text:
Suffering in Meditation Versus in Daily Life
I feel like this is a naive question, but I'm wondering what  is the difference between experiencing discomfort and distress in meditation versus in daily life outside of meditation. Do the same states generate different results in each case, depending on the co-arising factors?
EDIT: For example, suffering in daily life might undergo rumination and even being acted upon. In meditation, perhaps the same suffering will be diminished by the arising qualities from meditation, like equanimity or compassion. Is this the case?

Meditation mustn't be limited to the formal meditation which is just done in a limited time. If a person doesn't do anything to be mindful in daily life, even having temporary calm in the formal meditation session would be difficult for him/her. Also such a practise would not effect the person in daily life, so the person would continue to experience negative mind states(and the person would "be" the negative mind states completely) without being able to observe them clearly.
If a person does such a practise, the daiy life suffering would capture the person completely and would completely influence his/her actions. And the suffering that a person experiences in the formal meditation would be "potentially" diminished or temporarily go away(but this is not guaranteed) and replaced by temporary calm, peace, compassion, equanimity etc. But If a person succeeds to do it in the formal meditation it would not have a continous effect in the person's life because only practising mindfulness all day long can change the structure of the mind and can lead a person to Nibbana.

Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment.

https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-do-not-dwell-in-the-past-do-not-dream-of-the-future-concentrate-the-mind-on-the-present-moment-buddha-26637.jpg

Suffering in Meditation Versus in Daily Life

The difference comes down to whether or not one is mindful of the suffering. If not, then one might react with aversion towards present suffering and thereby cultivate further future suffering.
If one is mindful of the present suffering, one might remove it by passively observing it with mindfulness until it has been exhausted.
Be happy that the suffering is arising now and not in the future. Now you have an oppertunity to do away with it, meaning that the distance to Nibbana can be reduced.

If during meditation one reaches equanimity (upekkhā उपेक्खा), during the meditation practice, then there are no outflows. Which makes it sound impossible to achieve, but remember, one's practice may lead to the non-arising of suffering as well. It's not a naive question.
From saṃyuktāgama

First Discourse on Not Knowing:

“A learned noble disciple understands as it really is bodily form, the arising of bodily form, the cessation of bodily form, the gratification of bodily form, the danger in bodily form, and the escape from bodily form. He understands as it really is feeling … perception … formations … consciousness, the arising of consciousness, the cessation of consciousness, the gratification of consciousness, the danger in consciousness, and the escape from consciousness. Therefore he does not follow after and turn around bodily form … feeling … perception … formations … consciousness.
“Because of not following after and turning around, he is liberated from bodily form, liberated from feeling … perception … formations … consciousness. I say, he is liberated from birth, old age, disease, death, worry, sorrow, vexation, and pain.”
https://suttacentral.net/sa266/en/analayo

From the perspective of someone practicing or developing the Noble Eight-Fold Path (versus an Arahat who has removed all cankers), a difference would the mindfulness.
When you are meditating, you are withdrawn from mundane bodily and verbal actions and contemplating on the Four Noble Truths. And you have more mindfulness about the body, feeling, etc. So when a feeling arises (whether it is painful, pleasurable, or neutral), you are quick to identify them as part of suffering. And they become the object of contemplation. Instead of reacting to them, you investigate - what is the arising phenomena, what is the cessation phenomena of what has arisen.
And how do you contemplate on the arising phenomena? You contemplate according to what the Buddha has said - one seeks delight in form, welcomes it, remains holding it. As a result delight in form arises. Delight in form is clinging. With clinging as a condition, existence come to be. With existence as a condition, birth. With birth as a condition, aging, sickness, death, etc. and this whole mass of suffering come to arise. Same for feeling, etc.
That way you see the origin of the pain or distress you have now.
Then you can contemplate on the cessation phenomena. Again you contemplate according to the Buddha - one does not seek delight in form, does not welcome it, does not remain holding. As a consequence delight in form ceases. When cessation of delight comes cessation of clinging. With cessation of clinging, cessation of existence. With cessation of existence, cessation of Birth. With cessation of birth, the whole mass of suffering ceases. Same with feeling, perception, etc.
That way you see the cessation of the pain or distress you have.
The amazing thing is, when you contemplate this way, your actual pains subside and joy & rapture starts to flow (due to seeing the Dhamma within your self). However, you have to be mindful again to apply the same investigation to the (now) pleasurable feeling due to joy and rapture.
You also start to value the cessation of bodily, verbal & mental actions that you do in day to day life instead of giving value to them. You also start to see the only real solution is Nibbana. All else cannot be trusted to last (even the concentration from meditation).
With Metta

Meditation is training ground for your mindfulness its a way for you to clear your mind and deal with the suffering step by step ,So when you go to the real life you can implement.Real life of course is much harder to deal with but you can make it easier by being mindful through meditation.


text:
Do you have to become a Monk to attain enlightment?
It seems that the answer is no, but in this case, why would you want to become a monk instead of staying "normal" ?

By "normal" do you then mean "lay-person/lay-life"?

A lay person can realize Nibbana in a very short period of time(In few years or even in a shorter period of time) If s/he practise mindfulness all day long with effort. Even a very young lay person can realize Nibbana. Realizing Nibbana isn't about being in a particular place but it is the result of the right living. Not all of the people who realize Nibbana becomes a monk because some of the once-returners becomes spiritual teachers or they are in an old age and they are retired from their jobs etc.
In most cases being a monk is absolutely better than being a lay person because human world is crazy and is opposite of spirituality. The human civilization is the manifestation of the narcissistic human world's madness. But a person's decision to become a monk depends on many factors. If a spiritual person has a sangha and in an old age and retired maybe s/he would not want to leave the lay life and become a monk. A person who realized Nibbana and especially an once-returner is in continous bliss and contentment so s/he would not leave his home If the conditions are suitable for him/her.(Solitude or having a sangha etc.)
So a lay person's giving up the spiritual practise is a wrong idea because realizing Nibbana in the lay life is certainly possible.

By a "monk" if you mean wearing a robe or ordained or lives in a temple or in a forest, then No.
By a "monk" if you mean someone who has the Right Livelihood - who does not touch money, who consumes only what is given who has given up all worldly possessions (and happy to die instead of taking something that is not given) - then Yes.
Having seeing the drawbacks of the worldly life, wanting to end this suffering as quickly as possible, people at the time of Buddha, left the worldly possessions and entered into the Order.

Yes, sooner or later. Whether one can, or not, starting at certain point, at least with Awakening, there is no other livelihood aside of that of "being" a monk. If caught in householders livelihood, not a week to last.
Actually one does not even reach the stream, if not leaving stand and home and give up up normal ways of spending ones times.
For more, one would need to leave home and stand first, but that will probably not interest many or simply ways cut off by tendency and deeds.
It's simply the cheat of traders who sell caught the possibility of liberation without giving of proper causes first and the business with such runs well, so well that soon for all there will be no more place and way to walk the alternative of going forth. That's the nature of "communism" and "pseudo-liberty", to try to archiv liberty by telling the caught that they are free if they simply accept equality. That is why, if there are monks this days, for the most, they are actually living a householder live and householder giving householders ordination is already to "normal" way. So be quick, if a door visible!

The King of Death
We live like a chicken who doesn't know what's going on. In the morning it takes its baby chicks out to scratch for food. In the evening, it goes back to sleep in the coop. The next morning it goes out to look for food again. Its owner scatters rice for it to eat every day, but it doesn't know why its owner is feeding it. The chicken and its owner are thinking in very different ways.
The owner is thinking, "How much does the chicken weigh?" The chicken, though, is engrossed in the food. When the owner picks it up to heft its weight, it thinks the owner is showing affection.
We too don't know what's going on: where we come from, how many more years we'll live, where we'll go, who will take us there. We don't know this at all.
The King of Death is like the owner of the chicken. We don't know when he'll catch up with us, for we're engrossed — engrossed in sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas (home and stand). We have no sense that we're growing older. We have no sense of enough.

[Note: Not given for trade, exchange, stacks and to bind on households but for liberation]

"Painful is the life of a house-holder, and free is the life of renunciation (sambadho gharavaso rajapatho, abbhokaso pabbajja)" ~ MN III 33.

In other words, life of a house-holder is like a busy road which the dust of defilements are fermented always. But life of renunciation is like the sky and a monk is like a bird flies in that clear sky. It's easy for a monk to walk in the path than a house-holder.

You have to realize that this were the words by the Buddha to people who made progress on the Path. For people who have no spiritual insights or mental tranquility, they won't live a renunciant life style. Even somewhat advanced practitioners still cling to 'worldly' life because - although at times stressful - it gives them joy and meaning. It's not fair to say that living as a monk is better. That's a sweeping over-generalization. It depends on personal inclinations and certain causes & conditions that must exist in the practitioner in order to renounce everything.

We can see that many monks and priests commit sexual misconduct because sex for many people is difficult to surrender. Also, not eating after noon can be quite difficult as well. If you're living in solitude you must have samadhi otherwise you won't manage this. The Buddha said this.

@Val You might want to write an answer to the question, instead of comments.

Simply because of the conditioning .The conditioning in our daily lives is so hard wiring for some people that they need a long time to change that wiring and the best way to do it is to become a monk as monks practice a complete lifestyle that promotes the rising of their awareness and good qualities.I honestly respect more a person who is actively engaged in life and is still able to tackle it consciously but this you can consider as a training ground .

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Who or what creats a realm of existance?
What or who is the cause that a realm of existance comes into being?
Or is such accidentally? Or an unconditioned phenomena? A material-alone phenomena?
What causes your world you "be", have "been", could or will "be"?

I have closed the question due to being primarily opinion-based and I suspect it has been asked with the purpose to teach.

Nobody creates a realm. The physical aspect of a realm is caused mainly by Utu Niyama and Bija Niyama. The mental aspect of a realm is caused mainly by Kamma Niyama and Citta Niyama. Dhamma Niyama affects both mental and physical aspects of a realm.

So then it not conditioned, or what? Or un-personal conditioned? How should that work? A sublime creator? What's the cause of kamma, for example? Or of Utu?

Why should there be a creator? Need to get that thought out of the mind

Nyom told that there is nothing that creates, has no condition. Again, what is the condition of being?

God, creator Kamma Niyama and Citta Niyama, Utu...? Or what?

The question assumes that we know "existence" had a beginning. On what basis is this assumption made?

That you eat, still eat and desire to? Smart @brothereric

@SamanaJohann. Comment section is not for discussion.

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


text:
Meaning of Blessing Pills
After taking refuge within the Karma Kagyu tradition, I got "blessing pills". I have no idea, by which occasion I should take them, how they are manufactured and in which historical, cultural and ritualistic context they are embed. The answer I got where not helpful.

This article details the tradition of Black Pills in  Karma Kagyü.


text:
Silence and emptiness
I never understood silence or emptiness in Buddhism and how is experiencing them beneficial?.Is it a way for experiencing the arising of experience ?

Silence in Buddhism refers to Citta Visuddhi. This means the purification of the mind, or quietening of the mind. It doesn't mean no sound. This is when the mind attains highly concentrated states called the Jhanas. When the mind is in these states, your defilements are silenced or subdued. This is a good base for the development of insight meditation.
'Emptiness' is a nature of all realities. It doesn't mean empty in the literal sense. It means being empty of a self or a soul or an entity. This is a truth one realizes with insight meditation. It is one of the Three characteristics of all condition phenomena. Realizing them lead to enlightenment.

In contemporary physics we accept the idea that everything is empty, but since our senses and minds are full of "things" we have a difficult time reconciling what we know with what we experience. Buddha teaches that all things are essentially empty, but mostly it is in the sense that all things are empty of a self-nature, that all things are made up on non-thing elements. Thus the form of things, what we experience, is synonymous with the emptiness of things (which we may or may not know we also experience).
There are several Pali Canon suttas that convey Buddha's teaching about emptiness, and the Theravada and Mahayana schools interpret differently, this has been a past topic on Buddhism Stack Exchange (see Related posts in the lower right)
Why emptiness is of importance goes back to the idea of the Four Noble Truths. We suffer, there is a cause of suffering, removing the cause of suffering removes the suffering. There is a Path that does this. The liberation of the mind infused with Emptiness is the removing of the cause of suffering. It is the natural, liberated state of the mind.

Interesting. Is it the case that contemporary physics accepts the emptiness of every-thing? I would say the data implies it, but it seems to me physicists have not yet accepted it. Kant proved it but I didn't think physics had yet caught up with Kant, let alone Buddhism.

@PeterJ I don't know that brother eric is a physicist. Saying "everything is empty" sounds to me like "the Rutherford model" and the emptiness of outer space and the space between atoms and that kind of thing.

@ChrisW - Not sure about this. Physics seems to have reduced matter to 'fields on fields' and appear to be coming to the conclusion that it is empty of 'essence'. And then there is the idea that distance is arbitrary. But it's difficult to see a concensus view. My feeling is that modern physics has proved Buddhist doctrine beyond any doubt, but hasn't spotted this yet. . . .

@PeterJ "Fields" is another description of physicality. Do these comments say anything about metaphysical emptiness, taught by a Physics teacher?

@ChrisW - Thanks. A useful link.

In the high spiritual stages the mind becomes naturally more quiet, because there is no longer identification with the self/ego which means there is no longer identification with the thoughts, emotions and feelings. Also there are some temporary states of mind that can a meditator experience in the path that completely silent(absence of thoughts). Also the the momentum of the thoughts can be slowed down and there can be big gaps between the thoughts.
The important thing is what is a person's relationships with the thoughts. The thoughts, emotions and feelings continues to occur but If there is no identification with them they would not be serious for a person anymore and also they would naturally be less then before. As a result a person would have more peace, tranquility and happiness.
As for the emptiness, this answer is related to the subject: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/31632/700
A person can experience emptiness in different degrees many-many times and as the person experiences the emptiness more and more with higher awareness s/he would lose his/her attachment to self and would start to see things as they are(without judging and being attached to things) The nature of everything is being empty of a self.

Emptiness or Silence in Buddhism means End itself or cessation of every stock of karma. It's a state of nullification of every karma. The state can be compared to a Potter uses his mud to wheel for making a pot, then he stroke and when pot done he stopped stroking. So, the ready pot is emptiness. But holding onto that is also not wise thing. Another example is that, when all impermanent things burns, there remain the ash. Ashes can be compared to emptiness. And nullification of karma as that of process of burning .


text:
Choice-less awareness vs directed
I read that after careful mental noting of experience in mindfulness .One reaches a state of effortless effort and choiceless awareness .So I want clear out if awareness can direct itself without deciding or should it always be consciously directed ?.
For example what decides that now awareness has to be shifted from the breath to the body ?.If this decision is unconscious then it isn't wise .And if it's based only on information coming from the breath, then its not a well educated decision.
So shouldn't awareness be directed on "where should it be directed"?.

Are you asking about the doctrine of a specific school? You wrote, "I read that..." -- what are you reading?

This may be a related topic (the question is about Zen, the accepted answer said it's general to Mahayana): Spontaneity in Zen

No in Buddhism in general not a specific doctrine.

Choiceless awareness is the awareness without "you"-the ego-self- involved(without your preferences, your life history, beliefs). You're fine with all of the options and you're in a total acceptence of whatever is the case. You're fine If "a" happens or "b" happens or "c" happens or none of them happens. And with that clear awareness you know what is the right thing to do. Without this clear awareness the choices would always be based on conditioning.
This kind of clear awareness is the continous experience in the high enlightenment stages, and it is temporary experiences for the good spiritual people. So it is better to not seek this kind of awareness because you can't immediately have this kind of awareness and live based on it but you can live in such a way(mindfully, spiritually) so you can temporarily have this kind of awareness time to time and eventually you can permanently have this awareness when you reach to the high enlightenment stages. And then even when you act based on your personal preferences, you would not act based on attachment or serious desires but kind of a "game". And you'll never attach to the form-ego reality again because you would have the permanent realization of the illusory nature of the self/ego which is not more real than a shadow.

Yes but my question is shouldn't there be some awareness on where awareness should go ?.Because if its spontaneous then its wise within the activity that I am aware of but going from one activity or one object to another doesn't seem educated unless awareness is directed to find out.

If you get reasonably good at insight meditation, the mind will stop trying to fabricate a self or an entity from experiences and starts to see them for what they really are. The physical aspect and the mental aspect that bends towards it.

So you're trying to say that in insight meditation you are aware on more than once aspect of experience in the same moment .Which enables you to take a better decision?

I think you're the closest to the answer but if you can elaborate.

There is no 'you' in insight meditation. As the insight matures in the mind, the mental and physical aspects of experiences can clearly be observed.

What is this 'insight meditation' all are speaking of? To my knowledge, Buddha rarely mentioned vipassana or samatha, let alone 'vipassana bhavana' or 'samatha bhavana'.

@Val there are probably several questions on this site answering your question. Repeating them here will only diverge the thread from OP's question


text:
Can meditation be harmful?
I often see promotion of the positive benefits of meditation in the media and even in school and government settings.  However, there is evidence meditation is not always beneficial.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-science-behind-behavior/201604/the-little-known-downsides-mindfulness-practice
Is there much discussion of the possible negative aspects of meditation in Buddism?
For instance, could it leave one susceptible to malicious spirits?

Point is to try leave negative thoughts behind.

Hi, John Burdett wrote in one of his thrillers about an buddhist inspired sleuth "Meditation is for those who prefer reality over fantasy" -> as an answer to the point in your linked article concerning discarding of positive thoughts. I think, buddhist meditators are aware of "dullness" which can accompany meditation. Mainly if you practice only "concentrative" meditation without combination with insight meditation. "The mind illuminated" covers this topic.

If you have any psychological disorders, then don't. Same as physical activities. Any underlined weaknesses can get worst. Or else its like exercises which improve your mental capabilities.

What Buddha recommended was the right concentration (Samma Samadhi) a part of Noble Eightfold Path.
Wrong concentration (Mitya Samadhi) may be harmful.

Each person is born with a survival instinct, which manifests as "ego". For many or most people, this ego instinct cannot be abandoned. Luckily, nature protects most people but not allowing their mind to end the ego. This is why  Buddhist internet forums, for example, have many egotists that claim or imagine meditative attainments, such as "jhana". These minds or people simply cannot get rid of ego. But for some people, meditation can cause the ego to become fragile, causing psychosis. Its only a select few that can peacefully abandon ego. These are the Noble Ones.

Is there any possibility of evil spirits gaining control of a person if they abandon their survival instinct?  I have often times felt like what seemed to be an alien influence trying to control my mind, especially at night, and it is only by exerting the strength of my mind that I resist the attempt.  It seems that if I instead relaxed my mind and allowed whatever it is to influence me then that may do something harmful to my mind.  I am wondering if this same sort of thing could happen with the sort of ego abandoning meditation you describe.

Basically, it is only ego that can be affected by external things. The state of non-ego cannot be affected by external things.  Regards

Coming from a clinical perspective, i would advice against meditation in cases of moderate to severe illness like depression for instance. I am aware that a practicing buddhist may have a different perspective.
I also find the false memory argument hard to understand, as a mindful look on memories would be a very healthy way of looking at any form of recollection. If i understand correctly the mindfulness study cited only examined meditation experiences during one fifteen minutes session, and it seems like a very superficial base to draw these conclusion from.

Can you explain why you advise against it? Is that based on a reference to literature, on personal experience, or on some reasoning?

All three of them. Regarding references it depends on what form of illness we're talking about. In the case of depression there is ample clinical evidence for behavioral activation as a mean to counter a clinical depressions cognitions, emotions and behavior. Meditation would be contrarindicative to behavioral activation. There is however good evidence for meditation as depression relapse prevention (such as MBCT for instance), and the evidence also suggest that such treatment should take place after a depressive period for best results. There is a lot more to say than what fits here.

I seem to find that behavioural activation with mindfulness is beneficial for depression. Example: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321215.php

That study was done with subclinical depression patients, apparently. I also couldn't find any clarification whether the effects could be attributed to BA or the mindfulness practice, so making the case for mindfulness alone seems like a bit of a stretch as they used both interventions. I may very well have missed studies on the topic, but i have yet to see research proving that the effect of mindfulness alone being superior to the alternatives in treating clinical depression. It would be cool though, wouldn't it?

Buddhist meditation is about contemplating on Dhamma which in short can be put into the Four Noble Truths.
When you are learning and practicing the noble dhamma, you are cultivating qualities such as mettā (kindness), karuṇā (compassion), muditā (sympathetic-joy) and upekkhā (equanimity). Just think practically if these are the qualities you cultivate, can they bring anything negative?
Furthermore, when one learns that this nature of Suffering (birth, aging, sickness, death, etc.) and learns that the origin of this suffering is because of the three-fold craving, and also by destroying that very same craving the mass of suffering can be removed; he or she develops this Noble Eight Fold Path which is the path leading to the cessation of that suffering.
With the development of the Noble Eight Fold Path, having removed unskilled bodily, verbal and mental actions, and contemplating on the origin and cessation phenomena, one starts to understand the dependent origination. With that you start to understand the root cause of what is arising now, and what happens if we act with lack of wise attention and lack of mindfulness. Simultaneously an unshakable Faith arises in you about the Buddha, Dhamma and the Noble Sangha (as a result of seeing the true dhamma within you). Now with that Faith and the mind fixed on Nibbana, that will become your most important protection.
When you practice dhamma this way, you don't get carried away even with highest levels of concentration or the results of such concentrations. You understand if you seek delight in them you are seeking delight in suffering.
So if you are meditating in accordance with the Noble Dhamma, only positive things can come out of that, with most positive and incomparable result being Nibbana.
With Metta


text:
Is there a fate worse than oblivion?
Is there a fate worse than oblivion?
To forget, to be forgotten is there  … Chant for anti-nothingless?

This site is really a joke and is completely dead, and I still didn't write the details(one day ı can ;)) but it is funny that a huge community's site is in the hands of such a "personality" LOL

Yes. There is a fate worse than oblivion. It is suffering that never ends.

The opportunity afforded by human life is rare and precious. To embrace oblivion as a human would be...sad.
SN56.47

“Mendicants, suppose a person was to throw a yoke with a single hole into the ocean. And there was a one-eyed turtle who popped up once every hundred years.
  What do you think, mendicants?
  Would that one-eyed turtle, popping up once every hundred years, still poke its neck through the hole in that yoke?”
“Only after a very long time, sir, if ever.”
“That one-eyed turtle would poke its neck through the hole in that yoke sooner than a fool who has fallen to the underworld would be reborn as a human being, I say.

Also see DN23 on Nihilism:

Nihilism
Seated to one side, the chieftain Pāyāsi said to Venerable Kassapa the Prince:
  “Master Kassapa, this is my doctrine and view:
  ‘There’s no afterlife. No beings are reborn spontaneously. There’s no fruit or result of good and bad deeds.’”
“Well, chieftain, I’ve never seen or heard of anyone holding such a doctrine or view.
For how on earth can anyone say such a thing?

The worst fate is an important person, famous, who is known as a "good person" by most of the people but in reality is deeply corrupted is exposed to the public with all of the details. That ego crushing experience would be a really horrible thing that a person can ever experience. Probably that is far worse than oblivion or anything else ;)

No, there are less fates similar danger as Nihilism, householder Oni, interested.
One should not for get (how things came up rightly) and so there will be soon forgiviness out of serious truthfulness that does not take side but resolves toward good direction ond goes on.
Verdrängen ist nicht Verzeihen
There is a chant: Bowing down, I ask for forgiviness of what ever foolish I had done toward my parents, teacher, the Juwels. To the Buddha, I go for refuge, to the Dhamma, I take refuge, to the Sangha of his Bhikkhus, I take refuge, I resolve in not taking existence, I resolve to take not what is not given, I resolve to do not engage in harmful and disturbing sense pleasure (of flesh), I resolve in speaking truthful, I resolve not to take indoxications causing heedlessness.
After that: The Sublime Attitudes and at the end of this auspicious merits Dedication of Merits.
That is a huge antitude to oblivion, Nihilism and vi-bhava-tanha. Not to mention that once having refuge the tripple Gems protect and one is no more left alone, even if it might appear outwardly this way.
[Not for trade, exchange, stacks and bonds to the world, but for liberation]


text:
Is it possible for absolutely everyone to attain enlightenment?
As seen in the title of this question, I'm not sure whether everyone is able to attain enlightenment.
As far as my study and introspective analysis have shown to me, it seems that in order to uproot ignorance permanently, one has to be able to correct the distortions of the mind (perceptions, thoughts and views). And the only way to do that effectively is through right understanding about reality (dukkha, the illusion of the self, impermanence, and the Dhamma in general).
But what happens when one is factually limited to exert that right understanding?
What happens when one cannot exert self-control, or when one is handicapped to use logic, language, cognition or the capacity for thinking abstract thoughts properly?
(I'm really sorry if I'm using some words in a rude fashion; english is not my first language)
I'm talking about biological or physical limitations that may impede a normal use of mental abilities (lack of cerebral structures, disease or anatomical abnormalities, lack of development of faculties, etc.).
What do the suttas tell us about this?
What is your personal experience in with this topic?
What does scientific research tell us about this?
I'd appreciate any kind of answer.
Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

The nature of mind is clear light,
defilements are only adventitious.
-- Dharmakirti
In my view, enlightenment is possible -- if not within this lifetime, then in other lifetimes.
From the point of view of the doctrine of Buddha Nature, all sentient beings possess the inherent seed for enlightenment. The Dalai Lama says:

Every sentient being—even insects—have Buddha nature. The seed of Buddha means consciousness, the cognitive power—the seed of enlightenment. That’s from Buddha’s viewpoint. All these destructive things can be removed from the mind, so therefore there’s no reason to believe some sentient being cannot become Buddha. So every sentient being has that seed.

Logically, karma must have fruition, and the mindstream follows the path of Samsara endlessly until it reaches Nirvana. Otherwise, it will always reincarnate, experiencing karma in the process. All karma is impermanent, as Buddhism suggests. From these premises, any karma -- negative or positive -- must come to an end. Even individuals having committed much negative karma, as Milarepa or Angulimala, reached high levels of spiritual capacity.
As to your question more specifically, for individuals cognitively impaired, such individuals may develop merit within their lifetimes, which will help them in future lives, even if they don't follow the path in its entirety.
To perceive this lifetime and the next as fully separate is against the idea of dependent origination, entailing linkage between cause and consequence. From the view of emptiness, the division of this life and the next -- as well as many other such divisions -- is empty of intrinsic nature: it exists on the basis of appearance alone. Merit, from this point of view, is indistinct from the realization of the spiritual path; the Buddha committed many compassionate acts in previous lives which furthered his enlightenment.
Therefore, from the view of the two truths of Nagarjuna, merit is karmically linked with enlightenment, on the basis of conventional reality's cause and effect. In other words, merit furthers enlightenment, and can be developed by individuals incapable of deeper cognition.
From the point of view of ultimate reality, in the same framework, I recall visiting a Buddhist temple where a Tibetan master explained how emptiness entails a division into parts. Even if a person cannot fulfill enlightenment in this lifetime, they can contribute to it in by right deeds, and even with very partial deeds. If compassion meditation consists in various altruistic intentions towards others, then why not a few intentions? Even one intention? Anything a person is capable of may fulfill a virtuous purpose.
For someone unable to commit any action on the basis of great disease or such things, then their life may consist in experiencing negative karma accumulated previously. In diminishing this karma they also promote later enlightenment.
In sum, I suggest enlightenment should be perceived in the context of multiple lifetimes. Otherwise, many individuals might conclude it is not possible for them, and commit detrimental acts. They would be forgetting the wholeness which the Buddhist path possesses.
P.S.: Isn't it that even for people deficient in a cognitive sense, that their minds still possess the capacity for virtuous and detrimental acts? Any mind entails various possibilities, leading either towards or away from enlightenment. And if a person failed to have the capacity of choice, i.e. the capacity for intention, then I'm unsure how this lack of intention would arise karmically speaking. In any case, I wish this helps!

Why it important to value Conditions?

paccantaro – living on a place where Buddha Sasana does not flourish
How could one change this situation? Change the place, or put effort so that it might flourish (which would require the understanding and the right tendency first)
micchaditthi – born/associate among people with wrong view
That goes much along what is called the pre-requisite for the wing of awakening. The admirable friend. What if there are no around, would the teaching alone help?
vitalingo--persons with congenital, defects such as idiocy, etc.
To change that situation is maybe not easy but if such a person would be integrated in a culture that goes in the right direction, he might gain a good support in simply following what others do.

... to gain right is very seldom (Great Opportunities ) and even if having the great blessings, if having killed mother, father, an Arahat, caused a Buddha shed blood, split the Sangha and holding grave wrong views, any growth is impossible, even to reach the path.
So value already accumulated conditions and seek for complement and for such it is most important to do not associate with fools, people of wrong view: How to address wrong view?.
Take care and seek for places where right view can be archived: Boarderlands

“Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?”...Chiggala Sutta

Now even all told by a stranger forest dweller, hardly ever to meet... but if the conditions are not there, no chance either, even if face to face to the/a Buddha.
{Not given for trade, exchange, stacks and what binds to the world but for toward liberation}

The bit of this answer which matches the question is vitalingo -- but I haven't seen where that word comes from -- it's in references like the one you quoted but not in any dictionary or Pali text that I have found. Is it in a commentary? Maybe it's a paraphrase of AN 8.29 which uses the words duppañño (foolish) and eḷamūgo (unintelligent or stupid like a sheep).

The suttas literally say it is not possible for everyone to attain enlightenment (Dhp 174; AN 10.95; MN 26). I would not concern myself with the Buddhist "Evangelists" making false promises. If it is our destiny to be enlightened, it would probably have occurred by now. Best to abandon the desire or hope for enlightenment. The more abandonment of desire & hope that occurs, the greater the possibly of possibly reaching enlightenment. Right View has only one purpose - namely - to direct the mind to abandoning desire & hope. Ajahn Buddhadasa said Nibbana is the 'absence of hope'.

Blind is the world; here only a few possess insight. Only a few, like birds escaping from the net, go to realms of bliss
Dhp 174

And, Master Gotama, when having directly known it, you teach the
  Dhamma to your disciples for the purification of beings, for the
  overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain &
  distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the
  realization of Unbinding, will all the cosmos be led [to release], or
  a half of it, or a third?"
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
AN 10.95

I surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. As I did so, I
  saw beings with little dust in their eyes and those with much, those
  with keen faculties and those with dull, those with good attributes
  and those with bad, those easy to teach and those hard, some of them
  seeing disgrace & danger in the other world.
MN 26

Upon a heap of rubbish in the road-side ditch blooms a lotus, fragrant and pleasing.
Even so, on the rubbish heap of blinded mortals the disciple of the Supremely Enlightened One shines resplendent in wisdom.

Pupphavagga

Thanks again, DD! By the way, the question was not asked with that intention. I just wanted to know what do the suttas tell about this issue, mainly to understand more what is and what is not Nibbana. Have a wonderful day!

Could you proved a link for the reference about not everyone being able to achieve enlightenment. I can't disentangle the reference given. Thanks.

Well in the reference given the Buddha remained silent

For the people who have physical limitations, they would not become enlightened in one life time. But as we know that birth and death are just concepts and in ultimate reality these things doesn't exits, it doesn't mean the being would never get enlightened. But it means it is impossible to become enlightened in the life time in which they have the physical limitations.
But that doesn't mean that the people who have the "potential" or "capacity" to attain enlightenment would get enlightened in one-life time(or maybe in millions of life-times) because there are many factors for the humans that prevents them from attaining Nibbana. One of the biggest factors is the "enjoyment of suffering". You can say it "clinging to suffering" too because clinging and enjoyment are related to eachother.
That's why the people who are Buddhist meditators(or in other spiritual traditions that is aligned with the Buddhist teaching) are very lucky because they have this chance to attain stream-entry and beyond in one life-time. And this becomes some people's reality through mindfulness and right living. This is truly a blessing and we must thank to Buddha and Buddha's disciples who carried his teachings to our times that makes some people stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners and even Arahants and gives many others the chance to attain enlightenment.

No. It is not possible.
It is not possible because there are those who do not believe the first Noble Truth.

Sir, I remember that suffering is the first noble truth you’ve taught SN56.15

In not believing the first Noble Truth, they flail about, running from suffering and grasping at delights. They think suffering to be a lie and reject the truth.
It is not possible because there are those who do not believe the second Noble Truth.

the origin of suffering is the second; SN56.15

In not believing the second Noble Truth, they grow despondent, thinking suffering universal and unavoidable. They think that suffering has no origin and reject the truth.
It is not possible because there are those who do not believe the third Noble Truth.

the cessation of suffering is the third; SN56.15

In not believing the third Noble Truth, they act as they wish, careless of deed and blaming others. They think that suffering is inevitable and reject the truth.
It is not possible because there are those who do not believe the fourth Noble Truth.

and the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering is the fourth. SN56.15

In not believing the fourth Noble Truth, they follow uncertain paths, wandering astray. They reject the Noble Eightfold Path.
Also note that people do change their minds, so a particular person may come to believe in the Noble Truths. Whether they change their minds in this life is up to them.
That's my interpretation of the suttas.

What if they change their view and start believing in the first Noble truth? Are you saying they are not allowed to change their mind or develop their understanding? Your argument says that there are certain preconditions fro enlightenment, not that there are people who can never reach it.

Thanks for the comment. I've edited my answer to say that people can change their minds. Many will die before changing their minds, Indeed. In the past 2500 years, many people have died without changing their minds.

True enough. Luckily we get lots of lives in which to change our minds.

The Noble Dhamma that Buddha proclaimed has the nature of Dependent Origination. With craving as the origin, suffering comes to arise. With the complete cessation of craving, the cessation of suffering (i.e. liberation/enlightenment/Nibbana). Therefore you shouldn't look for a yes-no answer.
However it sounds like what you are asking is if someone is practicing the Noble Eight Fold Path, can there be other factors that will limit their development and cause a delay in attaining nibbana? Yes there could be. One well-known case is for someone who has committed one or more of the ānantarika-kamma. That person will not have any attainment in this life.
However the most typical case for these types of questions to arise is not having heard true dhamma and not practicing according to the True Idea.
But for a person whose mind is fixed on Nibbana (i.e. having seen Noble Truths to some level, having practiced the Noble Eight Fold Path, having understood even a single link of dependent origination), for that person either in this life or in the next or within the next seven births, he will attain Nibbana.
A good place to start is by learning and practicing the Noble Eight Fold Path
With Metta


text:
Friendship and Compassion
I've realized that that I don't feel much friendliness for a person which I considered my friend previously. At the level of friendship, things are not the same.
Yet, this person has done nothing wrong against me. I know they care deeply for me, they value me, and they have a hard time making friends. Their life situation is also difficult.
I would describe them as a virtuous person, extremely caring, curious spiritually. For me, it is only the fact I don't feel the friendship to be there anymore that detracts me.
In Buddhism, is friendship linked with compassion? Should I disregard the fact this person may suffer because sustaining the friendship would be untrue? Or, should I perhaps try to see things differently, and more compassionately?
Thank you

A related topic: Friend who is the same in happiness and sorrow

@Omar Ahmed. Comment section is not for answering questions. Please post your comment as an answer.

In English the word "love" has many meaning, for example:

Desire (attachment, possessiveness)
Altruism (benevolence)
Gratitude
Admiration
Familiarity
Reciprocity

Anyway I think that in English the word "friendship" is similar (many meanings, many kinds of friendship) -- so when you say "friendship" I don't think I can know what you're talking about (and so it's difficult to answer the question).
In the Pali suttas, though, I think that "friendship" occurs in maybe three ways:

The Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31) describes what a "good friend" and a "bad friend" might be, for a layperson
The Brahmaviharas are described here as "the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings ... the answer to all situations arising from social contact"
The Upaddha Sutta (SN 45.2) says that having "good" friends, admiring them, emulating them, is "the whole of the holy life".

You might see also:

What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'?
Friend who is the same in happiness and sorrow

Lastly perhaps beware of "I don't feel much friendliness".
I think we're warned -- in several suttas e.g. the Culavedalla Sutta (MN 44) -- that people tend to have:

Desire for pleasant feelings
Aversion to painful feelings
Ignorance (i.e. avijjā) about neither-pleasant-nor-unpleasant feelings

In everyday speech, the word "friendship" implies mutual support. One remembers birthdays, celebrates marriages, introduces romantic partners, etc.  And yet many of the things a conventional friend would support become meaningless on the Noble Eightfold Path. For example, the Vinaya prohibits matchmaking, which causes one to become entangled in the cravings of others.
Yet a friend is also one who supports one on a spiritual path, providing encouragement when faith lags and self-doubt causes one to flounder and lose hope. Indeed, from SN45.2 we have:

Good friends, companions, and associates are the whole of the spiritual life.

Given that your friend is a "virtuous person, extremely caring, curious spiritually," there would be common ground in discussing the precepts or observances either one of you has taken. And where the understanding of spiritual goals differs, then much fruitful discussion can unfold to benefit both.  These conversations will naturally develop as you observe your own precepts. Inevitably, those observances will cause surprise in others you interact with. For example, if you are not eating dinner, then being invited to dinner creates some interesting conversations!
In these conversations, compassion will be critical. One's own understanding of a precept and its observance may only be superficial. Our wisdom grows as we apply the precepts compassionately to our own conduct in relating to others.
Perhaps your friend will become a good spiritual companion and associate.

Another important point is your statement about "not feeling much friendliness". As equanimity and tranquility fill your life, it becomes less driven by pleasant or painful feelings. If your friendship was based on pleasant feelings and shared cravings, then that basis for relationship would naturally vanish. For example, choosing celibacy would drastically change the nature of a relationship.
Examine that "not feeling much friendliness" and ask yourself if there might now be an element of unwholesomeness to formerly enjoyed shared activity. Here, too, compassion is crucial because it is the activity you would avoid, not the human being that is your friend.


text:
Mindfulness With Breathing & Ear Pain
Whenever I do mindfulness with breathing I get ear pains whenever I do longer breaths. The breath is also hearable.
Wherein lies the problem?

Physical pain and itching is normal time to time but in your case the cause can be something different

Apparently I figured it out by myself how to solve the pain. It was due to me breathing in a quite 'rough' manner, namely, breathing through the nose so that the sound is audible.
Consequently, changing the breath so that it's hardly audible diminished the ear & head pressure.

Could be because you are performing forced breaths.
Otherwise, there could possibly be some type of physical problem or blockage, such as this I found on the internet.
If the later, I would research the internet, ask a doctor or ask a highly skilled acupuncturist.

Before proceeding with the latter, lets assume that it's the former reason. What'd you suggest?

Anapanasati long breathing is not forced or controlled breathing. It is long breathing that naturally occurs when the mind is calm.

Why then does everyone (Ajahn Chah, Buddhadasa, Jayasaro etc.) say to tranquilize the breath and observe it?

Tranquilize does not mean directly manipulating it. You can keep following their instructions and see what results they bring.


text:
Mundane Contemplation
I tend to contemplate beneficial topics throughout the day, shirking meditation at times. I conjecture such a daily contemplation is not highly concentrated.
Is there any information in Buddhism on mundane mental contemplation (if any)?
For example, how does reflecting on compassion throughout the day compare with compassion meditation? How does analysis or compassion fare when done with merely day-to-day concentration?
Is there a benefit for un-concentrated contemplation on a virtuous topic? How would a Buddhist fare without formal meditative skills?

Is there any information in Buddhism on mundane mental contemplation (if any)? Is there a benefit for un-concentrated contemplation on a virtuous topic?

Mental contemplation can be useful for training in Morality, but not for training in Concentration or Wisdom. It is good to contemplate your current karmic state, and deduce what actions can be taken or stopped to generate more good karma. That being said, training in Morality is only the first step. Without training in the other two, your chances of becoming free of samsara is very low.
I don't really suggest doing compassion meditation unless you really feel like you generate a lot of bad karma from a lack of compassion. As to weather or not your compassion meditation brings more results than contemplating day to day, only your experience can speak to that.
Contemplation can not replace concentration meditation. Training in concentration is something that requires effort and time for it to be cultivated properly. You can not think your way to stronger concentration skills. You have to actually practice concentrating.

How would a Buddhist fare without formal meditative skills?

Spontaneous enlightenment is possible, but I would not put your chips in that basket if you want to be free this lifetime. All 3 trainings work together in order to help you be free from ignorance, suffering, and samsara. If your goal is to be free, it is essential to pay all three trainings an equal amount of attention. To do that, formal concentration and insight meditation is a must.
It is not possible to think your way to Enlightenment. It is something that must be discovered and felt at the source of your being. At some point you will be required to abandon thought to move further. That can be done easier once you have learned to concentrate, and have found the wisdom present in what you observe.
I hope this was helpful my friend and I wish you nothing but love.


text:
Buddha's advice for after enlightenment
I've heard a few pieces of advice the Buddha gave to arahants, but not much. What are some teachings the Buddha gave to arahants to guide them towards further growth?
(Edit)
I want to clarify a bit what I mean for I feel I didn't do an adequate job of explaining my question.
After enlightenment, there is nothing more to be done, but a phenomena seems to occur. The self is known to be illusory. The bodymind (the forms within experience that was previously identified with) continue to appear and slowly seems to embody the enlightened perspective.
This is outlined in this quote from this answer which was posted here on this forum in the past.

A Hinayana arhat abandoned afflictive obscurations by way of realizing emptiness, but has not abandoned knowledge obscuration. He has achieved abiding nirvana. Therefore, although they are free from the conception of true existence, and from true suffering, they are not free from the imprints of ignorance (i.e. knowledge obscurations). We say that it is like removing garlic from a container: the smell will still be there. So, because they still have the imprints of ignorance, (1) they are not free from the appearance of true existence, and (2) they are reborn with a mental body, due to the imprints of ignorance (in our case, we are reborn to due karma and afflictions).
A bodhisattva is a person who generated effortless bodhicitta (the wish to achieve enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings). Since effortless bodhicitta is the entry gate to the Mahayana path, he entered the Mahayana small path of accumulation. When he cultivates wisdom, it is conjoined with emptiness and that makes his mind vast (due to bodhicitta) and profound (due to realizing emptiness). He wishes not to abide in individual liberation (abiding nirvana) but to be free from the extreme of peace (abiding nirvana) as well as from samsara. Therefore, he wishes to achieve non-abiding nirvana, which is the attainment of a buddha.
A Buddha abandoned both afflictive and knowledge obscuration, having generated the path perfection of wisdom (the wisdom of emptiness conjoined with bodhicitta). In his continuum, wisdom and bodhicitta are the same mind: the omniscient mind of a buddha that realizes all objects of knowledge directly, past present and future, in an unmistaken way, etc. He achieved non-abiding nirvana, abiding neither in samsara nor in individual liberation. His enlightened activities are uninterrupted.

This is apparently a quote from a zen master that illustrates the same thing.

A zen monk was once asked, “How’s your enlightenment going?” And he replied, “Fine. My body is having a hard time keeping up with it though.”

I am hoping to find content of this nature that describes how this process of going from an arahant to a Buddha unfolds.

This question is Mahayana. In Theravada, the Buddha is an Arahant; and Arahants are not generally called "Buddhas" because "Buddha" is a title reserved for the 1st Arahant who starts the Buddhist religion.

Yes according to the last line ("this process of going from an arahant to a Buddha"), apparently you're looking for a Mahayana answer -- so I added the [tag:mahayana] tag to the question and both the current answers aren't quite on-topic. In Theravada i.e. per the Pali canon, an Arahant has or is finished.

Yes, the edit/addition to the question makes it clear that how the questioner defines enlightenment needs to precede this question; that is, is there one enlightenment or are there many stages all deserving of the term enlightened. It's just a question of terms. If one considers only one final enlightenment (the direct acquisition of final knowledge) then there are many stages working up to it. In that case, my answer below refers only to those of the final enlightenment.

@KilayaCiriello I hope to not confuse you but I'm not trying to ask about enlightenment. I am asking if there are any teachings the Buddha gave on living after enlightenment, and how the bodymind gradually adapts to the enlightened understanding.

@w33t Would bhūmis be an answer to what you're asking about? And/or the five paths?

There needs to be some caution/qualifications when discussing arahants just as there should be when discussing the Buddha. SN 44.1 discusses this caution and it applies to arahants as well.

"so too, great king, that form by which one describing the Tathagata might describe him has been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that it is no more subject to future arising. The tathagata is liberated from reckoning in terms of form; he is deep, immeasurable, hard to fathom like the great ocean."

In SN 35.135:

I do not say of those bhikkhus who are arahants . . . that they still have work to do with diligence in regard to the six bases for contact. Why is that? They have done their work with diligence; they are incapable of being negligent.

There is one other teaching that I know of regarding what arahants do but I can't find it right now. In it the Buddha says that arahants continue to dwell with the 4 mindfulness established. Maybe someone else can find that reference?

Case 46 of the Mumonkan Proceed On from the Top of the Pole                          四十六　竿頭進歩
石霜和尚云、百尺竿頭、如何進歩。 Sekisõ Oshõ asked, "How can you proceed on further
  from the top of a hundred-foot pole?"
又古徳云、百尺竿頭坐底人、雖然得入未爲眞。 Another eminent teacher of old said, "You, who
  sit on the top of a hundred-foot pole, although you have entered the
  Way you are not yet genuine.
百尺竿頭、須進歩十方世界現全身。 Proceed on from the top of the pole, and you will
  show your whole body in the ten directions."
Mumon's Comment
無門曰、進得歩、翻得身、更嫌何處不稱尊。 If you go on further and turn your body about, no
  place is left where you are not the master.
然雖如是、且道、百尺竿頭、如何進歩。嗄。 But even so, tell me, how will you go on further
  from the top of a hundred-foot pole? Eh?"
Mumon's Verse 頌曰 瞎却頂門眼 He darkens the third eye of insight  錯認定盤星
  And clings to the first mark on the scale. 拌身能捨命 Even though he
  may sacrifice his life, 一盲引衆盲 He is only a blind man leading the
  blind.

Or put very simply - seeing one's face for the first time does not perfect make us perfect Buddhas.  It's really only the first mark on the scale.  Some go so far as to say that our training doesn't really begin until we've had our dai kensho or great awakening experience.   After enlightenment, there is still so much work left to be done!  We still have to address what karmic obstacles remain and what insights into the nature of reality that we continue to miss.  This means more meditation, more koans, more sesshins, and more sweat.  In other words, post enlightenment training, that part of the path that turns us into perfect Buddhas, is basically identical to what came before.  You proceed from the top of the pole in the same way that your climbed the first hundred feet.  The tricky part is making that first step off the pole.

What are some teachings the Buddha gave to arahants to guide them towards further growth?

Technically speaking, once one's attained arahantship, one'd continue training simply because the training has become second nature, a way of life, not because there's some further "growth" needed. A very common stock phrase that describes arahantship in many suttas:

"Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." ~~ Quote Refs ~~


text:
Reference for the teaching of not-self
I have heard in the past a kind of argument to show that there is no self along the lines of: are you your body? No, your cells regenerate all the time. Are you your emotions? No, they come and go. Are you ... ? The questioning goes on and on like that till there is nothing left. Is that argument actually found in the sutras? If yes, in which one?

Not-self (Anatta) is a teaching which is difficult even to understand by an advanced practitioner. Anatta Lakhana Sutta is the direct teaching of this doctrine.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html

Buddha gave advice to his son Rahula regarding this in Sutta 62,
verse 8 and verse 3 here:-
http://buddhadust.net/dhamma-vinaya/wp/mn/mn.062.ntbb.wp.htm
For matter :-

Rahula, whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is solid,
  solidified, and clung-to, that is, head-hairs, body-hairs, nails,
  teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver,
  diaphragm, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents
  of the stomach, feces, or whatever else internally, belonging to
  oneself, is solid, solidified, and clung-to: this is called the
  internal earth element. Now both the internal earth element and the
  external earth element are simply earth element. And that should be
  seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: “This is not mine,
  this I am not, this is not my self.” When one sees it thus as it
  actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the
  earth element and makes the mind dispassionate towards the earth
  element.

For non matter :-

Then the Blessed One looked back and addressed the venerable Rāhula
  thus:[641] "Rāhula, any kind of material form whatever, whether past,
  future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or
  superior, far or near, all material form should be seen as it actually
  is with proper wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is
  not my self."' "Only material form, Blessed One? Only material form,
  Sublime One?" "Material form, Rāhula, and feeling, perception,
  formations, and consciousness.

You might want to read :
SN 12:15 • Kaccanagotta
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_15.html
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.15/en/bodhi
MN 72 • Aggi-vacchagotta Sutta
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN72.html
MN 109 • Mahā Puṇṇama Sutta
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN109.html
“He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
“This, monk, is how self-identification view comes about.”

It's in the The Questions of King Milinda, in the section which contains the analogy (or parable) of the Chariot.

Then, what is this "Nagasena"? Are perhaps the hairs of the head
  "Nagasena?"
"No, Great King!"
"Or perhaps the nails, [etc.]

The questions, the Milinda Panha, is in the Khuddaka Nikaya.


text:
Direct Experience of Meditation
This morning I read many posts on this site. I felt like topics on Buddhist doctrine were somewhat clear to me, but those on meditation seemed complex, difficult to me.
I wondered: Does meditation practice increase knowledge about meditation? Is this what is meant by direct experience?
I feel this may seem as a naive question; I'm mainly wondering how something experienced (i.e. meditation) might affect cognition / knowledge about the topic of meditation.
For example, I'm unsure whether a person hammering nails all day would necessarily understand their task conceptually. Does meditation necessarily give one conceptual knowledge of meditation?

One possible answer is that meditation relies both on the theoretical understanding on what's going on, but also the direct experience. They are mutually dependent as far as i can see.
A mere theoretical understanding of meditation will not take us very far in the progress, just like meditation without a theoretical description of the phenomena involved probably won't take us far either.

Simple analogy:
The experience of watching someone drive (a car) for 1000 years can never compare to actually driving by yourself for 1 hour.

I felt that @Erik had a slightly better answer in that I, also, feel both are required. While the above is true, I felt that trying to drive without watching/learning about driving first could be almost equally fruitless in its results.

Respect your view. However, the best way to start learning how to drive, still is to practically drive slowly and carefully, better with an instructor next to you of course. It's just not something to learn 'theoretically', conceptually, or 'tabletop'. Same goes for meditation. Cheers!

I respect your view as well. However, I think the 'best' methods for a person may depend on the type of individual they are. Using your analogy, if you are an experiential / intuitive type, getting behind the wheel would be best. You would not care about the physics of how brakes work. Stepping on the petal would be enough for you to learn. But for me, an analytic, often I wish to understand theory before experience. For people like me, we need both. Hence my comment of "both are required" for complete and balanced learning. Complicated individual differences give different 'best's. Regards.

Going canonical: Meditation involves samadhi (tranquil absorption) and sati (mindful awareness).
When you investigate a phenomena (breath for example) with this state of mind, depending upon the strength of your mindfulness you will see aspects of the working of the mind itself.
Almost like seeing through the corner of your mind, you see how the mind itself works. And by virtue of seeing that you might see how reality is- this could come from different angles (impermanence, fabricated nature, dependent arising)- our mind releases a little bit "ahh this is silly, why am I so worried about this!".
But those are names we use to convey our experiences. No amount of scholarly dissection of those names will help our mind release it. Only direct, real time, seeing would. Meditation develops the skill and arena for such insights.
This seeing the working of the mind does not need a conceptual framework. But certain conceptual framework (the optimal way to nail a hammer) will help you hammer it deeper and better. But it relies on your experiential understanding of hammering a nail itself. The eight fold path is such a conceptual framework which points us in the general direction of these realizations.

Its like this.Say you face a problem with the direct experience of a certain feeling ,thus you decided to formulate a new meditation concept where you contemplate that feeling.
Direct experience is to investigate the true nature of reality its subjective quality
.In hammering nails one will experience nailing
Conceptual knowledge comes about as a result of problems faced when having a direct experience.
If the nail gets bent then one decides to hammer a bit slowly next time.

A quibble. I would question whether the phrase 'its subjective quality' is correct here. It might suggest Reality is an object with a subjective aspect.  .

Its quality is experienced subjectively is what I meant.

This is what I thought you meant. I would suggest that 'Subjective qualities' are rather mundane things and meditation takes us beyond them. Indeed. 'subjective quialites' are exactly what we are trying to transcend. But I see this may be just  matter of terminology. ,.

I agree regarding transcendence ,but its merely the result.The message is that there is nothing...absolutely nothing but the quality and that is the end of suffering.

Okay. In this case we simply disagree. No problem. .

Yes. its no problem .Our disagreement seems to be of a high caliber it has a sophistication ,knowing this one is not bothered and simply learns from the other :).

Yes. Very well put.


text:
Are all forms of Dukkha related to a sense of self?
A few days ago I started reading books about Paticcasamuppada because I realized how little and shallow was my understanding on this capital matter.
Despite getting the gist of it, I still have problems understanding the exact details.
For instance, I understand that dukkha arises from the 3 kinds of craving (kama, bhava, vibhava), and that craving is the condition for the arising of sustenance/clinging/fuel.
I've been reading a book based on Dhamma Talks given by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (Under the Bodhi Tree) on the topic of Dependent Co-arising. There it is said that all kinds of suffering are born from clinging to "I" and "mine".  Is that always the case?
If attachment and obsession is developed towards some kind of feeling, is always the idea of a self involved in that process? Couldn't be the case of some obsession to, for example, a pleasent feeling without thinking about it as "mine" or "me"? Couldn't we just attached to a past feeling on itself?
Or to put it in other words...
Is the arising of the idea/perception of self always necessary for the arising of dukkha?
I'm not sure if I'm expressing my doubts correctly.
Thanks in advance for your time and patience.

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

Related: Suffering due to non-self-related preconceived notions in Theravada

This link is helpful: https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=ptmMsW16fqkC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=arahants+free+from+dukkha&source=bl&ots=7ICIGisV7Y&sig=ACfU3U1NmaSGHRQS10LU_xpYn0jM4GwdpA&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwipyqD96NThAhXRk4sKHSvBCGkQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=arahants%20free%20from%20dukkha&f=false

From the second noble truth, we know that suffering (dukkha) is caused by craving (tanha). From the third noble truth, we know that the cessation of suffering comes through the cessation of craving.
What is craving really?
From this answer, we learn that craving is a habit of reification or objectification-classification (papañca). I quote that answer here:

Reification is simpistic naive superficial perception. It's a
  generalization of the same problem that children have with toys. A
  child sees a new shiny toy and because he does not think deeply,
  because his perception is superficial - in his mind the toy is
  attractive and desirable.
Reification is seeing the outer image and buying into its glow, its
  fake promise to make you happy.

Meanwhile, in this question, I quoted Sutta Nipata 4.14:

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

Now what is the notion of the self? It's a mental fabrication. It's a view. It's a thought in the mind.
Due to this deep-seated thought or view of "I am the thinker" i.e. the notion of the self, one reifies everything that is perceived through the six senses into objects and classifies them according to its relationship to the self. It creates the duality of self and non-self, as well as classifies the relationship of non-self things to the self e.g. this belongs to me, that does not belong to me. Without the notion of the self, this reification would not exist.
And craving is, as said above, just a habit of reification.
For e.g. when you look at food that looks interesting to you, you experience craving. When the food is not present and you think about it, that's clinging. When you try to get this food, but it is denied to you, you experience anger. If somebody else took the last piece of that food and it is denied to you, you feel jealous as you see them relishing it.
To you, that meat thing on the plate looks like delicious food. To a vegan, that may look repulsive.
Why is this the case? That thing on the plate is just a thing. It's your mind that objectified it and classified it as delicious food. The vegan's mind objectified it and classified it as repulsive food.
Isn't it delicious food, only relative to you (the self) and your eating preferences (some characteristic of your personality i.e. part of your self)?
To a honey bee, that meat thing on the plate is not even food, because that's not the kind of food that it eats. That's just dirt to the bee. The bee objectifies it and classifies it relative to its self.
So, all types of craving and clinging and views are all relative to your self. If there is no notion of self, then the (sight and smell of the) thing on the plate is just something on the plate, that evokes no emotion.
So, all forms of sufferings are indeed related to the notion of the self.

Dukkha has also been translated here and there as disappointment. It is related to identification with an incorrect perception and mental fabrication we call "ourselves" - it is ego that drives attachment and obsession. Without a self, or a perception of self, the same experiences cannot give rise to attachment/etc. They won't give rise to dukkha.
"Self" cannot have permanent existence because "existence" is shared by all things. Understanding this is called by Buddha "deathlessness" - because in that we see that "self" is just a finite and discreet experience in a vast universe of phenomenon.
Astronomy and the vast size of the physical universe were discovered in India the same time as Buddhism and Jainism, and other hermit movements. Most physicists agree that self is merely an illusion.

Hi Eric, thanks for your answer! I cannot understand the necessary relation between a self and dukkha. If I wish something (a pleasent feeling, for instance) to stay the same forever, where is the sense of self acting? Isn't this just ignorance of impermanence?

If Desire is clung to it always points to a self  .See you said I wish.Wish is the desire it points to someone who wants it fulfilled.If wishing as a desire is simply recognized then there is no I and accordingly wishing will disappear and only the feeling remains.

@BrianDíazFlores If there is ignorance, there is automatically the assuming or appropriation of the aggregates (I-making, my-making) present. Hence, there is always an "I" there with dukkha. Because this is on a very subtle level it's easily missed (even more ignorance).

@Medhiṇī Hi! Thanks for your answer. I understand what you say. My question is more directed to the idea of some form of dukkha (apart from dukkha-dukkha) which might fall outside the sense of "I" and "mine".

@BrianDíazFlores I understand. The point I tried to make (unsuccessfully): there is no such thing.

@Medhiṇī What I failed to understand is how is that I-making and Mine-making in the arising of a desire. Perhaps an example from daily life and the details of the mechanisms leading to the arising of craving (the processes between Vedana and Tanha in Paticcasamuppada) could clear thing up for me. Some of the answers basically just stated "no, because a self is always implicitly involved in the process of craving", which explains next to nothing. Ruben's answer gives the details of the process, and that's why I picked that one. Thanks for your patience and kindness! Kind regards

@BrianDíazFlores Could we do this by mail (see profile)? It's going to be too long for this platform/spot.

@Medhiṇī Sure! Thanks for your time. I'll be writing to you soon. Kind regards!

If you ignore the title, the body of the question is asking ...

If attachment and obsession is developed towards some kind of feeling, is always the idea of a self involved in that process? Couldn't be the case of some obsession to, for example, a pleasent feeling without thinking about it as "mine" or "me"? Couldn't we just attached to a past feeling on itself?

... i.e. "Is it possible for there to be attachment without a sense of self?"
Three parts to this answer:

I think we're warned that attachment arises from craving, and that a sense of self arises from attachment:

But still, I say, there is no making an end of suffering for sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving.
Suppose a dog on a leash was tethered to a strong post or pillar. It would just keep running and circling around that post or pillar. In the same way, take an uneducated ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in their teaching. They’ve not seen good persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in their teaching. They regard form … feeling … perception … choices … consciousness as self, self as having consciousness, consciousness in self, or self in consciousness.
Gaddulabaddha Sutta (SN 22.99)

This accords with the sequence of nidanas in the paṭiccasamuppāda, i.e. craving → clinging → becoming.
So perhaps it's true, that where there's attachment there's becoming -- but it's not the sense of self that causes attachment, rather it's attachment that's a prerequisite or a condition for there becoming a sense of self.
The question seems to associate dukkha with attachment.
However see Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?
If you take Andrei's definition of "craving" ...

Craving (lit. "thirst", tanha) is a technical term that means that very phenomenological moment when you (here!) daydream about something (over there!).

... it seems to literally involve some a sense of self (e.g. "I don't have X and I want it").
So maybe "craving" requires some sense of self? And craving is dukkha, and without a sense of self there's isn't "craving"?
I guess that semi-enlightened people have some (occasional) kind of sense of self, even after they no longer have a view of self -- see e.g. the answers to How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?
The disappearance of "conceit" is associated with becoming an arahant.
Maybe, in a stream-winner, dukkha is transient in the same way that conceit is:

A view is taking something to be true, whereas conceit falls in the category of a simple experience, which one may or may not hold to be valid. It is similar with greed; one may want something without believing it proper to want, and one may likewise feel conceit ("I am better", etc.) without actually believing in a self. This is seen when, after the arising of a conceited thought, one mentally discards it as being based on delusion rather than accepting it as valid.

You asked about "forms of dukkha" and "arising of dukkha" -- there's sabbe sankhara dukkha -- but presumably an arahant doesn't crave such a thing, doesn't attach to it, doesn't regard it as "self", etc., and so ...

No it is not necessary. Tanha(Craving) is the cause of Dukkha. Tanha leads to Upadana which is of four types:

sense-pleasure clinging (kamupadana)
wrong-view clinging (ditthupadana)
rites-and-rituals clinging (silabbatupadana)
self-doctrine clinging (attavadupadana).

What you are talking about is the fourth type of clinging. Ex: Clinging to the body as a self, clinging to the mind as a self, a mother clinging to a child as "my child" etc.  Basically it means clinging to the five aggregates as a self.
In contrast, Kama upadana only requires you to like a certain experience. Ex: Liking the taste of chocolate, liking the taste of ice-cream can lead to getting addicted to them.
However, self clinging can work in tandem with other types of clinging. Ex: When you see/smell some delicious food in a shop, you start to like it. That liking will lead to wanting to buy it. That's mainly Kama Tanha leading to Kama upadana. After you make the purchase, the notion of 'mine' or "my food" can arise. Clinging to the food that way comes under the fourth type of clinging. At that point if someone steals it from you, suffering arises due to both clinging to the sense pleasures and clinging to it as 'mine'.

I think we must start with the 4 noble truths. The first one is that life is suffering. Ignorance of that truth is the basis for the chain of codependent origination. This chain includes craving as one of its links but this chain, itself, leads to birth, death, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, despair, pain and suffering. Craving is the crucial link in the chain that we can focus on to break it.
Your question seems to center on the role that a view of self has in suffering. When we see that life is suffering, we see, at the very same time, that life is impermanent. When we clearly see that life is impermanent, we see, at the very same time, that it is not me, not mine, not myself. Why? Because, can what is impermanent possibly be "me/mine?" No, these ideas are in contradiction to each other. Seeing the 4 Noble Truths clearly and directly then, one abandons conceit, and any volitions predicated upon ownership or conceit. Is a view of the self involved in suffering? A view of the self is implicated in ignorance and ignorance initiates suffering.

Hi! Thanks for your answer. My quetion arised because of the statement given in the book I mentioned: all kinds of suffering are born from clinging to "I" and "mine".

Where is the sense of "I" and "mine" in the craving for some pleasent feeling/situation to stay the same?

All feelings are impermanent, subject to change, to cessation, to dissolution. Any craving in regards to feeling therefore exposes you to disappointment and therefore suffering.

I understand what you said. My doubts are about "all kinds of suffering are born from clinging to "I" and "mine"" (quote from Buddhadasa's book). In the example given above (wanting a pleasent feeling to stay the same), where is the sense of "I" and "me"? As I see it, if suffering comes, it comes because that desire was not satisfied, not because I thought of that feeling as "me" or "mine".

Desire, if unrecognized always points to a self .When Desire arises it automatically assumes there is self .It rose in unconsciousness in the first place and unconscious mind has a very strong feeling of self because its survival based.
Humans progressed because of their ability to consciously recognize their experience and use it to their advantage.In recognizing desire comes knowledge of its impermanence as a feeling then automatically the unconscious mechanism of a self wanting something disappears.

When ever still thirsty then still Dukkha and the thirsts are three:
After sensuality/world (the most ignored by householders... Ahara-hats)
After being (common known)
After not-being (ignored by "Buddhists")
and so they suffer on and worship the root cause: not knowing, ignorance, like nearly all beings. Dukkha is the cause for liberation. Something good to take with you all the way.

The 1st noble truth summarises all dukkha as "attachment" to the five aggregates - saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā. Thus all suffering requires "self". To avoid doubt about this, MN 44, in paraphrasing the 1st noble truth, says:

These five clung-to-aggregates are the self-identification described by the Blessed One.
He assumes form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, consciousness to be the self... this is how self-identification comes
  about.
MN 44

In 2nd noble truth says dukkha "arises" ("samudaya") when craving leads to new becoming. "Samudaya" does not mean "cause" ("hetu"). The 2nd noble truth is not about "cause". The 2nd noble truth is about the complete arising of suffering (refer to AN 3.61; which includes all 12 links of D.O. as the 2nd noble truth). At least two things are required for the arising of suffering: (i) craving; and (ii) becoming. Craving without becoming is not the arising of suffering (MN 148). Becoming, similar to attachment, is egoism. Thus all suffering requires "self" delusion.
The 1st sermon says "this suffering is to be comprehended". The questioner has not comprehended suffering. This is why this comprehension is called "enlightenment". This comprehension is not exactly easy to accomplish; therefore please do not take thus unenlightenment personally. Similar to the vast majority of people & Buddhists, the questioner has not yet comprehended dukkha. Thus, the questioner, similar to 99% or so of people, is not yet a stream-enterer.

@Dhammadhatu Hi! Thanks for your answer! I just read MN 148, and I couldn't find anything close as "craving without becoming". The last part of the sutta says that if one abandons the passion/aversion/ignorance-tendencies and cultivates clear knowing, one would get free from dukkha in the here-&-now. But as I see it, there's not craving in there. Can you explain "craving without becoming" in more depth, please?

MN 148 says "six sets of six should be known". "Known" means "known" without attachment. One of these six sets of six is craving.

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

All forms of dukkha are not related to the sense of self. Maybe the origin of the dukkha is related to the sense of self(example: the origin of having a "body" or " form" for humans or other beings is related to being attached to the self) but it is possible to become an Arahant and still not be free from all dukkha, but Arahants are completely free from sense of self. Arahants still have physical pain and physical discomfort but they are completely free from suffering. Even in the high enlightenment stages before the Arahant stage- once-returners and non-returners- who still have a very weak sense of "having a form in their beings" don't have identification with the "form" or the "self" in their beings so they are also free from "self" but not yet free from the dukkha.

Dukkha (/ˈduːkə/; Pāli; Sanskrit: duḥkha) is an important Buddhist concept, commonly translated as "suffering", "pain", "unsatisfactoriness" or "stress". It refers to the fundamental unsatisfactoriness and painfulness of mundane life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha
All kinds of "suffering" is related to self. When Angulimala is about to kill the Buddha, Buddha gave this teaching to Angulimala(In the Angulimala movie-Thai film):

First, everything is impermanent(conditioned things). Your so-called mind is impermanent as well. In contemplation you'll see endless impermanence. Second, everything causes suffering. Nothing should be clung to. Please contemplate If your mind can yield true contentment. Angulimala Third, everything is without a true self. What you're contemplating is not your true self. Angulimala, to cling to "myself" and "mine" causes all sufferings

So all forms of suffering is related to the "sense of self"(identification with the sense of self) but all forms of dukkha are not related to sense of self because physical pain, physical discomfort etc are also dukkha but the enlightened beings are not free from these things(but they don't suffer based on them. For the stream-enterers the situation is different because it is the transition stage. So they don't believe to the sense of self, deep down they know the nonsense nature of the thoughts, emotions and feelings but they still identified with them without believing it them to be true. That's why stream-entry is not complete enlightenment but it is a wonderful tool(and it is a guarantee for future enlightenment) to become completely free from the identification of the sense of self in the future.
For more detailed information about stream-entry:
Monk Radio: Stream Enterer by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu
But ofcourse life is only available in the present moment so a meditator mustn't seek future's gifts but must be mindful of whatever arises in the now.


text:
Skipping Meditation After Great Exertion
Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche, in a video, describes how some beginners exert themselves too much at once and then skip sessions. That is precisely my situation. Upon meditating for much longer than usual in one sitting, I skip subsequent days.
Yet, recently I found myself wishing to meditate more, but not doing so because I feared that phenomenon would happen again.
How can this limitation (exertion then skipping) be overcome?
Would for example taking longer breaks between short sessions (15 min of meditation) inhibit overexertion? What would be the ideal length of such a break?

Meditation shouldn't be viewed as a need. You should neither regret that you skipped nor  wish that you do it.You are getting attached to the joy of meditation and this in itself is counterproductive to the practice.
Do it simply willingly any time you feel like it.Naturally then a rhythm will form that suites your lifestyle.
And remember that the practice should be applied in the real world.

Use mindfulness. Keep a record of which days you meditate, and for how long. Find ways to graph your progress. There are apps for smart phones that do this, but a simple "Practice Journal" with notes is better, as you can add whatever you want to it. It's impossible to hold everything in your memory, so notes allow you to look back and review your experience, set goals, and work towards them.

You keep using this meaningless word that is mediation, as if it is a good idea... whereas nobody knows what you mean by that.
if you mean bhavana, then say bhavana and the answer to your question is obvious. Bhavana means you do it as much as you can, each day, all the time.
If you want to be more specific, then you use jhana, sati sampajanna or the other 2 Samādhibhāvanās https://www.buddha-vacana.org/sutta/anguttara/04/an04-041.html
Sati sampajanna is obvious, since you do that as long as there is  vitakka, vedana and sanna, so again pretty much all the time, certainly not 15 minutes a day, and then spending 23h45min not developing thoughts renunciation, non-ill will and harmlessness.
you will never clean the mind by spending 23h45min each day not developing renunciation, non-ill will and harmlessness, by not forcing seeing things as anicca, dukkha anatta.
Development means exactly the opposite of whatever you are doing in 15 minutes per day, which is certainly not training the mind.
Even the people who train and clean the body do not claim they train and clean the body by spending 15minutes per day on the body, and the mind is even harder to train and clean...
Jhana is when you want sukha and you cannot do that all the time, you can pause for a few hours up to a few days, especially when you are not a idle bikkhu.
The last 2 Samādhibhāvanās are done when you want to acquire knowledge of karma and nibanna, so it is not relevant for you here.