text:
Personal practices of meditation
During practice of meditation when notice thoughts disappear . experience peace and happy . innerconversation has lost. what is this state?

The state described is basic samadhi ('concentration'; 'collectedness'), which ideally is to be maintained & developed when meditating. MN 19 describes about how the Buddha-To-Be developed samadhi, in the following manner:

I steadied my mind internally, quieted it, brought it to singleness, and concentrated it...So that my mind was not strained. Tireless energy was aroused in me and unremitting mindfulness was established, my body was tranquil and untroubled, my mind concentrated and unified. Quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I entered upon and abided in the first jhāna, which is accompanied by applied and sustained mind, with rapture and pleasure born of seclusion.
MN 19

today during meditation lost the hearing of sounds and feel go into something.is it still Samadhi?

Are you trying to practice Samadhi?
How I practice, Samadhi plays only a supportive role. When I started practicing  Mahasi dry Satipatthana I was practicing Samadhi by accident(I hear that this is a common thing with beginners of this kind of practice). I was not focusing on the actual moment by moment sensation of the breath. I was focusing on my own moment by moment "guess" of what the breath actually was.  I would picture the breath in my mind or I would focus on the noting word "rising, falling" or "in, out" in some way but none of these things were an actual reality happening moment by moment. I was feeling great peace but I wasn't practicing the way I intended to practice.
At some point I started just watching the sensation of the breath as it happened and I stopped experiencing so much peace during this practice but this is the way to "see things as they are" and gain wisdom but I still got to practice Metta.
When I practice Metta, I feel great peace and joy. The mindfulness gained from seeing things as they are allows me to know when to have metta or  compassion for myself.
This is just what I have experienced. I hope it helps.


text:
The monk who ignored his visiting wife and infant son
The following story comes in Udana 1.8.
It is about a monk by the name of Sanghamaji, who, when seated under a tree, was visited by his former wife, carrying their infant son. She tried several times to get his attention, and having failed, left the son at his feet and went a short distance away, to observe his reaction. The monk neither reacted, nor said anything to the woman or her child. She then took back the child and left the scene, while lamenting about her former husband's lack of feelings for them, saying "the monk doesn't even care about his son."
The Buddha, who witnessed this supernaturally, praised the monk, saying (I paraphrase here) that he showed equanimity and is free from attachment, and is therefore a brahman.
We can say that the monk displayed equanimity (upekkha), but then seemed to lack compassion (karuna).
In the essay entitled "Toward a Threshold of Understanding", Bhikkhu Bodhi discusses this:

The Pali word that the Pope interprets as "indifference" is presumably
  upekkha. The real meaning of this word is equanimity, not indifference
  in the sense of unconcern for others. As a spiritual virtue, upekkha
  means equanimity in the face of the fluctuations of worldly fortune.
  It is evenness of mind, unshakeable freedom of mind, a state of inner
  equipoise that cannot be upset by gain and loss, honor and dishonor,
  praise and blame, pleasure and pain. Upekkha is freedom from all
  points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of
  the ego-self with its craving for pleasure and position, not to the
  well-being of one's fellow human beings. True equanimity is the
  pinnacle of the four social attitudes that the Buddhist texts call the
  "divine abodes": boundless loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic
  joy, and equanimity. The last does not override and negate the
  preceding three, but perfects and consummates them.

How do we interpret the actions (or non-actions) of Sanghamaji?
Did he lack compassion? Should he not have addressed his former wife compassionately, and given her an explanation of the Dhamma, and the path to the end of suffering?
The sutta does not say if he ensured that the welfare of his wife and son is taken care of, before leaving the lay life of a householder.

See, listen to breaking promises carefully, if wishing to understand and of course ask if the connex is not traced.

Upekkha is freedom from all points of self-reference; it is indifference only to the demands of the ego-self with its craving for
  pleasure and position, not to the well-being of one's fellow human
  beings. True equanimity is the pinnacle of the four social attitudes
  that the Buddhist texts call the "divine abodes": boundless
  loving-kindness, compassion, altruistic joy, and equanimity. The last
  does not override and negate the preceding three, but perfects and
  consummates them.

BB's explanation here sounds exaggerated & too lofty. Metta is arguably the pinnacle of the social attitudes and equanimity governs the other social attitudes. A lingusistic root of 'upekha' is 'to look'. It means 'to observe others, looking to help others, but always knowing others are the heirs to their actions'. That is, equanimity understands you can only help others when they are willing to help themselves.

Did he lack compassion?

He did not lack compassion. Compassion is non-cruelty & wishing to help others overcome suffering. The ex-wife was not seeking to end suffering but craving to get her former husband back. If the wife walked away from the child & never returned to the child, the monk abandoning the child would have been cruelty. But this did not occur. The monk obviously had compassion but governed his compassion with equanimity, testing the kamma or motivation of his former wife. The former wife returned to look after her child, therefore the wife followed her personal path, which was motherhood.

Should he not have addressed his former wife compassionately, and
  given her an explanation of the Dhamma, and the path to the end of
  suffering?

Absolutely not because the Dhamma says Dhamma is only taught to those who ask for it (AN 9.5).
This story is an excellent example of the practice of equanimity, namely, observantly looking on to help another person according to the kamma or personal disposition of the other person. The wife demonstrated motherhood was her want & destiny. If (hypothetically) the wife completely abandoned the child & there was no one else to look after the child, the monk would have looked after the child himself, similar to how Rahula was ordained as a novice at 7 years of age.

How do you know what the monk would have done?

The Buddha declared the monk was an arahant, namely, "A victor in battle, freed from the tie". An arahant must have boundless compassion. This is Dhamma Law. Regards

I understand your definition of metta and upekha as a tie, a bound. Forcing an arahant to act according to it, according to external circumstances.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is there an absolute and known hierarchy in the Dharma?
Are there resolved authorities in what is called Buddhism or is there an array of separate, respected lineages practicing different things, believing different premises, and therefore in dispute on innumerable points of knowledge and aim? Are monks and nuns more advanced than what are called lay practitioners? Can we assess someone's 'Buddhist progress' by how they look, the way that they dress, speak, and behave? Will someone with knowledge of the Dharma necessarily have read a large number of sermons, tracts, or scriptures from known and agreed authorities. Are there 'solitary saints' whose innate knowledge of the Dharma is so forged as part of their being that exposure to the religion which is Buddhism was unnecessary for their role as a catalyst in waking people up?

"Are there resolved authorities in what is called Buddhism or is there an array of separate, respected lineages practicing different things, believing different premises, and therefore in dispute on innumerable points of knowledge and aim?"
Before Gautama Buddha died, he oriented his disciples to look at the teachings (say, instead of looking for a person) and refused to appoint any kind of successor or "leader of the group". That is the "Buddhism" side. The social and historical side shows (many centuries afterwards) different groups with different important figures emerging, leaders of some sort of that particular group or just influential personalities or teachers.
"Are monks and nuns more advanced than what are called lay practitioners?"
Advanced in practice? Not necessarily. The monastic idea in Buddhism is for those who want to have a greater commitment, whereas dedication with lay life would not be possible or much harder. And since people have different degrees of understanding, it's natural that being monastic or lay is not, in itself, a mark of greater or lower spiritual accomplishment.
IIRC, reports of advanced lay practitioners go back to the time of the Buddha.
However, greater commitment and proper conditions means progress is expected to be faster -- again, that's the whole point of becoming monastic, to be dedicated full time to it.
"Can we assess someone's 'Buddhist progress' by how they look, the way that they dress, speak, and behave?"
Yes. Observable signs include basic traits such as honesty, kindness and harmlessness which are easier to see ordinarily. The greater the progress, the more subtle (and difficult to assess) the signs can be.
"Will someone with knowledge of the Dharma necessarily have read a large number of sermons, tracts, or scriptures from known and agreed authorities"
Not necessarily. Someone with full knowledge of the Dharma necessarily have perfect understanding of suffering, can directly see it's origin, it's ending and, having mastered the way to end it, ended it for good. Since, in the Buddha's dispensation, this is synonym with "Dharma".
That, of course, if we understanding "Dharma" above as the principles of reality of interest. Since "Dharma" can also mean "the teachings of the Buddha" (conflated from "buddha-dharma"), in that case, one certainly has to know the recorded words of the Buddha, which are his teachings.
"Are there 'solitary saints' whose innate knowledge of the Dharma is so forged as part of their being that exposure to the religion which is Buddhism was unnecessary for their role as a catalyst in waking people up?"
Generally, in the Buddhist tradition, these people are known as Buddhas: those who discovered the way out of suffering without being exposed to the teachings of another Buddha. In the tradition, all Buddhas discover the same laws, so what they teach is essentially the same.
The designations get a bit more detailed to distinguish between different people.
For example, Gautama Buddha is referred to as a sammasambuddha: a perfectly enlightened person. This designation is reserved to those who (re)discover the dharma and decide to teach. Because of their special dedication and strivings (and mistakes along the way), they are broadly developed and have full command of the "do's and don'ts" to achieve the goal -- hence being regarded as the "best teacher".
It's generally believed that no sammasambuddha arises while the teachings of a previous Buddha is known. Only when there's no trace of a previous dharma, there are conditions for someone to become a Buddha.
Another designation which is related to the question is the pratyekabuddha, referring to those Buddhas who, after (re)discovering the nature of suffering and ending it, choose to live in solitude instead of teaching.

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


text:
Experience of meditation
During meditation stop hearing sounds and going into darken space experience.After that  there is a gap between inspiration and expiration.short breaths.what's it ?

it's a sign you are entering, i.e., your mind is calm and gathered to a good condition. if you relax and keep it on, not striving for anything, maybe at certain point you will start to see dot of light in the darken space "in your mind's eyes" ~ (from Mahayana training)

"During meditation hearing sounds is stopped and experience goes into a dark space. After that there is a gap between inspiration and expiration.  Short breaths. What is it?"- Is that what is meant?

In Zen, we'd call that Mu.  It's a state of blankness or voidness.  The aim of emptiness meditation is to widen that gap.  Eventually it will pervade your entire consciousness, the in breath, the out breath, and even your total body will be awash in that emptiness.  Once you've done that, then the real practice begins!

When the real practice begins, one should know the arising and passing away of sense objects in that emptiness?

Nope, just look into the emptiness.  As you come out of that emptiness, then you can apply it back to the world of form.


text:
Anatta & Atman the same thing?
I read that atman is pure bliss
I read that anatta is pure bliss

-Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day?
-Is atman the same as anatta in anyway? If yes/no then why?
-Is anatman the same as atta in anyway? If yes/no then why?

Note that the idea of self is absent in Atman. Many Buddhists often think that Atman is contradictory to Anatta. But this is not true when Atman is referred to Paramatma which is devoid of self.

@OnkarKarambe Can you make that into an answer (instead of only a comment)? Explain why they're the same, and/or why they're different?

Interesting. It's the Same with anatta. I wonder how they are related. Could you please elaborate?

I suspect the two words should be read as meaning the same things or as referring to two aspects of the same thing, but in any particular case whether they do will depend on who is using the words.

My understanding is atman means transcendental self, the part of us which relates to the ultimate reality or unified cosmic self: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Hinduism) Whereas, anatta in Buddhism is one of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_marks_of_existence - it is the perspective that permanent, transcendental, or ultimate unified selves separate from causes and conditions, are not possible. Buddha reacted to Vedic thought, and went beyond it in this way. Non-dual schools of Hinduism then reacted to Buddhism.

@CriglCragl No. wikipedia is off on this. In the suttas Buddha called Atman “the only refuge”, the “charioteer of the person” that which is reincarnated. Anatta is 1. A method of noting all thats perceived or conceived as “not self” 2. A characteristic of conditioned existence. (As opposed to “The Deathless”, a term he used...why does Wikipedia think he talked about the deathless if he alwas a monist or nihilist.) He also said, if not for the unborn, unmanifest, there would be no hope in the manifest. Dod you watch the video i sent? How someone can see reincarnation as nondual is beyond me

@Lowbrow https://youtu.be/FEnb2cFWKBs

I have never read 'anatta' is 'pure bliss'. 'Bliss' is a feeling where as 'anatta' is a characteristic of things that is realised by wisdom.
As for 'Atman', this appears to be a concept that changed & evolved throughout the history of Brahmanism & Hinduism. At the time of the Buddha, it appears 'Atman' did not mean bliss or a transcendent state.

The earliest use of word "Ātman" in Indian texts is found in the Rig Veda (RV X.97.11). Yāska, the ancient Indian grammarian, commenting on
  this Rigvedic verse, accepts the following meanings of Ātman: the
  pervading principle, the organism in which other elements are united
  and the ultimate sentient principle.

This is probably why the word 'anatta' does not mean 'not-bliss'.

Sounds right to me but Instead of bliss, they might have meant like wellbeing? I think these were beginning teachings so perhaps they were stretching words beyond precision. I never heard many beginning teachings start out talking about the joys  of dispassion.

The two are opposites. One is Pali (anatta) and the other is Sanskrit (atman).
Anatta translates to the Sanskrit as anatman, often translated into English as 'no-self', or 'no-soul', and represents the teachings against there being an ontological or surviving soul (atman) as taught by many religions. The 'an' portion indicates 'no', which indicates why the two are opposite in meaning.

Anatta isnt the teaching that there is no surviving soul. Common misconception. Anatta is a characteristic of conditioned reality. Obviously someone who taught about reincarnation thought we survive death. As did someone who taught about The Deathless (someone = Buddha)

What is atman? If you refer to atman as a soul which transmigrates after death then you are wrong. There is no soul which transmigrates after death. Rebirth is just an echo of what was the last consciousness at the time of death. Rebirth is like a stanza learned by student from a teacher.
If you refer to atman which is the listener of the ears, seer of the eyes, smeller of the nose, comprehender of the mind then again I am afraid Buddha says there is no such atman.
Buddha goes on to say there is no Atman... Atman is like a illusion. In other words there is no self worth identifying as my or your soul. Like all illusions, the illusion of atman must collapse. Once that happens gates of Nirvana opens for you. As you see the concept of Atman and Anatta are opposite of each other.
Hindus live in the world of Brahman... Understanding of Brahman is the ultimate goal. Buddhists do not live in any such world. Therefore I am afraid Buddhist philosophy leads to a different state of mind. Should we describe that state as blissful ? That I can not answer for sure but it seems blissful is the right answer. Is that blissfulness permanent ? Yes in both the cases it is said to be so. Is that blissfulness me ? Hindus says Yes that blessedness is your self. Buddhists say there is no self.

I wonder if I can ever really know what is meant by specific Hindu concepts like  "Blessedness is yourself" if I don't understand the entire Hindu context that this view is among. Nevertheless, for what it's worth, I try to ask questions. So, is "Blessedness is yourself" taken as an irreducible ultimate reality?  Does it mean   "personality view" or Sakkaya-ditthi is a blessing? How is this idea supported or corroborated? Thank you for your time - Metta

If Blessedness is yourself then why aren't you feeling blessed? "Blessedness is yourself" can not be taken as irreducible ultimate reality. Irreducible ultimate reality is a story. Story which is an error,illusion or like a dream. It is the story of you.

..concepts are all ultimate in a way,  even if we forget but what is reality untouched by human mind, moment by moment in Hindu philosophy?

@Lowbrow Hindu philosophy is open to all kinds of interpretations. I answered from Advaita point of view.

Atman is 'self', Annata is 'no self'.  It's apparent that they are complete opposites.  But could they be the same?  Ask a classical Zen master and you might get a good bonk on the head with his staff.  Which is another way of saying, that's a pretty good question! You can try to answer, but why spoil it?  Maybe the best questions should be left unanswered. Just keep asking the question... The Hindu "I am that" and the Buddhist "I am not that" The same?

Sure saying the word self is the opposite the word no-self. But the doctrines they refer to are not opposite. Anatta refers to conditioned reality being empty of self. Atman is the unconditional transcendant soul. One can believe both Anatta and in Atman, as did Buddha. In other words, one can know all of phenomenal reality is impersonal and empty of selfhood, and then can either believe or not believe that the transcendent is empty of selfhood. Thats the way in which they are not opposite views.

The Buddha didn't teach Atman. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means Nibbana is also empty of self. So Nibbana isn't an Atman. Nirvana isn't an Atman either, since its the realisation of shunyata (emptiness).

It is vey possible that anatta and atman are the same thing.
In Buddhism, Anatta means "non-self." However if the self doesn't exist, what travels from birth-to-birth? According to Lord Buddha the "stream of consciousness" which is essentially karmic energy, travels to different life forms.
In Hinduism the Atman is energy. It is considered the soul. The "karmic energy" in Buddhism is identical to the concept of energy as the Atman.
The difference is that Hindus attribute Atman to the self, whereas Buddhists say that the stream of consciousness is everchanging because of the 5 aggregates  therefore it cannot be attributed to the self. So Buddhists do not cling to the stream of consciousness because of this.

Could the down voters leave constructive feedback please...

Good answer . Check mine too.

Hinduism's Atman is the imperishable and indestructible immortal soul or self that pervades the entire body.

That which pervades the entire body, know it to be indestructible. No
one can cause the destruction of the imperishable soul. Only the
material body is perishable; the embodied soul within is
indestructible, immeasurable, and eternal. ...
Neither of them is in knowledge—the one who
thinks the soul can slay and the one who thinks the soul can be slain.
For truly, the soul neither kills nor can it be killed.
The soul is neither born, nor does it ever die; nor having once
existed, does it ever cease to be. The soul is without birth, eternal,
immortal, and ageless. It is not destroyed when the body is destroyed.
Hindu text Bhagavad Gita 2.17-20

Buddhism's Anatta is from the statement "sabbe dhamma anatta" (Dhp 279) which means that "all phenomena is not self".
So, Atman and Anatta are opposite.

Then the Venerable Ānanda approached the Blessed One … and said to
him: “Venerable sir, it is said, ‘Empty is the world, empty is the
world.’ In what way, venerable sir, is it said, ‘Empty is the world’?”
“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to
self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’ And what is empty of self
and of what belongs to self? The eye, Ānanda, is empty of self and of
what belongs to self. Forms are empty of self and of what belongs to
self. Eye-consciousness is empty of self and of what belongs to self.
Eye-contact is empty of self and of what belongs to self…. Whatever
feeling arises with mind-contact as condition—whether pleasant or
painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant—that too is empty of self and
of what belongs to self.
“It is, Ānanda, because it is empty of self and of what belongs to
self that it is said, ‘Empty is the world.’”
SN 35.85

According to the Hindu school of Advaita Vedanta, Atman is Consciousness:

Atman is all consciousness and holy, the body is all flesh and impure;
and yet, etc., - verse 19
Thus all the three states are unreal inasmuch as they are the creation
of the three Gunas; but their witness (the reality behind them) is,
beyond all Gunas, eternal, one, and is Consciousness itself. - verse 58
The wise should always think with great care of the invisible, the
visible, and everything else, as his own Self which is consciousness
itself. - verse 141
Adi Shankaracharya's Aparokshanubhuti

According to the Buddha, Consciousness is dependently originated and is impermanent. It's not the same Consciousness that roams throughout one's life and continues to another life:

The Buddha
said to him, “Is it really true, Sāti, that you have such a harmful
misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this
very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”
Sati: “Absolutely, sir. As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this
very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another.”
Buddha: “Sāti, what is that consciousness?”
Sati: “Sir, it is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of
good and bad deeds in all the different realms.”
Buddha: “Silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way?
Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently
originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause? But
still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and make
much bad karma. This will be for your lasting harm and suffering.”
MN 38

The same sutta explains that consciousness arises dependent on the six sense media and their sense objects.

Key word “phenomena”. All phenomena is not self. Agree. Technically that is not the opposite of saying a soul that survives death and reincarnates exists, which Buddha did. In other words, one can know all of phenomenal reality is impersonal and empty of selfhood, and then can either believe or not believe that the transcendent is empty of selfhood. Thats the way in which they are not opposite views.

@AlBrown Pls see MN 38: <Sati: “As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another. It is he who speaks and feels and experiences the results of good and bad deeds in all the different realms.” Buddha: “Silly man, who on earth have you ever known me to teach in that way? Haven’t I said in many ways that consciousness is dependently originated, since consciousness does not arise without a cause? But still you misrepresent me by your wrong grasp, harm yourself, and make much bad karma.”>

Consciousness is not Atman. In fact, consciousness is a skanda, its own skanda. And something that can be meditated on btw

https://youtu.be/FEnb2cFWKBs That ones shorter. That said i watch most on 2x

@AlBrown In Hinduism, consciousness is Atman. See Aparokshanubhuti 19 : "Atman is all consciousness and holy, the body is all flesh and impure; and yet, etc." (written by Adi Shankaracharya, the teacher of Advaita). And Aparokshanubhuti 141: "The wise should always think with great care of the invisible, the visible, and everything else, as his own Self which is consciousness itself."

A description of Atman that calls it “Holy consciousness” does not nullify the difference between vijñāna and cit. Vijnana is translated as consciousness. So is cit. For example in the earlier quote where he said consciousness doesnt last, it was vijnana. In particular, the words awareness and consciousness are used in exactly opposite ways depending upon school. Ive noted and disentangled this often for people. In advaita (as your link), cit is usually translated consciousness. Not in buddhism, where consciousness is a skanda (vijnana), which advaitans often call “awareness” (incorrectly imo)

@AlBrown What you are writing here is definitely not Buddhism according to the Pali Canon. You are distorting it by mixing Buddhism with Vedanta.

https://youtu.be/FEnb2cFWKBs . In addition to that, I interviewed the founder of suttayana buddhism (buddhism founded entirely on the suttas) who said the same.

Is it possible that these deep concepts are pointing to the same thing at the end of the day?
Yes I think so.
Part of Buddhist doctrine is, more-less, that self-views are a cause of suffering.
I get the (not very well-informed) impression that the Hindu tradition includes teaching something like, neti neti -- "the self is not this".
A corollary of that search might be that the "self" or Self is something other -- is Atman or Brahman.
Perhaps a Hindu would expect a Buddhist to somehow identify with Nibbana (or the Tathagata), see that as some refuge for a sense of self (or of being, or of action, etc.).
So if selfishness and identifying with the body and the shandhas is an extreme (worldly) position, maybe Atman and so on is logically opposed to that -- and a different extreme!
Whereas Buddhism being a middle way, neither extreme, might say, "not the other extreme either -- i.e. also nibbana isn't self, is anatta".

Wikipedia's Paramatman suggests that the (or some) Hindu doctrine might be similar somehow ...

Selflessness is the attribute of Paramatman, where all personality/individuality vanishes.

... but that article's comparison with Buddhist doctrine says only ...

Buddhism rejects a metaphysics of "ground" such as the paramatman.

I think that there is some Buddhist "metaphysics", and sometimes some doctrine about "ground" (but those are a couple of words I don't know enough of at the moment to explain).

Atman
Atman is the only refuge (DN 2. 100). The uncreated. (“The soul” Ive heard as one translation several times)
Anatta
Anatta is a method (Labeling as ‘not self’), and a characteristic of this reality (it is all empty of any selfhood).
Atman is attained by seeing* that all of phenomenal reality is Anatta (empty of agency and selfhood, conditioned and caused, impersonal)
Realizing the true Atman (soul imo) can be helped by noting ‘This is not self’ about everything ever perceived or conceived or imagined (which is the practice of Anatta).
Summary
So yes, they are highly related.

*Note And by seeing that phenomenal reality is anicca and dukkha too. Anicca meaning ever changeful, and dukkha meaning cannot satisfy, will cause suffering if clung to.

No. In Buddhism neti-neti doesn't stop at consciousness. Consciousness is also anatta, along with the other aggregates. "Sabbe dhamma anatta" means there is no Atman in Nibbana either. So Buddhism doesn't teach Atman.

I agree that neti neti includes consciousness. Consciousness (vijnana) is a skanda (referring to what is usually translated as consciousness in Buddhism.., but most Advaitans have the unfortunate habit of calling Chit “consciousness” and vijnana “awareness”). See 5 min video. https://youtu.be/FEnb2cFWKBs . In addition to that, I interviewed the founder of suttayana buddhism (buddhism founded entirely on the suttas) who said the same.

Advaitans refer to Turiya as pure consciousness, and that is Brahman. There is no equivalent in Buddhism.

I agree with both statements so far. Hey im curious.. please let me know if you get a notification of this

In the Suttas:
Buddha said Atman is the only refuge (DN 2. 100).
Buddha taught centrally that we reincarnate
Buddha said the Atman is the “charioteer of the person”
Buddha said because there is the transcendent Unconditioned, there is hope in the conditioned.
“The eightfold path is the best of paths
For it leads safely to the Deathless."
-- MN 75:
————
Buddha said that in all of conditioned, phenomenal existence, there is anatta (no selfhood); no permanence; and no satisfaction. We must let go and attain the transcendent unconditioned Atman
https://youtu.be/FEnb2cFWKBs

You have mistaken Hindu teachings for Buddhism. The Buddha meant rely on your own effort. Take refuge in your own effort for liberation. He did not say take refuge in Atman.  And deathless does not mean becoming immortal in Buddhism. Becoming deathless means becoming free from the terror of death. You are completely misrepresenting Buddhism. The view of an Eternal Atman is called the wrong view of Eternalism (Sassatavada in Pali or  śāśvata-dṛṣṭi in Sanskrit). You can read about it in DN 1.

@ruben2020 https://youtu.be/52QOc7De0GU

@ruben2020 and how exactly to you reconcile reincarnation with your view?

I have explained rebirth/ reincarnation in this answer.

@ruben2020 “simply the continuation of suffering and the continuation of the chain of conditioned processes. It's not about the rebirth of a specific person or being or self or consciousness.” Thats an interesting view. Certainly nothing the Buddha ever wrote about or implied or even left open as possibly being his view. He talked at length to specific people about their incarnation paths and past lives. You dont have to agree with Buddha. Dont have to pretend he said something if you wanna believe that something. Again, consciousness is not Atman

Please also see this answer by Ven. Yuttadhammo. That should make it very clear. Quote: "The Buddha never, afaik, used a term that could be translated as "rebirth". In fact, the idea of anything being reborn goes against orthodox early Buddhist teachings. Throughout the Buddha's teachings, it is made clear that at the breakup of the body there is birth, not rebirth - as in birth of new things, not the return of anything old."

The same thing was explained by Ven. Buddhadasa in Anatta and Rebirth.

@ruben2020 Need to define what we are calling  buddhism. That’s why I limit it to the original suttas not “orthodox”. At some point I noticed that some are trying to get an outcome of ninatta (no soul), rather than interpreting anatta (not self) honestly. The suttas say if one enters the stream he will be enlightened within seven lifetimes. Buddha told many stories about reincarnation of one to some other form. Just eg: a cow was being slaughtered, the newly pregnant wife wanted mercy on the cow. The cow was so moved that upon death it entered the fetus and was reborn as the woman’s son.

The view of rebirth is based on the right view with effluents siding with merit according to MN 117 and it's explained by AN 5.57 as being able to generate the noble path. It's merely skillful means or upaya to bring upon a mindset of good conduct to those clinging to self-view.

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


text:
Does the Dalai Lama have bodyguards?
Does the Dalai Lama have bodyguards? And if so what does Buddhist philosophy have to say about that? Are they necessary, or are they just to keep with appearances?
ps. The Dalai Lama is one of my heroes so this should in no way be taken as a joke.

Does the Dalai Lama have bodyguards?

According to Ganden Thurman, executive director of the Tibet House;

"...Whenever the Dalai Lama travels, "he has his own bodyguards and staff, of course, and translator and two attendants," Thurman said. "And then the State Department people provide the protection envelope around his person..."

I couldn't find anything about any current bodyguards for the Dalai Lama, presumably due to security reasons.
There are, though, information about former bodyguards;

From Dalai Lama's bodyguard to Dharamshala Municipal Councillor: Journey of a common man

"...DHARAMSHALA, FEB 3: A Tibetan civil servant has been inducted in the Dharamsala Municipal Corporation as a councilor, a feat no one has achieved ever in the history of Tibetan exile. Dawa Rinchen, Dharamshala Tibetan Settlement Officer and a former bodyguard to His Holiness the Dalai Lama..."

Nun now teaches Buddhist psychology, once was body guard for Dalai Lama

"...The Venerable Robina Courtin has led many lives. At 70 years old, she’s been a Buddhist, a Catholic, a musician, a political activist, a radical feminist, a martial arts expert, an advocate for prisoners and even one of the Dalai Lama’s personal bodyguards..."

The Dalai Lama’s Bodyguard

"...Dawa Singya Bhutia (center) was a soldier, trained in Kung Fu and bodyguard to the Dalai Lama..."

The multitasking bodyguard

"...It's no mean feat to be a private bodyguard for the Dalai Lama..."

May this be of use to you.

In DN16, the Buddha praised the protection of Arahats. While the Dalai Lama may not be a Arahat, still the protection of saintly people is implied here.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
"I have heard, Lord, that they do."
"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."

The direct answer (“Yes”) has already been provided, with enough references bh @Lanka’s excellent answer.  But I would like to add a perspective:
The Dalai Lama (for centuries) has been the political head of the Tibetan state and is not just a spiritual teacher (which too, he of course, is — and a very important one too).  The spiritual head of the Gelug sect, to which he belongs, is the head of that Ganden monastery (Ganden Tripa), not the Dalai Lama.
This political status makes him special and revered by Tibetans of all sects (even ones that have been in discord with the Gelugpa).  The ascension of the Dalai Lama is a rare occasion in history where a monastic was on the throne of a country (a “monk-king”, if you will).
It is also natural that rival political forces, rebels, opposing/occupying states would target him in this status. Would it not be logical for a head of state to have bodyguards?
So the situation is not quite the same as states providing security for their arhats or foreign countries providing routine security cover for visiting dignitaries.

And he has until recently, when he made moves to hand over the political responsibility of the Tibetan government in exile to the Kalon Tripa (prime minister), he continued to be the head of the gov. In exile.

Exactly, Would it not be logical for a head of state to have bodyguards? Yes, it would if the appearance of enemies is penultimately real. But what I am asking, is for an interpretation of Buddhist philosphy. Is the appearance of an enemy, an indicator of sorts of the reality of the temporal plane? I follow my teachers as far as I can. One point of context that i'd like to make. It's actually a quote from SciFi author Philip K Dick which i'll have to paraphrase because google isn't working at the moment. The paraphrase is this "Karma is a palm tree garden".

I guess what I’m saying is that the DL, by his job title, has a substantial temporal role. A purely “holy life” existence is already compromised for him.  I did not understand your quote about the palm tree garden.

As a organizing principle for life. Peace on Earth. Utopia. That is what I think is meant by Karma is a palm tree garden. The essence of my point of view is that I doubt that a purely "holy life" could ever be comprised. Adding  just a little to that. I would say that the meaning of Karma is a purity of essence that is shared eternally. It is not the result. It is the beginning. Hope that is clear.

Some security (e.g. counterintelligence, a cordon, secure premises, trusted drivers and so on) are also provided by the State he's in (e.g. the Indian governments, and/or any countries he is visiting).
Even previously, in Tibet, he lived secluded (possibly more so than now).


text:
Selfless charity to poor and needy
Is selfless charity to the non-monastic poor and needy, recommended for Buddhists as part of their practice?
How do the different Buddhist traditions differ from each other on this topic?
Quotes from scriptures to support this, would be appreciated.
The target recipients include the hardcore poor, the homeless, victims of natural disasters, abandoned old folks, orphans, shelterless disabled persons, victims of human trafficking, refugees of war, victims of oppression and other displaced persons.
 Animals can also be included.
"Selfless" here means "concerned more with the needs of others than with one's own".

Charity may be recommended more strongly elsewhere, but SELFlessness is definitely emphasized a lot in Theravāda:)

I know what you meant. I was just joking with the word. More serious answer below.

Charity is recommended as a practice as it cultivates Metta(kindness), Karuna(compassion) in the mind. Buddhism does not say to be selective when you are giving for charity. It just mentions that giving to virtuous beings is more meritorious and the way one should give gifts.

"Selfless" here means "concerned more with the needs of others than
  with one's own".

In an ultimate sense the goal of charity in Buddhism is to cultivate a wholesome mental quality that helps to attain enlightenment. It's not about fixing what's wrong with  the world. There are no others or 'oneself' involved in that sense.

In my past browsing of the suttas, I do not recall any teachings about giving & generosity that emphasize giving to the poor, apart from the duties of the Universal Monarch, which states:

And whosoever in thy kingdom is poor, to him let wealth be given.
DN 26

Generally, most sutta teachings about giving are about giving to family, relatives, monks, deities, noble beings, etc. For example, well-known suttas about giving & benevolence, such as AN 4.61, AN 8.33, AN 8.35, AN 9.5 & DN 31 do not mention giving to the poor.
Since Buddhism emphasizes personal responsibility, including responsibility for society by earning income ethically, righteously or blamelessly, which includes responsibility towards employees, servants, local community, etc, it seems an emphasis upon the existence of a pool of chronically poor people is something Buddhism would prefer not to encourage.
For example, since Christianity strongly emphasizes giving charity to the poor for rebirth in heaven, it seems Christians have a vested personal interest in maintaining a pool of poor people, otherwise they would have no path to heaven; in the same way many left-wing government bureaucrats have a personal vested interest in maintaining social need in order to maintain their jobs.
The above said, after searching & searching just now, I found this sutta:

Now what, bhikkhus, is the kind of person who rains everywhere? Here, a certain person gives to all. He gives food, drink, clothing,
vehicles, garlands, scents, ointments, beds, lodging, and lamps to all
recluses and brahmins, to the poor, destitute, and needy. This is the
kind of person who rains everywhere.
A person renowned for his bounty, Compassionate towards all beings, Distributes alms gladly. “Give! Give!” he says.
Like a great storm cloud That thunders and rains down Filling the levels and hollows, Saturating the earth with water, Even so is such a
person.
Iti 75

"Even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit."
— AN 3.57

The proper time, the proper occation for gifts:

Kaladana Sutta: Seasonable Gifts
"There are these five seasonable gifts. Which five? One gives to a newcomer. One gives to one going away. One gives to one who is ill. One gives in time of famine. One sets the first fruits of field & orchard in front of those who are virtuous. These are the five seasonable gifts."
In the proper season they give —
      those with discernment,
      responsive, free from stinginess.
  Having been given in proper season,
  with hearts inspired by the Noble Ones
      — straightened, Such —
  their offering bears an abundance.
  Those who rejoice in that gift
      or give assistance,
  they, too, have a share of the merit,
      and the offering isn't depleted by that.
  So, with an unhesitant mind,
  one should give where the gift bears great fruit.
      Merit is what establishes
      living beings in the next life.

One does good to remember that aside of normal ways of thinking of gain, own merits are ones person support for ones future.
So if one can inspire and move others to make deeds of generosity, moral conduct and reflextion on Dhamma, such is of real support for others, aside of the proper occations for material gift.
Generaly, which might be the question underlying thought, the Buddha does not encourage in ways of social actions and material support, which if done in improper ways, leads to bonds and often not really to support, like in Chritian or western popular ways of actions, often also with the religion string for the receiver.
Aside of the needed, the focus to nurish good tendencies and virtue, is much effectiver long time support, at least the gift of virtue excells material gift by far since material gift are at least not gained from nothing, might make other beings suffer and poor.
Therfore, (but not to use as an excuse of not giving if one has possibilities to give!! Which is actually a popular excuse under many Buddhists, a trap of defilements, supporting stingyness. Its good to be sure to be a "perfect" giver of outwardly things, one has, fist.)
>

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma. There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things & sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the Dhamma. There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help with the Dhamma."
The gift he describes
  as foremost & unsurpassed,
  the sharing the Blessed One has extolled:
  who — confident in the supreme field of merit,
     wise, discerning —
  wouldn't give it at appropriate times?
  Both for those who proclaim it
  and those who listen,
  confident in the message of the One Well-gone:
  it purifies their foremost benefit —
     those heeding the message
     of the One Well-gone.

It always recommended to give to those with virtues, those free of fetters and those stiving for freedom of the fetters (greed, aversion and delution) first, at least for the long time benefit of all beings. Other might use ones gifts at least not for the benefit of many. So a good amout of wisdom is required to make one a skilled person of giving.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

From Itivuttaka 1.26

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have
  heard: "If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing,
  they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of
  selfishness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite,
  their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared, if
  there were someone to receive their gift. But because beings do not
  know, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they eat without
  having given. The stain of selfishness overcomes their minds.”

Ajahn Sucitto, in his travelogue, Rude Awakenings, also mentions putting out a small quantity of food for some creature before starting his own meal.


text:
Illusion of continuity
I read an article that included the following -
 "Through careful, mindful observation of this process of sensation overlaid with cognitive evaluation, it’s possible to tease apart the raw sense data from all the mental activity about it.
And when you do this, you may notice that the raw physical sensations, which until now you had always assumed to be continuous, are actually absent much of the time.
What’s happening is that raw sense data arise and pass away rapidly in little chunks, with gaps in between the passing away of one chunk and the arising of another.
Some of those gaps can be quite long, relatively speaking, but normally you don’t notice this because all that mental processing about the sense data fills them in, giving the illusion of continuity."
I have been meditating for about 6 years and attended several retreats but I still don't understand this on an experiential level. I dont think I have assumed them to be continuous.
It just seems obvious to me that sensation isn't always there. I get an itch and then it's gone. I have a pain and then it's gone etc etc. maybe I'm misunderstanding this concept??
Does it mean that for example an itch that lasts for 10 seconds is not continuous for the 10 second duration? And same with a pain?   Perhaps my concentration is not strong enough to ever notice this. I try to examine a sensation sometimes but an itch just seems like an itch to me.
I feel I'm not making much progress,if any at all, with this stuff. I read about what is apparently supposed to happen, things you're meant to notice and experience, insights etc but my meditation just seems to be the same thing every single time. Sitting, noticing breath, thinking, noticing breath, itch, thinking, notice breath etc. It feels more and more pointless everyday. I don't seem to be learning to see the "true nature of reality" or heading toward "enlightenment" Why not? Where am I going wrong?

Maybe related: Awareness of two things

Are you practicing insight or concentration meditation?

I practice Insight Mahasi tradition

The way that this question is phrased it gives the impression of asking us what some unnamed author meant, or else it implies that there is one view on this which is correct and the asker of the question wants to be guided to this correct interpretation about that original article. Should we be provided a link to that article in order to more readily respond?

What they mean, is that our experience is assembled from hints presented by the sense organs. The eyes, ears catch glimpses of what's going on, esp. as we move around - and then build a theory from those hints, theory that we see as reality. There's a lot of assuming going on during that process, a lot of interpretation, and a lot of habit.
EDIT
Once you "let go" enough, you start seeing it. By "let go" I mean the unconscious process by which we maintain our contrived world. Nowadays I see it at both micro and macro level. For example as I hold the cup and look at it I can see how the mind "grasps" the "signs" - raw momentary snapshots of some distinct features, and how it "tells" itself what these signs imply by inferring the cup from them. I see how the mind goes over these "signs" again and again in circles, telling itself the story of the cup. Similarly, at the macro level, I can see how the mind grasps the facts of the world and builds the narrative of my life from these.
When some people practice mindfulness, they practice the opposite of letting go. They think mindfulness is when your observation is watertight. But watertight observation is really just a tighter version of the assembly process by which we contrive the world. Instead, as you stop trying to be in control of experience, you start seeing the gaps in the model. These gaps is what we are after - but you can't contrive your way into them, you can't control it - it only comes from letting go, which involves handling tremendous amount of insecurity.
EDIT2
What @xxxx means with his "looking for keys" analogy: normally the way our mind works is, we get a hint from sensory organs, we build a hypothesis of what we are looking for/at, and then we validate it by examining the evidence from sensory organs. If we approach meditation with the same attitude, we would say to ourselves: hey, I must be looking for gaps in experience, gaps in the modeling process, and here is how it's supposed to look like. But you can't see the real gaps with this attitude, this would be contriving gaps with your mind, like dreaming yourself a dream. Instead, it comes from letting go of the inner dialog, of re-telling yourself the story of what you see (micro), and the story of your life (macro).

What's the tag line from Kali Linux?  "The quieter you are, the more you are able to hear."  I use something similar when I'm trying to get my adult nature students to see animal sign - "The deeper you breath, the easier it is to see the small things."  Buddhist practice is based on a similar concept.  While you may be able to see subtle manifestations of consciousness with the ordinary mind, it is much, much easier to see them when we slow ourselves through the practice of samatha.  This isn't to say that you need to attain jhana.  Even access concentration provides a very different perspective than our normal discursive thinking.  Rather than just diving into mindfulness practice, you may benefit from doing a half to a full hour or so of calm meditation beforehand.  Not to discourage you, but I was on the fourth day of one of many, many sesshins before I began to notice that the pain experience was inconsistent - and pain is a very coarse and obvious state!
This next part is going to sound a little woo woo, but it's also very important.  Don't go looking for the atomization of experience.  It's like the indeterminancy principle in physics.  If you try to observe it, it's going to remain elusive.  Think about it - in order to go looking for something, you have to have a mental image of what that thing is going to look like.  I can assure you that what you think this experience is like is, at best, subtly different.  More likely, it's going to be vastly so.  Buddhism is not like looking for your keys.  We really have no idea what we're seeking.  If we did, we'd all already be enlightened!  If you have any preconceptions in your practice, it is going make it next to impossible to discover true insight.

Can you explain what you mean by "inconsistent" (or would you prefer not)? Because that might help to answer the OP's question, "Does it mean that for example an itch that lasts for 10 seconds is not continuous for the 10 second duration?"

Sure - inconsistent in the sense that the experience of pain is not a continuous stream of feeling.  People can tell you that all day long and they'll think you're crazy.  That's especially true if they are on a Zen retreat where pain can seem almost inescapable!  But really, it comes in waves.  And like a wave pattern there are peaks where the pain is intense and troughs where it almost vanishes entirely.  The same is true of the other senses.  Most of our experience is really just empty space.  Our untrained mind smudges everything into consistent blob.

The Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, who taught the Burmese style of Theravadin vipassana, was a man of great compassion. In his “Practical Vipassana Exercises,” for example, he focused on the very practical aspect of vipassana, specifically, what to pay attention to while meditating. Paying attention to sensations is one of many exercises recommended by Mahasi Sayadaw. There are many things to be noticed about sensations (such as continuity or the lack of continuity), but these variations are not important. The exercise consists entirely of noticing or naming it and allowing the next object of awareness to arise. I doubt that your quotation is from the writings of Mahasi Sayadaw. He talked about making “mental notes” such as “imagining,” “thinking,” “reflecting,” “seeing,” “looking,” and “touching,” immediately after such events have occurred. The process of looking for “sensation overlaid with cognitive evaluation” sounds like a Mahayana meditation that progresses towards the realization that all cognition is sunyata (empty). The teachings of Mahasi Sayadaw has an entirely different purpose.
I have practiced traditional Theravadin mindfulness meditation for over 50 years. In order to fully understand the purpose of making “mental notes,” as instructed by Mahasi Sayadaw, it is necessary to understand the Theravadin Abhidharma. You would then realize that, in this practice, you are noting the arising and passing of (the products of) sankhara. A sankhara is an unconscious mental formation that causes us to make sense of experience. For example, when we have a particular yellow sensation, a sankhara will tell us that we are perceiving a daffodil. When we hear about the death of a friend, a sankhara will cause us to experience sadness. When we are playing chess, a sankhara will cause us to select the next best move. Sankhara make consciousness intelligent. In evolutionary terms, sankhara cause the mind to be adaptive. Innate sankhara cause an infant to recognize and feel affection for his mother. Sankhara learned during a previous lifetime can, under supporting circumstances, cause to feel hatred for another person.
The purpose behind taking mental note of passing sankhara to be objective about (be matter-of-fact about) all the (products of) sankhara we experience. This objectivity has certain key benefits. When a (product of) sankhara arises that does not make sense, the unconscious mind will automatically correct that sankhara. During intense and prolonged retreat, deeply confusing sankhara or memories come to mind to be reassessed and revised by the mind. Profoundly confusing experience causes the formation of unwholesome sankhara (“bad karma”). During an advanced state of mindfulness meditation, the recollection of the formation of an unwholesome sankhara can cause us to revise that sankhara and make it wholesome and harmless. After all major unwholesome sankhara are revised or corrected in this manner, nirvana (the Theravadin version of Enlightenment) becomes possible and will arise spontaneously under supporting circumstances. One of the most important consequences of the elimination of unwholesome sankhara is the access to a profound and wise understanding of the psychology of sankhara and karma. The essence of Theravadin teachings is the concept of causality. (The concept of sunyata, as understood by Mahayana Buddhism never occurs in any original Theravadin text.)
In contrast to this process, the Mahayana meditation of separating sensation from “cognitive evaluation” has the purpose of causing a person to experience sensation as real while all cognitive evaluations as illusory. The experience of sunyata (emptiness or absolute truth) occurs when sensation is experienced without the presence of any illusory evaluation or conceptualization. From the point of view of sunyata, even the greatest wisdom from the Theravadin teachings, including the understanding of sankhara and karma, is illusory or absolutely false. (Nonetheless, the understandings of sankhara and karma are still considered to be relatively true.) The essence of Mahayana Buddhism is the concept of sunyata.
A third form of Buddhism consists of Free Land Buddhism, which makes reference to the bodhisattva of Mahayana Buddhism but accepts the Theravadin teachings of causality. The central practice of Free Land Buddhism is mindfulness of Amitabha that consists of a personal relationship with the Buddha Amitabha. This connection with Amitabha is very real and blissful, but no attempt is made achieve nirvana because it is considered to be too difficult. Much faith is put into the healing powers of Amitabha, which are very substantial. The Lotus Sutra of Free Land Buddhism makes no mention of sunyata.
“Where am I going wrong?” You have read and followed mixed teachings. If you have decided to follow the teachings of the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw, then follow his teachings on line. If you decide to follow the Mahayana teachings, then read the books by the Dalai Lama. There are plenty of people out there with the best of intensions believe the Theravadin teachings and the Mahayana teachings are the same. They somehow believe that mixing beer and wine makes Champaign, but the real result is the kind of dead-end practice you have experienced. Only a superficial understanding of these two great teachings allows them to be viewed as the same teaching. Where the two teachings do agree is that unwholesome sankhara (bad karma) cause suffering and delay both the experience of nirvana and the experience of sunyata.

It just seems obvious to me that sensation isn't always there.
There might be to less attention on "either pleasant-nor-unpleasant" feelings. Maybe good to focus more on the many graps of being not attentive enought in this way to be able to obsere it more clearly. Also the "acting-mind" seems to have never been recognised. Phenomenas do also not last, last even 10 secounds.
To get beyound Illusion-of-continuity it needs to be seen who, or better what drives of giving cause for continue birth, birth, birth...
What can be done to gain needed concentration? Improve serious non-stinginess by sufficent acts of generosity and precepts keeping seriously and by heart. This merits give the needed causes.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

"It just seems obvious to me that sensation isn't always there. I get an itch and then it's gone. I have a pain and then it's gone etc etc. maybe I'm misunderstanding this concept??"
Yes, it's as ordinary as you put.
"Does it mean that for example an itch that lasts for 10 seconds is not continuous for the 10 second duration?"
You can refine the observation as much as you are able to and observe differences in the itch during these 10 seconds. A crucial point in these observations is that it's not stable: "it" mutates (impermanence). A second crucial point is that it doesn't seem proper to regard "it" as a substance, because scrutinizing it fails to uncover that "it", that substance. What is there is an on going process changing over time. Any substance we find there, upon scrutiny, is shown to be, ultimately, another underlying process.
"And same with a pain? Perhaps my concentration is not strong enough to ever notice this. I try to examine a sensation sometimes but an itch just seems like an itch to me."
Some people, unable to make it go away, may come to think an itch is something that can be there forever. Some other people may think an itch is an act of spirits. Other people may think that an itch is something that knows you did something bad in the past and is punishing you. This variety might illustrate the kind of people that was exposed to this practice. Then, the practice would help these people see what you just said without the added color and imagination (it's but an itching) but also get in touch with it's workings and real nature.
It get's interesting when instead of itch, we are talking about anger...or even love. Aspirations, fears and desires, things we dislike and so on. Of course, more so if the subject of investigation is ourselves.
"Sitting, noticing breath, thinking, noticing breath, itch, thinking, notice breath etc. It feels more and more pointless everyday. I don't seem to be learning to see the "true nature of reality" or heading toward "enlightenment" Why not? Where am I going wrong?"
The development of this practice (in particular, associated with mindfulness of breathing),  when correctly exercised, has a few benefits such as:

We get undistracted and alert (it prevents proliferations of thoughts).

He should develop mindfulness of in-&-out breathing so as to cut off distractive thinking.
-- AN 9.1

In general, we get calmer and the faculty of concentration is unobstructed (so we can develop it further).

"Contemplating foulness in the body,
  Being mindful of in-and-out breathing,
  Ever ardent and seeing clearly .
  The calming down of all formations"
  -- Iti 85
"For one of right mindfulness, right concentration springs up."
  -- SN 45.51
"Bhikkhus, being alert and mindful, develop concentration that is measureless."
  -- AN 5.27
There are, bhikkhus, forms cognizable by the eye that are agreeable and those that are disagreeable. One should train so that these do not persist obsessing one’s mind even when they are repeatedly experienced. When the mind is not obsessed, tireless energy is aroused, unmuddled mindfulness is set up, the body becomes tranquil and untroubled, the mind becomes concentrated and one-pointed.
  -- AN 4.51

A very important point here is that the practice of concentration is a key pleasing aspect of Buddhism. It's by practicing samatha that we find some protection from undesirable states of mind (anger, frustration, resentfulness, obsessions, etc). It's samatha that envelops us in a kind of pleasure that is beyond the ordinary pleasures of our lives. And it's samatha that gives a taste of the ultimate bliss, Nirvana.
As mindfulness practice calms us and unobstructs concentration, we get in a good position to practice concentration. Then, when concentration gets well developed, it is concentration that unobstructs insight.

All the practices of the eightfold path go hand in hand, they are platforms for each other. They also help explaining each other.
It's important to understand the eightfold path in detail, in order to contextualize what one is doing. It's a map, it gives us direction and means to evaluate where we are. If all we are doing is "mindfulness meditation", it can be hard to know what we should be looking at and what we should be doing or if we are doing something right at all.

Let's start with the 4 noble truth.

there is suffering - the itch
There is a cause of suffering - possibly any cause
there is cessation of suffering - after 10sec the
itch is gone- And this should be enlightening. but if you examine the itch instead of the object of meditation, the itch will be there, and there will be no progress. Focus on object of meditation.
There are paths to the cessation of all suffering - Realising everything is the 3rd noble truth - What you're doing now, meditating and realising itch will go away. Ultimately everything will go away because, everything is empty. And because everything is empty, sentient beings didn't see it, they suffer, so compassion arises.

With vipassana the itch sensation becomes the object of meditation so I'm not sure why you're saying not to examine it

In Vipassana, the object of meditation is the breathing.


text:
Why translate 'X etadahosi' as 'the thought occurred to X'?
Having read translations of suttas in English and also in my native language, I noticed that every single one of them renders the phrase '(this or that person) etadahosi (quoted thought)' (but see the ETA footnote below) as 'then the following thought occurred to (this or that person)'. If I was left to my own devices (i.e. no easy access to the Commentaries - I have the texts, I'm more or less all right with Pali grammar, but my Pali vocabulary is not very good, making reading slow and skimming over Pali text in search of a topic an impossibility), I'd surely come to the conclusion that this construct means something akin to the modern slang 'then (this or that person) was like: ...'. In other words, the literal meaning seems to convey an outsider's perspective while the - assumedly canonical - translations give sort of an inside view of what happens in - or rather: to - the mind of the person in question.
So my question is: why is this particular translation chosen, apparently every time?
I assume, of course, that it is chosen because an explanation to this effect is found somewhere in the Commentaries, and in that case I'd also like to know where can I find it?
ETA: @ChrisW drew my attention to the fact that the original phrase is actually '(to this or that person) etadahosi', the person is not in nominative but in either dative or genitive.
ETA2: I ended up being convinced that the meaning is clear from the grammar alone and not coming from commentaries. The person to whom the thought occurs is in Dative (or Genitive - Dative is my bet, though), and that it is a thought that occurs to them is clear from the fact that a thought follows the construct. So I'm accepting the answer which draws my attention to the fact that the subject is not in nominative.

Not knowing Pali, I always assumed they wanted to put the person in the passive mode - it dawned on someone, someone did not think it out. Will wait for a real expert to answer though.

@AndreiVolkov: I hesitated to mention this in the OQ because I did not want to trigger yet another 'free will in Buddhism' thread, but yes, this is to me the most important aspect of this particular translation, that it adds a statement of passivity wrt. thoughts arising (whereby 'etadahosi' literally means 'was thus', hence my attempt at 'was like'). If there is indeed some commentary leading to this particular choice of phrase, I expect it to be instructive wrt the general issue of free will as well.

I'm not an expert (please consider this instead as an "exercise for the student" for someone to correct).
When it's used in a phrase like, "bhikkhūnaṃ etadahosi", isn't "bhikkhus" there in the plural genitive or plural dative case? Anyway, not nominative. So wouldn't you translate that as "of the bhikkhus", or, "to the bhikkhus"?
You say you translate 'etadahosi' literally as 'was thus' ... could it mean instead, "this was"?
Anyway, given that "bhikkhus" isn't nominative, maybe the most literal translation is, "this was, to the bhikkhus" ... or in other words, "this (thought or statement) occurred, to the bhikkhus".
If I look at other instances of etadahosi I see they too are preceded by a noun with the naṃ or ssa case endings.

Also it sometimes is translated as "they thought".

Indeed, other uses are 'tassa mayham, (vocative) etadahosi', which still could be either Dative or Genitive (of the empathic 'me', I assume: 'so 'ham' as mentioned e.g. in Warder, third edition page 29). It does indeed seem to suggest what you propose, but I'm wary of Pali when it puts noun cases to exotic uses. Maybe it's indeed as simple as that, 'it was to me thus: what if I go and visit this samana Gotama end-of-quote'.

Agreed.  You use the genitive to convey "to it/to him/to them".  Etadahosi is a contraction of the verb in the aorist and etad in the vocative (-a).    So "to themselves the monks were saying"?

I thought the 'a' was the optional aorist prefix to 'hosi'. Etad is in this construct in vocative, not nominative?

It is, but I think this is a contraction etada + ahosi = etadahosi.  Ah, Pali forensics!  How little do I miss thee!

Ok, I feel justified being wary of Pali uses of noun cases. Can't figure out the meaning of etad being in the vocative. Would be simpler with nominative.

I think you might be right, actually.  I'm banging around a bit and I'm finding etadahosi rendered with the space just as often as a single word (for the life of me I can't figure out why!).  I'm revising my translation - "to the monks, it was this/thus" or maybe even "to the monks, this was".

@Kryptozoon I don't see why you call that an "exotic use". I don't know Pali but this way of using (and translating) a noun's case seems to me typical of how case is used (and translated) in (for example) Latin.

Pali seems to me to stretch the meanings of noun cases to cover what would otherwise be covered in IE languages by preposition + case pairs and by my own native language, also lacking prepositions, by a much larger list of 'noun cases' - 18 actual and another 16-18 case-like constructs. Maybe it's just me but to me the noun case as used in e.g. Latin preposition + case does not feel like the original, bare case at all. Probably the workings of some deep mapping of the preposition + case pairs to my native bare cases. So e.g. accusative to denote direction of motion is exotic to me.

English has no cases and requires prepositions instead. Latin requires cases but is often without a preposition (especially in the dative case), so I guess that Pali is like that: i.e. the case is important even where there's no preposition.

+1. “It occurred to him/them” is, in my view, the best translation. This makes it clear why the singular applies. Occurred trumps “was”, “happened” etc because of how the resulting sentence readily makes the right sense in English. “He thought” - not so great. @ChrisW, English totally has cases! He spoke vs. “spoke to him”. It has the same full range of cases as Pāli or Sanskrit. Just not the case-endings, I.e., declension is not the preferred way to indicate the case.

@ChrisW: re: Latin cases. They have their basic meaning (accusative marks the object of action etc.), and they are used alone without prepoistions in those roles, but there aren't enough of them (nor enough prepositions) to cover all possible relationships, so cases and prepositions also pair up, e.g. 'in' + accusative shows target of motion, 'in' + ablative shows placement etc. Pali has no prepositions but still not enough cases, so it must task those few cases with very extended meanings. English has lost case markings for nouns so it created more prepositions (e.g. 'into' vs. 'in').

Because every context of etadahosi are before thought quote. After etadahosi always thought that end with "iti". If you see below search in CSCD search engine,  the quotation start next of every etadahosi, and end at iti.
For below evidence link, I can't found a good CSCD online search engine, you may use below thai's tipitaka insteal. It is not quotation, but you can see each context and iti.
http://www.84000.org/tipitaka/pitaka_item/roman_seek.php?text=etadahosi&modeTY=1&book=1&bookZ=45


text:
How to do metta for a long time (before sleep)?
Usually i do a short metta after vipassana  -  saying good wishes to myself than to someone close than to people i like lsess and less and in the end include all beings
i want to do metta before sleep so i can sleep better-   but it usually takes me a long time to fall asleep no matter the stuff i tryed  ---  so in case i have an hour maybe two before sleeping  -  or even 10 minutes is a long time for me to do metta
how do i extend the metta time ?  -  just repat the metta cycle again and again and again ?

just repat the metta cycle again and again and again?

I guess you mean "repeat the words"?
I think not.
As an analogy: if I decide to go somewhere, then I might be verbal or have some specific direction[s] initially -- I might decide, for example, "I will travel, to that place". After I have started, while I'm going there, however, I won't keep repeating that same phrase -- instead, I am conscious of 1) being somewhere 2) moving in a direction toward a destination 3) what I see on the way.
If I decide to start meditating, instead of what I was doing before, then discursive thinking (producing words) stops. Instead of thinking about words, I think about "real" (defined as "actually existing as a thing", so physical as well as sentient) people, who as people exist here and there in directions more or less far away from me.
Thinking about that physicality (with the intention of being kind "in real life") switches off my discourse. Switching off my discourse, my breathing changes, instead of shallowly I breathe deeply. Conscious of suddenly breathing relatively deeply I'm conscious of being more relaxed, of well-being, of well-being being associated with metta.
Conscious of well-being (or of "travelling in the right direction") I have no desire to change that direction, and instead want to continue in that state. If you're travelling (for example on foot or by car) and start to veer towards the right or the left, then you correct the steering to resume the right path/direction. If I start to leave the state of well-being then I'm conscious of what I'm beginning to do wrong (for example, thinking about myself instead of expanding my conscious attention to include and wish well towards other people, or for example beginning to think discursively again), and undo that (don't continue in the wrong or less rewarding direction) to return to the right direction.
Doing this in bed is especially pleasant: relaxed, warm (under cover), eyes closed. Eyes closed makes it easier to expand/extend my awareness (or imagination or consciousness) of space (instead of being stuck behind my eyes and looking in one direction, i.e. visual consciousness).
Warm and relaxed, and breathing, contributes to the feeling of well-being. Sometimes my thought (or focus of awareness) comes back to my body (instead of being 'out there'). I think that's because it "needs attention" e.g. it's tense or uncomfortable in some way ... it's enough to consciously relax that part (musculature) that feels of tense, for the feeling (of tenseness) to go away, after which my mind is free to leave again.
It usually isn't very long before I'm asleep, though. See also Meditating as sleep aid.
Another pleasant thing about a metta meditation is that it's time to do nothing except goodwill (i.e. wishing people well). It's time to stop making practical plans, to switch off the discursive machinery.

how do i extend the metta time ? - just repeat the metta cycle again and again and again ?

Consistent and diligent practice together with the balancing of the Five Spiritual Faculties, especially; Energy & Concentration.
Each week one could try to increase sitting with e.g. 5 minutes.

Yes but how exactly to increase the time  ?  to repeat the cycles from scratch again and again ?

You can try Tonglen, it's a kind of Metta meditation when you serve as the filter for the world. Breath in all trouble, pain, and confusion of the world and breath out peace and happiness. You can do it for a long time until you fall asleep.

This always confused me  -  i like the concept of it a lot  ,  but the breating in " trouble, pain, and confusion"   seems to be clashing with my idea of metta practice which includes the self

That's the whole point, to get over that fear of self - protection. You feel stronger when you do it, stronger and (counterintuitively) purer, it's a kind of trick based on "this-that-conditionality".

I like it  - but my teachers instruction is to do a very short metta after the vipassna mediation ....  so i dont want doing this new metta thing in other times to effect the metta i do after the sitting vipassana meditation

Actually sending metta to self is usually the harder part for most people - i tryed the practice you suggested once and its very easy for me to do  -  but i dont want it to effect my regular metta practice i do after meditation

so what im asking is is there a way to practice  Tonglen without harming my regular metta practice ?

Vipassana meditation and Tonglen practice are from the Theravadin tradition and the Mahayana tradition, respectively. Within their own traditions, they have very different objectives. Vipassana meditation has the objective of uncovering psychological insight into one’s own sankhara, while Tonglen practice has the objective of overcoming the self-centeredness of the belief in self (that must eventually be overcome by the experience of sunyata). Since your teacher recommends the practice of both (vipassana followed by Tonglen practice), I would recommend (only after you consult with your teacher) that you put enough time (perhaps a half hour) to allow you mind to “change gears” from an intensely dry and objective meditation to a deeply emotional practice.

One may start to face him/herself and - by remembering/reflecting on ones done good deeds and qualities - thinking - wishing "May I be at ease, my I gain peace and liberation with ease", then, by dedicating at the same times ones done merits, swift to the most beloved, best most obligated (teacher in Dhamma, admirable friend, Sangha, parents...), best by name or imagening, "May X be at ease, may he/she gain peace and liberation, by him/herself, with ease", then further, friends, all you know who come to mind, best one by one, the "bad one", next village, next countr_, the seen, unseen, big, small, every creature, what ever lives, ... in all directions, all realms... it's good to verbalice and imagen as long as possible, aloud or by thought. If not having falled asleep till got all cover all, without doubt, you probably will not care much about sleep/not sleep, prefer to dwell mindful and watchful in this realm.

"For one whose awareness-release through good will is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken, eleven benefits can be expected. Which eleven?
"One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and — if penetrating no higher — is headed for the Brahma worlds.
"These are the eleven benefits that can be expected for one whose awareness-release through good will is cultivated, developed, pursued, handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, consolidated, and well-undertaken."
Metta (Mettanisamsa) Sutta: Good Will

Good detail teachings on Metta, also in relation to Vipassana, one may find in Ven. Nyanadassanas Words on Karaṇīya Metta-Sutta
A probably good way and of course most traditional, would be if putting effort into learning to maybe recitate the Karaniya Metta Sutta You may make use and follow the Venerables of Wat Metta:
Audio download (pali/engl) and the text to it. Then chanting it, while starting to follow above steps.
Having later found good understanding of metta, one might arrange ones "own" gift with short or extended stanzas.
Metta & Mudita
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
"Monks" includes everybody?
I have often heard that in many places in the suttas where the Buddha says Bhikkave, (monks!), he really means to include the four parisā (assemblies), which includes lay male and lay female devotees. Therefore, it is said, that teaching applies to all.
Where did this idea get legitimacy? Is there any mention in the canon itself?
I can readily see why one would wish it were so (why would one ignore all the wisdom because it's not spoken directly to oneself) but that doesn't mean it is so.
I'm also interested if this explanation is offered in Mahāyāna where the meaning of saṅgha itself is broader, as I understand. Also within Insight/Theravāda circles, is there a difference between the West and traditionally Buddhist countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand in the reading of this word. Any historical insight into whether the West was influenced by the early arrival of Mahāyāna to its shores, for example.
Edit:  I am aware that it makes sense to view the teachings as applying to everybody. Please note that the question is more specific - is there canonical support (in any canon) for this interpretation? Or some other historical information other than using our own logic.

In Mahayana, Samgha is Samgha - monks only. In Mahayana Canon, it doesn't need to pretend that when the Buddha said "Bhiksu!" it also "meant" the Upāsaka and Upāsikā. There are plenty of Sutras recorded the sermons Buddha given, among the audiences his Bhiksus, kings... lay Buddhists and villagers... It's ridiculous to believe that the Buddha only taught Bhiksus, all addressed only Bhikkave, (monks!), right? Even today a monk can give sermons to 1000+ audiences, but not the Buddha?

Even Jesus in his sermon there were 5000 fed by his 5 loaves 2 fish but not the Buddha? Where are those missing teachings of the Buddha?! In Mahayana Canon such freakish condition doesn't exist. Example, there Sutra recorded the conversation between the Buddha and King Bimbisara in the sermon, Bimbisara, the great patron of Buddha so well known, representing the Upāsaka... how could he be missing in the authentic Buddhist records? Also, Samgha is one of the Triple Gems for Buddhist takes refuge, it can't be another lay Buddhist, right? I may write an answer given time...

Very interesting, @Mishu米殊 So there is no second meaning of Sam̐gha in Mahayāna either? I’ve heard the word being also used at a local Chan temple and also a Tibetan group to mean fellow travellers on the journey (e.g. “my Sangha”).  Certainly also in Insight circles. Have you never heard such usage? Also, no Bhikṣave in Mahayana?

@Mishu米殊 well, yeah. It may be ridiculous.  But as I stated in my question, is the belief that it is broad mentioned in the scripture or do we have to just rely on our own reasoning and “common sense” etc?

Where exactly did you hear what your wrote in your question? There are suttas addressed to bhikkhus, householders, brahmins, etc. A sutta to bhikkhus is obviously for bhikkhus, however, if there were laypeople in the audience, they would obviously hear the teaching &, if capable, would practise that teaching.

It is an effect by wrong way commentary reading of the western professors and thai professors, because they have not enough skill to read pāli tipitaka and commentary.
Commentary just want to said:

Buddha called "bhikkhave" because the listeners in front of buddha are bhikkhu. But it doesn't means the other buddhist people can not practice follow that sutta.

But in the appearing commentary doesn't said  "because the listeners in front of buddha are bhikkhu", like above, because it is simple in mukkhapātha tradition to call just the specify target, most cases are the nearest. And the most buddha's nearest people were bhikkhu.
Today, you can see in the classroom, when the teacher ask someone to teach
, such as "Peter! don't break the school's rule", it doesn't means "just that one can't break", but it means "everyone in school can't break". It is simple, so it doesn't need to explain as "the others can't break, too."
There are some excepted cases that should use the difference meaning of "bhikkhave", such as in 1st vinaya rule. For those, there had the explanation in commentary, case by case. It does't means "commentary commented by there own opinion", but it means "that sutta's context or the other related sutta make the commentary commented like that". Because the commentary teacher must be tipitaka memorizer in ancient theravāda tradition, such as ancient mahāvihāra monastery.
I don't want to blame the others, but I must specify an actual main problem cause of new age buddhist students, that make them feel so hard to study buddha's teaching.

You would not like it, you don't like it, in all that instances where the Buddha rebukes and uses harsh words, give you certain names... and remind you on you duties saying "Bhikkhus!", do you?... so "it's a shame..." counts just for the sweets in the question, or?
On an ideal level it can incl. also novices, wanderers, lay people... Most significant to find a indication is surely the Dhammapada, when of course it is not everywhere clear that the Buddha spoke in such a broad manner.
See Brahmanavagga and Bhikkhuvagga.
(One needs to remember that many of those quotes are actually speaking of Arahats, which by nature could not live more than some days as lay person if not able to leave home.)
The general implemented feeling for modern and western lay Buddhist that they are directly and conscious incl. is merely founded on a marketing strategy, similar with "you can" advertising to lift the self-esteem and sell in this way a product.
In traditional countries really as good as no lay Dhammika would ever be dare to estimate him/herself being directly addressed. People living since long time next Bhikkhus with Vinaya know and get aware that there is even outwardly a big difference.
The phenomena that householder getting, aside of those being actually strong involved in monastic live, into the teachings of monks/Bhikkhus is a very young one, and again, has much to do with improper livelihood and trading in Dhamma: a wrong livelihood phenomena of monks.
But here we are, and one can be sure that it was not the most smartest way, going along with the Vipassana-for-everyone-movement from Burma and the imperial visions from Sri Lanka, perhaps leaded by Anagarika Dhammapala and German Dhamma-trading monks, introducing selling of Dhamma in the world since actually no foundation of the original ecomomy of generosity could be found ever for some hand full monks.
It's actually a 98% laymans enterprise what western and modern "Buddhists" experiances as "Buddhism". When speaking about laymans/householder enterprise it incl. all the many monastics who actually live and trade in improper dependency.
If that situation becomes more clear, if one understands that there is actually no functioning Sangha of Bhikkhus in the West till today, it becomes clear why the market requires to pychological lift householder generally on the same level.
How ever, as the Buddha told, real homelessness is a matter of being ot attached to the senses.
In this regard, if one trains after having mastered virtue already, to abound sensuality (e.g. eight Silas serious, or ten), that would be the time one could really take on the teachings torward the Bhikkhus in meaning and detail.
There is no problem to listen and read about the teachings directed to the Bhikkhus, they are no secret at all, but for ones own welfare it's good to know and understand whether one is directly spoken to or an Upasaka/Upasika (one who comes near), or even have not really taken refuge in the gems yet.
Today there are many of the third kind, with not even respect for the juwels, estimate themselves as Bhkkhus/Bhikkhunis.
Formal a Bhikkhu is a person who is by the status bond to Vinaya and the rules, a person who formal seeks nothing in the world but fears it. That is aside of (Noble) beggar (one who does not ask for anything and keeps high virtue) the second deeper meaning of Bhikkhu: one who fear the world.
Another thing worthy to note is, that the word Bhikkhu was used even by the Buddha before the founding of the Sangha. The Buddha addressed his his former ascetic fellows before awakening, later also as Bhikkhus while still having not taken refuge in him.
So when reading the Buddha addressing "Bhikkhus" than it's good to see it in a dhammic way: exclusively from free given alms living people who live a live to end suffering, keep virtue (not harming, not taking) and restrain from any sensual pleasure: eg. people with right resolve (followed by actions in accord).
So if on that level, where ever you might be, be sure that the Buddha includes you directly when speaking to "Bhikkhus".
If today or at the moment not in this range, better then to missuse it for certain overestimation of oneself, to take it as a powerful drive to reflect on the Sangha and for mudita, ideals which are worthy to work on gaining them, preparing ones own way in a proper manner step by step, building the foundation that can no more be removed if right done.
Such is in all cases wiser as to risk a suggested run throw muddy waters. And at least, one who stands aside, is not easy personally touched. If one likes to take an addressing "Bhikkhu" even now and here personal: good, but take than also the hard rebukes and calling you a fool very personal. So it's like everything in the world, to have pleasure one needs to take the pain as well, even for the way out of this dilemma.
May all of you become Bhikkhus (in an ideal sense) soon and by that means transcendent the world and suffering, oldage, sickness and death.
May all of you wisely honor and respect the fastly disappearing Sangha of the Bhikkhus, nurish and maintain it, knowing that there will be possible the time and existence where oneself would wish to still have such an even and layout path and community. Nothing appears without previous and present given causes.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]


text:
single word for metta in English language
I have been struggling to find a single English word for "metta".Think I have failed. Once I read "what Buddha thought"by Walpola Rahula Thero mentioned as Universal Love which I don't agree as universe is man made theory. Also love is an attachment. so if someone mention a single word for "metta" please. So are there any single word? If there is not single word,what the reason?

Maximum I can reached is "endless love" are there any interpreter to suggest any better single word in English

Universal as an English word doesn’t depend on what your views about the universe are.

Whatever means "wish you happy".

I like 'good-will' but 'universal love' is also good and does not imply attachment or the planets.

Mettā means Goodwill, goodwill (german: Wohlwollen, wish for wellbeing/aspiration for heal), wishing the best, is possible the best rendering for best path effects.
In such a way goodness is not binding but gives way and release, freedom.
Friend (mitta), german Freund, assosiated with Freud, joy, pleasure, heal: e.g. giving sukha, ease.

(Special Met[t]a-Note: Let my person add that the common used excuse "oh, it's difficult to translate" or "there is no similar word in engl.", people hear all to often, is also pointless in regard of metta. Metta in buddhist countries is a common used word and is used like the word love by people, right or wrong, depending on their understanding, context... And what sounds/signs/pixels/bits are used to try to express a certain experience, vision or idea: just one who knows, knows, by direct experians. Nothing can be really explained either by one or million words. Sometimes not even one word is required to understand. So watch out.
This just that one might be careful if hearing someone using the word love (generally: other words as used to), not to be preoccupied "wrong! He/she does not know". Listen further and try to see context and preoccupation in regard of a conventional level first. Wisdom is not found in forms of expression, whether in Pali, Sanskrit, English... signs, smells, taste, bodily touch, and again ideas.
Todays liberal and creative use of words might make it easier for wise but much more difficult for fools, not to speak about 'common sense' dictionaries and encyclopedias... Use "mojo" as translation if you wish (if you endless mojo is already killed), but don't lose it and take care of it "like a mother takes care of here only son". Worthy to read in regard of this: Methuna Sutta to find out where metta becomes really an attitude of Brahmacariya.)
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Mettā:
Commonly translated as Loving Kindness which is simply because a group at PTS chose that over a century ago and that just stuck. The problem with that is that sometimes people already have associations with the English words “loving” and “kindness”, put them together and think “well, now I know exactly what mettā means.”
Some other translations:
Amity
Kindliness
Goodwill
Benevolence
Friendliness
Friendliness can mean different things to different people in English.  Here it doesn’t mean niceness but a sincere well-wishing for the other person.  Like the goodwill a true friend has.  Note that the corresponding Sanskrit word is maitri.  Both words are derived from the word for ‘Friend’ which is mitta in Pāli and Mitra in Sanskrit.
To be distinguished from Friendship, which is mittatā / mitratā.
As to why there isn’t a single word, that’s a common problem in translation between any two languages.  Some concepts are prominent in debate and discussion in some cultures, but are not in others. So while translating, one has to find ways to adapt them, often having to use multiple words. Consider zeitgeist and schadenfreude from German, for example. How many words would be needed to express them in English if we hadn’t adopted these words directly.
The fact that words like karma and mettā are kept intact in English is a sign that those who tried before us found it hard or impossible to find a single pre-existing good word in English for that idea.

There's a practice called "metta meditation" or "metta bhavana" (see also bhavana).
There's a text (or a chant) associated with that meditation, for example,

Aham sukhito homi
  (May I be happy),
  Niddukkho homi
  (may I be from from suffering),
  Avero homi
  (may I be free from enmity),
  Aroko homi
  (may I be free from illness),
  Abyapajjho homi
  (may I be free from malice),
  Anigho homi
  (may I be free from suffering of body and mind),
  Sukhi attanam pariharami
  (may I protect my own well-being).
  Sabbe Satta
  (Whatever beings there are),
  Sukita hontu
  (may they be happy),
  Niddukkha hontu
  (may they be free from suffering),
  Avera hontu
  (may they be free from enmity),
  Aroka hontu
  (may they be free from illness),
  Abyapajjha hontu
  (may they be free from malice),
  Anigha hontu
  (may they be free from suffering of body and mind),
  Sukhi attanam pariharantu
  (may they protect their own well-being).

Even if a few words (details) of that translation are debatable, the overall message seems to be clear -- metta seems to mean "wishing well" (e.g. "I wish you well"), also known as "good will" or "benevolence" ("good will" and "benevolence" are the same word, one with Germanic etymology and the other with Latin), especially in a negative sense ("absence of harm" and "absense of malice", and not e.g. "given wealth"), though it may be active (intentionally not causing harm).
I'm not sure why but there's some other version[s] of the text, for example:

Aham Avero homi
  abyapajjho homi
  anigho homi
  sukhi‐attanam pariharami
May I be free from enmity and danger
  May I be free from mental suffering
  May I be free from physical suffering
  May I be able to take care of myself happily
Mama matapitu, acariya ca, natimitta ca ...
  May my parents, teachers, relatives and friends ...
Imasmim arame sabbe yogina ...
  May all yogis in this compound ...
etc

The's a similar statement in a sutta called the metta sutta, which starts with:

May all beings be happy and safe. May they have happy minds ...

So are there any single word?
In summary I agree with "goodwill" or "benevolence" as the best single-word translation.
If there is not single word, what the reason?
I think there are two reasons:

There's a range of social activities or attitudes that metta applies to, ranging from (at the low end, i.e. at a minimum) non-violence and non-emnity, to (more positively) security and friendship.
Each English word might have a different range of meaning; for example "benevolent" (whose literal/original meaning is "intending good") often implies some kind of charity (e.g. donating wealth or services) in English ... that sense of money-related charity, which is present in the English word, might be absent in the original: so translators look for a different English word (like "friendship").