing.

however it's stated and whatever metaphysics you have, i think that sentience is a tangible quality which overlaps both in buddhist and european philosophy

When a meditator achieves e.g. the 5th jhana of infinite space, is he
  or she still in this world?

Yes, he doesn't disappear. When you sleep, you are not aware of what's happening around you. But that doesn't mean the world is gone.

Obviously the body is, but what about the mind?

Yes, the mind is still associated with the body. Just that it's focusing on the space element.

can sentient beings perceive the world of form as something formless?

Atoms are 99.9999999999999 percent empty space. They say If you remove all the space in the atoms, the entire human race could fit in the volume of a sugar cube. That gives you an idea of how much our senses fool us. It's mostly empty space.

i'm almost sure this answers the question. thanks you

is the answer the same for mind only schools of buddhism?

" mind only schools of buddhism"? That's not Buddhism!


text:
Emptiness and one taste
Might it be true that emptiness can be conceived of as the one taste of mind: that the world of mind has only one reality which is everywhere and always the same, unchanging.
Who (which groups or individuals) say so?
And: what reasons are there to believe it is a correct charaterisation of mind?

hey can you explain the downvote please ?

Yes of course. I downvoted the question because i think it's too philosophical in nature and might be better of asked in Philosophy SE. Asking for what "groups or individuals" says what is more of a philosophical approach. In Buddhism one does not rely on opinions, instead one go and verify or falsify phenomena for oneself through the practice of insight meditation. Hope that makes sense.

I agree with Lanka. At best, words can point towards truth. This question is asking if the mind can be thought of in a certain way. "The mind" is just a concept that means different things to different people. Experience through insight is what brings about understanding of the mind, not asking questions about it.

I think such experiential truths should not be intellectualised. Any intellectual stance - of permanence or impermanence will be outside of non-dual reality.
Silence is the right answer. cf. Vimalakirti sutra (Wikipedia).

Vimalakīrti remains silent while discussing the subject of emptiness
  with an assembly of bodhisattvas. The bodhisattvas give a variety of
  answers on the question what non-duality is. Manjusri is the last
  bodhisattva to answer, and says that "by giving an explanation they
  have already fallen into dualism". Vimalakirti, in his turn, answers
  with silence.

p.s. I didn't downvote, I don't object to the question.

ok that's to the point, i will think about it, thanks :)

If one focuses on the emptiness of things, it will be the object of the mind at that time. Those(non Buddhists) who attain the Ākiṃcanyāyatana(7th Jhana) could get the false view that sphere of Nothingness is unchanging and permanent. But it isn't.

hi, i wouldn't call "unchanging and permanent" space the reality or nature of things. i will edit the question a little, thanks :)

but unchanging is the same as permanent :)

ah i don't know how i should edit it. i was specifically asking about a supposed (hidden) nature of every realm; i was asking if the idea of emptiness can be stated as nothing more than the fact that the reality of all things is emptiness - that the concept of "emptiness" can be said to be the same for everything, unchanging, but cannot be said to be anything else at all

Everything is empty of a soul or a self. Apart from that there's a Datu called Akasa in every Rupa. But that is not unchanging.


text:
Is a straight spine/spinal posture during seated meditation critical?
I notice, in images of monks and lay people in seated meditation, that many of these various persons appear to be using very poor posture, e.g. slumped and not erect. Written instructions and video instructions often recommend adherence to a straight spine and/or an erect posture. I think the Buddha simply instructed that one sit, without specific instructions about an erect straight-spine posture. Therefore, I find myself confused and distracted regarding "correct" posture. My breathe seems to be more natural and relaxed if I "slump" just a bit and dispense with the "straight spine". Although, I've also noticed that when I notice that my attention to the breathe has wavered I have gravitated into a more pronounced "slump"! SO, what is most acceptable and correct?
Thanks for any advice that is offered :)

Posture is more or less important depending on the type of meditation. In Zazen straight spine is important for example. What type of meditation are you practicing? Knowing that will help to get you usable answers. :)

I think I am practicing what Theravada teachers would identify as serenity meditation. I endeavor to sit for one hour daily before sunrise, then again in the evening. For a meditation object I practice attention to the breathe, as evidenced by the sensation of air moving into and out on the nostrils. Attention to the rising and falling of the abdomen is a bit more challenging for me. I am hoping for access concentration so I can have a recognizable indication of success. I have, on rare occasions, experienced or recognized what I think may have been "insight" into impermanence. Thanks :)

btw, I sit in what I think is a Burmese position, with the right leg on top of the left, the right foot on top of the left calf. My hands are in my lap, with the right hand on my left. I use a buckwheat hull zafu to gain a bit of elevation, so my pelvis can rotate forward just a bit. Sitting for an hour in the morning is usually not a problem for me physically, although trying to sit for an hour in the evening can be a real challenge because of extreme monkey mind, which is very frustrating :-P

If you are sitting on your own volition, that's a huge success right there!  Don't worry about achieving certain states.  Those will come with time.  And of course your mind is scattered in the evening!  You had the whole day to rile it up! ;-)

This answer to a previous question may be helpful to you. Best wishes. :) http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/9263/introduction-to-samadhi-meditation/9272#9272

Don't look at posture as a matter of right and wrong, correct or incorrect.  Ideal posture exists for the sole purpose of helping you develop concentration.  The general idea is that an upright body equals an upright mind.  Slouching is going to cause you to fall into sleepiness.  Your mind will go as slack as your body.
On a more mundane level, if you tend to tilt forward in your sitting, a couple of other things are going to happen.  For one, after about a half an hour, the middle of your back is going to start to hurt.  You might also feel tension in your shoulders as your muscles struggle to keep your body upright.  You might also notice that as you lean forward, you start to restrict air flow.  It's not like this is going to cause you to pass out, but it will be harder to do deep, abdominal breathing.
And remember, this is an ideal.  No one is going to smack you upside the head if your posture goes a little slack (well, unless you are studying at a Rinzai temple!).  Maintaining correct posture is only going to benefit your sitting.


text:
What is the difference between a cula sotapanna and 'faith follower' ?
I have read in many places about Cula Sotapanna or 'Lesser Sotapanna' and 'Faith Follower'. Are they the same or different? Do both of them attain to Sotapatti phala in the same lifetime?

Good question! Cula Sotapanna is when you reach the 2nd knowledge of Vipassana - "paccaya pariggaha nanena samannagato, niyatha gathiko, vipassako, cula sothapanno nama"

Definition of Faith follower and the timing of his attaining of stream-entry can be found in SN 25.1

One who has conviction & belief that these phenomena are this way is called a faith-follower: one who has entered the orderliness of rightness, entered the plane of people of integrity, transcended the plane of the run-of-the-mill. He is incapable of doing any deed by which he might be reborn in hell, in the animal womb, or in the realm of hungry shades. He is incapable of passing away until he has realized the fruit of stream-entry.

About Cula-Sotapanna, Piya Tan's comment on SN 55.24

The Buddha goes on to list six categories of persons who are assured of liberation, namely:
(1) arhats,
  (2) non-returners,
  (3) once-returnres
  (4) stream-winners,
  (5) [truth-followers] those who accept the Dharma only after pondering over it with wisdom
  (dhammā paññāya mattaso nijjhānaṃ khamanti) who do not have quick and sharp wisdom
  and have not attained complete release, but who do possess the five faculties (pañc'indriyani)
  of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom [sutta §11]; and
  (6) [faith-followers] those who only possess the five faculties but who have mere faith (saddhā,matta) in and mere love (pema,matta) for the Buddha.
The elder monks of old (poraṇaka thera) call such spiritually developed persons like (5) and (6) as "lesser
  stream-winners" (cūḷa,sotāpanna) or "maturing stream-winner" (bala,sotāpanna).

Cula litterally means small, less, tiny, microscopically small.  No record of Bhuddawajana (words from Buddha) of cula sotapanna.  It is later addition to pali cannon.  Personally I am very careful about later additions because it is not from Buddha.  One example of the danger of later additions, in 12 sutta, Buddha did not allow monks to make holy water but in 1 sutta, he himself gave his alm bowl to Anandha to make holy water.  that odd sutta is a later addition.   I dont know if i opened up a can of worms with my personal thoughts.
Back to the question,  Faith follower is one who firmly believes in Buddha's teaching that all things perceived by each faculty is not permanent and subject to decay and ending, and shall never die before reaching sodapanna.
Buddha categorized sotapanna into how many times he/she would return before reaching the enlightenment.  He did not use word "cula".
here is a free book about stream enterer.  the author compiled the sutta which are reasonably believed to be Buddhawajana.
http://watnapahpong.com/static_media/Sotapanna_Handbook_English_version_30.pdf


text:
What is Magga phala?
I've come across a few references to Magga phala and can only find obscure half explanations of what it is referring to and some of the explanations seem to be contradictory.

Magga is the path and the Phala is the fruit. Ex: Sothapatti magga and Satapatti phala. They are mentioned together as the fruit always follows the path immediately.

he terminology tag seems perfectly fine so I've just edited you question to take out the comment about the tagging. Metta

This is probably the only part of the buddhist teachings that is subtler, more nuanced and complex than the teachings on emptiness. I would suggest reading from several sources. One of them is Mahasi Sayadaw. Hopefully others will give better answers.
http://www.aimwell.org/progress.html Is about the progress of insight culminating in magga and phala.
http://www.aimwell.org/natureofnibbana.html Is about nibbana itself.

Magga is Pali for "path" or "road", and phala is Pali for "fruit" or "result". Thus it is a compound word that can be understood as the result obtained by proceeding on the path to enlightenment. This is the general use of the term, whenever one refers to the benefits of enlightenment.
It can also be used as a precise technical term by some, but before I get to that I will take a moment to explain something about the path, and its destination.
Many Buddhists believe in a graduated path towards enlightenment. The Theravadan belief describes a very precise (some would even say too precise, but really there are always those who cast doubt on anything in any religion) mapping of these states, where, upon attaining each of these states one is expected to have graduated, and having locked in their attainments, cannot fall back to lower states of being.
The Sutta Pitaka classifies the four levels according to the levels' attainments.  The four Ariya (noble) states are, Sotapanna (stream-enterer), Sakadagami (once-returner), Anagami (non-returner) and Arhat (completely unbound).

A Stream-enterer is free from:

Identity view
Attachment to rites and rituals
Doubt about the teachings

A Once-returner has greatly attenuated:

Sensual desire
Ill will

A Non-returner is free from:

Sensual desire
Ill will

An Arahant is free from all of the five lower fetters and the five
  higher fetters, which are:

Craving for fine material existence
Craving for existence on the level of formlessness
Conceit
Restlessness
Ignorance

The Visuddhimagga is a commentarial book written by Buddhagosa in Sri Lanka almost a millenium after the Buddha, and is the reference text for many when dealing with intricacies in the stages of the path leading to each of these 4 graduations or path attainments.
Like a package tour covers the key tourist attractions in a foreign land, the Visuddhimagga lists the path in panoramic terms as the 7 stages of purification, and further subdivides them into specific terms as including 16 stages.
One hasn't simply not visited Paris, merely because one hasn't hit a key tourist attraction like the Eiffel tower; and one can visit Paris without using a specific tour operator. Similarly, one can proceed on the path without noticing clearly that one has crossed some of these stages, and one can notice other things not covered in these 16 stages, and one can even remain ignorant of the Visuddhimagga and attain these attainments. So I would say this list is a good way to examine the path, but not the only way.
Following attainment of each of the stages of enlightenment, several final stages of mind arise, of which two significant ones are, Magga and Phala.

Path Knowledge (magga-ñana)
  It is followed immediately by knowledge that abides in that same Nibbana, which is void of formations since it is
  the cessation of them. This is called "path knowledge."[43] It is also
  called "purification by knowledge and vision."
Fruition Knowledge (phala-ñana)
  That again is immediately followed by knowledge that belongs to the final stage and continues in the course
  of its predecessor. It abides in that same Nibbana, which is void of
  formations since it is the cessation of them. This is called "fruition
  knowledge."

Source: (Visuddhiñana-katha) by The Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw
For an approachable examination of enlightenment in more detail, please see Mind like Fire, Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
@EyeArrow mentions Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw's "Nature of Nibbana", I've not read it, but it looks interesting, so I'll probably read it soon.

Is this related to Lam Rim? Which I believe is a text about the stages of the path or Magga?

You'll want to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_Paths_to_liberation - Buddhists are often rather attached to their favorite path to non-attachment to anything. Laugh.

Haha yes, hence the saying, when you sail across the lake, leave the canoe behind. The only reason I bring up Lam Rim is because it is the path I am familiar with.

I signed up for a 10 day course on Lam Rim once, but decided my head wasn't clear enough to accommodate yet another tradition, so I didn't attend, and consequently I don't know anything about Lam Rim that I can't pick up by reading Wikipedia. Certainly comparing the two approaches is beyond me. This forum could do with more participants from the Tibetan tradition, so I welcome you to bring your Tibetan perspective to topics that can often get Theravada heavy.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I'll share what I know where I can

Magga means Path. Phala means Fruit. They are both supramundane (lokuttara) consciousness.
This is what A Manual of Abhidhamma says:

It is called
  ‘magga’ because it arises, destroying the passions.
  This Path thought-moment arises only once in the
  course of one’s lifetime, and is immediately followed
  by two or three ‘Fruit’ (phala) moments
. . .
Nibbàna . . . is termed supramundane, and is to
  be realized by the wisdom of the Four Paths. It becomes an
  object to the Paths and Fruits

There are four types of Path and Fruit consciousness. A pair for each of the levels of enlightenment (stream-winner, once-returner, non-returner and arahant).
Each Path moment can only be experienced once but Fruit moments can be experienced by non-returners and arahants immediately after emerging from cessation-attainment (Nirodha-samapatti).
Edit: Just wanted to add that magga/phala are moments of nirvana. That is to say, the senses (physical and mental) stop coming into contact without outside objects. Said more conventionally, sense perceptions turn off. It is like blinking but with all the senses simultaneously.

A minor correction: a person can repeat phala-ñana (fruition) any number of times after reaching that corresponding path (1st, 2nd, ...). Extended fruitions (minutes, hours) can be trained for on the 1st path as well, they are (as I understand it) different from nirodha samapatti.

Only by own experience (through insight meditation), one can better know Magga which is just like the entrance to a retreat which is comparable to Phala where one ( four Ariya) have it.


text:
How similar or different is Tantric Buddhism from Vijnana Bhairava of Kashmir Shaivism?
Tantra exists in certain traditions of Buddhism (I guess mostly in Tibetan and certain Theravada schools as well). It also exists in Kashmir Shaivism, as explained in the Vijnana Bhairava.
Can someone please help me understand how the schools Buddhism and Kashmir Shaivism differ (and are similar) in their approaches as well as goals for Tantric practices.

Both schools are pretty secretive about their tantric practices, and perhaps because of the secrecy often there is confusion even among practitioners of the same school regarding exact details. I don't know if any researcher has done a comparison, but any such research would be enormously difficult and risks being incomplete. It is likely both have a single common source for their tantric lineage - they are adjacent regions after all, and many believe Tantra in Buddhism is a Hindu import. And Tantra in Hinduism many believe is an import from tantric cults who existed before Hinduism.

Load Buddha was enlightened by understanding  the eternal law (of patichchasamuthpada)
OR four Noble truth, and Moksha.
OR delusion and how to avoid it.
OR Life is a dream and how to awake from it.
For explaining this he (and his followers) used several methods according to what the listener already believed.
Tantra-meditation and ritual practices that seeks to channel the divine energy of the macrocosm or godhead into the human microcosmThantra
Bhairav Tantra-it briefly presents 112 meditation methods or centering techniques (dharanas). Bhairav Tantra
These include several variants of
-breath awareness,(Ānāpānasati (Pali; Sanskrit ānāpānasmṛti, meaning "mindfulness of breathing") is a form of Buddhist meditation now common to Tibetan, Zen, Tiantai and Theravada Buddhism as well as Western-based mindfulness programs.)
-concentration on various centers in the body,(Sathipattana)
-imagination and visualization and contemplation through each of the senses.(Five Aggregates)

Moksha - Identity with Shiva(the deity who represents Universal Consciousness) - Link Kashmir Shaivism

Dilution is I - (My Self) concept. To remove this need systematic process. Tantra images are intermediate steps of some traditions.


text:
What does a monk think on a day to day basis?
I go through my daily chores and it has become habituated to the extent that i do not need to concentrate on the action and my mind has some time to do thinking or just wander.
Now monks life is also similar in that they repeat the activities over life time.
So my question, what does monk think on daily basis?
Does one control his thoughts or let it wander without attaching oneself to the thought? How does a monk achieve oneness or prepare to be in present?
Regards,
Contemplating One

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. I added some tags to make your question more visible. Also we have a guide for new users that you might find useful.

I'll disregard the emphasis on monks, because mindfulness isn't exclusive to monastics, and secondly, the monk as a super-hero trope needs some critical examination. Most monks, like 90% of them in traditionally Buddhist countries follow the herd, and ordain because it is better than farming, or because their family gets some respect in the village, or some motive other than nibbana and buddhahood. This means, it is the rare monk generally that graduates to being a real super hero in the sense of an Arhat, or who can practice or even attempt 100% mindfulness. This doesn't mean the rest of them are bad monks, not at all. Monks are human after all, and they are attempting the near impossible, which is more than one can say of most. Even in the time of the Buddha, there were a good many monks who were earnest at least initially, but were not so special, it appears.
I say all this because I respect and love the idea of monasticism, and don't want to see it become a Potemkin village. I live in India, where the popular notion of a monastic (Hindu, Buddhist, what have you) has taken a real beating, and a monastic is viewed by the urban educated as a sex and money crazy conman. There are still enough of course who unquestioningly fall at the feet of anyone in saffron robes, but that isn't very healthy either.
Politicians all claim to be incorruptible because no one votes for the one who is honest enough to admit he is a little dirty, because politics in general is a little dirty. And, monks and dharma teachers are similarly forced to at least tacitly let on that they are beyond simple human frailties, at least the really bad ones, and they constantly endeavor to live in mindfulness and bliss and speak in soothing voices.
The love of Nibbana cannot be born out of a hatred for anything, not even Samsara. In fact there cannot be Nirvana without Samsara, they inter-depend.

The old Zen saying is when sleeping sleep, when showering shower, when walking walk. This no-mind state is easier said than done.

By being regular in one's schedule and routine, and by having a time set apart each day to meditate one can bring about mindfulness.
Meditating daily or regularly, and attaining jhanas often is another good way to ensure constant mindfulness.
Being in the presence of an enlightened teacher who radiates mindfulness is yet another way to boost our own mindfulness energy.
Regular and heartfelt practice of Metta is another way to increase mindfulness.
Making a habit of returning to the present moment, is another good way. See, Thich Nhat Hanh's mindfullness moment practice
Not dwelling in negative thoughts and practicing the Bramha viharas is another method.

When waking, a monk thinks "waking, waking". When chewing, a monk thinks "chewing, chewing". When washing his bowl, a monk thinks "rubbing, rubbing".

"'But,' [he resolves,] 'I will think thoughts that are noble, onward-leading, that lead to the right ending of stress for the person who acts on them — i.e., thoughts of renunciation, thoughts of no ill will, thoughts of harmlessness.' In this way he is alert there.
Maha-suññata Sutta: The Greater Discourse on Emptiness

Actually the same way a Lay person would do. Renouncing unwholesome thoughts, maintaining good qualities and developing good qualities. Right effort as the eightfold path is the same, it's just that not so many gun-mans knocking on the door.
Practice for the Householder
Very useful collection:

The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Selected Texts from
  the Pali Canon and the Commentaries, compiled and translated by
  Nyanaponika Thera

I like your Achaan Chah link. Parts of it remind me of seeing my Guru at the center that she created. I like this quote: "Meditation does not simply involve being at peace with the world. On the contrary, confronting the self can be like walking into a raging storm. Beginning intensive practice, one often despairs at first and may even want to km oneself. Some think that a monk's life is lazy and easy - let them try it themselves and see how long they can stand it. A monk's work is hard; he works to free his heart in order to feel the loving-kindness that embraces all things."

I do not have a sutta reference, but a personal experience to offer. I used to run a retreat center. Much of the work was physical or chores, not mental: cooking (which takes some thought and creativity but gets fairly routine), cleaning, doing laundry and preparing rooms, grocery shopping, outdoor work, etc. I did this for 10 years, and part of the time I was learning all these tasks, but eventually had done them a long time and they were familiar.
I was a computer programmer before that, for more than a decade. I also used to read a lot, and I wrote and did artwork then. But at the retreat center, there was not time or energy (or sometimes inclination) to do anything using thought or creativity. This is not a balanced situation. It led me to do a lot of spurious thinking while doing other things, and that led to thinking of things that were not possible for me to do in my situation (due to lack of time, money, opportunities, friends, etc).
It is urged on people to be mindful and focus their thoughts while doing routine things, and this is a good skill to develop. It may be used any time. But expecting people to no longer use their cognitive, investigative, creative and social abilities is not going to work. Mindfulness is not enough. For people to be fulfilled, they must develop all aspects of themselves in a healthy way, and just doing the accounting at a retreat center is probably not enough to offset the many hours of non-thought, non-creative work. Sorry to say.