text:
Are there examples of humor and irreverence in Buddhist scriptures?
Irreverent humour is reasonably well-tolerated in some sections of modern society. For instance, jokes about the pope and about pastors' wives are fairly widespread among even church-going Christians. There are also plenty of God and Devil jokes.
What, if any, role does humour play in Buddhism? Are jokes about The Buddha, or Buddhist gurus and their disciples taboo or in bad taste? If so, what is the basis for this? Is humour discouraged for reasons such as, say, retarding progress towards Nirvana? Are such jokes considered against Vinaya?

It depends on the culture (some of the Zen stories sound irreverent) but see for example these doctrines about Right Speech.

Putting a side the question on how buddhists regard humor (which indeed is very hard to give a good answer without it being mere opinion), there is a very precise question here about humor in the vinaya. Plus, there are mentions about proper humor reactions in the suttas (and actual traces of humorous remarks as well) and like @ChrisW said, Zen has a long history of irreverence.

@ThiagoSilva Do you want to edit this, then, or ask a different/new question? If you're thinking of editing this one, do you have a question in mind about irreverent humour, specifically?

well I was going to answer that mocking humour and parody play an important role in the Pāḷi Canon, a feature which Prof Richard Gombrich has spent decades working on. The Buddha often uses such humour against Brahmins. And so on. Surely this question can be answered also by referencing news stories about public figures who are Buddhists. I've seen much vaguer questions be asked and answered. I would say that more than half the answers offered take the form of uninformed opinion. I wish some action would take on that front.

@Jayarava, this question has been re-opened in a slightly edited form if you'd still like to answer. Be well.

As ChrisW said, there are numerous examples of humor and irreverence in Zen lore.
However, unlike most of the jokes about e.g. Christianity which are often said without a wholesome purpose, or sometimes with the objective of pointing out an inconsistency in Christian declared values vs. practice, in Buddhism all activities, including jokes, are 100% subordinated to the primary goal.
Before you can understand the role of jokes in Zen Buddhism, you should understand the crucial role of attachments as obstacles to enlightenment. (I think you are very close to this already, since you have a natural antipathy to superstitions, unexamined beliefs, and rigid/stubborn adherence to subjective points of view & philosophical abstractions.)
While I can't give justice to this topic in one short answer, the idea is that attachments both bias the mind off an ideal objective basis AND lead onto dangerous and often harmful pursuits AND constitute the necessary condition of suffering due to a mismatch between "how is" and "how should be" (the target of attachment).
The traditional Buddhist device against an attachment is known as an antidote. Often antidote takes form of an object opposite to the target of attachment. For example, when attachment is to sexual pleasures, the antidote is contemplation of decomposing corpses. When attachment is to negative attitude towards society, the antidote is generation of loving-kindness, etc. Which leads us to the role of humor as an antidote to attachment to ... the very Buddha Dharma itself.
So for example, if a Zen master notices that his student lost his fundamental sanity and has "gotten drunk on the shravaka wine" to use Dogen's parable, he might offer a following piece of wisdom:

A monk once asked Ummon, "What is the Buddha?"
  "A dried shit-stick!"  -- was the answer.

and

Last night, this mountain monk [Dogen] unintentionally stepped on a dried turd and it jumped up and covered heaven and earth. This mountain monk unintentionally stepped on it again, and it introduced itself, saying, "My name is Shakyamuni."

and

Bodhi and Nirvana are poles for tying up donkeys.

and

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!

Do you understand? Buddha-dharma is medicine for suffering caused by ignorance and attachment, including both intellectual ignorance and attachment, and emotional ignorance and attachment. There are very many different forms of delusion and attachment. Buddha said there are 84000 kinds! A particular form of medicine works better for a particular form of disease. Buddhist humor is one of such medicines.

Andrei, that's two bounties in a single hour. Please do me the honour of accepting it, with my sincere appreciation and gratitude. I'm feeling joyous now. Thank you.

Thank you, dear Krishnaraj, and I hope getting in touch with Buddha's Dharma will be a long term benefit to you, and not just a source of momentary joy.

Life is an momentary joy, and the length of that moment extends to a lifetime. My path is a joyous one.

Re: Jokes in the canon
Yes, in Mahayana, Sariputra was the butt of jokes.
In in Theravada/Early Buddhistm, the ones that Gombrich found are considered to be the oldest and most authentic in the Pali texts because jokes can't be "created by committee".
Re: Rules against jokes
Some versions of the Vinaya included a rule against joking about the triple gem (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha). I'll link to the full comment.

This rule is found in the orgin story to Sekhiya 51, and it imposes a
  so-called dukkata (lit. ‘badly done’) offence for making a joke about
  the Buddha, Dhamma or Sangha.
It is difficult to interpret this kind of rule. What are the exact
  boundaries for the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha? Was this rule ever laid
  down by the Buddha?
To answer the second question first, it seems unlikely that this rule
  goes all the way back to the Buddha. Firstly, the Sekhiya rules are
  the only Patimokkha rules for bhikkhus that vary considerably between
  the different schools of Buddhism; see e.g. W. Pachow’s “A Comparative
  Study of the Patimokkha”. This means that many of these rules belong
  to the sectarian period of Buddhism, a period that commenced perhaps
  200 years after the Buddha’s parinibbana. Secondly, it is generally
  accepted by scholars that the origin stories to the Patimokkha rules
  are later than the rules themselves. In my opinion, it is thus very
  unlikely that the Buddha ever laid down this rule. And if the Buddha
  didn’t lay it down, then it is not really binding on the Sangha.
At the same time, the Dhamma is clearly a serious matter. It would be
  irresponsible to poke fun at the Dhamma in such a way that people lose
  their respect for it. There is a fine line between reasonable
  merrymaking and degradation of the Dhamma, and I am not sure it is
  possible to make any hard and fast judgement as to what is acceptable
  and what is not.
Alas, this world of ours is so full of grey areas! We crave the
  certainty of clear guidelines, yet often we have to rely on our own
  imperfect judgement to decide what is right and what is not. But if
  you are reasonably clear about your motivation, and you keep in mind
  the effect your speech probably will have on your listeners, then you
  can’t go far wrong.


text:
Is the path of enlightenment consists 7 levels?
In this question The Seven Factors of Enlightenment shown, Tranquility, Concentration, Equanimity, Investigation of dhammas, Effort and Rapture as specific phases in the path of enlightenment (also in a linear progression), and how to apply them. Also here.
The seven levels of consciousness which make up the path of spiritual development, shown in TM as:

the state of waking consciousness;
deep sleep;
dreaming;
transcendental consciousness;
cosmic consciousness;
god consciousness;
unity consciousness.

Are these steps equally valued in the Buddhist path?

I want to point out the following:

TM and Buddhist path are not the same. TM aim at method for relaxation, stress reduction, and self-development while Buddhism aims at eliminating the Defilement and one's attachment to the 5 aggregates hence reduce the process of fabrication thus experiencing Nirvana.
The 7 factors of enlightenment are not linear. An interesting article which shows their interaction is in Bojjhangas– Another View. Also look at the table balancing the factors in the Wikipedia entry on Seven Factors of Enlightenment which gives when to emphasize each of the factors.

I like to know When and How the paths are deffer. say is there a level like 'deep sleep' in Buddhist path. If so how it is represent or what is call it. If the levels are deffer then how It is. Thanks for the links ( Bojjhangas Another View).

There is. It is Sloth-torpor (thīna-middha) which is one of the hindrances. This is not considered wholesome.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it necessary for a Buddhist to believe that existence is suffering?
It appears that Buddhism depends on a central premise -- that all worldly existence = suffering / dukkha.
Are there Buddhist teachers or traditions that teach a joyous approach to worldly life?
Are there any teachings that profess existence is a joyous, if sometimes painful experience, or at least a tolerably pleasant experience? An eternal roller-coaster ride of birth-and-death, joy and sorrow, that one need not seek to escape?

You got "existence is suffering" right. Some people think "life is suffering", which is the wrong interpretation. Life as you say, is a roller coaster of many emotions and experiences.
In one's neverending existence, one is subject to birth, death, rebirth, experiencing endless ups and downs of pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow, gaining and losing loved ones, having unfulfilled desires, experience good and bad health etc. Nothing that is joyful lasts forever. Nothing that is sorrowful can be avoided forever. Just imagine undergoing these for eternity without rest. Not just as a human, but also in other realms. This is the first noble truth.
Of course, you are not compelled to try to escape this "suffering". If you enjoy your current state of existence and life, you should really continue with it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. There are many who come to Buddhism, for reasons other than Nirvana, like seeking peace of mind through the meditation techniques, even if it's only for a short time.
The second noble truth states that this suffering is caused by craving to what is satisfying and aversion to what isn't satisfying. Of course, one type of craving is to sensual pleasures that doesn't require explanation.
Another is the craving for "becoming", meaning, the craving to be a person, to live a life, to thrive, to seek happiness, to build a career, to raise a family, to be your own man or woman, to experience all that life has to offer, to have a personal history that is worth looking back to and telling to your grandchildren. But unfortunately, this will not last forever, and everything that you have built will pass away, just as you would. Family members could turn against you, wealth can suddenly diminish, careers can crumble, things that you desire can be taken away from you etc.
Then this leads to the third noble truth. That suffering can be ended, by removing this craving and clinging. When suffering is ended, Nirvana is reached. This source defines Nirvana in a number of ways including "the stable, the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unafflicted, purity, freedom, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge, the destination." In other words, the goal of Buddhism is to provide everlasting bliss in Nirvana.
But what does this mean to ordinary beings who are far away from the destination and refuge of Nirvana? Buddha wants us to seek joy, but not in things that are impermanent, because things that are impermanent will not provide you with that stable joy that you seek. But does this mean that we should avoid life and avoid pleasures?
This then leads to the fourth noble truth, that the path to Nirvana is through the Noble Eightfold Path, that supports a balanced life. So, that you may still live a life, seek happiness, raise a family, build a career, thrive, enjoy pleasures etc. but within a framework that will eventually lead you towards Nirvana, rather than spiralling towards the perpetuation of suffering.
Buddha also taught the practice of the Brahmaviharas. The first three of these are loving kindness (metta), compassion (karuna) and empathetic joy (taking delight in others' well being). So, Buddhists are not meant to be dead serious. They are meant to radiate with joy.

I would appreciate comments on the down-votes.

If my person would have done such: Because it's simply a personal idea and misleads., @ruben2020 Now, do you really appreciate it?

The gateway premise is not that "existence is suffering", it is that "something is wrong here". In other words, if you are perfectly satisfied with everything (are you?), if you are clear about the purpose of life, if you are a master in dealing with all possible kinds of situations -- then there is no reason for you to look out for anything at all, be it wisdom or liberation. If that is the case, then you are in a temporary heavenly state (to use Buddhist metaphorical language, wink-wink), which temporarily precludes any motivation to set on a spiritual quest to get to the bottom of things.
However, if you feel that you are not living the life you should be living, if you clearly see society as fundamentally messed-up, and are not willing to be complacent about that, if you are haunted by the underlying feeling of wrongness, of incompleteness, if you feel that something is missing - then obviously you will be very motivated to seek a solution!
Even if life is relatively good - still, if you are any attentive and smart, you may find yourself not being satisfied with superficial success, with solving problems at superficial level -- instead you may want to take a step back and solve the underlying problem, and the problem underlying the underlying problem, and the problem underlying that problem, and so on - you want to get leverage over things, you want to find the fundamental solution, the universal principle... You have a sense that the way you deal with things, however well, still leaves something to be desired - but what?
This feeling of deep buried wrongness, of aching incompleteness, of fundamental restlessness, of subtle unsatisfactoriness - that's what we're talking about here. This is where Buddhism begins: "something is wrong here". This is known as "the ground". You begin with what you have right here and now, the feeling of underlying incompleteness - and you are determined to not stop until you solve this most fundamental of all problems. The having solved the problem is known as "the fruition". And the steps from here to there are called "the path". These are the basic rules of the game. Makes sense, huh? :)

Andrei, kindly accept the bounty along with my deep gratitude and appreciation. I especially liked the lighthearted and lightfooted way you answered this. Your answer connects with me, and it deeply satisfies me. Actually, I have a niggling suspicion that you deliberately tuned your lingo to match my psyche; in that case, it was an insightful act -- an Upaya :-)

Thank you, dear Krishnaraj, and I hope getting in touch with Buddha's Dharma will be a long term benefit to you, and not just a source of momentary joy.

Speaking from the position of the third (insight) training in Theravada: it is not necessary to believe that existence is suffering; it is important to train insight and see for yourself how things are.
Dukkha (which is perhaps better translated as unsatisfactoriness) is one of the three characteristics of everything (= all mind states -- except of the state of complete extinction of consciousness, nibbana), and is closely related to anatta (non-self, i.e. that you don't have 100% control over your experience) and anicca (everything is changing).
Thus, on a finer level, even positive mind-states (including blissful states of samatha) have a trace of dukkha. However, that does not mean that one should be demolishing everything positive by concentrating on that negative trace. Mindfulness strives to see things as they are, including the positive and negative, without blowing either of them out of proportion. That automatically includes deepening insight into what is dukkha, which is completely different from conceptual conviction about everything being "suffering".
The progress of insight training, as I understand it, is getting gradually beyond the positive/negative/neutral programming (i.e. positive → wanting, negative → avoiding, neutral → switching off; those 3 reactions are traditionally translated as greed/hatred/delusion) and accept with awareness whatever comes as it is, as a part of experience. One can/"should" fully enjoy what is enjoyable, mindfully, without attaching (attachment would cause suffering when the joy goes away), and truly appreciate joy while it is here.
Something like middle way between renunciation and submergence.

"It appears that Buddhism depends on a central premise -- that all worldly existence = suffering / dukkha."
This is a correct result of an investigation.
"Are there Buddhist teachers or traditions that teach a joyous approach to worldly life?"
There are many if not most "Buddhist Teacher" and Traditions calling themselves after the Noble Ones. How ever, neither the Buddha, nor his good following desciples, not teacher of the Buddhas Dhamma do such. Why? Becaus they tell what is true and conductive for the path. Every time that one does not see the danger, does not put effort into the training, is wasted time. You can enjoy the reat when work is done.
"Are there any teachings that profess existence is a joyous, if sometimes painful experience, or at least a tolerably pleasant experience? An eternal roller-coaster ride of birth-and-death, joy and sorrow, that one need not seek to escape?"
There are, but not founded in Buddhas Dhamma. Mara constanty teaches such and so those overwhelmed of him as well.
Who ever does not see him/herself the first noble truth, or reject faith, firm faith in it, is incapable to make any long therm conductive and wholesome use of Buddhas teachings, is still a wordling and regarded as outsider.
In regard of the main Question: "Is it necessary for a Buddhist to believe that existence is suffering?" A self called "Buddhist" may believe what ever he wants, and yes, there have always been follower not really knowing the deeper sense of Buddhas teaching and he did not much worry about it.

The first noble truth summarises all suffering as attachment. If this is not clear, please refer to SN 22.1, which is a very simple teaching given to an old layman so the old layman could understand. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html

An elder would tell you maybe that it is not so good, leads to much heat and hell, as one stated here, to overestimate oneself still pond to home and cattle. "Smart" youngster can only hurt them self and no need to talk further to people having no respect. Do what ever you like @Dhammadhatu .

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


text:
What's the canonical definition of end of the buddha sāsana?
I was under the impression that the end of buddha sāsana occurs when noble eight-fold path(and the dhamma practitioners) disappear form all the realms including Śuddhāvāsa where only anāgāmins live. This contradicts with Ghatikara sutta.  It consists of a lord buddha's conversion with an anāgāmi brahma Ghatikara form Kashyapa buddha sāsana. That means at least anāgāmins and arahants from previous buddhas might still live in arupa brahma realms.
Did anyone come across a canonical reference for end of buddha sāsana?

I was under the impression that the end of buddha sāsana occurs when noble eight-fold path(and the dhamma practitioners) disappear form all the realms including Śuddhāvāsa where only anāgāmins live.

Imagine a school where only music prodigies or math prodigies attend, one would never have to worry about the decay of the school's reputation. The Pure Abodes are also like that. Since it's a realm where Non-Returners reside, it'll never face the problem of Dhamma decline there. Earthlings on the other hands, are much more inclined towards sensual pleasures and many other unwholesome deeds. It's the Dhamma on earth that's facing a serious danger of going into decline.
In SN 20.7, although the Buddha didn't give an exact number on the life span of the Dhamma, He did give the clear sign and cause to its disappearance:

"...In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works — the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples — are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.
"In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness — will come about.

The suttas say that the Buddha sasana will last five thousand years (at the midpoint of which we are now, incidentally), followed (about 4600 CE) by a long dark age during which dharma is completely forgotten as humanity continues to degenerate and the age of degeneration reaches its nadir.
At this point humanity will enter an evolutionary arc and pateccabuddhas will arise but not teach dharma till the appearance of Lord Metteyya, the Fifth Buddha of the current age, who will initiate a new dharma sasana in the far distant future (most estimates vary from tens of thousands to millions of years).
I have always found it interesting that humanity enters an evolutionary arc automatically as it were without a corresponding Buddha appearing till it is near its zenith, described as a golden age including advanced scientific and technical knowledge and a large terrestrial population and great cities, which contradicts the common view that buddhas only appear at the nadir of the age.

Please provide references.

So far I have not found any reference to the "5000 years claim" in pali canon. Appreciate if you could give references.

http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Metteyya/arimet03.htm

This answer won't be very helpful but many of the sutras are meant to be helpful expedients. If you take them too seriously you will emerge with this problem. (The lotus sutra contains the least expedients of them all, as far as I recall.) Even if I knew where this is referenced, the numbers given would be shaky and subject to interpretation. For example it says that the average lifespan of a human being varies between 10 and 10^140 years according to wikipedia.
I wish you good luck but it seems unlikely that a satisfactory answer can be found and even if one was found, there would probably be more than one text claiming more contradictory figures.


text:
Is meditating while on the bike at the gym an effective method of meditation?
Walking meditation : http://www.meditationoasis.com/how-to-meditate/simple-meditations/walking-meditation/ is considered as "just as profound as sitting meditation". If we were to extrapolate this idea into a situation where instead of walking you were on a bike, would an expert's opinion consider this meditating on the bike at the gym an effective practice of meditation?

Hi Tristo and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have put together a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might find useful.

Try to divide time while meditating and non-meditating a bit less. These shouldn’t be that different - they are but meditation is preparing you for everyday mindfulness and higher insight. For instance I always am mindful of my body and breath and if not - I  simply come back to it. That should be gentle and provide state of higher bliss. Gym is perfect for such feeling of your body and positions of your body also.

Short Answer: Yes.
Longer Answer:
The Satipatthana Sutra implies this.  Here's a snippet...

Moreover, when a practitioner walks, he is aware, ‘I am walking.’ When
  he is standing, he is aware, ‘I am standing.’ When he is sitting, he
  is aware, ‘I am sitting.’ When he is lying down, he is aware, ‘I am
  lying down.’ In whatever position his body happens to be, he is aware
  of the position of his body.
Moreover, when the practitioner is going forward or backward, he
  applies full awareness to his going forward or backward. When he looks
  in front or looks behind, bends down or stands up, he also applies
  full awareness to what he is doing. He applies full awareness to
  wearing the sanghati robe or carrying the alms bowl. When he eats or
  drinks, chews, or savors the food, he applies full awareness to all
  this. When passing excrement or urinating, he applies full awareness
  to this. When he walks, stands, lies down, sits, sleeps or wakes up,
  speaks or is silent, he shines his awareness on all this.

The gist of the above is that mindfulness should be applied throughout the day -- including time on the exercise bike.
However, I don't think this should replace formal meditation practice.  Setting aside time for meditation allows you to better control distractions, which in turn can allow you to go deeper. Meditating on the exercise bike should be done in addition to your regular meditative practice, and should be part of an attempt to maintain continuous mindfulness.

This philosophy (which is used in the 'meditationoasis.com' practice, which you you were asking about), is different from Buddhist philosophy.
So the effectiveness cannot compare.

Perhaps you're saying that the question isn't about Buddhism?

I've always considered the ultimate mindfulness practice to be that which is constant: that is, a meditative state of mind every moment of every day, no matter what else is happening. However if you start by running a marathon before you've trained on smaller runs, your body won't be prepared to fully benefit from the marathon. Similarly, while I think meditating on an exercise bike could be effective, starting with "easier" methods, especially sitting meditation, and careful walking meditation, will build your ability to be successful in other methods.
TL;DR: Better to start small and simple, and eventually, your meditative state of mind will carry over into everything else you do, including exercising.

I am a novice meditator with a stationary bike at home. I find it an easy way to integrate a 20 minute meditation session into a workout.  It can be difficult to find the time otherwise. I find it much easier than sitting only as there is a built in focus on your cadence and rhythm and the sensations of a fan and sweat on the skin. If your goal is to be some super athlete no you won't get the best workout. If your goal is to get an hour of moderate exercise while working in some mindfulness zzIt works well. If at a gym you can put on head phones and play white noise or any music or audio you feel helps. I'm not the Dalai Lama but I have found this a method that has actually got me doing it instead of thinking and reading about it for years.

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


text:
How can a lay person approach the learning process of Buddhism?
I've read many books on Buddhism in the last 3 years and I started to meditate daily 10 months ago. I have a general idea about many topics, without a deep understanding of any of it. Is there a specific way in which a lay person with a deep commitment for Buddhism should approach the teachings? Is there a specific order of the subjects? Can you, please, give me some advice about where to start and how to proceed? Thank you!

Are you trying to get a deep intellectual understanding, or are you trying to realize the truths?

We must aim for the truths and we have teachings to help up get there, right?!

what do you mean by aiming for the truths?  I guess what I'm trying to get at is this.  There's learning more about Buddhism, including a much more detailed knowledge of what it teaches.  Then there's actually experiencing the kinds of things that Buddhism teaches, such as experiencing less clinging from desire due to an "instinctual" feeling that it won't go well.  Which do you mean?

Definetly the second

does your practice include anything other than meditation and study?

Don't give up. You may come across problems, then by overcoming them you will learn. And the texts which help you will naturally seem relevant in the order you need them.

There are many specific ways, giving you the best way requires a scientific study done on every possible way buddism can be taught and then finding a distinct right answer from that, which is currently, and probably never be available. I will give you a source that teaches you in a very specific and effect way of practicing buddism:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ActualizedOrg/videos
Specifically his meditation videos guide you through to enlightenment very effectively.

It helped me a lot reading "The teachings of Ajahn Chah" and one of the monks that spent time with him and is still alive Ajhan Sumedho, "Don't take your life personally". Esti din ro? :)

Saddha has been referred to as the confidence towards the understanding of Supreme Buddha (Saddhahati Tathagatassa Bodhin). All of us must do everything possible to at least come to Saddha in this life.  One cannot go the distance in this Dhamma Path without Saddha.
Therefore we must cultivate right effort (Viriya), the will, to develop Saddha to receive the true benefits from Dhamma. One who has come to Saddha is one of  Samma Ditthi (right understanding of the four noble truths). A worthy person. This is not an easy thing. Only a fortunate few would arrive at this.
If we gradually but firmly establish Saddha in us and develop it, our Sakkaya Ditthi (the idea of self) leaves us. The Supreme Buddha preached that this is more delicate a thing than shooting one seventh of a horse hair with another seventh part of a horse hair face to face. A horse hair is taken for this simile because it is thinner than that of a human. To break free, to gain freedom from this notion of ‘self’ or Sakkaya Ditthi is even more difficult, but not impossible.
There are many avenues that can lead us astray. But for Nibbana there is only one road. Only one guide.That single road is thinking that “Supreme Buddha knows. I do not know” (Keetagiri Sutta).  The only safeguard for us, in keeping us safe from harm is our association with a Kalyana-Mitta (Noble Friends in Dhamma).
On this ‘Noble Friend’guidance, Ananda, one of many principal disciples of the Supreme Buddha, once asked the Buddha if half of the reason for the spiritual life was friendship with others. The Buddha turned to Ananda, rebuking him mildly with the words, “Don’t say that, Ananda. The whole of the spiritual life is for friendship.” This shows that the Buddha elevated spiritual friendship to the highest status.
If we regard ourselves as knowing the Dhamma well, we will be of the “I am the one who knows” mindset. Without allowing that to happen try to come to the view “I do not know. Only Supreme Buddha knows. I will accept it that way”.
“I am the one who knows” can be equated to a Thorn Bush. It is like this. There is a bush of thorns at the bottom of a hill. When it rains fertile soil settles down round the thorn bush after getting washed down from the hill. The soil is fertile but what gets nurtured is the thorn bush.
Like this it is the fertile soil of Dhamma that we gather round us. But what gets nurtured is the thorn bush called “I am the one who knows”. When the thorn bush grows up even an animal does not approach it. Will not go even passing it. In the same way the biggest danger to a person on arriving at the view “I know”. “I understand” is his becoming a person who does not listen.
He loses his sincere friend. He loses his ability listen to Dhamma well. (He loses both external sources of help). Then what is he left with? Only with the notion “I know” and “I understand”. He keeps on repeating this. Finally he will say “No one taught me. I studied on my own. I do not need anyone now. I will become solitary now”.
This is a big danger. Therefore you always think “Whatever Supreme Buddha taught I will do it in that way”. Think that you are the listener. What we want is to get released from Sansaric Sorrow. That is why Supreme Buddha preached to king Kosala as follows.
“Oh Maharaja. This is how you must discipline yourself. I will become a person with sincere friends. I must get inclined to having sincere friends”. (Kalyana Mitta Sutta – Sanyutta Nikaya 01)
When you think that way, the idea “I know” will wear off. Then association with sincere friends becomes delightful.One will always cherish the company of noble friends. One will get the opportunity to listen to Dhamma well. Yonisomanasikara (thinking wisely as mentioned in Dhamma) will arise. This person will develop the Noble Eight Fold path. This happens solely due to association with sincere friends.  We must be humble enough to do so.
If one cultivates thoughts of “Supreme Buddha knows…….” I am a person with sincere friends….” no one can prevent us from getting onto the path leading to Nibbana. Chakku Sutta (Okkanthi Sanyutta – Sanyutta Nikaya.03)  Such a person is referred to as Sraddhanusari. He will not die until he attains the fruit of Sotapanna (the first stage on the path to deliverance)
Supreme Buddha knows that the person with defilements is wrapped up in the idea of Self, is egoistic. Also that he is wrapped up in the concept “I know”.  Some people struggle to understand this simple truth in depth. That is why it is important to think and retain in your memory the following “I will obey Supreme Buddha and conduct myself in the way he wanted us to conduct ourselves. I will not do anything else”.
Getting back to the simile about the thorny bush. When it rains fertile soil comes down to the bush of thorns and it grows up in a couple of days. Ultimately it becomes too big to be pulled out. Sin is also like that. So we must pull out this thorny bush and plant a good tree on that fertile soil. The biggest thorn bush we have is the notion “I know”.
The good tree we plant after uprooting the thorny bush is “Supreme Buddha knows. I don’t know”. These thoughts lift up the man to a noble level. If we are of the idea “We know” it amounts to our tightening our own necks. We read what Supreme Buddha has preached. Then we assume “I know”. Our sincere wish should be that such a thing will not happen to even an enemy.
Therefore if we become humble in this manner we would have done something very much beneficial to our lives. The instant we start having confidence that way, Kammic actions, causing rebirth in the fourfold hells will not take place in us. So to further onself in the Noble Path, the thorn bushes that need to be gotten rid of are “I am the one who knows”. “I can” “I have memorized. Others aren’t up to it”. “I understand well. I can speak well”. You must not have room for these and discipline this mind saying “I will do whatever the Supreme Buddha preaches and whatever my sincere friend tells me to do”.
The immense benefit of understanding the True Path to Liberation has come to us. It is a pity if we let go of it. Therefore let us all try our best not to leave room for those immature thoughts such as “We know”. It is because we do not have confidence that we say “this is impossible” etc. If we step into Saddha we will be able to end our Sansaric journey at most in seven births. Attaining Nibbana is not a dream. Think of establishing Saddha in these principles and think of getting liberated from this sorrowful Samsara.
It is the nature of the person who has developed Sraddha in respect of these principles to endeavour to do it with mind, word and body. Then delight arises in him. Why? Because all his doubts leave him. When there are doubts he thinks “I do not understand. I do not know whether it will be possible” etc.
The hindrances develop in him. Pleasant words, thoughts, deeds do not arise in him. His sense organs are not pleasant. Even the face is unpleasant. If the doubts are to be removed develop Saddha in these principles. Then he will think of the principles. Then he will live in delight. His thoughts, words and deeds will be beautiful. Even the facial expressions will be delightful. There will be no remorse, worries or difficulties in him. He will be inclined to help others. Such a group of people would be like flowers in a flower garden.
He thinks of the good qualities of those who helped him. ‘Ingratitude’ will leave him.
The instant he arrives in Saddha, gratitude arises. He meditates without difficulty. He attains concentration. When he thinks of these principles while in concentration he understands “this eye is impermanent….” It becomes a realization to him. Then where did we start? After pulling out the thorn bush called “I know” and instilling Saddha.

It is not correct to have a superficial dichotomy of 'layperson' versus 'monk'. A 'monk' or 'layperson' is a state of mind. For example, some monks spend their life engaged in 'worldly' pursuits; while some laypeople live a personal life of meditative solitude. Therefore, it all depends on your personal goals & intentions in relation to your interest in Buddhism.
If you have suffering you wish to end, you learn the higher ('lokuttara') teachings, like a monk.
If you are a 'householder' (with family, children, etc), you particularly learn the ('lokiya') teachings for 'householders' (as well as the higher teachings about suffering, if you are inclined. Otherwise, you believe in 'rebirth').


text:
What do secular Buddhists say about Nirvana?
What is 'secular Buddhism', and what does it say about Nirvana?

Here are some other references (which three people suggested in comments, which I have deleted and moved here):

I think you will enjoy this article. The Buddha has taught in Alagaddupama Sutta that his teachings are like a boat to be used for crossing over, but you should not hold on to the boat. That is not it's purpose. Similarly, you may not like the fervour or ardency of some "non-secular Buddhists", but then again, neither does the Buddha, if this fervour is really the fanaticism and over-attachment to his teachings.
You'll want to check out two books by Stephen Batchelor on this subject - Buddhist atheist and Buddhism without beliefs. He also has given a few interviews like this one
If Kenneth Folk can be considered a secular buddhist, then https://batgap.com/kenneth-folk/ is something to watch -- he speaks about nibbana (in the interpretation of the Burmese Mahasi tradition) as extinction of consciousness.

While there is considerable variety of views amongst people who identify themselves as secular Buddhists, they all seem to converge in rejecting what is often loosely called "metaphysics". This means that they reject all forms of belief that are not rooted in science and/or common sense. Thus they reject any and all supernatural entities, forces, or states, not so much from an ideological point of view, but because of a long history of such things being debunked; because of the exposure of many, many hoaxes; and because the theories of science are so very successful and the supernatural is ruled out by these theories.
Secular Buddhists seem to identify with the European Enlightenment which aimed to free people from the despotism of the Church, the oppression of superstition, and general ignorance. Secular Buddhists take nothing on faith, whereas traditionalist Buddhists take a great deal on faith.
Some answers to these specific questions can be found on the Secular Buddhist Association Website. http://secularbuddhism.org/. Doug Smith, who holds a PhD in philosophy, has written a number of essays on these and related subjects, for example he says:

"Nevertheless from my limited perspective on the path it would seem as though nibbāna is not, should not, and cannot be entirely beyond our ability to comprehend. If it were, it would be of correspondingly scant interest to us. Therefore we are to take expressions of its ineffability as a kind of poetic attempt to express the extremity of its greatness. Nibbāna is the extinction — or perhaps the near extinction — of greed, hatred, and certain forms of ignorance. And parinibbāna does not amount to some “diffuse, indeterminate” way of being, but rather is the simple death of an enlightened person, without remainder." - Two Issues With Nibbāna.

Elsewhere (Can a Layperson Attain Nibbāna?) Smith discusses the traditional view that only monastics can attain nibbāna and gives a response from a secular point of view.
Perhaps the most prominent secular Buddhist is Stephen Batchelor, a former monk and translator of Buddhist texts. He has downplayed the issue of nibbāna

I am a secular Buddhist. It has taken me years to fully “come out,” and I still feel a nagging tug of insecurity, a faint aura of betrayal in declaring myself in these terms. As a secular Buddhist my practice is concerned with responding as sincerely and urgently as possible to the suffering of life in this world, in this century (our saeculum) where we find ourselves now and future generations will find themselves later. Rather than attaining nirvana, I see the aim of Buddhist practice to be the moment-to-moment flourishing of human life within the ethical framework of the eightfold path here on earth. – Stephen Batchelor, “A Secular Buddhist,” Tricycle Magazine, Fall 2012.

Of course this rejection of the supernatural, and nibbāna in particular, has wide ranging doctrinal consequences. Secular Buddhists de-emphasise traditional Buddhist theories of the world which seem to revolve around supernatural concepts such as karma, rebirth, saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, and focus on the experience of maintaining ethical and meditation practices.

As always, amazingly clear and straightforward. I'm grateful and relieved.
Ironic as this may sound, I say this with absolute honesty: my faith in humanity, in religion and in Buddhism is in fact restored.
When I read this sort of clearheaded answer, I am reassured that religion can coexist with rigourous intellectualism.

I do hope they can coexist, though clearly religion must give a little. Keep asking your questions, though the more simply they are phrased the better.

It would be interesting to know why this answer has been voted down.

In "Two issues with Nibbana", Smith voices issues that create dissonance among the intellectually-inclined and titillate the mystically  (or superstitiously) inclined.
This article helps me find clarity. The conclusion is brilliantly lucid, and lays to rest many of my own difficulties with the concepts of Nirvana and Parinirvana.

@Jayarava My guess is that the downvote was unwarranted, not a good comment on this answer, and that you should ignore it.

Regarding the secular aspect. Many Mahayana schools of Buddhism, including at least some Zen sects and some Tibetan Vajrayana lineages, understand the supernatural as skillful means (upaya), that is to say, as useful metaphors/simplifications pointing to the real, but non-obvious, aspects of the so-called "reality".
This is not to say that these schools subscribe to a naive form of materialism. Rather, this means that the Mahayana Buddhism (as much as I can claim to understand it) is non-dualistic in its nature. It denies existence of multiple types of principally different stuff, like consciousness made of some essence that scientists can't see with their tools, and other types of dualistic "magic". Instead, in non-dualistic Mahayana view, "the magic" and the mundane are made of the same stuff, and are inherently interlocked as two aspects of the same nature.
From this standpoint, there is no need to posit any special kind of "secular" Buddhism, because Buddhism, from such a standpoint, already is and always has been non-theistic. Now, for practical reasons, I would not mind if Sat-Dharma presented itself as Secular Buddhism in this age, as an time-appropriate kind of upaya. This could work very well, as long as we respect the crucial difference between the perspective presented in the previous paragraph vs. the crude materialistic perspective of pretending that the "subtle" side of phenomena does not exist, which would be like throwing the baby out with the water.

Awakening is a lived experience, there are a good many stages one goes through in the evolution of one's belief system, which likely never stops evolving if one is inquiring steadily. Stephen Batchelor himself is one such example, a former monk who saw things differently years later, however there's no reason to believe that this evolution stopped upon hitting secular Buddhism. I find it is premature to consider an idea such as secular Buddhism reflected upon for only a few decades as anywhere near stable and reliable. I'd wait and watch before leaning too heavily on such ideas yet. +1

I think nearly every splinter group of Buddhism throughout the ages has tried to throw off some ideas and keep others many times using secular arguments. I don't think the modern "secular" movements are any different. When Buddhism spreads to new lands and cultures often some teachings are more in conflict with that land/cultures ideas than others. It is precisely those most in conflict that are usually thrown off in the name of secularism.

Different people have different ideas on what secular buddhism is and not all self-proclaimed secular buddhists believe the same things.
However, one of the most prolific self-proclaimed secular buddhists is undoubtedly Stephen Batchelor. He has written books such as Buddhism Without Beliefs and Confession of a Buddhist Atheist as well as Secular Buddhism: Imagining the Dharma in an Uncertain World which espouses his ideas about secular buddhism.
Here are some of the things he has to say about Nirvana:
"And there is no such thing as the unconditioned, only the possibility of not being conditioned by something. Nirvana, therefore, does not refer to the attainment of a transcendent, absolute state apart from the conditions of life but to the possibility of living here and now emancipated from the inclinations of desire, hatred, and delusion. A life not conditioned by these instincts and drives would be an enriched one. No longer would one be the victim of paralyzing habits; one would be freed to respond to circumstances in fresh, unimpeded ways."
and
"The experience of nirvana marks a turning point in an individual’s life, not a final and immutable goal. After the experience one knows that one is free not to act on the impulses that naturally arise in reaction to a given situation."
and
“Rather than attaining nirvana, I see the aim of Buddhist practice to be the moment-to-moment flourishing of human life within the ethical framework of the eightfold path here on earth. Given what is known about the biological evolution of human beings, the emergence of self-awareness and language, the sublime complexity of the brain, and the embeddedness of such creatures in the fragile biosphere that envelops this planet, I cannot understand how after physical death there can be continuity of any personal consciousness or self, propelled by the unrelenting force of acts (karma) committed in this or previous lives. For many—perhaps most—of my coreligionists, this admission might lead them to ask, “Why, then, if you don’t believe such things, do you still call yourself a ‘Buddhist’?”
and
“This process can be conveniently summarized under the acronym ELSA: Embrace, Let go, Stop, Act. One embraces dukkha, that is, whatever situation life presents, lets go of the grasping that arises in reaction to it, and stops reacting so that one can act unconditioned by reactivity. This procedure is a template that can be applied across the entire spectrum of human experience, from one’s ethical vision of what constitutes a “good life” to one’s day-to-day interactions with colleagues at work. Buddhism 2.0 has no interest in whether or not such a way of life leads to a final goal called nirvana. What matters is an ever-deepening, ever-broadening engagement with a process of practice in which each element of ELSA is a necessary and intrinsic part. “Ceasing” is no longer seen as the goal of the path but as those moments when reactivity stops (or is suspended) in order that the possibility of a path can reveal itself and be “brought into being.” Just as dukkha gives rise to craving (rather than the other way round), so the ceasing of craving gives rise to the eightfold path (rather than the other way round). Thus Buddhism 2.0 turns Buddhism 1.0 on its head.”
and
“We could decide simply to remain absorbed in the mysterious, unformed, free-play of reality. This would be the choice of the mystic who seeks to extinguish himself in God or Nirvana—analogous perhaps to the tendency among artists to obliterate themselves with alcohol or opiates. But if we value our participation in a shared reality in which it makes sense to make sense, then such self-abnegation would deny a central element of our humanity: the need to speak and act, to share our experience with others.”
NOTE: Many of these ideas are controversial and are not necessarily endorsed by other self-proclaimed secular buddhists nor non-secular buddhists.

Speaking as someone who would probably be considered a secular Buddhist by others (and yes, I know that takes some untangling)…
Secular Buddhism in its purest sense is merely an effort to get to the unfiltered essence of Buddhism. We have to keep in mind that it's been two millennia since Gautama walked the earth, and in that time what he taught has become thoroughly formalized. This is normal enough. The process of teaching demands a certain regulative element so that knowledge doesn't slip over time, so buddhists have tried to codify the teachings and practices and elements of faith into doctrine. This entailed the creation of institutions like temple centers, ordination of teachers, ritual practices, etc, and that led to doctrinal disagreements, schisms, and the creation of various sects. Buddhism today is the teachings plus a whole lot of structures meant to preserve the teachings and make them more accessible, understandable, and consistent.
I mean, if we use the old analogy that Buddha gave us a boat to cross the river, that boat has been rebuilt, refurbished, expanded, painted, etc., with old wood swapped out for new and fresh tar everywhere. It's like the Ship of Theseus paradox in that it's both the same boat and not the same boat.
Secular Buddhists prefer to cut away the dogmatic elements and stick with the practical ones. Some people lean that way out of philosophical mysticism, more reach for it because they dislike the intrinsic power dynamic of institutionalized religions. The concept of nirvana itself doesn't change much — still a "transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma" — except that secular Buddhists rarely adhere to traditional notions of the cycle of death and rebirth.

The word 'secular' means:

Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based
on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion. Secularism
is most commonly defined as the separation of religion from civil
affairs and the state and may be broadened to a similar position
seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public
sphere. The term "secularism" has a broad range of meanings, and in
the most schematic, may encapsulate any stance that promotes the
secular in any given context. It may connote anti-clericalism,
atheism, naturalism, non-sectarianism, neutrality on topics of
religion, or the complete removal of religious symbols from public
institutions.
Wikipedia

In Buddhism, 'nirvana' or 'nibbana' refers to a knowable state of peace; knowable when greed, hatred & delusion end in the mind. The Pali Suttas say:

When, brahmin, one experiences the remainderless destruction of lust,
the remainderless destruction of hatred, and the remainderless
destruction of delusion, it is in this way, too, that nibbāna is
directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable,
to be personally experienced by the wise.
AN 3.55

Therefore, Nibbana is not something 'religious' but is, instead, something 'naturalistic' thus something 'secular'.

I have never heard of secular Buddhism. The teachings of Buddha are non secular.
Politicians can be secular.
Buddha says do not even think of harming anybody even if they harm you, but you must adhere to the Truths which he taught  and those Truths are ,unfortunately,in direct contradiction to all religions.
There are three main Truths related to existence which can not be compromised:

All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.
2.All conditioned phenomena are suffering.
3.All conditioned or unconditioned phenomena are without any Self.

Therefore religions like Hinduism , Christianity , Islam etc which believes in God or some state of consciousness are wrong.
There is a state of Nibbana which is unborn , unoriginated, unbecoming, uncreated. It is the escape from born , originated , becoming and created. This is the escape from suffering.


text:
What does the phrase "to armor oneself with vows" mean?
This seems to be a common trope-- samnaha. I honestly have no idea what they mean, it strikes me as a "it's raining cats and dogs" sort of idiom. Is there an explanation for what it means?
Examples:

For they wear the armor of great vows, accumulate merits, deliver all
  beings from birth-and-death, visit Buddha-lands to perform the
  bodhisattva practices, make offerings to Buddhas

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/48-bosatsu-vows.shtml
And in Shingon, they visualize themselves putting on armor (or physically don?)
Thinking Through Shingon Ritutual
"Then one protects the body by donning armor..."

What does the phrase “to armor oneself with vows” mean?
I don't recall seeing that exact phrase in the texts that I've read but the analogy of the vows being used as an armor symbolizes the protection they provide to oneself and others by observing them. You can see this theme in the Self-protected Discourse (Atta-rakkhita Sutta) for example:

At Savatthi. As he was sitting to one side, King Pasenadi Kosala said
  to the Blessed One: "Just now, lord, while I was alone in seclusion,
  this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'Who have themselves
  protected, and who leave themselves unprotected?' Then it occurred to
  me: 'Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, &
  mental misconduct leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron
  of elephant troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a
  squadron of chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might
  protect them, still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that?
  Because that's an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore
  they leave themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily
  conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves
  protected. Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a
  squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a
  squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they have
  themselves protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal
  protection, not an external one. Therefore they have themselves
  protected.'"
"That's the way it is, great king! That's the way it is! Those who
  engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct
  leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron of elephant
  troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of
  chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might protect them,
  still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that? Because that's
  an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore they leave
  themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily conduct,
  good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves protected.
  Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a squadron of
  cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a squadron of
  infantry troops might protect them, still they have themselves
  protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal protection, not an
  external one. Therefore they have themselves protected."

There are others discourses that touch on this. I particularly have one in mind that relates very closely to this theme. I'll reference when I find it.


text:
Can't notice the breath
I can't find the breath (sometimes I can, but the majority of the time I can't)

I can't notice the rising and falling of the stomach even when lying and putting my hand on it and also to notice the breath in general is very hard for me.

Now I understand I can say if I don't notice it "knowing" or "breath" etc - but then I wait and wait and nothing - and in the mean time lots of secondary objects come up. If I follow them though its not good- because you should have a primary object to build concentration, so I need an "anchor"
So when I say "knowing" and then what should I do? Just focus on my belly? And if i don't feel anything? Not even in other areas like the nose - what should I do - focus harder? Follow secondary objects only?
I have practiced for a long time now (did retreats etc) and I thought this problem would fix itself, but I still have this problem. When I meditate I do 1 hour walking, then 1 hour sitting (mahasi style).

Hi and welcome to Buddhism SE. We have a Guide and a Resource section for new users that you might like.

Thanks - i used to ask and answer in the old format before stackexchange

What kind of retreats did you attend?

Are you practicing strictly the Mahadi Sayadaw tradition?

yes i practice just mahasi sayadaw style

@breath I forgot two usful teachings  Bhante Yuttadhamno teaches about this: Putting the hand on the abdomen is acceptable and probably, after awhile, the rise and fall should be able to be seen without the hand. Also, it's ok to meditate while laying down were the abdomen is easier to experience. This is a common thing to not be able to see the abdomen rise and fall.

Hmmmm... interesting. Try this: do controlled breathing for a dozen breaths (count breaths on fingers and do a moderately-slow deliberate breath-ins and breath-outs), then for a dozen breaths let the breathing happen on auto-pilot (keep counting on fingers. I assume you have twelve fingers LOL).
When you breathe deliberately you can't possibly NOT notice the breath, right? After all, at that time you are deliberately using the muscles of the chest and diaphragm to suck air into your lungs. So you should feel yourself pulling pulling pulling not too fast, slowing down, then stopping, holding a little, then going down and out out out not too fast, slowing down again, a tiny pause. It is what you yourself are doing, so you can't miss it, right?
Then when you let it happen naturally, the same attention you used for deliberate breathing should continue on to natural breathing.
Also, do you sit in Lotus / Half-lotus? Try sitting in Vajrasana - it arches your back a little more and forces to open the chest and diaphragm. Perhaps (I don't really know but I'm guessing) your breathing is too shallow because you are in the habit of blocking your lower abdomen? Vajrasana is a good posture for this kind of practice, to penetrate the lower chakras.

That shouldn't be a problem. Putting the hand on the abdomen is acceptable and probably, after awhile, the rise and fall should be able to be seen without the hand. Also, it's ok to meditate while laying down were the abdomen is easier to experience.
If you really can't experience the rise and fall of the breath then another object can be used as the primary object as I mention below.
The question starts:
Now I understand I can say if I don't notice it "knowing" or "breath" etc - but then I wait and wait and nothing - and in the mean time lots of secondary objects come up.
If you are noting and are mindful that you are "knowing" then when are you waiting? Never wait while practicing. One  meditation object is not better or worse than any other meditation object. One's attitude towards anything during practice should be nonjudgmental and impersonal. If there is a judgment or a reaction then try to catch that phenomena and note it. I mean, if one is waiting and waiting, one might notice that one dislikes the waiting. Then one should try to catch that feeling of disliking so one can be mindful of the disliking(as a secondary object) and note it as "disliking" or "aversion".
If I follow them though its not good- because you should have a primary object to build concentration, so I need an "anchor"
The knowing of the breath as undetectable is a fine anchor, you can change the anchor but maybe not if you can never detect the breath. It's commonly changed to the feeling of the body touching whatever it touches such as the feeling of ones bottom touching floor.
I have practiced for a long time now (did retreats etc) and I thought this problem would fix itself, but I still have this problem. When I meditate I do 1 hour walking, then 1 hour sitting (mahasi style).
If you have a teacher you should listen like you have never listened before. Everyone who meditates can cut out years of bad  practice by getting good guidance from a good teacher and by listening very carefully.

i listen to him he told me to note "knowing" and than focus on the breath - but still the time that passes is too much -   i can catch the disliking its there no doubt - but many more secondery objects arise as well - but not much of the rising and falling

When you're as stubborn as, well, me, it's very hard to simply "listen better". However this answer makes some good points about technique.

I would advise you to try the following:
1) You need to greatly decrease your sitting and walking time. If you aren't yet able to stay with the breath, you will be better off doing smaller sessions since , presumably, your ability to do walking is fine, this will help build concentration (/as walking does in general). There is also not much sense doing such long sessions if you haven't properly worked up to that level. It's far more beneficial to meditate mindfully for 10 minutes than to sit there unmindfully for 60. Start much smaller, and very gradually increase :)
2) I would try laying down if you find it this difficult to find the breath. Instead of sitting, lay on your back, and even place your hands on your stomach if need be. Lying is a more relaxed position and should put you more at ease, making it easier to focus on your breath. Once you find you are able to focus on the breath while lying, perhaps increase your time lying from 10 to 15 to 20 minutes, over the course of a couple weeks. And then from there you may consider to begin doing sitting again.

So when I say "knowing" and then what should I do? Just focus on my belly? >And if i don't feel anything? Not even in other areas like the nose - what >should I do - focus harder? Follow secondary objects only?

You should attempt to return your focus to the rising and falling of the stomach, however, it's more important to develop a clear comprehension of where the mind is and what state it is in at any particular moment. You don't HAVE to be with or stay with the breath. You will be better off letting go of the desire to have awareness of the breath, as this will only create suffering. Have no expectation of the breath being there for you. Instead, with compassion, just observe where the mind is and in what state it is in.
What you are experiencing here is the uncontrollable nature of all phenomenon :) As you can see, because you have an expectation that your meditation should be like X, and instead it is like Y, you suffer. You must let go of this, and instead, just know, "this is how it is for now".
I would also advise you read Ven. Yuttadhammos booklet : How to meditate
He also teaches in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, so this booklet will give you good instruction into your own practice, and should help clear up any confusion for you.
I hope this helps - best of luck

i do the time my teacher tells me to do . secondary object are fine- but if the are secondary if i just jump from one to another they become primary objects and that wont lead me far

I have read his book (and others) - and i still dont know how to solve this problem

There is no problem to solve :) Let go of your need to control your meditation, this is the only issue. If your mind wont go to the breath, do not  force it. Just be with the mind wherever it is and however it is.

but than you dont build concentration - and you build restlessness instead

Yes you can :) Concentrate and be mindful of where the mind is. If there is restlessness, just know "Restless, restless".

There is nothing wrong with being restless, so long as you know that there is restlessness.

I have practiced for a long time now (did retreats etc) and I thought  this problem would fix itself
1)."I have practiced for a long time now (did retreats etc)" this sound like you are expecting something.(think about what is that? )
If you are willing to calmness - That is it.
Do not fear it. Let it be happening.
2). in question say ..because you should have a primary object...(to whom?)

so I need an "anchor"

3). Theoretically  "The Anchor" is "Reality"(or any other similar word.)
4.) "Follow secondary objects only?" Can you explain them. (Are they same or differ in time).
5.) "So when I say "knowing" then what should I do?"
Try to know "knowing" (Keep awareness what is happening, just see, no need to think).

You really do not have to feel the touch sensation of the breath to start with. Look directly into Lord Buddha's words in Anapanasathi Sutta. You have to establish your awareness at the center of the upper lip and you should be aware whether you are breathing in or out, long or short, etc. If you do feel any sensations at the center of the upper lip notice it also. If you cannot track whether you are breathing in out out, long or short few intentional slightly deep breaths are OK but you should stop making intentional breathing once you get to this.
Secondary objects (thinking and pondering) are verbal fabrications. Since you are trying to calm these and other fabrication you have to anchor your mind on an object which like the center of the upper lip (both Kaya and Vedana).
See:

On Anapana

MN 118 Mindfulness of Breathing - Ānāpānasati Sutta (Anapanasati Sutta) commentary by Ven. Bhante Vimalaramsi of DhammaSukha
Anapanasathi Sutta translated by Piya Tan
Anapanasathi Sutta another translation by Piya Tan

On Fabrications

Dutiya Kāma,bhū Sutta translated by Piya Tan
Cūla Vedalla Sutta translated by Piya Tan

I Thought Breath was talking about the Mahasi Vipassana approach. In Mahasi meditation, a secondary object doesn't mean a defilment, it means any other object of experience other than the primary object of breath. Vedana would be a secondary object.

Secondary object is not a defilement. It is verbal fabrications if the secondary object is thinking and pondering (wondering mind) as per the Suttas or words of the Buddha.

If a Vipassana meditator changes objects from the breath when he feels it's appropriate mindfulness and momentary concentration to do so then that is wondering mind? If so, then how is the rest of experience besides the breath known? How is the Four Foundation of Mindfulness seen? How is wisdom gained? I thought you where saying that you recommend Anapana in the beginning to raise concentration and then at some point start practicing some kind of Vipassana. How is Vipassana practiced then?

Anapana has all the 4 Satthipatanas in it. The each of the triads correspond to the Satthipatanas. You can switch to something like scanning the body meditation as you want to make your self sensitive to phenomena throughout the body or whole body (Sabbakayapatisamvedi).

For this meditation one needs the sitting posture with a straightened upper body and legs crossed. The Blessed One always recommended this sitting posture for anapanasati meditation. The Blessed One had not advocated a sitting posture for any other type of meditation. However, a person who has gained mental development through anapanasati meditation, can then continue by maintaining any posture.
“Ujum kayam panidhaya parimukham satim upatthapetva” – “Holding his body erect, he sets mindfulness on the body.”
Then, the normal breath should be noticed and observed. It is essential to be mindful of the breath. But, are we able to at once focus the mind on the breath and eliminate all other thoughts? No, it is difficult to do so. The mind wanders to other thoughts. This is the nature of the unrestrained body and mind. That is why it is essential to first discipline ourselves in speech and action. Then, we can train our mind for meditation.
If you have performed an unskilful action with your body and speech, your mind gets agitated and keeps on repenting the act. To avoid this, one should have a strong determination to preserve mindfulness, and never act mindlessly. If we entertain various kinds of distracting thoughts, we cannot train the mind to concentrate on the object of meditation. That is why the mental calm through virtue is important.
The foundation is virtue or morality (sila). This is the discipline in speech, action and thought. Control of verbal and physical action is somewhat easy. The more difficult task is controlling the mind. Nevertheless, there is a technique for disciplining the mind. It is called the restraint of faculties.
First, a person would abstain from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct and taking liquor or drugs that cause intoxication. Now, he is controlled with respect to physical action. Then, he would abstain from false speech, divisive speech, abusive speech and idle chatter. Now, he has anchored himself in refraining from unskilful actions with both body and speech. The next step would be controlling of mind. Having developed the virtues that purify speech and action, cleansing his thoughts is now a less difficult task.
What would be the process he adopts for mental development? He would go about it in the following manner. We have five physical sense organs – eye, ear, nose, tongue and body. The awareness or consciousness comes through these sense organs. He begins by preventing the cultivation of unwholesome thoughts. Let’s assume there is something that is unwholesome and blameworthy, yet we desire it very much. What should we do in this situation? We must be intelligent enough to think thus: ‘Although I am enjoying this at this moment, it will bring painful consequences throughout samsara’. In this manner, with the understanding of the misery and suffering of endless samsara, every effort must be made to prevent the arising of evil and unwholesome thoughts. This is the way to establish a solid base for developing the fourfold mindfulness.
The in-breathing and out-breathing we know is automatic, and this happens throughout the day. However, when we try to breathe mindfully it is indeed complicated. Some people face difficulties in breathing when they try to breathe consciously, or mindfully. Some cannot notice the breath. The breath flows freely in its own natural rhythm; and normally, this flow of breath is not noticed. However, it is not easy to be mindful of the breath.
Start your meditation on mindfulness of in and out breathing with your eyes closed. Merely allow the breath to ebb and flow freely under the light of full awareness. Your one and only aim is to focus the mind on the breath. You should not try to find the point where the moving air strokes the nostrils, but keep your focus at the nose breath. Breathe in and breathe out mindfully with full awareness. Your breathing should be very natural and effortless.


text:
Meditation Into A Dream State
Does anyone know if one can fall asleep into a dream while in the process of mindful insight practice and still maintain mindfulness and concentration? This would be different than establishing mindfulness while dreaming.

Before I became Buddhist I did a lot of random "spiritual" practices, including "astral travel". The later is when you try to retain "waking" consciousness as you fall asleep.
I only had mixed success with the various techniques for achieving that, but the one that worked more or less well was to relax the body and completely refrain from any movement until you lose all bodily sensations. So effectively you let the body "fall asleep" while keeping the mind awaken.
The major difficulty for me was (to avoid) getting overexcited at the moment the body falls asleep - which (overexcitement) resulted in hyperventilation and loss of control.
Eventually I realized that establishing lucid mind inside the dream was easier for me than carrying it over from the waking state, and so I dropped that frustrating practice.
Another related technique I had better success with was doing the Four Immeasurables type meditation at that same moment of falling asleep. This works better as you don't have to artificially restrict body movements, which seems to go counter to deep meditation in my experience.

When you are in deep sleep your Bhavanga consciousness is active and at this stage you are not mindful. If you are in a dream state there is some metal activity hence there can be some mindfulness and concentration, but this goes in hand with Sloth and Torpor hence the level of mindfulness and concentration would be weak.

I've experienced that several times. It took me around ~45 minutes up to an hour to enter a state of dreaming, while meditating. I did not fall asleep for sure as I was sitting up.
The experience was different from lucid dreaming. I experienced lucid dreaming over hundreds of times, so I am confident I am familiar to know a distinct state.
Just like with lucid dreaming, the very first times it is difficult to stay asleep yet mentally aware of your self. Resulting in either loosing self awareness of waking up from the dream.
With this I found the same, but this balance seems even more delicate to me. I was wakefully present in this dream while meditating, but as soon as I realized I was, it lasted only very short.
These dreams while meditating seem more close to wakeful life experiences in a sense that I have a goal, a mental concern or puzzle to solve. Whereas in dreams while being asleep, this tends to be more and more irrational.
How the two states differ in dynamics (wakeful dreaming while asleep/meditating) is not clear to me yet. With dynamics I mean some sort of mechanistic behavior, like gravity here in this physical reality, but then more mentally related. Like when becoming fearful it is more apparent that I am loosing control of the scenario in a lucid dream than in this physical reality because the whole scenario visually starts to mirror my state of mind. How that is different in these dreams while meditating, I am not sure yet.
Good luck with experimenting!


text:
Is there person without consciousness?
If we consider person(Arthma) as a consciousness. When undergoing an operation, we are temporarily unconscious. Then what happens to that person while unconscious?
Some related discussion are here:
I want to understand the technicality of rebirth and what happens to conditioned self.
If there is no soul, how can there be rebirth?.
Is rebirth a delusional belief?.
What are examples of identity-view?

If we say these things are temporary illusions then how it is continued?
What are the similes use to explain this phenomena in any tradition?

It would be good when Nyom Bonn would give a useful answer here. What's the matter with consciousness and how could person and knowing actually disappear?

Nothing happens to that person when consciousness ceases - there was never a person to begin with, only arising and ceasing of experience.
I realized after the fact that I can't sufficiently cite sources while on my phone - apologies for such an incomplete answer, I'll try and expand later :)

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


text:
Can the elements of Buddhist Cosmology be confirmed?
How are the elements of Buddhist Cosmology (31 planes of existence, hungry ghosts/shades, angry deities, etc.) confirmed?
Are there writings of recent gurus in the past 50 years or so, confirming, questioning or analyzing the elements of this cosmology in the light of modern science and their own experience?
Other than faith in the ancient texts, is there any other basis for modern Buddhists to believe in Buddhist Cosmology? If so, what is that basis?

Nothing can be proven or confirmed to the world about Buddhist experience because it is experience. The ideal mind in Buddhism is a wise and compassionate mind not an intellectual mind, not that an intellectual mind isn't of value sometimes.

Many of these can be answered with references back to metaphorical interpretations, by both traditional lineages and by the modern secular Buddhism movement. If I were you I would ask questions about the meaning behind the metaphorical language and how it can be applied to solve the problems of life and death. By 1) insisting on literal interpretation and then 2) going against it -- you get yourself into a dead end AND you hurt the feelings of people who take the teaching as is AND you make it very hard for people like me who don't take the teaching literally to help you. Why do this then?

@Andrei Volkov - Do I hear you saying that the cosmology is full of metaphorical imagery, not to be taken literally? Please clarify. If that is indeed your position, then I would like to ask you questions about the meaning behind the metaphorical language, and how it can be applied to solve the problems of life and death.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Go ahead with your questions. By the power of all merits accumulated through the three times, may all beings benefit.

@AndreiVolkov Thanks! But instead of continuing our conversation here, I will post these queries about the metaphorical meanings as separate questions. I look forward to your insightful answers.

I am not satisfied by any of the existing answers. This bounty lapses in two hours. Unless someone give me a more satisfactory answer within that time, I will have to let this bounty lapse. Peace be upon all.

Buddha's response to such questions has been that whether or not other worlds exist, his teaching is still beneficial if applied in practice.
So, for example, if it is said that acting on an extreme negativity-rooted-in-confusion leads to hell, whether the hell is taken literally as a place you go to or metaphorically as a highly disagreeable state of subjective experience, in either case it is something a sane person would definitely prefer to avoid, and so refraining from acting out one's negativity rooted in confusion should be beneficial in either case.
While I personally lean towards a more "secular" view, I feel that by shifting my focus from the metaphysics ("how things are") and towards soteriological methodology ("how to act towards Bodhi") I can avoid hurtful and non-productive arguments in the public space.

I have posed some questions about metaphorical meanings, and am eagerly awaiting your answers.
I owe you an explanation for my general line of questioning - not only on this  forum, but generally in life, I believe that very real harm is done to mankind as a whole (and the common man in particular) when superstition & dogma flourish under cover of religion, commerce, healing, etc. And I firmly hold that by lancing superstitions and by promoting rational thought, one renders a very real service to society. By doing this, one defends the common man who cannot defend himself.

My question is here: http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/11508/what-is-the-metaphorical-meaning-of-31-planes-of-existence

Finished crafting an answer. Enjoy! :)

@KrishnarajRao I think it is worth considering both halves of the topic: superstitions could certainly be viewed as causing real harm to mankind, but it is also possible to argue that it has caused real benefit to mankind as well.  It all depends on how you choose to define your metric for benefit and harm.  It can be remarkably difficult to get everyone to agree on the same metric!  What we can say for sure is that superstitions and dogma have a large effect on the world, in one way or the other.  I, of course, hold this as a belief, so it is not unreasonable that your position...

... does not fully agree with mine.  It's all a question of our own experiences.  I, for one, took a road similar to the one you describe, lancing superstitions and promoting rational though, particularly through science and mathematics.  As it turns out, there are some remarkably subtle traps, such as the difference between the phrases "evolution is true," and "evolution fits the data the best of all of our models," which can lead individuals to suffering.  I found superstition can, in some cases, defend the common man who cannot defend himself, by allowing him or her to hold their own...

... against an intelligent "adversary" who can think just a mere one step ahead of them, and craft a rational argument which appears right, but for which the common man simply cannot find the flaw in the rational argument provided to them.  Rational thought is powerful, but I find subtle issues with it: such as the endless challenge of defining rational thought in the first place, without relying on concepts that are not necessarily rational.  In fact, it would not surprise me if we differ in our definitions just enough to provide such disagreement.

@CortAmmon - "superstitions ... it is also possible to argue that it has caused real benefit to mankind as well." I do not agree with this statement, but I appreciate the thought-process that you have applied to get there. "Rational thought is powerful, but I find subtle issues with it: such as the endless challenge of defining rational thought in the first place, without relying on concepts that are not necessarily rational." I concede that much superstition hides in disguise of rationality & logic. But that does not mean that superstition & dogma are a better way forward for humankind.

@KrishnarajRao I think your statement "...that does not mean superstition & dogma are a better way forward for humankind" is quite reasonable, though I would also choose to pair it with a matching phrasing, "that does not mean rational thought is a better way for humankind."  If one can hold both positions in a balance that makes sense in one's life, then there's time to observe how that balance moves and shakes, and perhaps we even find that the law of the excluded middle happens not to apply here, and there is a middle option between rational thought and superstition that we never thought...

... of until we got there.  I am always reminded of a great phrase attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."  At the very least, my experience is that expressed rational thought is on the road towards what F.Scott Fitzgerald points towards.

@CortAmmon - As I said earlier, I can't agree with your position, but I like your reasoning process. Going from the absolutely rational thought process you are displaying, I suspect that you are taking the pro-superstition position because it is a contrarian and non-obvious intellectual position. It appears to be your conscious decision to play the devil's advocate; going from your thought-process, you don't seem superstitious or dogmatic. I could of course engage you in a lengthy one-on-one argument in an effort to dislodge you from this position, but that would be off topic.

@AndreiVolkov - Is this the best answer you could write for this question? The bounty is in grace-period, and after 17 hours, it will lapse. Currently, I find insufficient reason to give it to you, although I feel that in general, your answer is closest to being a decent answer. Would you like to edit your answer?

 How are the elements of Buddhist Cosmology (31 planes of existence, hungry
 ghosts/shades, angry deities, etc.) confirmed?

There are those that are born natural Mediums. Their ability to detect outside the normal human frequency, like many animals, is heightened. Their E.S.P., or extra sensory perception, extends beyond the normal physical senses. They simply are able to tune into a frequency band greater than most. Some can see ghosts; some can only hear them, while other Mediums are shown visions and guidance in their mind's eye, or "third eye" from the beyond. These are the John Edwards of the world, or the crime solving specialists.....
Are there writings of recent gurus in the past 50 years or so, confirming,
questioning or analyzing the elements of this cosmology in the light of modern
science and their own experience?

Refer Edgar Cayce.

    Other than faith in the ancient texts, is there any other basis for modern
Buddhists to believe in Buddhist Cosmology? If so, what is that basis?

parallel universes.
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are also called "parallel universes" or "alternate universes".
The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationships among the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology, and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternate universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternate realities", "alternate timelines", and "dimensional planes", among other names.

So you are saying that the various theories propounded by quantum physics theorists may be taken as evidence for the existence of Buddha's cosmology?

If you can coop with them, But what he tote is applicable to extinction from 'Multiverse' to 'Tropes'

parallel universes. I like this. I see them right here.

There is a mention in the biography of Dipa Ma. A student was comparing the beautiful Massachussets sky to a heavenly realm, when Dipa Ma retorted it was ordinary in comparison.