text:
Cause or how to get rid of ocd compulsions
Since quiete some years I'm suffering from ocd compulsions mainly characterized by repeating simple actions like closing the door, putting light on and off, typing something several times, etc.... And other simple actions. In my head it's something like something must 'feel' perfect or the right way and if it doesn't feel 'ok' I repeat until it does... kinda weird but ok... Is this a lack of self control? How do I get rid of this self thought behavior? I started doing this in a really stressfull period.
Thanks in advance,
Namaste

Instead of OCD, perhaps Buddhism can somehow help with "a really stressful period".

In Buddhism, the practise is called 'mental cultivation', which similar to OCD, repeatedly cultivates a Buddhist practise. For example:

What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?
For reflection, sir.
In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions & mental
  actions are to be done with repeated reflection.
MN 61

Therefore, when OCD keeps repeating the thought: "Its not good enough; its not good enough"; Buddhist practise would keep repeating the opposite thought in order to make the OCD thought subside, i.e.: "Its good enough; its good enough".
MN 20 states to replace an unskillful thought with the opposite type of thought, as follows:

When unskillful thoughts... arise in a monk through reflection on an
  adventitious object, he should, (in order to get rid of that), reflect
  on a different object which is connected with skill. Then the
  unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination, the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
Like an experienced carpenter or carpenter's apprentice, striking hard
  at, pushing out and getting rid of a coarse peg with a fine one,
  should the bhikkhu in order to get rid of the adventitious object,
  reflect on a different object which is connected with skill. Then the
  unskillful thoughts are eliminated; they disappear. By their
  elimination the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and
  concentrated, just within (his subject of meditation).
MN 20

Thanks indeed maybe the thought of saying it's ok can help.

@SammyVdb: While my limited understanding that the of the canon is that it does encourage Buddhists to sometimes engage with defiling thoughts forcefully, I would caution a person with OCD about trying this as a regular method. Pushing thoughts out, trying to substitute them for other thoughts, etc. can strengthen OCD thoughts, as I'm afraid know from experience. Additionally, the temporary elation felt by suppressing OCD thoughts makes the practice addictive, even though they tend to bounce back almost immediately.

@SammyVdb: Most effective (or at least, somewhat effective :P ) therapies reccomend coexisting peacefully with OCD thoughts in a structured way, without reacting compulsively. That said, I do think Buddhist practice can help with OCD. Aside from comforting the (or perhaps, validating) doctrines of not-self and impermanence I've found that meditating regularly, or before a difficult task, calms me enough that I can not react to a thought that would otherwise send me scrambling. I should emphasize that I'm new to daily meditation, so this is a very recent discovery for me.

(This is all meant without offense to the above answer of course.)

Buddhists don't take offense. As for my answer, it is a Buddhist answer. As for your suggestions, while they may possibly be better for OCD than the Buddhist approach, your suggestion is not found in the Buddhist scriptures. Also, using wisdom to change a thought is not "suppression". It is transformation. Regards

In my head it's something like something must 'feel' perfect or the right way and if it doesn't feel 'ok' I repeat until it does...

This part sounds like attachment. This is what we call it in Buddhism, attachment. Sounds like you need to learn to let go. Meditation should help...  Maybe try gazing at a flowing stream, like a creek, see if you can learn to let things go, without grasping. Then repeat the same with your thoughts.

Will try this! Thnx!

From my understanding, people with OCD do those rituals because it helps alleviate anxiety , etc.  I have heard from someone who heard it from somewhere that instead of giving in and commit to that ritual, try to observe the raise and fall of the anxiety with still body.  Eventually the anxiety will go away on its own without having to commit to that ritual.  Wish you the best.

Hello I will try this thanks for the tip! And yes it's true somehow I feel less anxious when I do them. So maybe what you're saying can help!

OCD is a lack of self control. Why? You already know why -> because you can't stop when you want to stop.
There are two schools for helping you stop when YOU want to stop: that of psychology and that of spirituality.
You can get rid of OCD by visiting a psychologist specialized in treating OCD or by visiting a wise spiritual teacher.
Since wise spiritual teachers are very hard to find, I would advise you to go to a psychologist specialized in treating OCD.

Please do not say lack of self control. To me that sounds putting blame to someone. OCD is usually a genetically inherited disorder. As you mentioned, I would suggest to seek a cognitive behavioral therapist. Acceptance and commitment therapy falls under the umbrella term "Cognitive behavior therapy" and shares some aspects of Buddhism. OCD can be managed by Exposre and Response prevention, because one learns that one must not give into thoughts and urges and thereby one is changing one's cognitions and feelings.

From a Cognitive Behavioural point of view Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP) might help. The whole idea is to expose yourself gradually. So you deliberately either postpone the very thing you supposedly cannot bear or you expose yourself to the problem. If one is obsessed by checking the stove one replaces that with an helpful and realistic self statement like "Okay, I feel now these uncomfortable feelings and they are hard to bear but I if I am honest with myself I can bear them and it's worth bearing because (...)" and at the same time acts the opposite, but be aware that it might be better to do that gradually instead of all in one chunk (flooding). Now many therapists (among that Albert Ellis is one proponent of that) support the idea of flooding, however, do it with caution. Rather do "challenging but not overwhelming", because in the end it's all about long term change and also the motivation and courage to do face your fears. If one floods just one time it's barely going to work and it can be quite unpleasant too, so be aware!
From a psychological viewpoint Emotions, congitions and behaviour are all in a reciprocal relationship. If you change one the other two will follow. Now, many circles say "change your thinking, change your thinking", but this alone might not always help because the conviction in the older belief is just too strong. So, one needs to think and act differently simultaneously. This is also why clinical depressed person are not treated with cognitive interventions (alone), because they usually don't work on highly depressed persons.  If one thinks "I'm too weak to get up" questioning that might help in a person who isnt depressed but if one is depressed one needs to gently and compassionately (!) force himself to repeatedly get up in order to convince himself that the former belief was erroneous.
I'm quite new to Buddhism and I like it a lot and I cannot give you "the" buddhist answer but what I can give you is a good method by Dr. Dryden which might be even somewhat similar to the idea of reflecting on the disadvantages tvat was endorsed by the Buddha, let me start:

Acknowledge that you have a feeling/thought/urge and do not kid yourself about it. Be honest and don't "should" on yourself, i.e.:" I shouldnt have this feeling, I must always feel serene.."
Realize that you do not have to act on it immediately (rehearse your self statement for example)
Acknowledge that you have an option: To act or not to act
See the (long term) disadvantages in giving in
Counter any possible reasons why it is good to give in
Do whatever you would have done if you wouldnt experience the craving
Keep in mind that your thinking might still be distorted and pulls you in your habitual way of thinking because your underlying irrational belief is still somewhat active. This needs to be done repeatedly and you will eventually lapse because we are all fallible. Accept yourself and try to do better in the fure and take the horror out of the badness.


text:
Sudden enlightenment described in the suttas
A lot of suttas mention the case of sudden enlightenment, during the time of the Buddha. Do these cases speak only of stream-enterers, or can they even be full arahants?
For me it's unbelievable, that either others or I must simply (!!) understand impermanence, in order to become an arahant.
Thanks

Related: The fourth path to attaining arahantship

The first five arahants are said to have attained that after hearing the Buddha's second sutta, which was the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic.
MN 26 however says,

And so I was able to convince them. I would teach two monks while three went for alms, and we six lived off what the three brought back from their alms round. Then I would teach three monks while two went for alms, and we six lived off what the two brought back from their alms round. Then the group of five monks — thus exhorted, thus instructed by me — being subject themselves to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth [etc...]

I don't know how to reconcile the timeline of that, with the Anatta-lakkhana sutta's being the second sutta.
This question is discussed on pages 43 through 44 (i.e pages 2 and 3 of the PDF file) of this document: Assaji Sutta (also known as "SD 42.8" of Piya Tan's Sutta Discovery series). The bit of that that's relevevant to your question is:

In other words, listening to the Dharma alone does not bring arhathood. Some stories of the great
  saints, such as Sāriputta and Bahiya Dāru,ciriya, give us the impression that they awaken merely by listening
  to the Buddha giving them a special teaching. However, it is imperative to remember the implicit
  fact that they are all good dhyana-attainers in the first place. It is their dhyana-purified minds that make
  them the perfect candidates for the attaining of arhathood. As such, it is not merely through listening that
  they become arhats (although, on the other hand, this “listening effect” may occur in the case of streamwinning).

I think, one can even go one more step back in the history: after the Buddha achieved "bodhi", the king-of-gods Sakko begged him to teach his new dharma, because "there might be some with little dust on their eyes" (see PC). From this we might easily conclude, that the 'sudden enlightment' by a couple of words is depending on how little dust one has on his/her eyes... (for whatever reasons: much ascetic/meditative experience (for instance Sariputta), dedication to "good ethics" - even in the cycles of rebirth (maybe Mahakassapa) and so on (some brahmanic priests or even "householders")).

Your question looks like the question "why the scientist can understand the relativity theory of Einstein, it is unbelievable!".
This is the reason why the theras told their story inside KN thera/therī-gāthā and KN thera-therī-apādāna at 1st saṅgāyanā of thera-vāda, because they want to let us know that they practiced themselves so long time ago more than you see their enlightened moment in sutta.
So, you and me, who have not enough practice-experience like those theras, still not enlighten after read many suttas.

I was also amazed when I read the accounts of Zen monks attaining enlightenment over slightest of push from the Masters.
What I have understood is that, Enlightenment is not a causal phenomena, its an acausal happening. You cannot do something which leads to enlightenment. You just have to cultivate the ground for enlightenment. Once done, anything can lead to that final quantum leap. Remember its a quantum leap, its not a linear traverse.
So, yes and no, you might need simply the insight of impermenance or you might need the Zen stick of a master, but you have to cultivate the soil.

Yes there were arahants who came to enlightenment just by hearing a 4 line sermon
bhahiya daruciriya  is such a one..Only for become maha arahant need a certain long period of time..For become arahant not need that much of time,but the time need for that decide on the karma he has earned throughout sansara..If someone's earned a good ability of understanding the dharma through his karma he cant become arhant just by listing to a short phrase of dhamma..Otherwise he need a ''Thrihethuka'' birth also,so that he can understand well

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:
Is it disrespectful or unlawful to have dharma tattoo in Sri Lanka?
I read sometime ago that a woman with a Buddha tattoo was deported from Sri Lanka.
Is it illegal because it's a Buddha image? Or other symbols like the dharma wheel are not allowed as tattoo as well?
What about tattoo images that resemble these symbols (e.g. a meditating person or a circle with eight spikes representing the Noble Eightfold Path)?
Thanks

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Help Center with useful resources that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

I'm a Sri Lankan dear user. As I know It's is not unlawful. But it can be considered as a disrespectful thing or as an insulting to Buddhist religion in Sri Lanka.
The problem was tattoos were not familiar in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankans aka 'Theravada Buddhists' believe that things related to the blessed one (the supreme Buddha) shouldn't be in our body as a tattoo, and shouldn't even be in our bed rooms (where we may do disrespectful things in front of the blessed one. But all of these are not laws just the tradition.
In the case you mentioned, that women had a tattoo of thw blessed one I guess. Some people misunderstood it as that women was trying to insult Buddhist. But she was released immediately.
Sri Lanka doesn't have tough laws related to religion. It's very kind hearted society. So if you are going to visit Sri Lanka just cover those tattoos and then people won't misunderstand you. And kindly explain that you are not insulting Buddhists and It's just a tradition in your country. May the triple gem bless you!

Nice answer. +1

I am not sure about the Law. But in Sri Lankan culture tattoos are quite looked down upon. As a result when you have a tattoo of Buddha it is considered as disrespecting Buddha.
But as long as the tattoo is not exposed (covered with clothes) while you are in public places, you are fine. Most probably air port will be the only place that you get directly in trouble with law enforcement with related to a tattoo.
As far as what symbols get you in trouble, I think anything that can be interpreted as a Buddha would do.

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


text:
The extent of free will
To what extent does Buddhism state we have free will and moral responsibility for our actions? Does Karma mean our future is predestined?

There's a similar closed topic here: “Free will” or just 'will' ?

This one is about Buddhism's position on this, that one was more conversational.

See also "Predetermined future vs. Free will in Buddhism".

In Transcendent Wisdom, H.H the Dalai Lama says:

it is a fallacy to equate the Buddhist view of causality with either
  the mechanistic determinism of classical physics, or the probabilistic
  determinism of quantum physics.

In Robert Thurman speaks of

[...]six well-known opponents of the Buddha [who were] teachers of
  nihilism, sophism, determinism, asceticism, etc.

In Buddhist Phenomenology, Dan Lusthaus says:

The instantaneous moment is key, since it is precisely here that
  Buddhism, for all its elaboration of causal determinants, escapes
  becoming a form of hard determinism. At the moment one recognizes the
  conditioning process for what it is-a pain/pleasure calculus shaped by
  previous experiences that sets the basis for subsequent attitudes,
  predilection, proclivities, experiences--one is free, detached from
  that chain's ineluctability. If such a moment of insight is fleeting
  or shallow, the old habitual patterns will reemerge. But ifthe insight
  is sufficiently radical, one can at that moment, detach from the
  chain, ceasing to be its locus. The chain thereupon expires, ceases,
  is eliminated.

To put it another way, the so-called 'doctrine of karma' means that whatever arises has causes and conditions. Whatever arises in our continuum is caused, partly, by actions we ourselves engaged in. For instance, if anger arises in my mind, it is because I created the causes of it, but it is also because other conditions gathered.
Now, we can affect the conditions that we created. For instance, we can purify negativities so as for them not to give the results they would have lead to. Conditioned phenomena are determined, but not predetermined in the sense one might imagine.
H.H. the Dalai Lama speaks of the issue because he is acquainted with westerners. However, a teacher of mine once said that he found the question (about predetermination) odd. In all his years of traditional studies, he never once thought of it or came upon the topic.


text:
What is beyond the realm of Gods.
After have studied Hinduism, and more modern reality creation referring to concepts such as higher vibrations, higher realms that exists beyond our material, such as the astral or heavenly.  Also having witnessed fruits of human/divine will and the power of creative imagination, such as people being healed.
However I have yet to truly study Buddhism, but I have a lingering sense that, unlike Hinduism, which is concentrated on an entity. That there must be something beyond the Gods, who most likely exist on a heavenly, but nevertheless, on a lower plane.
What is beyond that? Oneness of all concepts and Gods?  Infinite awareness?  Is it experiencial only?  What does Buddhism state when it comes to this?
Thanks guys.

The Buddha himself is beyond all gods. He is referred to as 'Satta deva manussanam' which means, he is the teacher to gods and humans. The word deva refers to both the gods and brahmas. And in that field he was incomparable. He was the supreme teacher and a vast number of gods, brahmas and human beings received his teachings, his advice, his guidance and they liberated themselves from this mass of suffering as a result of that.

The Theravada school teaches the thirty one planes of existence.
These 31 planes are separated into three major categories:

Immaterial or formless world (arupa loka)
Fine material world (rupa loka)
Sensuous world (kama loka)

The sensuous world is divided into:

Happy destinations (including the human realm)
Unhappy destinations (including hell and the animal realm)

The immaterial world has beings with mind but no body. This world is above or beyond the gods (brahmas and devas). The realms here include:

Neither-perception-nor-non-perception
Nothingness
Infinite Consciousness
Infinite Space

It appears that devas (a type of god) and humans live in the happy sensuous destinations, while there are brahmas and devas (types of gods) living in the fine material world. Brahmas are superior to devas.
Those who have reached the level of non-returners (anagamin) would be reborn in the upper five realms of the fine material world. After this, they gain enlightenment there and would no longer be reborn, after passing.
All beings, whether formless beings or gods or humans or animals or ghosts etc. are not immortal. The gods like the Maha Brahmas may live for a very long period of time, that they may assume that they are immortal, according to DN11. All unenlightened beings would face death and rebirth, while enlightened beings would no longer be reborn after physical death.
The Buddha is said to be the highest type of being of them all, who is enlightened and has psychic powers allowing him to teach gods and humans in the fine material world and sensuous world. But even he is not immortal or permanent.
The only thing that is not impermanent is Nibbana. Udana 8.1 describes it as:

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no
  fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base
  consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of
  nothingness, no base consisting of
  neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another
  world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is
  no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed,
  not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

It may depend on the school of Buddhism; for example:

The Theravada school may teach something like The Thirty-one Planes of Existence, with the proviso that the gods' (a.k.a. brahmas' and devas') time in the heavens is impermanent.
There are other traditions called Pure Land Buddhism which are a bit different.
And so on -- see for example Buddhist deities.

I think that, in Buddhism, enlightenment might often be regarded as greater than or beyond heaven -- but again, see Enlightenment in Buddhism, doctrine on this varies some from school to school.
Or perhaps you're asking about Dhyāna or Jhāna states (see Dhyāna in Buddhism). Or on the subject of "infinite awareness", some of the doctrine mentions "The Divine Eye", a supernatural power attributed to the Buddha.
But (except to the Pure Land schools) I'm not sure that these doctrines are of central importance to Buddhism -- i.e. writing about them might, I don't know, misrepresent what's central to Buddhism.
Perhaps more importantly, I suspect that all schools agree on something like, that heaven and hell and such-like are "mind-made", that there are mental "defilements" or "obscurations" (e.g. pride, avarice, and ill-will and so on), and that a goal at least for humans is to clean the mind of these. IMO one of the Zen stories illustrates that: The Gates of Paradise.


text:
What are the suttas in which the Buddha describes suffering as "burning"
I remember reading suttas in which the Buddha describes suffering, lust or other unwholesome mind states as burning. What are these suttas?

You may be thinking of the Fire Sermon (SN 35.28).
It says that the senses and so on are aflame ... aflame with lust, hatred, and delusion.
In more detail, it says the following are aflame:

Sense-organ, sense object, sense-consciousness, and sense-contact
Any feeling[s] arising from the senses ... including suffering (dukkha), but also sukha

... and aflame with:

The three poisons
Also birth, ageing, and death
And sorrow and so on


text:
Is there a connection between Guilt and Fear?
This is something a friend brought to my attention, something that he noticed in himself. He said he didn't start feeling guilt unless he was afraid of something. Is fear the cause of guilt? If not, are they at least connected?

Hello and welcome to Buddhism SE. We also have a Guide and a Resource tab for new users that you might like. Enjoy your time here.

In Buddhism, there are two important related words that are generally used as a word compound, namely, 'hiri-ottappa'.
'Hiri' means to feel personally & inwardly ashamed of hurting others or oneself.
'Ottappa' means to have an innate 'fear', 'apprehensiveness' or 'caution' about hurting others & oneself.
A translation of these two words which captures their meaning is 'conscience & concern'. A short essay on hiri-ottappa can be read at this link: The Guardians of the World (by
Bhikkhu Bodhi).
These two natural psychological self-protective mechanisms, which are mentioned in Lokapala Sutta: Guardians of the World (AN 2.9), can be related to 'guilt' & 'fear'.
However, 'guilt' & 'fear' are very strong words & emotions, which often are not related to the natural psychological conscience but related to guilt & fear imposed by external authorities ('asura').

Fear is forward looking, guilt is looking into the past with regret.  Fear can be used in our practice to focus the mind.  Guilt means we have not learned our lesson or not fully evaluated our past experiences.


text:
Should my happiness be dependent on the suffering of others?
Once I asked a wise man "Why should I be happy?" He said "Because there are people more miserable than you. Thank God that at least you are better than them."
There are couple of depressed kids living in my neighborhood(people call them mad). Sometimes I feel happy that at least I am not depressed or mad. I use their depression as a reason for my happiness.
My question is (from the Buddhist point of view): Should my happiness be dependent upon the suffering of others? In other words should my happiness be dependent upon my ability to find an example of new low in the human suffering?

For the question, "Why should I be happy?", if the answer is, "Because there are people more miserable than you. Thank God that at least you are better than them," I think this is not an answer appropriate for Buddhism.
The reason is that today there are other people worse off than you, but in the future, it is also possible that you are worse off than them. That's anicca - nothing is permanent. This answer also shows a lack of compassion and loving-kindness.
Instead, you can generate happiness through the Brahmavihara of loving-kindness (metta), to wish that both you and them would be happy, safe and at ease.
The other Brahmavihara is compassion (karuna). If you can't alleviate the sufferings of others, at the very least, you can contribute towards not increasing their suffering.
From the Karaniya Metta Sutta:

Think: Happy, at rest,
  may all beings be happy at heart.
  Whatever beings there may be,
  weak or strong, without exception,
  long, large, middling, short,
  subtle, blatant, seen & unseen,
  near & far, born & seeking birth:
  May all beings be happy at heart.
Let no one deceive another
  or despise anyone anywhere,
  or through anger or irritation
  wish for another to suffer.
As a mother would risk her life
  to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
  with regard to all beings.
With good will for the entire cosmos,
  cultivate a limitless heart:
  Above, below, & all around, unobstructed,
  without enmity or hate.
  Whether standing, walking,
  sitting, or lying down,
  as long as one is alert,
  one should be resolved on this mindfulness.
  This is called a sublime abiding
  here & now.

Excellent !! I think it would be appropriate for all us to repeat this metta sutta everyday. (This comment doesn't intend to add superficial content to the answer above. Instead it guides further to become happier.)

If today you feel happy/grateful because somebody's kids are mad and you are better, then if tomorrow I come and fight you or take away your belongings, you will be a very sad/depressed person. If 2 retarded kids decide your emotions or if I decide your emotions, then this is a very bad thing for you, because in any situation in life, you will feel all kinds of emotions. Your mood will be a slave to the world outside because anything can happen.
Whatever you feel as emotions is internal (inside you), be it happiness, sadness, anger etc., These are not external, please see this.
How do you want your emotions to be? Sweet all the time? Pleasant all the time? If your own emotions are controlled by you yourself, the owner, then there will be no need to think about some retarded kids to feel better/grateful.

A reason to be happy is because you have been able to meet the Dharma, and want to practice it.
If the Dharma is anti-suffering, you suffer less (or not at all) with the Dharma compared to without it.
So your happiness may depend on (or be contrasted with, you can be happy because you're better off than) the theoretical, miserable you-without-Dharma.

But I'm not sure that the mind can attend to so many different things at once, i.e. ...

Dharma
Theoretical absence of Dharma
Theoretical suffering in the absence of Dharma
Happiness that the suffering is only theoretical

... so it may be more straightforward and effective to simplify that, to just ...

Remembrance of Dharma
Happiness as a consequence of that

Perhaps the above still fits with, "Sometimes I feel happy that at least I am not depressed or mad."
But it doesn't imply you want other people to continue to suffer, for your own happiness to continue.
Instead perhaps you only need to be aware of your own suffering (if it arises), and its cessation.

Although, furthermore, beware that self-views (conceptualising a theoretical "me" that is suffering or not-suffering) are themselves not skillful (i.e. they're "a thicket of views" and cause of suffering).

It doesn't imply that I want other people to suffer but it develops a habit of looking for some example of suffering in the world in order to escape my suffering.

Theravada Buddhist Answer.

Should my happiness be dependent upon the suffering of others? In other words should my happiness be dependent upon my ability to find an example of new low in the human suffering?

Samsara is impermanent meaning that people's suffering changes too. If one bases happiness on an impermanent phenomena, one will unavoidably suffer too. That particular type of Dukkha is called "Viparinama-dukkha", the dukkha of the changing nature of all things.
The solution would be to practice the Noble Eightfold Path and work towards Nibbana.
Happiness comes from a pure mind, a stable and non-fragmented mind, thats able to see the true nature of reality.

A well trained mind leads to happiness and is not dependent on others.  We should wish for all beings to be happy.  It is a worthy dedication of merit.  Bedsides life is more enjoyable when we are surrounded by happy people.


text:
Did the Buddha teach meditation to lay people?
During his lifetime, did the Buddha teach meditation to lay people, or did he teach meditation only to monks?
Are there any references to this in the Pali Canon or commentaries?
It's clear that all Buddhists, including lay people, should gain the Right View by learning the Dhamma, for that is the first step on the Noble Eightfold Path. There are also references in the Pali Canon for lay people to live a virtuous life, for example in the Sigalovada Sutta.
However, most of the meditation teachings appear to target monks.

The Buddha taught people according to what interest them. Maybe, there were few lay people interested in meditation while still enjoying lay lifestyle then.
Though there is no record of such meditation suttas teaching to lay people, I believe a few excellent lay disciples received meditation guidance from the Buddha. For example, there is Uttarā Nandamātā who is described as "the best of women disciples in meditative power (jhāyīnam)". There is also Citta the Householder who is well-versed in meditation. There is a whole fascinating Samyutta about him.

Thanks for the interesting info on Citta the Householder, who explained meditation points to monks.

I accidentally came across a sutta with recommendation for householders to allocate periods for meditation. The Buddha gave this advice to Anathapindika the householder, in the presence of 500 lay followers.
From Piti Sutta (AN 5.176):

Then Anathapindika the householder, surrounded by about 500 lay
  followers, went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down
  to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there the Blessed One said
  to him, "Householder, you have provided the community of monks with
  robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal requisites for the sick, but
  you shouldn't rest content with the thought, 'We have provided the
  community of monks with robes, alms food, lodgings, & medicinal
  requisites for the sick.' So you should train yourself, 'Let's
  periodically enter & remain in seclusion & rapture.' That's how you
  should train yourself."

Piya Tan wrote in his commentary on Piti Sutta that:

Until recently (even up to the late 20th century), there is a common
  wrong view that spiritual training, especially mental cultivation or
  meditation, is only the domain of the monastic. The laity merely makes
  merit by serving and supporting the monastics. However, it is clear
  from the Pīti Sutta here that spiritual development by way of mental
  cultivation is just as important for the laity.

Anathapindika of course was not a regular householder... He was a very rich businessman (a banker?), one of the biggest sponsors of Buddha, and almost close friend. He went as far as to buy a piece of land just outside the capital and turn it into a permanent camp for Buddha and his followers... Here again we can see that Buddhist meditation is different from all other meditations with its unique focus on generating joy and peace through self-congratulation on one's ethical behavior.

It is said that there is no sermon without meditation. There were no buddhist monks when the Buddha attained enlightenment. The usual pattern is that the Buddha would preach the Dhamma to non-Buddhists and their minds would focus to a certain Dhamma teaching. In other words, they would meditate on the Dhamma, attain enlightenment or gain sufficient confidence and subsequently enter the order.

In the most well-known teachings to laypeople, there is no mention of meditation (satipatthana); such as in DN 31; SN 55.7; ; MN 60 (in which meditation is only mentioned after going forth as a monk); AN 10.176; AN 3.65.
In SN 56.11 (the first sermon), it is explicitly said the Noble Eightfold Path was for those gone forth from the household life, as follows:

Bhikkhus, these two extremes ought not to be cultivated by one gone forth from the house-life. What are the two? There is devotion to
  indulgence of pleasure in the objects of sensual desire, which is
  inferior, low, vulgar, ignoble, and leads to no good; and there is
  devotion to self-torment, which is painful, ignoble and leads to no
  good.
The middle way discovered by a Perfect One avoids both these extremes; it gives vision, it gives knowledge, and it leads to peace,
  to direct acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana. And what is that
  middle way? It is simply the noble eightfold path, that is to say,
  right view, right intention; right speech, right action, right
  livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That
  is the middle way discovered by a Perfect One, which gives vision,
  which gives knowledge, and which leads to peace, to direct
  acquaintance, to discovery, to nibbana.

In the modern West, most so-called Buddhist meditation for lay people is about accepting defilements rather than rejecting defilements.

Could you quote the passage that states this?: "it is explicitly said the Noble Eightfold Path was for those gone forth from the household life"

So are you suggesting that lay people shouldn't meditate?

No. I am merely speaking the reality that the vast majority of Buddhist laypeople are not practising the noble eightfold path that culminates in the four jhanas but are, instead, engaged in a self-psychotherapy exercise of attempting to watch their emotions, which is not what the Buddha taught.

It's difficult to prove a negative i.e. to prove that there is no sutta which satisfies the 'reference-request' (conversely, to "prove a positive" you just need to show an example). On [Skeptics.SE] the convention they use to "prove a negative" is to cite an expert's stating it in a (peer-reviewed) publications -- e.g. if a venerable wrote, "there's no sutta in which the Buddha taught meditation to lay people", then one might assume that author had carefully researched the literature before writing that, and quoting them would be a satisfactory answer to the OP's reference-request.

Not really sure what you are saying Chris. My post said: "most suttas to laypeople" rather than "all suttas to laypeople". There are obviously suttas where meditation is taught to laypeople but these are obviously the minority.

If there are suttas where meditation is taught to laypeople, then I think references to those suttas are what the OP is requesting. If you want to, it would be fine to answer "Yes there are a few (here, here, and here), but ...". Currently your answer implies (but fails to "prove") that there are none. (I was simply hoping to see the OP's reference-request answered, one way or another, and suggesting a way to provide "evidence" if the answer were "no".)

Its irrelevant because in the MAJORITY of cases meditation was not taught to GROUPS of laypeople. Meditation was taught to certain individuals who were capable of reaching jhana, such as Upali in MN 56. Buddha did not teach meditation to the masses.

You may be right, I'm just going by Answers vs Advice , i.e. try to answer the literal question as asked (i.e. "did the Buddha teach meditation to lay people ... are there any references ... [reference-request]") without reading too much into it (e.g. "no, assuming you mean MAJORITY and GROUPS and the masses"); I must have been reading the question as, "did the Buddha EVER teach meditation to ANY lay people".

@Dhammadhatu In AN 5.176, the Buddha taught Anathapindika the householder and 500 lay followers: "So you should train yourself, 'Let's periodically enter & remain in seclusion & rapture.' That's how you should train yourself." So that's proof that the Buddha advised lay people to allocate periods for meditation.

There is very little written in the sutta.


text:
Should I maintain my mindfulness 24 hours a day?
I love mindfulness but when I sleep I loose all my mindfulness. I see dreams in which I am unaware of the Truth.
Should I maintain my mindfulness 24 hours a day?
If yes , how can I maintain my mindfulness 24 hours a day so that mindfulness extends into my sleep?

Mindfulness will increase with correct, consistent practice. At some point, if continued practice occurs, the sleep cycle will be affected too, in the form of a lighter sleep with less dreaming and more awareness.
When balancing the Five Spiritual Faculties, Mindfulness is the only factor that is not balanced meaning one can cultivate as much mindfulness as possible without creating any imbalances in the mind.
I would recommend watching the video "How Mindfulness Creates Understanding (The Buddhist TV)" by Ven. Yuttadhammo.

What do you mean by "more awareness" during sleep?

@Val. Just increased mindfulness.

I agree with @Lanka. Science has shown through many studies (including this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3779833/) that the 'sleeping mind' seems to primarily exist to process thoughts and experiences originally gained from the 'waking mind'. This being the case, the more you can train your 'waking mind' to mindfulness in thoughts and experience, it would make sense that, over time, your 'sleeping mind' will be similarly fed with mostly mindful thoughts to process and aligned to mindfulness as well. Best.

The better you get at mindfulness while you are awake, the less dreams you will see while you are asleep. When you go to sleep, take the lying posture as the primary object of meditation and practice mindfulness until you fall asleep. If you still keep dreaming on a daily basis, you should get advice on your meditation technique and get it readjusted.


text:
Supposing mahayana nirvana is permanent does it have substance?
Supposing mahayana nirvana is permanent (and I believe it is called this) does it have substance? I'm just asking due to some completely trivial insights: it seems that a quality of my experience of time doesn't change, perhaps even arise or end.
And I'm wondering what that permanent quality is, or might be.

Possible duplicate of Does Nirvana have svabhava in Madhyamaka?

@ruben2020 not limiting it to madhyamaka ?

Nothing that is substantial can be permanent. Only absences (including cessations) are permanent. This is Buddhism 101.
In the Mahayana, Nirvana is the cessation (a permanent absence, never to arise again) of suffering and the causes of suffering.
What does not cease (in the Mahayana) is the continuum of consciousness, which has flowed from beginningless time, and will continue to do so after nirvana; It is a continuum uncontaminated by suffering and it's causes.
The continuum itself is not permanent in that it changes momentarily, just as it does while in Samsara.
Within the scope of the Asanga Mahayana, and the Dzogchen, Mahamudra, and Zen/Chan traditions especially, the continuum of mind is what persists - the base nature of awareness. When we; through choosing to use the mind as both the subject and object of our meditation; become aware of the conceptual narratives that determine our identities, and then strip them away, we are left with just the mirror-like awareness of the mental continuum. It is then that the opportunities of recognising that the narratives of time and being are mere constructs arise.  Within the scope of Nagarjuna's Mahayana (the Madhyamaka) we also use anti-philosophy to guide us to an understanding of the essence-lessness of all phenomena, which we believe to be the definitive meaning of Anatta.  Himalayan traditions use both Asanga and Nagarjuna together to provide both a conceptual and an experiential approach to achieving the path of insight.

I wonder why you call it 'anti-philosophy'. It seems excellent philosophy to me. I would also question your reification of mind. The usual teaching is that stripped of thoughts there is no such thing as mind. Not so much arguing, just raising potential issues.  .

@PeterJ, in Madhyamaka there cannot be any a priori assertions as there are no objective truths for said assertions to be grounded. Both Nagarjuna and Candrakirti acknowledge the resonance of philosophical language, but in the end it is a boat, a necessary boat, but merely a boat.  When you say "usual teaching" I recommend that you qualify your assertion.  Gelug/Sakya/Kargu/Nyingma:,The two qualifiers for 'mind' are that 1: it's clear, and 2: it's knowing. what are thoughts?

Oh yes, definitely only a boat. But Nagarjuna endorses a neutral or nondual metaphysical scheme, This is not anti-philosophy. It's the rejection of all extreme theories for being false. I'd call it the only plausible philosophy. It's truth (and N;s argument) would exlain why nobody has ever found another plausible philosophy. I feel there is much unnecessary confusion on this issue but can't say much here.  . .

This is not the place to have a discussion. But you must do your best to source your assertions, @PeterJ.  Show me where Nagarjuna says "I endorse a neutral or non dual metaphysical scheme". We should agree to disagree before this becomes a slinging match.

No need for a slanging match I hope. Here's my justification at length. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2017/05/aristotle-nagarjuna-and-law-of-non.html

Citing yourself is a bit odd!  Your opinions are certainly not the narrative of Nagarjuna. Kalupahana, while not always on the ball, is basically correct when he says "Nagarjuna demonstrated the futility of [...] metaphysical speculation". He wasn't bound by classical logic, but he used to to the best purpose: To help the bright student on her/his journey to liberation.

Your view is common but in my view it one of the most damaging misunderstandings. I didn't cite myself as an authority. I pointed to where I make a proper argument. I have a number of essays out there saying the same thing and have never received an objection. I believe the case I make is solid and inarguable. if you find an objection, however, I would be genuinely interested to hear it.  .

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

There is nothing that is called as Mahayana Nirvana.
Nirvana, as conceptualised by Mahayana is certainly different from Nirvana as conceptualized by Theravadins. Even within Mahayana, as Konchog above has answered well, it is understood differently by Yogacara school or Madhyamaka school.  But only the conceptualization is different. Nirvana- as cessation of all reaction (out of craving, aversion and ignorance), as a conceptual diffusion (prapanca) is the same for all schools of Buddhism. There are quite a few ways in which one can conceptualize nirvana- but none of them will talk of substance (in the ultimate sense).
There is no substance to begin with- but we think and believe there is- for example, an 'I'. When one realises that there is no substance as such, at the subtlest experiential level- one is said to attain Nirvana.

what do you mean "There is nothing that is called as Mahayana Nirvana": only that it lacks substance?

I mean that the category 'mahayana' nirvana is superfluous. Think of Nirvana as a destination (a common analogy associated with Nirvana). Whether you reach the destination by this route ir that route, doesn't change what the ddestination is called.

i'm not sure that is universally held by all buddhists so maybe include which buddhists agree

Mahayana nirvana is not held by all Buddhists. Theravadin Nirvana is not held by all buddhists. Nirvana is held by all buddhists. That is the point I am making. That is why I said Mahayana Nirvana as a category is superfluous. And a question arising out of a superfluous category, such as who holds what, also renders itself superfluous. Your intial question is about a permanent substance. All Buddhists hold impermanence. All buddhists hold a lack of substance. But of course you may pursue this matter of this or that 'yana' nirvana.


text:
The feeling that one is constantly one step away from enlightenment
The feeling that one is constantly one step away from enlightenment: does it have a Buddhist term for it? Pejorative or otherwise.
So I've heard of beginner's mind, but I doubt it covers it.

My understanding of 'enlightenment' is similar to awakened: beyond ego and self-view. Prior to that is what I call the Neo state: a self but with ego not operating. I am not aware of any 'official' designation for this state, but it is observable and needs a name.

That feeling correlates to different mental states.
For instance, if you believe yourself to be privileged because you (unlike others) are only one step away from enlightenment, then the basic affiliated mind is one of 'pride'.
However, if it stems from your aspiration to enlightenment, and your aspiration itself is rooted in renunciation where you - having recognised the universal pervasion of the three marks of existence - are thereby determined to make use of every moment of your entire being to achieve liberation (and, in the Mahayana, all beings) then that feeling is of great benefit, and is a mark of 'effort'.  The 'three efforts' in Mahayana (not disparate from Right Effort in the eightfold path) are:

Unflagging energy in enlightening activity
Unfailing confidence in enlightening activity
Complete joy in enlightening activity

good answers! you might want to elaborate on 'privileged', i mena it could perhaps help! cheers

There's a topic here about "pride": How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? (though maybe from a different tradition/lineage than Konchog's). Part of the answers there is that "pride" includes comparing yourself, "I am better" and/or "I am worse". Perhaps may be that as well as "privileged" it would also be a mark of "pride" if you believe yourself to be inferior or disadvantaged because you (unlike others) are still always a step away?

I guess I'd assume the feeling being describing is craving (for enlightenment) and personality-belief (I am or I am not enlightened), maybe restlessness and so on; but maybe you're thinking of something else. I think that beginner's mind (I think that's from Zen, a different tradition) is seen as a good thing.

@ChrisW, yes "beginner's mind"(openness, eagerness, and lack of preconceptions) are essential. But 'one step away' can lead to problems as well as benefits, which is what I (rather poorly) attempted to express.  If we spend our bus journey thinking that we may be about to reach the depot, we may easily lose enthusiasm when we don't arrive as quickly as we hoped. However, it is only by staying on the bus that we can reach the depot - and feeling connected to the depot, feeling 'it's where I am going' - which is implicit in the OP - is not such a bad way to be for a sincere practitioner, right?!


text:
Knowingly having to hurt a close person
I will try to get my situation across without going into too much detail. About a year ago I moved with my mother to the other end of the country. For me it was an adventure and a good opportunity to progress in my career. For her it was the realization of a childhood dream. Growing up in the southern part of Germany she always longed for the north and the sea. She thoroughly enjoys her new life.
For me, however, this was the worst year of my entire life. At the beginning I thought I merely had a bad case of homesickness but as the year progressed, I again and again slid into prolonged depressive episodes. I have been treated for depression before and I usually cope quite well with it, but now again, my situation has worsened to such a degree that I am convinced that I only have two possible courses of action: Get back to my hometown at the next opportunity or have my condition deteriorate until I am either hospitalized or until I harm myself.
For the second time since my move to Hamburg, I get back to my hometown on a business trip. Last time I was there, it felt as though I had waken up from a bad dream. Nevertheless, I made the trip back. This time, I am sure that I will be unable to return. On the one hand I am filled with joy at the idea of returning home for good, on the other hand I cannot put into words how bad I feel about having to tell my mother that I am not going to come back to her. I have to emphasize that she is dependend on me in a way that is certainly to be considered out of the ordinary. She has lost a lot in her life which is why she clings so badly to our relationship. I know that the announcement is going to leave her devastated.
I have about five years of buddhist practice and even though I think I have made a lot of progress and I know that I should aim to achieve upekkha, this is too big for me. This adds to the conflicting state, I am in at the moment. It feels as though, as if to add insult to injury, I am not only betraying my mother, but also failing in my endeavor to quite simply be a good person and to live according to the Noble Eightfold Path.
I am not sure what kind of counsel I expect or want to receive in response to this post, but in any case I am heartfelt grateful for everybody who took the time to read through this. (And maybe has a few lines of her or his thoughts to share.) This has gotten longer than I intended it to be but I want to make sure to make my feelings understood as precisely as possible.
By the way: I know that, quite apart from my feelings of spiritual shortcoming, depression constitutes a serious psychiatric condition. I do take medication and I have an appointment with my old Stuttgart-based psychiatrist two days from now. So I have taken care of that side of the coin. I would just like to try to evaluate and get feedback on my situation from a spiritual/Buddhist point of view.
Thank you again!

Have you meditated on the reasons why you feel depressed being away from your hometown?
Is it friends and your social life in your hometown? Or is it some other reason?
If it is the friends and social life that's the problem, then you can try to make new friends. For e.g. why not join your local Buddhist community? For example, you can explore the Buddhistische Gesellschaft Hamburg e.V.. They seem to have a lot of interesting activities like group meditation, sutta studies and dhamma talks.
This way you can solve two problems in one go. It is not always the case that you have to choose either A or B. Sometimes, you can find a third way, C.
Drawing upon the example of the Buddha's life, he found that it did not work if he chose either over-indulgence or over-asceticism. Instead, he paved the middle way to enlightenment. The same theme can also be found in the Sona Sutta with the analogy of the strings of a lute playing music only when it's not too taut or too loose.
So, I suggest that you don't have to choose either your sanity or your mother's extraordinary dependence on you. Instead, you can pave the middle way, by solving multiple problems simultaneously.

Thank you very much for your answer! I have been constantly trying to come to a conclusion what it is that causes this extreme suffering for me. On the most generalized level, it is a deep feeling of not belonging there. I think it is the entirety of missing all those familiar places I have known since my childhood, all the memories they conjure up; missing the people who share my language and mentality; the harsh, wet coastal climate that really gnaws on me. This and a bunch of other things that make me feel miserable.

Also, unfortunately, I can't just go and join a local Sangha. This is going to sound weird, but my mother is much plagued by (pathological) fears of loss that my leaving the house at unusual hours (like late in the evening) and on my own puts her under so much emotional stress that leaving is such an arduous process for both of us that I can't imagine doing this on a regular basis. Me leaving for the business trip today was quite traumatic for her.

@tigrefurry Based on your comment of " my mother is much plagued by (pathological) fears of loss that my leaving the house at unusual hours (like late in the evening) and on my own puts her under so much emotional stress" - I would agree with Andrei Volkov and suggest that maybe it's better to leave your mother. It might be beneficial for both of you in the long term.

Two thoughts, not particularly Buddhist, but coming from Buddhist experience... You may consider this inspired by my practice and the teacher's instructions...
One, regarding "the bad dream" experience. This sounds like a clear indicator that the town in the north is not your place in life. In my tradition we are taught to trust our intuition. Specifically, we believe that your life and your path should be bright... Perhaps difficult and full of effort, but not gloomy. If you feel like you're having a bad trip, that's enough of a reason for change.
Two, regarding your mom. It is pretty typical for moms who had difficult lifes, particularly had issues with their male partners, to form strong attachment to their sons. This works well for both sides for a while, but may turn into pathology over long time, if not checked. Most people who went though similar scenarios, would tell you should start separating from mom, even at the price of hurting her and yourself in the process. It will be for better long term, I think.
All in all, it sounds like you have come to the same conclusions yourself already, so all I can do is provide validation. It sounds like you're very reasonable and have good connection with your heart, so keep trusting yourself and going on your own path and you'll be fine.
As for causing pain to people... Sometimes we can't avoid it. As much as we would like to be perfect, we have to pay the price for the individualized existence. Accepting our inevitable contribution to the pain of others is a humbling experience and, in my opinion, makes us more humane.

Thank you for your thoughts! I have first marked your answer as "correct" as it expresses quite clearly what I feel. I do not mind hardship, I've lived through pretty bad episodes of financial problems and existential fears and my Buddhist practice did indeed help me to stop worrying about material matters. And your phrase nails it: I don't mind times of difficulties but I cannot live with perpetual gloom. As for my mom: I would like to believe that she would come strengthened from such a challenge and maybe able to finally live a life of her own and I think I might indeed be helping...

... her to achieve that. What makes me a bit more confident is the thought that in two or three years from now we might be able to look back on it and realize that this extreme situation was for the better. I don't know and Ajahn Brahm, who I admire very much, once stated that it is moot to speculate about the future since the future is likely to turn out completely different from what we imagine. Still, I hope for it to be that way.

By the way: Sorry - I took the "correct" marker away from your answer again, because there cannot be a right or wrong answer to my initial post. Still, your answer has encouraged me. Thank you!

You're welcome @tigrefurry - I know I did not quite open the new world with this answer, but as the Buddha said (paraphrasing), the teaching is taught for the sake of achieving certainty, so if certainty is all I give, that's good enough result for me.

I'm not sure that "you have to".
Do you have a choice about it?

If so, you don't have to -- you can choose to, if you want to.
If not, you don't have to -- it's not you doing it, it's just the way things are.

Also I'm not sure about "announcement". That means you're making a decision (by yourself), and announcing the decision after the decision is made.
Might it be better if your mum participates in the decision-making? "Mum, I feel I'll end up in hospital if I stay here; going home was like waking up from a bad dream; what do you think I should do? What should you do? What's best for us, can we compromise? How do you find it here, are you making friends?" and so on.
It may be that she wants whatever is best for you: and so, all you have to do is to figure out with her, discuss, what that is.
Similarly you may want what's best for her ... and these goals (best for her and best for you) aren't conflicting, because what's bad for you isn't good for her and so on.
I say this without understanding your personal relationship, but ...

Also "not coming back to her" is an extreme way to phrase it. It does take hours to drive across Germany, so if you are living at opposite ends of the country then you wouldn't see each other every day, but you might still want to visit each other for holidays or something -- and talk by phone and whatever else you want.
A lot of people live in different countries, even, and/or visit (but don't live with) their parents -- and a lot of people (parents and children) cope with that, so: a) it's maybe not extreme to ask/expect; b) there are many people with experience (role models, friends and advisers) of how to manage that.

And maybe your attachment to the old place is a bit of an attachment. I remember (and sometimes "miss") many places where I used to live. Sometimes I'm reminded of the end of chapter 80 of the Tao Te Ching, instead of thirsting for other places, to be somewhere else.

I tried asking this question, Duty to parents?, people's answers to which you might find relevant.


text:
Support for Parents
In the Mangala Sutta, the Buddha says that one of the highest blessing is to support one's parents. Was this just meant for the lay people?
Because elsewhere, he praises solitude and being alone in the forest to achieve salvation for oneself and others.
If as a lay person due to job and other factors we are not able to be present physically to support one's parents, does this go against what Buddha required of us for our parents?

No it's not just for lay people. The Buddha himself has praised monks for looking after their parents. It's even allowed in the Vinaya.
As a busy lay person, you don't have to be physically present always. You can support them financially if they need it. If they don't need it, you can still send them gifts and visit them once in a while. That will not interfere with your meditation. It's about being grateful for what they have done for you. If you are ungrateful, you will not progress in the path no matter how solitary your life is.

There is a nice writing on this topic that talks about gratitude and specifically the right kind of gratitude towards one's parents, as found on accesstoinsight.org: Kataññu Suttas

Heard that before. Thanks for sharing!

In the time of the Buddha, people generally lived in clans & villages; basically in the same house; doing the same work. Therefore, supporting parents was simple; as was leaving the clan to become a monk (since there were many other relatives to look after the family). In today's modern world, these matters are more complex although often it can be easy (when we are not required to support our parents due to government pensions).


text:
Mindfulness of brain -- references?
I am looking for references to any (obviously modern) practices that might be described as "mindfulness of brain" or "meditation on brain" -- using the brain, part of the brain or nervous system, or any neuroscience concept as a meditation object or theme. An example might be using Daniel Goleman's idea of "amygdala hijack" for meditation on fear or other problematic emotions -- thinking about the amygdala during meditation or even trying to visualize it.
This might include subtle body techniques (chakras, channels, winds, etc) that make explicit reference to brain or neuroscience concepts (which would be highly speculative, scientifically speaking, but that’s ok for my purposes).
I am seeking references to established teachers or meditation systems or programs -- online or in books or papers -- not just ideas about how to do it, or the pros and cons of the notion. I'm also not seeking programs -- which abound -- that talk conceptually about brain or neuroscience but don't integrate that material into specific meditation material or themes.

addendum -- 2/28
As I said, I am not looking to discuss pros and cons of "mindfulness of brain". I just want to know if anybody is even attempting it. This is a small part of a larger research project on the consequences of current neuroscience for Buddhadharma. In fact, if nobody is doing it, that would confirm a hypothesis. But there are a lot of people drawing connections between neuroscience and meditation, so it's conceivable that someone is attempting "mindfulness of brain". If so, I'd like to know the story.
If nobody responds, that's fine. It will be some evidence of non-existence, though obviously not definitive. It's all but impossible to do an online search for this idea because all the conceptual material on neuroscience and meditation gets retrieved first.
That's all -- I'm not advocating it. Thanks.

Never heard of anything like this ever.

I think that Taoist meditation asks you to move your centre of awareness downwards, i.e. out of your head (where it normally, or too often, is) and down to your dan tien.

I would have no idea how to be mindful of my brain. I have no access to it and no sense of its existence. I can see no value in it. Might as well be mindful of my foot.    .

Brain is a concept. You cannot experience 'brain'. So by definition, there can be no mindfulness of the brain. You can be mindful of the idea of a brain. Even if you split someone's head open and take out the brain, it's still just seeing, feeling, smelling... So an attempt to create such a system would fail. In other words, it would be a system that fortifies ignorance instead of weakening it.

I agree that such a meditation would be problematic, but as I said, I am not looking to discuss pros and cons. I just want to know if anybody is even attempting it. It's a small part of a larger research project. In fact, if nobody is doing it, that would confirm a hypothesis. But there are a lot of people drawing connections between neuroscience and meditation, so it's conceivable that someone is attempting "mindfulness of brain". If so, I'd like to know the story. That's all -- I'm not advocating it.

You would have better luck if you look for scientific research on brain functionality while in meditation. "Mindfulness of the brain" doesn't make much sense.

Thanks for the opinion and suggestion. I am already looking quite intensively at research on brain functionality during meditation -- for other aspects of this project.

@DavidLewis I doubt you will find a traditional presentation. Plus, traditionally, the mind is generally believed to be located at the heart. Meditation techniques related to the heart are used in the context of (Tibetan) Tantra. But even the Chinese word for mind is also translates heart,  xin (心).

Right @Tenzin -- thanks.  I'm definitely not looking for a traditional presentation. If it exists, it would definitely be a modern notion, perhaps in some system of (so-called) secular Buddhism or a psychological self-help program like MBSR, MBCT, or DBT, which are not Buddhadharma per se, but have some Buddhist roots or inspiration. See the answer I posted from DhammaWheel.com.

@TenzinDorje Sir, In Teravada school, it's believed that the mind arises with associated to the blood in the heart. There's a bundle of form called hadaya vattu rupa. Mind is not arisen in this bundle of form, but associated with this bundle of form. It's illogical to say name appear inside form. ~ Note: This is how I understood. I may be wrong but not Dhamma.

Here is one response from dhammawheel.com in 2013.
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=18207#p256513
The rest of the thread is along traditional lines suggested here by answers and comments. I have invited the author to provide more details here. Meanwhile, here is the post...

Re: Mindfulness of the brain? Post  by Majjhima Patipada » Sun Aug 04,
  2013 2:51 pm
As a life-long student of the brain (academically, professionally, and
  recreationally), "mindfulness of the brain" is something I do
  practice. It takes a thorough knowledge of functional anatomy and the
  biochemical basis of neural activity in order to practice it in the
  way you may be thinking. This can include "mindfulness of amygdalic
  activity and noreprinephrine release at synaptic terminals" as a
  simple example with which others are likely to have some familiarity
  due to the connection to anxiety and the fear response. In fact, this
  type of mindfulness exercise is on occasional taught in
  psychiatric/therapeutic settings and in MBSR courses. This, of course,
  is a modern development and is not taught in such a way in traditional
  Buddhist circles.

Interestingly, the connection of the amygdala to anxiety and fear responses has recently been cast in serious doubt by neuroscientists, perhaps illustrating the pitfalls of meditation practice based on science (as opposed to direct experience), certainly such an immature field as neuroscience.

The brain is just another part of the body & can be an object of meditative awareness, particularly when breaking though into the elusive 3rd Satipatthana & also the later jhanas.
As for reference to "the brain" in the Buddhist scriptures, there is possibly Dhammapada 37, which states the mind resides in "the cave", which could mean "the skull", that is, "the brain":

37. Dwelling in the cave (of the heart), the mind, without form, wanders far and alone. Those who subdue this mind are liberated from
  the bonds of Mara.

Following the work of Ivan Pavlov in the beginning of 19th century emerged a field of study concerned with sanity and behavioral conditioning, in particular what was studied was the effect of ignorance on mental health, the field was called General Semantics (not to be confused with linguistic study of semantics).
It was largely misunderstood and eventually absorbed into other disciplines concerned with cognitive therapy during the 1950-1960s but there is still a community primarily focused on further study development of the discipline to this day.
It is mostly based on contemplation of the workings of the brain, behavioral conditioning and abandoning wrong views in regards to external & internal reality. It is a systematic approach and a training.
The main pieces of literature are attributed to the founder Alfred Korzybski ie his 'Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics'. It is quite dense but there are also various popularization works such as the 'Tyranny of Words' by Stuart Chase, both available on Amazon and free pdfs online.

Thanks. I skimmed and searched Chase and perused the TOC of Korzybski, but could find nothing about meditation in either, by any reasonable terminology. If I'm wrong, I'd appreciate a pointer. Plenty about the brain, but of course all probably premature given how much more we know since the advent of neuroimaging, not to mention the vast unknown beyond even that.

It is based on contemplation and is well suited for formal sitting and pondering. I personally would not read too much into the particulars of neurology because the field is largely undeveloped but the general link between neural and behavioral conditioning and the deliberate formation of neural pathways is very beneficial. It is somewhat like an AI debugging itself imo. As for the endocrinal systems it is good to keep in mind but i personally don't mind it much because there is not that much to think about.


text:
Are Buddhists hypnotists?
Are Buddhists hypnotists?
I'm being a little facetious, but not entirely. Hypnotism is a strange mental phenomena, and I wondered how much interaction, in any tradition, is based in similar mental phenomena, to hypnotism. I have no theory, about how that might involve rebirth, or the annulment of annihilationism (which I cling to a little).

Hypnosis is a state we all go in and out of daily.
Positive and negative mental states all are a form of hypnosis.
Even anger is a form of hypnosis.
Effective positive speech tends to be slow and gradual and hypnotic.
So no need to worry and despair that everything is hypnosis in life... Just focus on the logic and keep your mind clear. At the end of whatever micro-hypnosis you can judge for yourself if what you have learned has logic.
The awesome thing is that Buddhist teachings (and self-awareness/meditation teachings in general) teach to go beyond these influences.
However, one must learn to concentrate (broadly a form of hypnosis itself) before one can be highly successful at this.
Respectively these are the 2nd and 3rd trainings in Buddhism (Concentration & Wisdom aka jhana & vipassana)

The simplest answer to this question, while not being informative would be to say 'Yes'. Buddhism covers many traditions, many cultures, over thousands of years, and some of those traditions have methods of meditation which are strongly related to a self-induced hypnosis.
However modern hypnosis has gone it's own way and it's not fair to say that the one is 'the same' as the other - but merely that there are overlapping areas of interest.
Of course, on the other hand, the answer is a definite 'No'.  The purposes of Buddhism and Hypnotism are completely distinct, and therefore regardless of the similarity of some methods of induction, they are heterogenous.
Within some of the Himalayan traditions, there are powerful methods of inducing particularly rarified states of consciousness which the hypnosis community is not yet found a way to tap into - probably because the training is too severe.  Hypnosis is primarily a profession - so the motive is generally money (or fame, or renown) - which, because they are derived from a worldview that is faulty, cannot act as serviceable motives for deeper training.


text:
Did the Buddha have advice about dealing with social anxiety?
Does anyone know if the Buddha said anything about social anxiety and how to deal with it?
I believe social anxiety is common in our day and age because people are more isolated now, but may not have been as common in the time of the Buddha. So if there is nothing specifically about social anxiety, can you provide info on what the Buddha said about dealing with anxiety (in general)
(Also as a related question: Is anxiety considered a mild form of fear or are they separate in the Buddhist teachings?)
Please provide sources if you can, thanks!

Anxiety is a kind of suffering. If we follow the path leading to cessation of suffering then all kinds of suffering will end. You should not be feeling any anxiety because there is no You or Me. I think you are (or rather we are) lacking loving-kindness. If we develop loving-kindness then it will definitely help reduce your anxiety.
Cultivate the following mindfulness :

Think: Happy, at rest, may all beings be happy at heart. Whatever
  beings there may be,  weak or strong, without exception,  long, large,
    middling, short,    subtle, blatant,    seen & unseen,  near & far,     born
  & seeking birth: May all beings be happy at heart.
Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through
  anger or irritation wish for another to suffer.
As a mother would risk her life to protect her child, her only child,
  even so should one cultivate a limitless heart with regard to all
  beings. With good will for the entire cosmos, cultivate a limitless
  heart: Above, below, & all around, unobstructed, without enmity or
  hate. Whether standing, walking, sitting, or lying down,  as long as
  one is alert, one should be resolved on this mindfulness. This is
  called a sublime abiding here & now.

Thank you! It's funny because this morning i actually practiced this very contemplation/meditation that you cite above, and then i came here and read the same thing :) Also i remembered this morning that there was a story of ghosts in a forest who had been scaring the monks, and the Buddha proposed that the monks practice metta meditation

Anxiety from loneliness is overcome with concentration; with developing calmness.
Anxiety from worries about social conformity is overcome with clearly understanding of right & wrong, i.e. morality.
The Dhammapada says, for example:

Those who are ashamed of what they should not be ashamed of, and are not ashamed of what they should be ashamed of — upholding false
  views, they go to states of woe.
Those who see something to fear where there is nothing to fear, and see nothing to fear where there is something to fear — upholding
  false views, they go to states of woe.
Those who imagine evil where there is none, and do not see evil where it is — upholding false views, they go to states of woe.
Those who discern the wrong as wrong and the right as right — upholding right views, they go to realms of bliss.

From AN 7.68, we find what is meant by one with a sense of social gatherings:

“And how is a monk one with a sense of social gatherings? There is the
  case where a monk knows his social gathering: ‘This is a social
  gathering of noble warriors; this, a social gathering of brahmans;
  this, a social gathering of householders; this, a social gathering of
  contemplatives; here one should approach them in this way, stand in
  this way, act in this way, sit in this way, speak in this way, stay
  silent in this way.’ If he didn’t know his social gathering—’This is a
  social gathering of noble warriors; this, a social gathering of
  brahmans; this, a social gathering of householders; this, a social
  gathering of contemplatives; here one should approach them in this
  way, stand in this way, act in this way, sit in this way, speak in
  this way, stay silent in this way’—he wouldn’t be said to be one with
  a sense of social gatherings. So it’s because he does know his social
  gathering—’This is a social gathering of noble warriors; this, a
  social gathering of brahmans; this, a social gathering of
  householders; this, a social gathering of contemplatives; here one
  should approach them in this way, stand in this way, act in this way,
  sit in this way, speak in this way, stay silent in this way’—that he
  is said to be one with a sense of social gatherings.

In Iti 21, the Buddha explains the benefit of having a confident mind:

“Here, bhikkhus, some person has a confident mind. Having examined his
  mind with my mind, I know that if this person were to die at this
  time, as if carried there he would be placed in heaven. What is the
  reason for that? It is because his mind is confident. It is because of
  the mind’s confidence that some beings here, when the body perishes,
  are reborn after death in a good bourn, in a heavenly world.”

Here's an excerpt from the essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on "Social Anxiety":

It's interesting that Ajaan Lee focuses on what other people say as
  one of the tests for a mind that's really at peace. The Buddha makes a
  similar point in one of the Dhammapada verses. "If, when other people
  say harsh things to you and you don't reverberate — like a cracked
  gong — that's a sign that you've attained true peace of mind." This
  might seem strange. Why does the test lie in how you react to what
  other people say?
The mind is very sensitive to this issue. We learn very early in our
  lives that our happiness is going to depend on how other people treat
  us. As children, we're surrounded by people a lot more powerful than
  we are, so there's always a sense of fear built into our relationships
  to the people around us. We become sensitive to other people's moods,
  sensitive to what they might do, what they might say. As a result, our
  center of gravity is placed outside because we're afraid of them, and
  we try to put up a wall outside ourselves to protect ourselves from
  them.
What this means is that our psychic center of gravity gets moved
  outside the body. If you've ever taken any martial arts classes, you
  know that if your center of gravity is outside your body you're in bad
  shape. You're in a weak position.
Now the Buddha doesn't say to ignore other people and just be very
  selfish. He says there's a different way to approach the whole issue
  of happiness. In other words, you find a source for happiness that
  doesn't take anything away from anyone else, so you don't have to be
  afraid of other people. When you're not afraid of them, you find that
  you can actually be more compassionate to them. So developing and
  maintaining this center inside is not a selfish thing. The Buddha's
  not teaching you to be insensitive. He's just saying to put yourself
  in a stronger position and to trust that you're stronger by not trying
  to go outside and fix up people's moods and all the other things that
  we think we can do with other people when we're dealing with them.
  Just stay inside and have a sense of confidence that you're strong
  inside. After all, your source of happiness lies inside. Because it's
  not taking anything away from anybody else, you don't have to be
  afraid of them.

Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu also has a nice YouTube video talk on the Dhammapada verses on the broken gong.

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


text:
Is Buddhism Nihilistic?
I just finished reading Ajahn Brahm's book on Buddhist Meditation called Mindfulness, bliss and beyond. According to him, as per the Buddhist sutras, advancing in meditation you enter into jhanas, which has a component of bliss in it; this was fine. Then you enter immaterial realms, where he says even consciousness is impermanent. Even consciousness is a conditioned phenomena. And you enter realm of neither perception nor non-perception. After this you attain nibbana, blowing out, end of all.
I have long held belief that you are consciousness, the witnessing. Hindus define ultimate attainment as truth, consciousness and bliss. So if even consciousness is not to be there -- and it's just literally nothing -- doesn't it just seem pointless? Your very attainment is pointless. Is it not better to roam this samsara doing good karma and enjoying the benefits? That way you at least live forever through rebirths. From this perspective, doesn't Buddha's teaching look Nilistic?

Related: Why choose to attain Nirvana when we can become Brahmas (or Bodhisattvas)?

You have confused the jhana states to a progression towards enlightenment. This was taught by other teachers before Buddha attained enlightenment and he was not satisfied.
From MN26:

"In this way did Uddaka Ramaputta, my companion in the holy life,
  place me in the position of teacher and pay me great honor. But the
  thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to
  dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to
  Awakening, nor to Unbinding, but only to reappearance in the dimension
  of neither perception nor non-perception.' So, dissatisfied with that
  Dhamma, I left.

Nibbana is not the next level or realm after the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. After attaining Nibbana, the Buddha could function normally to teach and interact with the people.
However, after his passing away, he is not reborn. However, does this mean that he does not exist after death? Or does he exist? You have assumed that he does not exist after death.
This question was asked in SN44.6:

"When asked if the Tathagata exists after death,
  you say, 'That has not been declared by the Blessed One: "The
  Tathagata exists after death."' When asked if the Tathagata does not
  exist after death... both exists and does not exist after death...
  neither exists nor does not exist after death, you say, 'That too has
  not been declared by the Blessed One: "The Tathagata neither exists
  nor does not exist after death."' Now, what is the cause, what is the
  reason, why that has not been declared by the Blessed One?"

The question is turned around on the questioner. You can read the full sutta.
You wrote: "I have long held belief that you are consciousness, the witnessing."
This is also covered in the sutta:

"For one who loves consciousness, who is fond of consciousness, who
  cherishes consciousness, who does not know or see, as it actually is
  present, the cessation of consciousness, there occurs the thought,
  'The Tathagata exists after death' or 'The Tathagata does not exist
  after death' or 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after
  death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after
  death.'

In this instance, one who is fond of consciousness, who does not know or see that consciousness is conditioned and subject to perish, would be concerned with the notion that the Buddha does not exist after death. There are many other criteria in the sutta, like being fond of the other aggregates (body, sensation, perception, mental fabrications), craving for becoming, clinging/ attachment etc.
The Buddha explained that consciousness is not eternal and is in fact, conditioned, in MN38:

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

Think about it. How can the silent witness witness anything except through one of these media: eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind? There was never a time, when there was consciousness being aware of something except through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch or mind. There is therefore no independent consciousness.
Consciousness is dependent on and conditioned upon these six media. It was a "aha" moment for me when I read that, and realized that the Buddha's analysis of consciousness is more accurate than Advaita's.
The correct view of what happens when one attains Nibbana is found in SN22.85 below. Rather than asking whether the enlightened one ceases to exist or exists, the right view is that suffering has ceased.

“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a
  bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to
  him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what
  would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends,
  form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is
  suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception …
  Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is
  impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed
  away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”

Is Nibbana such a sad thing? Dhammapada 203-204 describes it saying, "Nibbana the highest bliss" (nibbanam paramam sukham). All other types of happiness are temporary and subject to passing away.
As for your question "Is it not better to roam this samsara doing good karma and enjoying the benefits? That way you at least live forever through rebirths", we can find an answer below.
In Buddhism, all beings are not naturally progressing towards Nibbana. It is possible to be reborn as a Brahma, then later as a pig as seen in Dhammapada 338-343. So, there is no guarantee of continuous good karma towards good rebirths.

On one occasion, while the Buddha was on an alms-round at Rajagaha, he
  saw a young dirty sow and smiled. When asked by the Venerable Ananda,
  the Buddha replied, "Ananda, this young sow was a hen during the time
  of Kakusandha Buddha. As she was then staying near a refectory in a
  monastery she used to hear the recitation of the sacred text and the
  discourses on the Dhamma. When she died she was reborn as a princess.
  On one occasion, while going to the latrine, the princess noticed the
  maggots and she became mindful of the loathsomeness of the body, etc.
  When she died she was reborn in the Brahma realm as a puthujjana
  brahma but later due to some evil kamma, she was reborn as a sow.
  Ananda! Look, on account of good and evil kamma there is no end of the
  round of existences."

So, is Buddhism nihilistic? I would simply say that it only shows you the path to the end of suffering. It is up to you to take it.

wow....that was a really good answer.thankyou.

If witnessing is you, why do you witness both pleasant and unpleasant experiences? Why can't you limit witnessing to only pleasant experiences? Why does the experience of witnessing arise and cease without your consent? Why is witnessing limited by your senses? Can you witness sights if your eyes go blind or if there is no light? Why do you have to sharpen the mind through studying and practice to understand complex truths? Why can others trick you, fool you? Why can't the mind be aware of the truth at will?
 Witnessing or awareness is not worthy of being considered as a self as it is conditioned and not under one's control.

Hindus define ultimate attainment as truth, consciousness and bliss.
  So if even consciousness is not to be there. And its just literally
  nothing. Doesnt it just seem pointless.

Consciousness and bliss are conditioned. If something is conditioned, it is impermanent. If it is impermanent it comes under the first noble truth of suffering. Whatever bliss you experience in Samsara is impermanent and incapable of fulfillment. Attaining Nibbana in Buddhism is not attaining nothing. It's the attainment of the unconditioned element. It is permanent, peaceful and fulfilling.

You have got it wrong. You say without consciousness there is literally Nothing.
 This is not true.Buddha rejected Consciousness as self. But remember Buddha didn't say he became Nothing after attaining Nirvana. Buddha did not answer the question whether Tathagata ceases to exist after Nirvana or continues to live. Therefore it wrong to believe in annihilation of Self or Continuation of Self after attaining Nirvana.
Following Sutta will help you understand the nature of those who attain Nirvana:

“What do you think, friend Yamaka, is form permanent or
  impermanent?”—“Impermanent, friend.”…—“Therefore … Seeing thus … He
  understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form as the
  Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard feeling … perception …
  volitional formations … consciousness as the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as in
  form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as apart from
  form?”—“No, friend.”—“Do you regard the Tathagata as in feeling? As
  apart from feeling? As in perception? As apart from perception? As in
  volitional formations? As apart from volitional formations? As in
  consciousness? As apart from consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard form, feeling,
  perception, volitional formations, and consciousness taken together as
  the Tathagata?”—“No, friend.”
“What do you think, friend Yamaka, do you regard the Tathagata as one
  who is without form, without feeling, without perception, without
  volitional formations, without consciousness?”—“No, friend.”
“But, friend, when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and
  actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I
  understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose
  taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of
  the body and does not exist after death’?”

There are two types of Nibbana explained in the scripture Itivuttaka 44, namely:
(1) Nibbana consciously experienced & perceived in the here-&-now when alive.
(2) Nibbana at the cessation of life.
In Ajahn Brahm's book, the here-&-now consciously experienced Nibbana is found:
(1) On page 214, called 'The Highest Happiness'.
(2) On page 215, called 'The Complete Ending of Sensory Desire, Ill-Will & Delusion'
(3) On page 217, called "the utter emptiness of this whole process called body & mind".
In Ajahn Brahm's book, Nibbana at the termination of life is found:
(1) On page 249, starting: "So what what follows after parinibbana?".
Ajahn Brahm's book contains a number of inferences about Nibbana that are wrong & contrary to the scriptures, namely:
(1) On page 171, called "cessation of all perception".
(2) On page 172, with reference to "DN 11,85".
Even Ajahn Brahm's chief disciple named Ajahn Sujato says DN 11,85 is not Nibbana; at his blog called: Nibbana is not viññāṇa. Really, it just isn’t.
In respect to page 171, this is referring to what in the scriptures is formally called the 'cessation of perception & feeling' (saññāvedayitanirodhaṃ) or "Nirodha Samapatti" (i.e., the 9th jhana), which is not Nibbana. Ajahn Brahm has made an error here.

Therefore, it respect to your question, Nibbana is not pointless because Nibbana is the highest happiness, which is most often defined as the here-&-now cessation of greed, hatred & delusion; which includes the utter selflessness ('emptiness'; 'sunnata') that can  create no suffering.
It appears you have not fully understood Ajahn Brahm's book because living without greed, without hatred, without delusion, without selfishness, without suffering & with the highest happiness is not pointless. Instead, Nibbana is the foremost or supreme thing.


text:
Where does Buddha mention about Sanatana dharma (Hinduism)?
Hindupedia states, on its page about the Sanātan Dharma principle, that:

Although Buddha usually spoke of the Sanātan Dharma, he sometimes used other synonymous terms for "Sanātan Dharma," such as "Akaliko Dharma," and "Poranako Dharma."

Can I know the all the verse numbers of scriptures, where Buddha mentioned "Sanātan Dharma" "Akaliko Dharma" and "Poranako Dharma." ?

sanantana
adjective
primeval; old; eternal

Doing a quick search, the Pali word 'sanantana' appears to be found rarely in the Pali suttas.
Apart from being used in references to the Vedic (pre-Hindu) teachings about 'Brahma' & 'Eternal Youth' in DN 19, a quick search finds 'sanantana' used in only two Buddhist phrases, as follows:

Saccaṃ ve amatā vācā, esa dhammo sanantano; Sacce atthe ca dhamme
  ca, āhu santo patiṭṭhitā.
Truth indeed, is deathless speech — this is the ancient/eternal Dharma. On
  truth, its study and practice both, they say are the Peaceful firm.
Snp 3.3

Most famously in the Dhammapada:

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone
  is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
Na hi verena verāni, sammantīdha kudācanaṃ; Averena ca sammanti, esa
  dhammo sanantano.

The word 'porāṇaka' appears to be not found in any teachings attributed to the Buddha; however appears found in later-day commentaries & Jataka Tales; as shown in this search list.

The word 'akālika' is supremely important in Buddhism, being one of six attributes of the Dhamma spoken by the Buddha, as follows:

svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo: perfectly spoken is the Dhamma of the Blessed One
sandiṭṭhiko: visible in the here-&-now
akāliko: immediately effective; without delay; 'timeless'
ehipassiko: inviting inspection
opaneyyiko: leading onwards (to experiencing here-&-now Nibbana)
paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhī: to be verified by the wise for themselves.

Every morning and every evening, the above verse is chanted by Theravada Buddhists as the recollection of refuge in the Dhamma.

Since the word 'akāliko' is often translated as 'timeless', it appears the word 'akāliko' might be mistaken for 'sanantana' & 'porāṇaka'. However, 'akāliko' means 'immediate' rather than 'eternal'. In short, it appears the Pali word 'akāliko' is not synonymous with  'sanantana' and 'porāṇaka'.