text:
How can anyone who hasn't realised the truth, claim that Mahatma Buddha or any other person in history realised God or the Truth?
Isn't it possible that whatever they have realised is just a psychological effect? Doing continuously hard practices leads to affect their mind and they tend to believe that, yes, this is the truth. They started lying to themselves that they know the truth?
I truly respect their teachings which shows us the path to live a good life. I am just talking about the real truth (if there is any).
With love.

look into "sudden enlightenment"

You shouldn't listen to anyone. Too many "Great Masters" claiming they are Great Masters around, this day. Only to those historically proven, those who have good conducts (not promoting fervently on the media!) Thus, you should study the Buddha's words directly, which are in the Sutras. If you haven't learnt Chinese characters and commend Classical Chinese, better you know Sanskrit, (maybe, Pali, not sure since Pali has limited collection of Sutras). If you have to rely on English translated Sutras, well, I advise you spent the reading time to learn Chinese... until there good translations

The other way is to acquire the "unlearnt" wisdom (無學, 無師智), like the 6th Chan (Zen) Master Huineng, who can't read or write. After he realized the truth, he was unbound by any worldly limitation, such as he could hide into a rock, he could offer his head to be chopped but instead the knife broken. You could just learn the two Sutras by heart and practice accordingly, Heart Sutra and Diamond Sutra, this will provide the key to the truth, if you really are able to "learn"

The truth of the Buddha is the method to end suffering. When a person tests the method & it works, they know the truth of the method, similar to when medicine is effective in curing in a sickness.
In Buddhism, there is no truth apart from personal verification, as taught:

"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Teacher is our respected mentor. We speak thus out of respect for the Teacher'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you say, 'The Contemplative says this. We speak thus in line with the Contemplative's words'?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you dedicate yourselves to another teacher?"
"No, lord."
"Knowing thus and seeing thus, would you return to the observances,
  grand ceremonies, & auspicious rites of common contemplatives &
  brahmans as having any essence?"
"No, lord."
"Is it the case that you speak simply in line with what you have known, seen, & understood for yourselves?"
"Yes, lord."
"Good, monks. You have been guided by me in this Dhamma which is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be
  realized by the observant for themselves. For it has been said, 'This
  Dhamma is to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification,
  pertinent, to be by the observant for themselves,' and it was in
  reference to this that it was said.
Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta

Thank you sir for answering. You said "The truth of the Buddha is the method to end suffering" and also said "In Buddhism, there is no truth apart from personal verification". So did you mean that There exists no truth beyond personal verification OR you meant that there may exists ultimate truth beyond personal verification but Buddhism talks about only personal verification?

The Buddha actually taught natural truth exists without any verification. However the Buddha was required to verify the truth before making this statement. Example, that human suffering always arises due to craving & attachment (1st & 2nd noble truth) is always the natural truth; that conditioned things are impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self is always the natural truth; even when no one has realized these truths. This being said, Buddhism emphasises personal verification of the truth. In other words, Buddhism does not encourage blind faith & the expectation people believe without seeing,

The natural truth that existed despite no human knowledge of it, just as E = mc 2 always existed before its discovery, it written here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html Regards

Wisdom and the faith inspired by it is 3 folds:

what is learned
what is logically deduced
what is experienced

Until you have experienced you will not know for sure. The real truth is revealed to you through your Vipassana meditation.
Brahmajala Sutta discusses instances where false ideas arose through misinterpreting experiences, some being meditative.
Generally people who have realised the truth do not brag about it so you will never know. If they grab about it then it is most likely they have not. Also discussing about another's attainment does not help oneself hence best left aside. Also even if you are still not realised the truth, saying does not serve any practical purpose, and if the situation changes your response will have to change indirectly giving away you have at the time achieved something.

Thank you sir for answering. I understand very clearly , what you have said. I also agree with you about "experience". All i want to know that, have you realised that real truth which was realised by Buddha?

I added a bit more.

As to your title question, MN27 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.027.than.html gives an account how every achievement before Nibbana, is no thing more than a clue as to the accuracy of the Buddha's insight. Prior to the attainment of arahantship, 'Truth' is not to be realised.
Practicing the same thing over and over again does make the mind 'run in that context' even outside of intentionally concentrating on that subject - I used to dream about weiqi when I used to play 4 hours a day.. In this respect, some aspect of Buddhist literature may be interpreted as only psychological (monks meditating and reaching the Tusita heaven etc.. Though these states are only ever acknowledged as psychological within Buddhism).
The difficulty with your point is that, if you skip annihalationism (nihilism), and embrace mundane 'right view', or:

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit,
  resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
  what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
  There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
  are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans
  who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
  next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
  is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in
  acquisitions." -  MN117

'truth' becomes evident. And if there are 'good and bad actions', there is a path  that can skip the bad and keep to the good ones (assuming beings capable of discerning between the two). Would it then be reasonable to define 'Truth', having established 'truth', and a Path towards it?
From my reading of the Suttas, the Buddha did not pursue the concept of Truth. For one, in the Potthapada Sutta, the Buddha talks about 'exclusively happy states', which is how an Absolute state of Happiness (a Christian heaven?) would have to manifest (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html):

"There are some brahmans & contemplatives with a doctrine & view like
  this: 'After death, the self is exclusively happy and free from
  disease.' I approached them and asked them, 'Is it true that you have
  a doctrine & view like this: "After death, the self is exclusively
  happy and free from disease"?' When asked this, they replied, 'Yes.'
  So I asked them, 'But do you dwell having known or seen an exclusively
  happy world?' When asked this, they said, 'No.' So I asked them, 'But
  have you ever been aware of a self exclusively happy for a day or a
  night, or for half a day or half a night?' When asked this, they said,
  'No.' So I asked them, 'But do you know that "This is the path, this
  is the practice for the realization of an exclusively happy world"?'
  When asked this, they said, 'No.' So I asked them, 'But have you heard
  the voices of devas reborn in an exclusively happy world, saying,
  "Practice well, my dears. Practice straightforwardly, my dears, for
  the realization of an exclusively happy world, because it was through
  such a practice that we ourselves have been reborn in an exclusively
  happy world"?' When asked this, they said, 'No.'
"So what do you think, Potthapada — when this is the case, don't the
  words of those brahmans & contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?"
"Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing."
"Potthapada, it's as if a man were to say, 'I'm in love with the most
  beautiful woman in this country,' and other people were to say to him,
  'Well, my good man, this most beautiful woman in this country with
  whom you are in love: do you know if she's of the warrior caste, the
  priestly caste, the merchant caste, or the laborer caste?' and, when
  asked this, he would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'Well
  then, do you know her name or clan name? Whether she's tall, short, or
  of medium height? Whether she's dark, fair, or ruddy-skinned? Do you
  know what village or town or city she's from?' When asked this, he
  would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'So you've never known or
  seen the woman you're in love with?' When asked this, he would say,
  'Yes.'
"So what do you think, Potthapada — when this is the case, don't the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?"
"Yes, lord..."
"In the same way, there are some brahmans & contemplatives with a
  doctrine & view like this: 'After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.'... Don't the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?"
"Yes, lord..."
"Potthapada, it's as if a man at a crossroads were to build a
  staircase for ascending to a palace, and other people were to say to
  him, 'Well, my good man, this palace for which you are building a
  staircase: do you know whether it's east, west, north, or south of
  here? Whether it's high, low, or in between?' and, when asked this, he
  would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'So you don't know or see
  the palace for which you are building a staircase?' When asked this,
  he would say, 'Yes.'
"So what do you think, Potthapada — when this is the case, don't the
  words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?"
"Yes, lord..."
"In the same way, there are some brahmans & contemplatives with a
  doctrine & view like this: 'After death, the self is exclusively happy
  and free from disease.'... Don't the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing?"
"Yes, lord. When this is the case, the words of those brahmans &
  contemplatives turn out to be unconvincing."

, whilst Absolutes are not Absolutely denied by the Buddha, given the empirical evidence of impermanence (and the non-self that follows), the only place where such Absolutes could be found is beyond empirical evidence - beyond experience (or Metaphysics, 'after Physics' - as Aristotle stated, with regards to the investigation of 'things' beyond evidence). As such, this Essentialist Truth - whether theistic or nihilistic - is only ever an inferred Truth - never a directly perceived Truth.. Plato's Parmeneides says as much!

".......... Then the one does not exist in such way as to be one; for if it were
  and partook of being, it would already be; but if the argument is to
  be trusted, the one neither is nor is one?
True.  But that which is not admits of no attribute or relation?  Of
  course not. Then there is no name, nor expression, nor perception,
  nor opinion, nor knowledge of it?
Clearly not.  Then it is neither named, nor expressed, nor opined, nor
  known, nor does anything that is perceive it.
So we must infer.  But can all this be true about the one?  I think
  not.
Suppose, now, that we return once more to the original hypothesis....."

(Plato gets to the same understanding that Truth must be placed beyond all perception, if it Is. But he chooses to stick with the inferred argument, rather than follow perception)
The Buddha's insight however, is to be fulfilled at its end, with perception alone, as demanded by the Kalama Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html):

"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt.
  When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this
  case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by
  scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by
  agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought,
  'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves
  that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are
  blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these
  qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' —
  then you should abandon them."

and as fulfilled by all that become Arahats, as did Sariputta, helpfully described by the Buddha in the Anupada Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html).
In his first sermon (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html) the Buddha stated the Four Noble Truths (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/). These Truths are no thing more than declarative statements as to how the world is perceived to be. In a world that has Absolute constructs, the 'Truth' that 'all conditioned experience is suffering', is simply false. But no such world is either perceived to manifests empirically, or can be created within though without creating contradictions (for this read Nagarjuna's 'Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way').
The Buddha does link stress/suffering to impermanence and non-self within the Truths, and at this juncture you can definitely argue that psychology will play a part, as stress and suffering are psychological experiences, but you would have to find a mind that prefers constant change (and this includes death and rebirth) to certainty to argue that the Truths fail within the empirical world.

The ability to be a little bit skeptical can keep you sane in the midst of all the insanity going on around us. But what you mentioned is of another nature. But I do not blame you. We live in very unfortunate times when Adhamma (falsehoods) comes in the form of Dhamma. Today we only limit Dhamma to only talk, or to write about or debate. So ours is only an intellectual knowledge, unlike that of ones on the Path. Then what we talk or write is inconsistent with the Sutta-Vinaya, and only misguide and mislead those unfortunate ones who would place their trust on what is written.  So please be heedful. It is better if you could start listening to dhamma sermons of a selected few like Bhikku Bodhi, than reading what is found online. Then you will begin to know firsthand many a truth.
If you lived at the time of Ajahn Chah or Ajahn Mun, of the Thai Monastery would have never had this kind of thought. So the next best thing to do is... as long as you keep up the practice diligently while at home and try to be in touch (on line) with the right people for advice… to also start listening to sermons. I would like to introduce you to one such. He is Ven. Khemarathana Thero.  He is a western monk who helped Bhikku Bodhi in his latest book “THE BUDDHA'S TEACHINGS ON SOCIAL AND COMMUNAL HARMONY: AN ANTHOLOGY OF DISCOURSES FROM THE PALI…”
.
For now try to watch a few of his sermons in YouTube….
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhfUa4jA4RkZxg4ReKWMnVCx1nZzMC_o6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?

Sir, I want to follow the path of Buddha to realise the truth. I appreciate your answer. I don't follow anything blindly, whether it is written online or any text as taught by Buddha himself. But this question is making me uncomfortable. I do meditate a lot and I experience a lot of truths about human nature. Then, a thought came to my mind about realisation of ultimate truth. That's why I am asking to you, have you realised that real truth which was realised by Buddha?

No one would carry placards announcing that they are on the Path.  But if any one loudly publicizes his/her attainments then there arises some doubt about it.  This is because such public announcement is not keeping with those in the path, for they are totally self-effacing. The ones who are in the Path when a level of Path and Fruition is achieved, would never share it with a lesser person.  If a lay- person makes such an announcement it could be due to some sort of misunderstanding of the doctrine. Tell me, are you from India. If so, there is a place to go in Bodhgaya.

not sure what this quote means, but may be useful here @user10718 "Whoever aims publicly at great things and at length perceives secretly that he is too weak to achieve them, has usually also insufficient strength to renounce his aims publicly, and then inevitably becomes a hypocrite."

The only truth you can know is what is inside of us, you can really only know yourself.  Truth is truth in any language, "the sun rises in the morning". Same in every language.  Now our thoughts can give us both right and wrong answers, and weather what we believe is true or false depends on weather it is true or not.  I used to believe in Santa etc. At the time it was true now it's not but it is still true for millions of children.
Buddha & Jesus would suggest to know yourself 100% and to check the ego and self bias.

How can anyone who haven't realised the truth, claim that Mahatma
  Buddha or any other person in history realised the God or Truth?

I'm going to answer the question in the title. Let's suppose we can claim that the Buddha has realised the Truth based on

directly realising it ourselves, or
having genuine faith that a Buddha has.

To that can be added

right view.

How do we have "right view" without faith or realisation? According to the scholar Paul Fuller, the Nikayas answer this question in two places, most clearly as follows, in the Mahavedalla suuta:

Are these three ways exhaustive? I do not know if a paccekabuddha / Pratyekabuddha claims that the Buddha has realised the truth before they themselves have realised it. Or what Mahayana schools say about belief without faith or realisation.
It seems, though, that it depends on what you mean by "realised the truth". Clearly, if this only is no "psychological effect", then anyone who hasn't "realised the truth" is only making that claim based on a "psychological effect".

i may have answered the wrong question, in which case i'm sorry (you should make the question clearer)


text:
What does "ease" mean in the phrase "dharma gate of ease and joy"?
What is the "ease" of the "dharma gate of ease and joy"? Can an unelightened person achieve it outside seated meditation?
Ought I imagine everything is difficult, or everything is easy? How can we be effortful in our everyday lay tasks?

See also What does “joy” mean in the phrase “dharma gate of great ease and joy”

Dogen means that when you practise zazen you let go of troublesome thoughts. When you do this your state is one of ease (in the sense of 'being eased' rather than 'easy').
I think Dogen would have agreed with Hui Neng on the subject of enlightened and unenlightened people : One foolish notion is enough to shut off Prajna, while one wise thought will bring it forth again.
When not doing zazen, we should still be practising awareness (some sanghas refer to work in the temple as 'working meditation'). Although sometimes we need to think about difficult stuff. Zazen is just a time when we don't have to and can let go of everything.

What does “ease” mean in the phrase “dharma gate of ease and joy”?

It means that ones five spiritual faculties are balanced.
In meditation practice, e.g. Samatha meditation it means that if the mind strays from the primary meditation object, i.e. the breath, then one does not force attention back onto the breath. Instead it comes naturally and without striving.
Joy related to practice, arises when ones practice gains momentum meaning that one spends little but right effort into cultivating wholesome habits and purifying the mind. Joy arises easily in beings that are non-attached. There is a lightness of mind because they do not carry any bagage from one moment to the next.
Ease and joy arises when one interacts with reality instead of reacting. One is seeing reality for what it is, thereby gaining freedom from mental proliferation.

The short answer to what is ease is sukha. The more unattached you are, the more effluent-free, and unbinding you are, you get to experience this positive aspect sukha.
Sukha can be translated as pleasure, happiness, bliss, or ease. It is a pleasurable experience to have. In  DN 9: Potthapada Sutta Buddha says how if one could outgrow ones gross self, and enter the mind-made – the sense of self that can be developed in meditation - your defiling mental qualities will be abandoned, bright mental qualities will grow, and you will enter into this state of ‘Ease’. Then there is there is joy, rapture, serenity, mindfulness, alertness, and a pleasant/happy abiding.
Even outside of meditation you can experience such a state if you are prepared to discipline yourself as per the scriptures. You can get an idea about what it takes to discipline self in the Ganhaka Moggallāna Sutta in Majjima Nikāya.
First Buddha will advice one to come and be virtuous first – to discipline yourself from virtue, to make your life pattern good. Then he will get you to protect your six faculties (eyes, ear, etc.). For eq. when you see a figure from your eyes, low defilements such as craving and anger could be formed in you if your eyes were not disciplined. Protecting the last faculty, the mind, is to safeguard your mind without letting defilements to arise – to discipline your mind well.
The next level of discipline is when it comes to food. This is how you go about it: Now you have to eat mindfully (with the realization of true meaning of eating), inquiring wisely. That is, I am taking this food not for the strength, not for the satisfaction, not for the good looks, or not to play. I am taking this food only to continue this life, to get rid of tiredness, and as to a help to continue the solitary life away from lay life. I will free from old pains and stop making new pains by taking this food. I will continue this life and have a correct and painless life by taking this food.
At this stage you are ready for mediation, and to experience true Ease.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is rebirth a conventional truth within the Buddha's message?
There is a lot on this site (and elsewhere) on the validity of rebirth, whether it is necessary to understand the Buddha's message, or to reach enlightenment etc. My question is slightly different where within the two truths doctrine is rebirth placed by the Buddha?
I understand that 'the two truths' developed a little later on, but in that later developments within Buddhism were and still are heavily influenced by the Buddha's words (Dhamma and Vinaya), is it possible to come to an agreement on whether rebirth deserves to be considered an ultimate or conventional truth?
Here's my thought: rebirth is conditioned by death and the workings of Kamma, therefore it seems to fit into conventional truth pretty neatly. It also makes no sense from the ultimate point of view - no conditioned experience can either be affirmed or denied within the ultimate standpoint, so whilst rebirth does not make 'positive sense' from the ultimate stand point, it also can't be denied altogether (that is to say, ultimate truth is empty of rebirth).
Is rebirth a concept that cannot be affirmed when considering ultimate truth, but cannot be denied when considering conventional truth?
(edit: I assume rebirth occurs and is evident. The fact that 'every thing that has a beginning has an ending' demands rebirth if avoiding annihalationism)

The extent to which any part of reality exists or not is disputed a lot between different Buddhist groups. You may find that you get different answers depending on who you ask.

@Hugh , I'm primarily dealing with the Dhamma and Vinaya, and its later categorisation within Abhidharma (which I have yet to tackle, hence the question!) My question isn't about the importance of rebirth within the Buddha's teaching, but a question as to where to place it.

Not sure if its meaningful to spend the mind power in this notion, conventional truth = 世俗諦，ultimate truth = 勝義諦? UT can't be worded, only for those directly in it, "see" it, "know" it. In UT both death and rebirth, both not death and not rebirth, death=rebirth; for human concept is the shackle to reach, to understand UT. When u ask this question, its like, is A B's son, or B is A's father :/

Rebirth is very central to the whole doctrine. As long as this Kammic force exists there is re-birth, for beings are merely the visible manifestation of this invisible Kammic force. Any attempt is like excluding Samsara is like excluding this from the whole equation.  Birth precedes death, and death, on the other hand, precedes birth. The constant succession of birth and death in connection with each individual life flux constitutes what is technically known as Samsara -- recurrent wandering. Buddha said that:

"Without cognizable end is this Samsara. A first beginning of beings, who, obstructed by ignorance and fettered by craving, wander and fare on, is not to be perceived."

The cause of this Kamma, continues the Buddha, is avijja or ignorance of the Four Noble Truths. Ignorance is, therefore, the cause of birth and death; and its transmutation into knowingness or vijja is consequently their cessation. The result of this analytical method is summed up in the Paticca Samuppada. Paticca Samuppada is the discourse on the process of birth and death.
Nibbana is often conceived of as stopping this cycle. By removing the causes for craving, craving ceases. So with the ceasing of birth, death ceases. With the ceasing of becoming, birth ceases... and so on until with the ceasing of ignorance no karma is produced, and the whole process of death and rebirth ceases.

In dependent origination, 'jati' ('birth') refers to the conception & production of the view of 'beings' ('satta') based in the beguiling appearance & manifestations of various aggregates and the mind seized by & enslaved to sense objects (ayatana).
Comprehending 're-birth' is therefore necessary to understand the Buddha's message & to reach enlightenment.
The Buddha did not teach the two truths doctrine. The defiled/polluted mundane right view in MN 117 is not really 'the truth' because it is defiled with upadhi (attachment;self-views). It is only a right view that accords with morality (rather than accords with Nibbana).
'The two truths' were developed a little later on by Buddhaghosa. However, again the two truths of Buddhaghosa are not really both truth because one truth is how the truth really is and the other truth is the worldly interpretation by the unenlightened. Buddhaghosa said:

The Awakened One, best of speakers,  Spoke two kinds of truths:  The conventional and the ultimate.  A third truth does not obtain.
Therein:  The speech wherewith the world converses is true  On account of its being agreed upon by the world.  The speech which
  describes what is ultimate is also true,  Through characterizing
  dhammas as they really are.
Therefore, being skilled in common usage,  False speech does not arise in the Teacher,  Who is Lord of the World,  When he speaks
  according to conventions.
(Mn. i. 95)

In the language of ultimate truth, since 'rebirth' simply means the re-arising of 'self-view', it is an ultimate truth because this is how suffering always occurs.
'Re-birth' or 'new-birth' is conditioned by new or re-becoming, as explained in dependent origination.
This re-birth will inevitably result in 'death' ('marana'); that is, the painful sense the born 'self' or 'self-identity' has lost something; or otherwise the sense that other 'beings' ('satta') have also lost something.
When the lesson of marana & resultant dukkha is not learned, ego birth will occur again in the mind, which is re-rebirth.
Rebirth is a reality that can be affirmed when considering ultimate truth because it happens many times each day for the non-enlightened.
Each time the mind believes & acts with craving in terms of an imagined "I", "me", "mine", "you" etc, that is 're-birth'; the mental production of the view of 'beings' ('satta').  '
Ajahn Chah said:

''Becoming'' (bhava) means ''the sphere of birth.'' Sensual desire is BORN at sights, sounds, tastes, smells, feelings and thoughts,
  IDENTIFYING with these things. The mind holds fast and is stuck to
  sensuality....Bhava is the preliminary condition for birth. Wherever
  birth takes place, that's bhava. For example, suppose we had an
  orchard of apple trees that we were particularly fond of. That's a
  bhava for us if we don't reflect with wisdom. How so? Suppose our
  orchard contained a hundred or a thousand apple trees... it doesn't
  really matter what kind of trees they are, just so long as we consider
  them to be ''our own'' trees... then we are going to be ''born'' as a
  ''worm'' in every single one of those trees. We bore into every one,
  even though our human body is still back there in the house, we send
  out ''tentacles'' into every one of those trees. Now, how do we know
  that it's a bhava? It's a bhava (sphere of existence) because of our
  clinging to the idea that those trees are our own, that that orchard
  is our own. If someone were to take an ax and cut one of the trees
  down, the owner over there in the house ''dies'' along with the tree.
  He gets furious, and has to go and set things right, to fight and
  maybe even kill over it. That quarreling is the ''birth.'' The
  ''sphere of birth'' is the orchard of trees that we cling to as our
  own. We are ''born'' right at the point where we consider them to be
  our own, born from that bhava. Even if we had a thousand apple trees,
  if someone were to cut down just one it'd be like cutting the owner
  down. Whatever we cling to we are born right there, we exist right
  there. We are born as soon as we ''know.'' This is knowing through
  not-knowing: we know that someone has cut down one of our trees. But
  we don't know that those trees are not really ours. This is called
  ''knowing through not-knowing.'' We are bound to be born into that
  bhava. http://www.ajahnchah.org/book/Flood_Sensuality1.php

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.12.than.html is where the Buddha affirms the 'one truth' (of dependent origination.. ?)..  The issue I have is with terminology - how can arising and ceasing be evident within ultimate truth, isn't it empty of those constructs?

Rebirth is an ultimate truth as when on set of aggregates disintegrate a new set if formed while physical death and rebirth is a special case of this process.
Each being is a dependently arisen process. This process is also not be taken as self, but as a natural cause karmic effects arise as well as rebirth.
Also the rebirth process involves Citta and optionally Nupa which are part of the ultimate realities.

Put it into simplicity, if you died, if there's no rebirth, where have you gone? Will you one day "die"? Of course. Thus the dependent notion (相待) "rebirth" can't be cancelled. It's just that simple, it's a fact.

I'm with you, I agree with rebirth! But if rebirth can be overcome by the Noble Eightfopd Path, it must then be a conditioned phenomenon? And if so, does it not lie within conventional truth?

Not sure "rebirth can be overcome by Noble 8", and truly, "rebirth is a conditioned phenomenon"? Is it unnecessarily complicating the notion? Rebirth is an illusion, so is death, phenomenons are illusions, in it we use our intellect to construct causal-effects, E=MC", gravity, nucleic fission... in another galactic system, the laws could be completely different. Example, ancient Martians could be breathing Co2 exhaling O2; moon-beings don't intake breathe for generating life force... Only realized Nirvana, can rebirth exhausted; only truly realized emptiness, can illusions be overcome

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


text:
Bringing 'Atta' concept to Buddha's teachings
We have seen many researches and references (like "Reviewed Work: Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism" and many more supporting documents from PTS, Pali text society) that the idea Atta to some extent it exists and can be deduced that Buddha's teachings also consists of "the idea of Atta". The popular references by I.B Horner (need citation here) and some scholars is

atta hi attano natho

In Buddha's teachings and Tipitaka, I do not see a slight extent of existence of Atta or some ambiguities about Atta by Buddha or monks at the Buddha's ages. All Buddha teachings are ubiquitously about Anatta. And Gautama Buddha repealed the very concept ’Atta’ in many Suttas. Since his second discourse “Anatta Latkhana Sutta", Buddha’s teachings are all about Anatta. Anatta is key concept in Buddha's teachings and Gautama Buddha was first and very first person opposite and challenged to popular Atta idealists at the age of his time. My question here is why some scholars and some publications from Pali text society are trying to coerce Atta concept in Buddhism or society of Buddhists?  What are the supporting facts that Gautama Buddha and his teachings are self denial to its own Anatta concept? What are the proofs that Buddhism accept/adopt Brahmanism's Atta idea since both are clearly opposed to each other?
Please keep in mind that the words self and not-self are loosely translated, have ambiguous meanings about referring internal and external based on perspective of particular individual being and not applicable/intended words here. Atta and Anatta is what I am referring here.
The definition of Atta
Atta is the word from Brahmanism, it is essence, from Brahma (or whatever creator make it exists), eternal or indefinite period of existence, it has capability of suffering pleasure and pain. It is in each and everyone bodies and pass from life to life. Some outside Buddha’s teachings define Atta as ’soul’ and/or self but precise definition of Atta is highly controversial.

It is possible to bend the Buddha's message (if you so wish to do) because the Buddha never denied Atta in an Essential sense, he only pointed out that within empirical experience (all the way up to the perception of cessation) no 'thing' can be said to be constant and unchanging, as a self would be required to be.. hence the Mulapariyaya Sutta.
Whilst the Buddha was very clear with regards to the lack of evidence for Atta within the empirical world, the Brahmajala and Potthapada Suttas shows that with regards to the Transcendental Atta (which is the Atta that most darshanas went for - Brahman/Atta is usually seen as beyond experience, commonly stated as 'neti neti' - 'not this, not that'), he asked people to avoid speculation (because whatever that 'transcendental' is inferred to be, it cannot be perceived and therefore cannot be verified)
The Anatta doctorine is very subtle, a not insignificant number of schools of Buddhism have gone towards either essentialism (brahmanism) or annihalationism (nihilism) at some point. Yogachara has the nature of Parinispanna, which is a transcendental Atta. Mahayana developed the Tathagatagharba, which makes the Buddha a kind of Atta for Existence. The Buddha would have likely not concurred with these though!

“Science can give no assurance herein Buddhism can meet the atomic challenge, because the supra mundane knowledge of Buddhism begins where science leaves off. And this is clear enough to anyone who has made a study of Buddhism. For, through Buddhist meditation, the atomic constituents make up matter have been seen and felt, and the sorrow, or un-satisfactoriness (or Dukkha), of their ‘arising and passing away’ (dependent on causes) has made itself with what we call a ‘soul’ or ‘Atma’ – the illusion of Sakkayaditthi, as it is called in the Buddha’s teaching”. - Egerton C. Baptist

The illusion of Sakkayaditthi, that  Egerton C. Baptist noted is the gross state of manifest of Upadanas. Sakkayaditthi  as understood by a Stream Entrant is a collection of constantly changing physical and mental components [of clinging] ([upadana-]skandhas). When contemplating on the Dhamma thus, the Stream Entrant comes to realize the absence of a permanent and unchanging self (identity) or soul in any or all of the constituents of empirical existence, and beyond skandhas, there is no actual self. He she comes to the understanding that what is normally thought of as "self" is a collection of constantly changing physical and mental components [of clinging] ([upadana-]skandhas).
The illusion of ATTA, is the most Subtle state of manifest of Upadanas that ONLY at the final stage of Arahanthood would one truly come to know of and transcend this clinging to personality belief (attavad-upadana). Atta means self, ego or personality in Buddhism. But it is a mere conventional expression. It is only in Hinduism, in Vedic philosophy that we come across this doctrine of Atman. Hindus refer to three types of Atman namely, Jivatman - Micro cosmic soul; Paramatman - Macro cosmic soul; Visvatman - Cosmic soul. For them, the attainment of Salvation means comprehending these three types of souls, and salvation is nothing but unification with Brahma or the Creator God. But the Buddha said that it is nothing but a noxious concept which prevents the realization of Nibbana.
In Buddhism, the three characteristics of existence are  impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-soul. Attachment to ego-belief is one of the four perversion (attasanna). Buddha has showed twenty kinds of ego-views with regards to the groups of existence that are called the clinging to the personality belief (sakkayaditthi).
So we should understand that Attavadupadana is the most subtle form of sakkayaditthi that ONLY at the time of Nibbana that one would fully comprehend.

Self conception leads to, pleasant sensation if it enhances the ego, unpleasant if it dents our ego, and neutral if otherwise, which in turn leads to craving which keep the wheel of Dependent Arising turning. To abandon craving and aversion you have be equanimous to pleasant and unpleasant sensations and note impermanence of the neutral sensations.
More details are found here.


text:
Types of Meditation in Theravada Buddhism
How many types of meditation are there in Theravada Buddhism? Could you also provide a list of them as well.
Thank you in advance.

At least forty:

Earth device
Water device
Fire device
Air or wind device
Blue device
Yellow device
Red device
White device
Space device
Consciousness device
A corpse that is bloated
A corpse that is livid (has patchy discoloration)
A corpse that is festering (trickling with pus in broken places)
A corpse that is cut up
A corpse that is gnawed
A corpse that is scattered
A corpse that is hacked and scattered
A corpse that is bleeding
A corpse that is worm-infested
A corpse that is a skeleton
Contemplation of the Buddha
Contemplation of the Dhamma
Contemplation of the Sangha
Contemplation of Virtue
Contemplation of Charity
Contemplation of the Devas
Mindfulness of Death
Mindfulness of the Physical Body
Mindfulness with Breathing
Contemplation of Calmness
Loving-kindness
Compassion
Sympathy
Equanimity
Sphere of Infinity of Space
Sphere of Infinite Consciousness
Sphere of No-thingness
Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception
Contemplation of the loathsomeness of food
Analysis of the four physical elements

http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=40_meditation_subjects

Thank you for your answer! But how are some of these types of meditation? For example, 'a corpse that is bleeding'.

https://suttacentral.net/en/dn22 may help! :)

@IlyaGrushevskiy thank you so much! That definitely helped. I have been looking for this for so long. Thanks again.

The meditation subjects are called Kammaṭṭhāna. There are 40 of them.
Most of these are collected in the following books:

Visuddhimagga
Vimuttimagga

Also you might want to read Knowing and Seeing by Pa Auk Sayadaw which glosses over many of matter.
Looking at the size of these manual it is difficult to give introduction to all in one answer.
But in ascese all have the similar goal. That is to:

scrub the latent tendencies (anusaya), Kleshas or unwholesome roots
remove the corruptions of insight (vipallasa) and understand the three marks of existence

with ever way you understand better.
In studying meditation from any of the above sources it is wise to treat them as secondary source and compair with the Tripitaka which is the primary source.


text:
Is the Mind (Citta) the Self? If not, what is it?
It's been discussed in all perspectives that the Buddha was teaching about not-Self (Anatta) in this forum. However, it taught that one should empty the Mind (Citta) to realize Anatta, or Sunyata, in Dhyana (Jhana). If this mind is already not-Self, why it needs to be emptied and what is to be emptied? If this mind is also not-Self, how does it have the autonomy/independence to realize/discern Emptiness? If this mind is Self, how can it realize not-Self? If this mind is not-Self, who controls/owns the Five Aggregations and intellect? Who/what is this mind?

It is like saying I have this 'bucket'. What is in the bucket is not mind, so I empty it. Once empty, I can clearly see that the bucket is not mind either. At that point, I have a choice: I can go on seeking the mind under every rock and rainbow, or I can get on with helping others and enjoying what life gives me with no asking or seeking necessary.

@nocomprende seeking the mind... from Lotus Sutra there a metaphor about a rich turned poor man wandering for making a living but didn't realize he has a precious wishing-gem sewn inside his worn-out jacket ~

I wish I had one of those, and I wish I would realize it before it is too late!

me too! @nocomprende

1. If this mind is already not-Self, why it needs to be emptied and what is to be emptied?

The mind is only 'not-self' from the viewpoint of enlightenment & truth. But for the unenlightened mind, the mind is 'self' because of ignorance ('blindness').
The mind is ideally 'emptied' so it can see clearly, similar to cleaning a window or mirror. It is emptied of the pollutants that obscure clear seeing, similar to a window or mirror cleaned from dust.
The Pali scriptures describe this in the Sangaravo Sutta.

Imagine, Brahman, a bowl of water mixed with lac, turmeric, dark green or crimson dye. If a man with good eyesight were to look at the
  reflection of his own face in it, he would not know or see it as it
  really was. In the same way, Brahman, when a man dwells with his heart
  possessed and overwhelmed by sense-desires... then he cannot know or
  see, as it really is, what is to his own profit, to the profit of
  others, to the profit of both. Then even sacred words he has long
  studied are not clear to him, not to mention those he has not
  studied. Sangaravo Sutta

2. If this mind is also not-Self, how does it have the autonomy/independence to realize/discern Emptiness?

The mind has a wisdom faculty to discern emptiness. It is not possible to explain how or why this can occur. The Pali suttas simply say:

Discernment (wisdom/panna) & consciousness are conjoined, not disjoined. It's not possible, having separated them one from the
  other, to delineate the difference between them. For what one
  discerns, that one cognizes. What one cognizes, that one discerns.
  Mahavedalla Sutta

Jesus Christ said:

If the flesh came into being because of spirit (consciousness), that is a wonder. But if spirit came into being because of the body, that is the wonder of
  wonders. Yet I marvel at how this great wealth has come to dwell in
  this poverty.
Gospel of Thomas

3. If this mind is Self, how can it realize not-Self?

The citta is not a self. It is impermanent. It is not-self. To quote:

"All things are not-self". Dhammapada 279.

It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind (citta),' 'intellect (mano)' or 'consciousness' (vinanna) by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Assutavā Sutta

4. If this mind is not-Self, who controls/owns the Five Aggregations and intellect? Who/what is this mind?

Nothing owns or ultimately controls the five aggregates, as was explained at the start of the Buddha's 2nd sermon. However, the mind itself, via enlightenment, can control its mental formations (sankhara) while the mind is alive.
SN 12.12 states there is no "who" that is conscious. The idea of "who" arises later at clinging & "becoming":

"Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.
"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.'...the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?'
  And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a
  condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition
  of feeling.'"
"Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One....the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?'
  And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition
  of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"
"Who, O Lord, craves?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.'...the correct way to ask the question will be 'What
  is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is:
  'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of
  clinging.'"
"Who, O Lord, clings?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would
  be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask
  the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that
  the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and
  clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.' Such is the
  origin of this entire mass of suffering.

As previously said, the mental faculties are named according to their functions:

And why, bhikkhus, do you call it feeling? ‘It feels,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called feeling.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it perception? ‘It perceives,’ bhikkhus,therefore it is called perception.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it formation/construct? ‘They construct the constructions,’ bhikkhus, therefore they are called
  formations.
And why, bhikkhus, do you call it consciousness? ‘It cognizes, ’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called consciousness.
SN 22.79

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

 Is the Mind the Self? If not, what is it?

It's a delusion of mind.
why it needs to be emptied

Because it's the cause of suffering.
How does it(Mind) have the autonomy/independence to realize/discern Emptiness?

By developing a new faculty called wisdom to realize Anatta or Sunyata, but not emptying the mind.
Who controls/owns the Five Aggregations and intellect?

Craving ( delusion/moha/avijja) takes five aggregates as a self.
Who/what is this mind?

Not Me(or i), but it arises from six-sense faculty, when ignorance is.

Story:
While crossing the stream on a plank over it, a dog looks down into the
water. Seeing a dog there, it either wags its tail in a friendly way
or  growls  angrily.  Or  else  out  of  curiosity  it  keeps  on  looking
down  again  and  again.  Due  to  wrong  attention  it  doesn’t understand what really happens.
The dog thinks that it is looking because it sees. But the truth  of the matter  is that it sees because it looks. Every time it looks it sees a dog.   Consciousness has such a delusive magical quality about it. This is because consciousness has  the  property  of  reflecting  something.

wow, almost the best answer so far, thank you; except not sure with the last 3. i like the story, i do get something out of it, esp. "consciousness has the property of reflecting something".

@Bhumishu米殊 welcome!. the story is equate from Ven. K.Gannananda

At night, the mirror does not reflect anything.

@Shrawaka I don't understand this story very much.  seeing is reflecting?  contact at the sense-base is the cause of reflection?  consciousness reflects on the mind (brain)?

Feedback property of brain. The output proses.

And going further, he reviews bones covered with skin, flesh and blood, and he knows the unbroken stream of consciousness as established in this world and established in the next.
...

Sampasadanīya Sutta (Quoted from Piya Tan's Translation of DN 28)
In intermediate stages of meditation is seems like consciousness is continuous and you will feel there is a permanent observer. If it is continuous then it can be considered self by some meditations. This maybe a mistake quite a few meditators would fall into hence the explicit mention. But as your meditation deepens this you realise that consciousness is also not unbroken, i.e., it is broken, hence it is not / non self1:

And going further, he reviews bones covered with skin, flesh and blood, and he knows the unbroken
stream of consciousness as both unestablished in this world and unestablished in the next.

Sampasadanīya Sutta
Though the above deals with viññāṇa it is applicable to Citta also. That is, if Citta is discontinuous in this life than it is not self. It not self that if you mind is in a pleasant mental state you cannot prolong it. It comes to an end what when that happens it deals to unpleasantness. When pleasantness changes it is unpleasant. [Cūla Vedalla Sutta] Whatever, unsatisfactory is not self.
The mind partly controls the body. This is not absolute. By thinking I will transform back you my x year body you cannot. By thinking I will not age any more you cannot stop it. There are a lot of areas the mind has no control on what it can do hence it is not self.
Also following might be of interest for additional references: Sutta references which Discuss Self and Not Self under Different Contexts

1 Out of the 5 aggregates Consciousness is the last of what you see as the Three marks of existence

Craving arises at any of the six viññāṇas of the sense doors. As a description of mind, the four aggregates of viññāṇa, saññā, vedanā, and saṅkhāra generally suffice. Deeper Vipassana separates them. Before that stage is reached however, philosophies start because, despite the experience of arising and passing, the observer—which is viññāṇa—seems to remain and it is not divided or dissected. It is viewed as eternal soul: je viññāya te āya ye āya te viññāya (Whatever is viññāṇa is soul and whatever is soul is viññāṇa). However at a deeper level it does become separated: eye viññāṇa cannot hear, ear viññāṇa cannot see, any or all of these viññāṇas can stop, and when mind viññāṇa also stops, nibbāna comes.

Source: Discourses on Satipatthana Sutta - S. N. Goenka

1) "unbroken/broken consciousness", is the consciousness the mind, the observer, or both are minds?

While you cannot see impermanence in consciousness you feel there is a soul as the observer. Until you see consciousness as impermanent you feel there is a soul.
The easiest part to see impermanence is the body as it is subjected to: pain disease, aging, etc.
It is harder to see arising and passing of the mind. Though as you progress you see parts of the 5 Aggregates making up the mind also as arising as passing. In my opinion the 1st would be sensation and the as the suttas last would be consciousness. Perception and Fabrication it will be difficult to say what order. As far as I know, sutta source only mention consciousness is last, it does not say about body is 1st, but this is something I inferred. But nevertheless when you see consciousness arising and passing you see there no part of the mind which is permanent.
In another way you might see selfhood in external (mine, god controlling soul), body and mind. As our understanding expands the sphere of selfhood contracts to body and mind (corporeal body), the mind only, parts of the mind final residue being consciousness, and finally there is no self conceiving at all. This is gradual.

2) "The mind partly controls the body..." then what is the other part also controlled the body, how do their co-ordinations be achieved? In experimental world we can't control age, not necessarily the mind is incapable, but the mind is partially in function?

Mind has some control: you can lift you hand and foot if you want (provided they are functional)
Mind has no control: can you stop aging

Above statements together: The mind partly controls the body.

3) "eye viññāṇa cannot hear..." Arahats or "X-man" can have their faculties switched, experiment by one Taiwan Uni. principal, children could be trained to "read" with ears!

It could be very well that this research miss infereded reading with the eye faculty as ear. Sometimes there is fake news on the net. It could be such a instance.
Also if abhiññā is developed then is not the physical eye you see from by and extension of this faculty. You might be able to read something head to the side or back of your head perhaps. This does not mean you are reading from your ears.

modern medicine has developed devices to enable blind patients to see

People are not meant to fly but aeroplanes people do. Likewise you can use a device to achieve something which is not possible. If you use medical technique this is repairing the faculty. To see there should be contact (attention, external contact, working faculty, consciousness). Medical techniques repair the faculty. Even perhaps a blind person may have latent, the eye consciousness. what is missing is the faculty.

This is found in one place in the suttas, it is not spoken  by the Buddha and the meaning is questionable. Also, the proper translation is "other world" rather than "next world". The "other world" is generally a heavenly world of jhana.

@Suminda Thanks the info. Many of the above sayings are incomplete. 1) "unbroken/broken consciousness", is the consciousness the mind, the observer, or both are minds? 2) "The mind partly controls the body..." then what is the other part also controlled the body, how do their co-ordinations be achieved? In experimental world we can't control age, not necessarily the mind is incapable, but the mind is partially in function? 3) "eye viññāṇa cannot hear..." Arahats or "X-man" can have their faculties switched, experiment by one Taiwan Uni. principal, children could be trained to "read" with ears!

@Suminda Thanks the edits. I put into skeptics of S. N. Goenka, having not really studying his works, I keep silent. But point to emphasize, "Sometimes there is fake news on the net..." without wrestling this "news" its authenticity, modern medicine has developed devices to enable blind patients to see with ears[link]http://www.rebuildyourvision.com/blog/vision-news/new-sound-device-teaches-blind-people-to-see/, and more on BBC which I forget where, watched long ago.

Wonderful, comprehensive answer! Thank you for this effort.

Mind is a non living thing same as any object like a book or stone, it does not have its own existence, it is getting pran from soul.
For example these trees and plants does not have soul, but there is one mind in earth.
As Buddha says "Experience it, don't believe anything".
So we are supposed to observe pran and chitta and then they are supposed to be mixed and become one.

It all f**ks up for English has one term for all Citta, Vijnana... etc. - called Mind

Sanskrit is vast, in fact English language produces least type of sounds, that is why native English speaker faces lot of trouble pronouncing Sanskrit or other vast language.


text:
Sutta references which Discuss Self and Not Self under Different Contexts
What are the Suttas which discuss self and nonself and under which contexts and angles?
To break it down:

What Suttas discuss no self as an extreme view?
What Suttas discuss what is not pleasent cannot be taken as not / non self? What Suttas discuss sensations and not / non self?
What Suttas discuss external controller as not / non self?
What Suttas discuss internal controller as not / non self?
What Sutas discuss the doer as not / non self?
What Suttas discuss action is not / non self?
What Suttas discuss body as not / non self?
what Suttas discuss consciousness as the last aggregate to realise as not / non self?
what Suttas discuss the aggregates as not self?
what Suttas discuss the 6 sense bases as not self?
What Suttas discuss the world is non / not self?
What Suttas discuss the contemporary notion of Atta?
What are the angles the non / not self is discussed? What angles and contexts that might be missing above? If so what are the Suttas in these contexts?

Above is just for guidance but it will be helpful if the Sutas can be grouped by context / angle, perhaps under a title or section. It is helpful if the relevant section can be quoted.
I will be accepting the answer with most of the mentioned / unmentioned categories covered followed by number of references. But if you have at least 1 reference not already in another answer this will be appreciated and upvoted.

In Sallatha Sutta: The Arrow gets you to see that the 6 sense bases as not self  IMHO… There’s a simile where a man is suffering from pain. He gets tied up in anxiety and misery around the pain. And the Buddha says it’s like being shot with an arrow and then shooting yourself with a second arrow. The physical pain is the first arrow; the mental pain is the second one. And it’s the mental one that’s important. As the Buddha says, the enlightened person, the awakened person, may still get shot with those first arrows but doesn’t shoot him or herself with the second.  It is because an Arahant has gone beyond the last of the four kinds of clingings – the Attavada Upadana (attachment or upadana is “firmly grasping”.) Attavada is the last of the attachments which is in other words a hindrance to the realization of Nibbana. So this tells us how not to shoot ourselves with that second arrow. The question is: How do we learn not to do that?  If a person who has gained very exalted states in meditation and responds by saying, “I am at peace. I am released”, the “I am” in those statements is what’s causing the problem. It shows that this person still has some connection, still has some clinging. After all, craving combined with clinging is what causes the suffering. You impose that idea of who you are on all kinds of experiences.
In the discourse of the snake simile Alagaddupama Sutta points to the contemporary notion of Atta IMHO… In this Buddha explained the doctrine of soullessness in another way, comparing Dhamma to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto.  Sabbe Dhamma anatta—all dhammas are not‐self—applies here, where you might see nibbana as a dhamma, as an object of the mind. As long as you perceive it in that way, there’s going to be attachment, there’s going to be a dhamma to hold on to. At Nibbana, these dhammas have done their work, so an Arahant put them aside. A person who uses the Dhamma to criticise, to find fault, or for other reasons than for its intended purpose is like a person who has got hold of a snake by the tail or the coil.  The wrongly held ‘pseudo’ doctrine will destroy him / her.
In the Khemaka Sutta: About Khemaka, SN 22.89  it discusses the doer as not / non self IMHO:

Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, still, in relation to the five aggregates subject to clinging, there lingers in him a residual conceit ‘I am,’ a desire ‘I am,’ an underlying tendency ‘I am’ that has not yet been uprooted. Sometime later he dwells contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging: ‘Such is form, such its origin, such its passing away; such is feeling … such is perception … such are volitional formations … such is consciousness, such its origin, such its passing away.’ As he dwells thus contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging, the residual conceit ‘I am,’ the desire ‘I am,’ the underlying tendency ‘I am’ that had not yet been uprooted—this comes to be uprooted.

In the Dīghā¬vu ¬U¬pāsa¬ka¬ Sutta, SN55.5 internal controller as not / non self IMHO… ie., perception of impermanence (anicca,saññā), the perception of suffering in what is impermanent (anicce dukkha,saññā), the perception of not-self in what is suffering (dukkhe anatta,saññā), the perception of abandonment [letting go of defilements] (pahāna,saññā), the perception of fading away [dispassion] (virāga,saññā), the perception of cessation (of suffering) (nirodha,saññā).:

"Therefore, Dighavu, when you are established in these four factors of stream entry, you should further develop six qualities conducive to clear knowing. Remain focused on inconstancy in all fabrications, percipient of stress in what is inconstant, percipient of not-self in what is stressful, percipient of abandoning, percipient of dispassion, percipient of cessation. That's how you should train yourself." ….. Dīgh’āvu later passes away and arises spontaneously in the Suddh’āvāsa as a non-returner.

Upasena Sutta: Upasena, SN 35.69 discuss the body as not / non self IMHO:

Records the incident of the death of Upasena Vangantaputta from a snake-bite. Summoned by him, Sāriputta looked at him and said that he noticed no change at all in Upasena, either in his body or in his faculties. Upasena answered that that was because he had long before quelled all lurking tendencies of "I" and "mine."

In the Maha Satipatthana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya - discuss the world is non / not self IMHO…  We grasp the world as if it is our own. Seeing through eye, we grasp things as if they are our own. Hearing through the ear ,we grasp sounds, likewise by smelling, tasting and touching we grasp things as they are real and our own. Through all these, either we practice attachment or revulsion.

The Buddha said "'This is the only way Bhikkhus, for the purification of beings (ekayano ayam bhikkhave maggo sattanam visuddhiya). Buddha has clearly pointed out that both attachment or revulsion should be avoided by the wise. In this Sutta, emphasizing the four contemplation, namely, contemplation on the body, feeling, consciousness and Dhamma, the Buddha instructed one to contemplate the body in the body, feeling in the feeling, consciousness in consciousness and mental objects (Dhamma) in mental objects. That is in ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful, having overcome in this world, covetousness and grief (atapisampajano satima vineyyaloke abhijjhadomanassam). Here, in this context the term abhijjhadomanassa is very important because abhijja is covetousness or attachment, its counter part is domanassa or revulsion. So the Buddha's advice here is to overcome both, attachment and revulsion. That is the path prescribed by the Buddhas for emancipation. It is the only way.

At the very outset Buddha preached on soullessness in the Anattalakkhana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya for the five disciples. Here Buddha discuss consciousness as the last aggregate to realise as not / non self IMHO…  In this sutta the Buddha takes up each of the five aggregates namely, form (rupa), feeling (vedana), perception (sanna), mental formations (sankhara) and consciousness (vinnana) shows that none of these should be viewed as ‘this is mine’, ‘this I am’ or ‘this is my soul’. The belief in the soul is a vain attempt to keep within one’s control things which are dependently arisen and therefore not capable of bringing within the range of one’s supervision and control.  The Buddha clearly demonstrates that one cannot demand any of the aggregates to behave in the way one wishes it to be.
Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta: Instructions to Rahula at Mango Stone discuss no self as an extreme view IMHO.. in seeing ‘self’ as view the four physical elements (dhatu) of nature: Earth, Water, Fire and Wind (pathavi, apo, tejo, and vayo) as Elements of solidity, fluidity, heat and motion.
(1)        Earth element (pathavi-dhatu) has the property of hardness, strength, thickness, immobility, security and supporting.  - they represent the solidity property of forms.
 (2)        Water element (apo-dhatu) has the property of oozing, humidity, fluidity, trickling, permeation and cohesion.  - they represent the fluidity or cohesiveness property of forms.
 (3)        Fire element (tejo-dhatu) has the property of heating, warmth, consuming and grasping.  - they represent the heat or cold temperature property of forms.
 (4)        Air element (vayo-dhatu) has the property of motion, supporting, coldness, ingress and egress, easy movement and grasping.  - they represent the distended-ness property of forms.
The Mahahatthipadopama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya discusses the aggregates and as not self
The sutta shows that this so called man is nothing but “five aggregates affected by clinging” and are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering (chando alayo anunayo ajjhosanam, so dukkha samudayo). Once the Buddha said in short, the five aggregates affected by clinging are suffering (sankhittena pancupadanakkhandha dukkha). If one does not grasp things as one’s own and eradicate “I” concept (upadana) completely one can achieve the Enlightenment (Anupadana).
Uppādāsutta - The Discourse on the Orderliness of the Dhamma AN 3.136 shows us that action is not / non self. that is …
 “Subbe dhamma anatta…  All compounds are devoid of self.”  Or as this sutta shows:

all conditioned phenomea are impermanent (sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā'ti)
  all conditioned phenomena are suffering (sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā'ti)
  all phenomena are non-self (sabbe dhammā anattā'ti.)

which means: All states are not self...

This body is neither yours, nor anybody else's...
  These feelings are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  These perceptions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  These mental constructions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  These verbal constructions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  These bodily constructions are neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  This consciousness is neither yours, nor anybody else's.
  They are results of old kamma, prior actions, something to be seen as generated and shaped by accumulations of past intention, emerging as effects to be sensed now...

+1 Many thanks for this. Is it possible to put this under section headings perhaps corresponding to the sub question I asked for easy understanding. Awaiting the continuation.

Waiting for the continuation.

@Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena... I was a bit busy with work and other distractions. I'll try to give a couple of more examples, but before that I want to answer one or two other posts.. like the one on horoscope & Buddhism that came up last week. with metta...

Regarding "self/no self are extreme views", there was an instance where the Buddha was directly asked the question if there is a self or there is not self to which the Buddha did not answer saying these type of questions lead to extreme views. Wondering if you remember what this Sutta is. Perhaps can be added to the answer.

I will look into it @Suminda... is it the  Vacchagotta Sutta? Buddha kept silent in response to Vacchagotta’s question  because answering it in either way, it would have been misunderstood. This nature of the self is beyond the level of understanding of Vacchagotta. He is not yet at that stage in his spiritual development. Buddha never denies the existence of the self. Buddha said that trying to explain to Vacchagotta would have lead Vacchagotta to misinterpret the answer in a way that would bring him further attachment.

Thanks. Let me know if you find it. If I remember right it mentions such view lead to Sassatavada and Ucchedavada.

I found it. It is in SN 44.10 - Ananda Sutta, a conversation between Ven. Ananda about the wanderer Vacchagotta.

That’s great….. Many have interpreted  the doctrine of anatta, or ‘not-self’ as no-self or emptiness, but this is a mistaken interpretation. Buddha rejects annihilationism. As stated In the Alagaddupama Sutta, those foolish people who think that they “know” the Dhamma, who think that they have “understood” the Dhamma, and in giving erroneous interpretations like that of ‘sunyata’ / “emptiness” are holding the venomous snake by the tail. That is why I am not too keen on getting too involved in this group. But I appreciate your contributions to this site.

Regarding Suññata the following may be valuable reference: The Greater Discourse on Voidness, Maha Sunnata Sutta, Cula Sunnata Sutta

Parileyya Sutta
The 4 self-identity views
The Parileyya Sutta relates how an untutored ordinary person tends to regard any of the 5 aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) in these ways:

as the self, or
the self as possessing the aggregate, or
the aggregate as in the self, or
the self as in the aggregate.

In addition it mentions the following:
Eternalist view

He might not consider form as the self;
      he might not consider feeling as the self;
      he might not consider perception as the self;
      he might not consider volitional formations as the self;
      he might not consider consciousness as the self.
      But he holds such a view as:
      ‘The self is the world. Having passed away, I shall be permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to
      change.’
      That eternalist view, bhikshus, is a formation

Source: Parileyya Sutta
Annihilationist view

He might not consider form as the self;
      he might not consider feeling as the self;
      he might not consider perception as the self;
      he might not consider volitional formations as the self;
      he might not consider consciousness as the self;
      he might not hold such a view, ‘The self is the world; having passed away, I shall be permanent,
      stable, eternal, not subject to change.’
      But he holds such a view as this:
      ‘I might not be, and there might not mine; I will not be, and there will not be mine.’
      That annihilationist view, bhikshus, is a formation

Source: Parileyya Sutta
Ananda Sutta (SN 44.10)

Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]
If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]
If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?

Ananda Sutta
Sampasadanīya Sutta

And going further, he reviews bones covered with skin, flesh and blood, and he knows the unbroken stream of consciousness as established in this world and established in the next.
...

Sampasadanīya Sutta (Quoted from Piya Tan's Translation of DN 28)


text:
Ways of Controlling Anger
What are some techniques that the Lord Buddha have stated to control anger? I can recall a few (listed below) but I not really sure if they are exactly correct.

changing the object of your attention
thinking about the consequences of your anger
understanding what is the cause of your anger
metta loving kindness meditation towards yourself
channelling your anger towards your own mind and trying to control your own mind

Could someone please verify if the Lord Buddha actually stated the above techniques and also could you please state any other techniques He stated. It would also be great if you could reference the suttra.
Thank you in advance.

Bhikshus, no other single thing do I see, on account of which unarisen ill will does not arise, and
  arisen ill will is abandoned, as on account of this, bhikshus, namely, the liberation of mind through
  lovingkindness.

Nīvarana,pahana Vagga

(2) And what, bhikshus, is food for the arising of unarisen ill will (vyapada) and for the growth
  and abundance of arisen ill will?
  There is, bhikshus, the sign of the repulsive (paigha,nimitta). Frequently giving unwise attention to it
  is food for the arising of unarisen ill will and for the growth and abundance of arisen ill will.

Āvaraṇa Nīvaraṇa Sutta

Furthermore, brahmin, when one dwells with a mind seized by ill will (vyapada), overcome by ill
  will, then one understands not, as it really is, the escape (from it), one neither understands nor sees, as it
  really is, , one’s own benefit, …nor others’ benefit,…nor the benefit of both—so, too, the mantras that
  have been recited over a long time do not come to mind, let alone those that have not been recited.
Brahmin, just as when a person with good sight, looking for the reflection of his own face in a
  bowl of water, heated up by a fire, keeps boiling over with hot water, would neither know nor see it, as it
  really is—even so, brahmin, when one dwells with a mind seized by ill will, overcome by ill will, then
  one understands not, as it really is, , the escape (from it), one neither understands nor sees, as it really is,
  one’s own benefit,…nor others’ benefit,…nor the benefit of both—so, too, the mantras that have been
  recited over a long time do not come to mind, let alone those that have not been recited.

(Nīvarana) Sangarava Sutta

Bhikshus, the four focusses of mindfulness are to be cultivated for the abandoning of these five
  mental hindrances.

(Satipaṭṭhāna) Nīvaraṇa Sutta
Also see: The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera
In relation to general thoughts linked in thinking and pondering on unwholesome thoughts Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta mentions the following:

turn his attention to a different sign connected with the wholesome
should examine the disadvantage [the danger] of those thoughts
one should not mind them, he should disregard them
should attend to the stilling of the thought-formation
with clenched teeth and the tongue pressing on the palate

In addition, Vyāpāda an essay by Piya Tan might be also of interest.


text:
Seongcheol's parinirvana gatha
Seongcheol's parinirvana gatha reads:

Deceiving people all my life, my sins outweigh Mount Sumeru.
Falling into hell alive, my grief divides into ten thousand pieces.
Spouting forth a red wheel,
It hangs on the blue mountain.

Has anyone written about what this means? I see that Seongcheol had this explanation

I've lived my entire life as a practitioner, and people have always
  asked me for something. Everyone is already a Buddha, but they do not
  try to realize that fact and only look towards me. So, in a way, you
  could say I've deceived people all my life. I've failed to get this
  message across to everyone so I'm suffering in a kind of hell.

But I wonder if it is definitive?
You read people who think it's an admission that he's wasted his "entire life", whereas I thought it could be a statement about "saving all sentient beings".

gah i didn't see his explanation in that article, but worth IMHO keeping the question for elaboration...

You might want to edit the question content to reflect that.

My understanding of this is as follows;
Illusion is impure, but a water wave is beyond purity and impurity;
May I be reborn in a hell to purify it and save the living beings there.

not a bad answer


text:
metta towards women
This related question already has an answer:
Avoiding Lust in Hinduism?
This is a bit strange to ask, but I'll proceed anyway.
In specifically Buddhism (I'm a Hindu though) there are prescribed ways to cultivate metta/loving-kindness towards women. I know that lusting for the flesh is bad, and I also know all the ethics of preserving chastity for marriage, but during my abstinence period, I can't stop thinking about women. I have tried "loathsome meditation" or to meditate on the unpleasantness of the body, even satipathana, but it still doesn't work. I tried to give the pedestal of mother or sister, but still it's difficult to imagine them as kin members without actually being so. This is all because of this oversexualized stimuli that the modern consumer world is exposing us to. What should a brahmachari do to deal with this?

Congratulations young brachmacharyi. I hope this article helps: http://www.meditationexpert.com/yoga-kung-fu/y_celibacy_difficulties_in_spiritual_cultivation.htm
I would also recommend mantak chia's methods of sexual retention which is what the rule is ultimately about.

Implicit in sexual fantasies is the underlying wrong view that the actions in the sexual fantasy are not harmful & will bring happiness to both sides. The Dhamma states in many places that sexual liberalism or sexual promiscuity harms, defiles & degrades women.

Unchastity/misconduct taints a woman.
Dhammapada 242; AN 8.15

And how, householders, does a wretch live together with a wretch? Here, the husband is one who destroys life, takes what is not given,
  engages in sexual misconduct, speaks falsely, and indulges in liquor,
  wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness; he is immoral, of
  bad character; he dwells at home with a heart obsessed by the stain of
  miserliness; he insults and reviles ascetics and brahmins. And his
  wife is also one who destroys life, takes what is not given,
  engages in sexual misconduct, speaks falsely, and indulges in liquor,
  wine, and intoxicants, the basis for heedlessness; he is immoral, of
  bad character; he dwells at home with a heart obsessed by the stain of
  miserliness; he insults and reviles ascetics and brahmins. It is in such a way that a wretch lives together with a
  wretch.
AN 4.53

There are, young householder, these six evil consequences in associating with evil companions, namely: any gambler, any
  libertine, any drunkard, any swindler, any cheat, any rowdy is his
  friend and companion
DN 31

And as I remained thus heedful, ardent & resolute, thinking imbued with sensuality arose in me. I discerned that 'Thinking imbued with
  sensuality has arisen in me; and that leads to my own affliction or to
  the affliction of others or to the affliction of both. It obstructs
  discernment, promotes vexation, & does not lead to Nirvana...I foresaw
  in unskillful qualities drawbacks, degradation & defilement, and I
  foresaw in skillful qualities rewards related to renunciation &
  promoting cleansing.
MN 19

The Dhamma also teaches the goal of a woman is to have a husband, to not share a husband with another woman, to dominate the relationship & that sons are her support in life.

A man is a woman’s aim, her quest is for adornments, her mainstay is sons, her desire is to be without a co-wife and her ideal is
  domination.
AN 6.52

This is why sexual fantasies are 'misogynistic' according to the Dhamma because they are based on the intention to harm women rather than the intention to have metta (loving-kindness) for women; and they are based in making a woman submissive to the desires of men rather than giving authority/dominance to the woman in a male/female relationship.

A wife is ministered to by a husband by handing over authority to her...
DN 31

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways,
  including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility,
  androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women,
  violence against women and sexual objectification. Wikipedia

For thousands of years, women have been forced to serve as concubines, mistresses, prostitutes & sex slaves for men. This has probably not occurred because men intrinsically want to oppress women. It probably occurs because men are generally so ignorant, so blind & so heartless that they cannot see the intrinsic harm of the sexual exploitation.
Sexual fantasies are similar. In sexual fantasies, the man views his actions towards the woman that is the object of the fantasy is intrinsically harmless, when it is not. Sexual fantasies are misogynistic sexual objectification.
Since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, much harm has come to women. For example, the 2nd wave feminism that arose concurrent to the sexual revolution promoted complete sexual liberalism for women. However, due to the consequences of this, the 3rd wave of feminism became divided over the sexual liberalism promoted by 2nd wave feminism.

Unlike the determined position of second-wave feminists about women in pornography, sex work, and prostitution, third-wave feminists
  were rather ambiguous and divided about these themes (feminist sex
  wars). While some thought these sexual acts were degrading and
  oppressing women, others saw it as empowering that women were owning
  their sexuality.
Third-wave feminism: Wikipedia

The following articles describe the 'dukkha' that impulsive heedless sex has brought to women, which are similar to the 'hungry ghost' & 'hell' worlds of sensuality described in the Potaliya Sutta.
Women And Prescription Drugs: One In Four Takes Mental Health Meds.
Failure of sexual revolution.
Or read about the lives of the world's most famous sex symbols, how many sexual relationships & sexual affairs they had and what it brought them:

Monroe's troubled private life received much attention. She struggled with substance abuse, depression, and anxiety. She had two highly
  publicized marriages, to retired baseball star Joe DiMaggio and
  playwright Arthur Miller, both of which ended in divorce. She died at
  the age of 36 on August 5, 1962, from an overdose of barbiturates at
  her home in Los Angeles.
Marilyn Monroe
In 1974, Bardot appeared in a nude photo shoot in Playboy magazine, which celebrated her 40th birthday. On 28 September 1983, her 49th
  birthday, Bardot took an overdose of sleeping pills or tranquilizers
  with red wine. She had to be rushed to hospital, where her life was
  saved after a stomach pump was used to evacuate the pills from her
  body.
Brigitte Bardot

In conclusion, returning to the Dhamma method of viewing women as 'mothers, sisters & daughters', for a woman to be a good mother, it is best she has a good mind. Women engaging in heedless sex does not contribute to a good mind for motherhood. This is a reason why the Buddhist looks upon women like mothers. Mothers love their family & want a strong stable family. Women engaging in heedless sex does not contribute to good families and a woman's true happiness. The Buddha explained this respect for mothers in the Lokapala Sutta.

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

I would presume you are male. In which case it is not advisable to practice Metta to women as this itself may arouse lust. You are generally not supposed to practice Metta on someone of the opposite sex, especially a specific person. Do not imagine are shape of form if you generally spreading metta towards a women. More on this see this answer. If it does not arouse lust may be you can do Metta towards all women, but if it arouses lust better avoid it. When you spread metta to all being this includes women.
Loathsome meditation may help the case in reducing lust towards women. For more in this see this answer.
Don't get overly obsessed with thoughts of reducing lust because then you are still dealing with the subject matter of lust and also perhaps developing aversion to lust. When doing this lustful thoughts may pop up. Some techniques to get rid of these distracting thoughts found in the Vitakka Saṇṭhāna Sutta.
Though not limited to lust for opposite sex, methods to overcome kāmacchanda which is one of the hindrance is useful. Whenever sensation arise which may trigger sensual lust, try to keep a equanimous mind knowing they the stimulation is impermanent. At an intellectual level you can also contemplate the gratification is also impermanent. Essentially keeping you mind free from unwholesome roots and vipallasa reduces lust and other hindrances. For more on this see: Kāma-c,chanda by Piya Tan and The Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest: Selected Texts from the Pali Canon and the Commentaries compiled and translated by Nyanaponika Thera. In addition, see: Vipallasa Sutta
If you get aroused by seeing, hearing the voice, smell of scent, memories of someone. Then this form of lust can be avoided by guarding the sense door. What every experience you get avoid it leading to the unwholesome roots by being equanimous and seeing impermanence. For more on this see: Indriya Bhāvanā Sutta, Sal,āyatana Vibhanga Sutta, Cha Chakka Sutta, etc.

but for a novice level, the studying of five mental hindrances is enough, isn't it?

and i completely agree with you sir, the more i  contemplate, the more i get entangled within it.

Study what every is easy for you and apply it to daily life.

At certain stages in our lives, such as adolescence and young adulthood, sexual energy levels are very high in the body, apparently due to some preconditioned need to mate and procreate. As we get older these sexual energies dissipate naturally.
For those on a spiritual path, the best thing to do with these sexual energies is to sublimate them by sending them up the channels from the sexual chakra to the higher energy centres. However, the problem with sublimation is that it does not necessarily cause these energy levels to dissipate, but can have the reverse effect and cause the energy to increase in intensity as a flowpath is opened up.
Once this energy becomes too difficult to control in this manner, we have no choice but to try to repress this energy; repression of energy in the body is necessarily a harmful thing, both to the body and the mind; this can lead to sickness caused by imbalance in the body, and a loss of mental equilibrium, and this can quickly lead to a spiritual blockage, preventing our ascension and weakening our bodies.
For those who are trying to pursue the spiritual path while engaged in the modern world, this is a particular problem. When we go on retreat, we are expected to dress moderately, even conservatively, to avoid the mind falling into the trap of sexual desire; out in the world sexual desire is one of the primary distractions modern consumer society seeks to stir up, encouraging us to believe that it is normal and healthy for our lives to be dominated by lust and greed.
In my view, therefore, and I do stand to be corrected if this is an incorrect view, when we are faced with an unsurmountable barrier of sexual energy, be it because of our environment or our hormones, we need to be able to release the surplus energy if we are not able to sublimate it.
However, great care must be taken in this act. We must release this energy mindfully, and not allow ourselves to be overtaken by sexual fantasy. We must do it, so to speak, in the moment, and be aware that what we are doing is a simple physical act, similar to urination and defecation, which we manage to do regularly without attaching any great importance to it. If we relive ourselves in this way, as a simple physical action devoid of significance or emotional attachment or feelings of lust or shame, then this excess energy will quickly lose its power over us.
This action is then analogous to ‘cleaning the mirror’ and permits us to return to our path free from the encumbrance of excess physical desire.

just curious, but why did the Buddha not recommend such releasing of energy? he solely relied on sublimation, or found that a release was simply never justified?

One who has read, seen and experienced suffering caused by STDs will know what lusting for sex does ultimately.


text:
What is the Buddhist definition of "Atta"?
There are many discussions about Anatta or Not-Self in Buddhist communities, but the definition of Atta or self is uncommon and not clear. People often misunderstand or superficially translate it, using the definition of the English word "self", which means "internal of individual being", or "colloquial personal point of view of individual being", just differentiation of other individual being.
My question here is, other than just this colloquial definition of Self or Atta, is there any more insightful definition of Atta in human being, for example does it imply some "essence" (closer to Hindu or Brahmanist definition of 'Attaman').
If 'Atta' is physical body?

What happen if a person died and leave physical body behind (in cemetery)

If 'Atta' is mind (Citta)?

Buddhism definition of mind (Citta) bodies are transitional and conditional factors (depending on or composed with contact, feeling, memorizing, judging etc). So it seems in a sense to process by just following Citta Laws (Niyamas) than being essence, core or Atta. (Process than essence).

If rebirth is a footprint of 'Atta'?

Rebirth seems continuity and information/karma/effects carried over but statistically we do not have enough proof (there should be many Einsteins if we have studied mathematics or physics many lives but instead we have only a handful of geniuses on particular study, information/karma/effects carried over is somehow lost or continuity is weak and/or broken).

If wholesome acts is 'Atta'?

Vipasana wholesome acts are as well not 'Atta' because I heard that during meditation or Vipasana "Only Sankhara dhammas are observing Sankhara dhammas (Sati, Samadhi, Panna are also encouraged by Cetana, initiated by Sanna and many more supporting factors). The observings are effects of efforts to happen at the same time the observants are not 'Atta'.

So in conclusion, when we are saying self or 'Atta', which particular entity is defined to be called self or 'Atta'. If not a single entity, which collective entities are defined to be called self or 'Atta' and why can it be called self or 'Atta'?

From the viewpoint of Buddhist practise, as explained in SN 22.81, 'atta' ('self') refers to an ignorance created 'thought formation' (sankhara) that ignorantly assumes self-identity & ownership in relation to any of the five aggregates.
This ignorant assumption of self-identity & ownership is central in the generation of suffering, as explained in SN 22.1 and as explained in Dependent Origination (SN 12.2).
Therefore, in Buddhism, the primary importance of 'atta' is it is a central cause of suffering that is ever-present in the mind of the unenlightened person ('uninstructed worldling').

Here, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling ... assumes form as self (attato). That assumption, bhikkhus, is a formation (saṅkhāro). That
  formation — what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born (jatiko)
  and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a
  feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that
  formation (of 'self') is born. SN 22.81

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — assumes form (the body) to be the self or the self as possessing
  form or form as in the self or the self as in form. He is seized
  with the idea that 'I am form' or 'Form is mine.' As he is seized with
  these ideas, his form changes & alters, and he falls into sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress & despair over its change & alteration.
There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed &
  disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is
  well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be
  the self or the self as possessing form or form as in the self or
  the self as in form. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am form'
  or 'Form is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his form
  changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress or despair over its change & alteration.
SN 22.1

And what, bhikkhus, is attachment? There are these four kinds of attachment: attachment of sensual pleasures, attachment of views,
  attachment of rules and vows, attachment of words of
  'self' (attavādupādānaṃ). This is called attachment.
And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings (sattānaṃ) into the various orders of beings (sattanikāye)...
SN 12.2

Note: 'Satta' is a synonym for 'atta', in 'satta' is also a view about 'self'. Refer to SN 5.10 & SN 23.2.

Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever ... Any kind of feeling whatsoever … Any kind of perception whatsoever … Any kind of
  volitional formations whatsoever … Any kind of consciousness
  whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external,
  gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness
  should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not
  mine (mama), this I am (asmi) not, this is not my self (atta).’ SN
  22.59

It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty? Insofar as it is
  empty of a self (attena) or of anything pertaining to a self
  (attaniyena): Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty Suñña
  Sutta

Something that is permanent, continuous, controllable, malleable to one's expectation, something that results only in pleasantness, etc. can be considered self. Unfortunately there isn't. Even Nirvana cannot be and should not be identified with self.
If 'Atta' is physical body?
Body is subjected to old age, decay and death hence not self. You leave your body when you die. At this stage you might think the mind is Atta.
If 'Atta' is mind (Citta)?
Even consciousness of the mind, which gives the illusion of an observer, is not continuous. See this answer for more details.
If rebirth is a footprint of 'Atta'?
This will seem so when when you do not see in consistency in the mind or part of the mind which is consciousness. When you see that the mind and consciousness is inconsistent and broken (there are gaps, i.e, there is a gap, it arises, stays, passes away, followed by a gap again) you see there is no self transferred. Current state arises due to the previous state in inputs (Āhāra) to the current state. So rebirth is not entirely different or completely new person, but since there is nothing that is permanent or consistent, nothing identify as absolutely pleasurable it is not self.
If wholesome acts is 'Atta'?
Fabrications is not self as they are not entirely pleasant. In fact all that is conditioned things end in unpleasantness. Hence the motivation to find Nirvana where there is no arising, birth hence no unpleasantness. This also should not be taken as self. If you do you create craving and Nirvana will more further away from you.
Wholesome acts bring pleasantness but they also come to an end which is unpleasant. In this sense it cannot be taken as self.