text:
Why is desire the root of suffering?
I fail to understand how this teaching would ever help man become productive. Please help me understand this.
Not everyone seeks nirvana and some people want to better the world, not only for themselves but for their family and countrymen. They do so either out of desire to reduce others' suffering or by seeking alleviation for their own sufferings. I've read a lot of self help books which emphasize the need for desire as such, and faith in oneself to achieve that desire. Is that not how every living being functions - driven by desire?
Every business that is built is motivated by a desire. Every material possession is obtained through desire. We can extrapolate that to the spiritual realm by saying that man travels, meditates and watches his thoughts driven by a desire to attain spiritual peace and fullfilment.
Thus I ask, how can desire be the enemy? Shouldn't it be greed instead?

See also Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?

I would suggest starting simple- take up meditation, understand the principles and see if there is any truth to it.
Rather than trying to outright disprove it based on pop cultural summaries of Buddhism.
Mindfulness in Plain English by Bhante G is a good starting point. The first chapter should answer some of your questions: http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/mindfulness_in_plain_english.php First chapter of this book "Why meditate" is a good primer on suffering.

I think that the Pali distinguishes two words:

tanha -- "craving" or more literally "thirst"

chanda -- "desire" or maybe intention

One of the six occasional mental factors in the Theravada Abhidharma; in this tradition, chanda is a factor that can have positive or negative result depending upon the mental factors that it is co-joined with.
This kind of desire must be distinguished from desire in the reprehensible sense, that is, from lobha, greed and raga, lust. Whereas the latter terms are invariably unwholesome, chanda is an ethically variable factor which, when conjoined with wholesome concomitants, can function as the virtuous desire to achieve a worthy goal.

See also this definition.

The second noble truth says that "craving" is the origin of suffering (and so is not a Good Thing).
Whereas "desire" might be good or bad depending on what it's a desire for -- e.g. whether it's a desire for something wholesome or unwholesome (and maybe also depending on whether you act on it skilfully).
An example of a wholesome desire might be a desire for enlightenment. The Uṇṇābhabrāhmaṇasutta (SN 51.15) begins to explain that seeming paradox -- if the "goal" or "purpose" is "give up desire", how can you desire that?
Shouldn't it be greed instead?
Maybe it is -- or "greed as well".
Describing the "three unwholesome roots" introduces another word, rāga -- sometimes translated "passion" or "lust" or "greed".

Working on your hobbies, advancing your career, growing a business, developing a family, nurturing a child, improving your health through good diet and exercise, going on vacations, increasing your wealth, using your money for the enjoyment or development of yourself and others, raising your status in the world, attaining fame in society etc. could all make you happy.
It would not just make you happy, but also your family and people around you. If you start a business, you might create jobs for others. If you buy goods and services, you sustain others' income.
All these types of worldly happiness definitely need sensual cravings (kama tanha) and cravings of becoming something (bhava tanha).
Buddhism teaches the pursuit of happiness and the elimination of suffering (dukkha). The short term happiness goal in Buddhism is worldly happiness, when it is achieved through virtue, merit, charity and harmony. Also see this answer to the excellent question "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?".
Here's another example of a sutta where worldly happiness is preached in Buddhism. From AN 5.58:

He always does his duty toward his parents;
  he promotes the welfare of his wife and children.
  He takes care of the people in his home
  and those who live in dependence on him.
The wise person, charitable and virtuous,
  acts for the good of both kinds of relatives,
  those who have passed away
  and those still living in this world.
He benefits ascetics and brahmins,
  and also the deities;
  he is one who gives rise to joy
  while living a righteous life at home.
Having done what is good,
  he is worthy of veneration and praise.
  They praise him here in this world
  and after death he rejoices in heaven.

However, worldly happiness is a short term type of happiness. Nothing ever lasts.
Your health and youth would not last forever. Your loved ones or friends may forsake you. Your career or businesses may dwindle. Your money and possessions may get stolen. Your peaceful life in your country may be replaced by civil unrest.
No one knows this better than the Buddha, who was a prince who had everything. Realizing that worldly happiness would not last forever, he set out to find permanent happiness and eventually found it. To achieve permanent happiness, you must uproot craving.
There are three types of craving (tanha): craving for sensual pleasures, craving to become something (that makes someone have ambition) and the craving to not become something (that makes one suicidal or withdrawn).
If you crave for food, and eat some tasty food, you may cling to it or become attached to it. You think and fantasize about it even when it's not there. That's clinging or attachment. Craving gives rise to clinging and clinging gives rise to greed or lust to acquire it.
If someone prevents you from getting the tasty food that you cling to, then you feel angry. That hatred or aversion arises because you were denied what you cling to.
If this anger makes you enraged that you go and harm this person who prevents you from getting what you want, this is delusion. Delusion clouds your better judgment.
The craving to become something is similar. Examples are like wanting to get a gold medal or to get a promotion or to become doctor or professor or get recognition etc.
If you crave to get recognition and get it once, you may cling to it and want it even when it's not present. This leads you to do things to get recognition as you have greed (or lust) for it.
If you don't get recognition, but someone else does, you become envious. That's aversion.
If continuously not getting recognition leads you to become depressed, which clouds your normal healthy state of mind, then that's delusion.
That is how craving is the root of all suffering. When you uproot craving, you will uproot suffering.
Of course, it is not a MUST that you seek the permanent happiness of Nibbana. If you are only seeking the short term type of happiness, that is worldly happiness, make sure you include virtue, merit, charity and harmony. At the very minimum, the practice of the five precepts is needed.

The word "desire" is an English word. The Buddha did not speak English.
Buddhism teaches "tanha" is the root of suffering. "Tanha" is generally translated as "craving". It literally means "thirst". "Tanha" is uwnwholesome.
Therefore, in respect to meditation, the type of "wholesome or skilful desire" used in meditation is called "chanda iddhipada" or "samma-sankhappa".

As for the worldly materialistic examples in the question, you answered your own question, when you said: "Not everyone seeks nirvana".
The abandoning of tanha is for those who seek Nirvana. Therefore, what is the point of your question?
As for suffering, whenever it occurs, there is craving. Therefore, craving is the root of suffering.
If you crave to be a billionaire and you achieve this, obviously there is no suffering about becoming a billionaire.
But if you crave to be a billionaire and you do not achieve this, obviously there will be suffering about becoming a billionaire and this suffering is caused by the unfulfilled craving.
Or if you want your children to do good things but your children refuse, if you suffer about this, this is due to your "desire" or "craving". Therefore, even "good desires" can bring suffering.
In conclusion, whenever suffering arises, a cause of this suffering will be "craving" or "unwise desire". "Craving is the root of suffering". This is an irrefutable fact.

As the Buddha explains in numerous suttas, desire is the root of suffering because it sets the gears of becoming in motion.
Becoming is a process of gradually emerging (and supporting already emerged) sense of individual narrative, the story of "my" life. Once there's such story, there's a framework for judging experience as right or wrong, success or failure etc. Once there's judgement, there's suffering.
So, once there's desire, there's purposefull activity, once there's purposefull activity, there's food for the sense of I, once there's sense of I, there is comparison, once there's comparison there's suffering.

It isn't an enemy but very required. Seeing that desire is, out of not-knowing, the cause of suffering, one needs a lot of desire to get ride of it.
Isn't desire for sensuality, becoming, not-becoming the actual reason why people neither help themselves or others? How can someone full of desire help anyone?
Without desire nothing can be reached, but after having abound all desires there are no more limits in regard of help.
So maybe investigate what keeps you from really helping, being helpful.
(note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertain ones desires toward this circle here, but for some desires to go on to leave it)

Buddhism is not understood with our mind, but with our experience.
Do the meditation and other practices, and gradually over months, years, you will start to SEE the connection between your desire and your suffering.
Each Buddhist proves Buddhism to themselves through their practice and that is the only way to understand an experience.

the buddha says that chanda is bad because it is the source of what is like or disliked and what is liked and disliked is the source of ''jealousy and stinginess'' which are bad.

“Dear sir, what fetters bind the gods, humans, demons, dragons,
  fairies—and any of the other diverse creatures—so that, though they
  wish to be free of enmity, violence, hostility, and hate, they still
  have enmity, violence, hostility, and hate?” Such was Sakka’s question
  to the Buddha. And the Buddha answered him:
“Lord of gods, the fetters of jealousy and stinginess bind the gods,
  humans, demons, dragons, fairies—and any of the other diverse
  creatures—so that, though they wish to be free of enmity, violence,
  hostility, and hate, they still have enmity, violence, hostility, and
  hate.” Such was the Buddha’s answer to Sakka. Delighted, Sakka
  approved and agreed with what the Buddha said, saying:
“That’s so true, Blessed One! That’s so true, Holy One! Hearing the
  Buddha’s answer, I’ve gone beyond doubt and got rid of indecision.”
And then, having approved and agreed with what the Buddha said, Sakka
  asked another question:
“But dear sir, what is the source, origin, birthplace, and inception
  of jealousy and stinginess? When what exists is there jealousy and
  stinginess? When what doesn’t exist is there no jealousy and
  stinginess?”
“The liked and the disliked, lord of gods, are the source of jealousy
  and stinginess. When the liked and the disliked exist there is
  jealousy and stinginess. When the liked and the disliked don’t exist
  there is no jealousy and stinginess.”
“But dear sir, what is the source of what is liked and disliked?”
  “Desire is the source of what is liked and disliked.”
“But what is the source of desire?” “Thought is the source of desire.”
“But what is the source of thought?” “Concepts of identity that emerge
  from the proliferation of perceptions are the source of thoughts.”
https://suttacentral.net/dn21/en/sujato

Social help for needy, poor and depressed is always worthy. But still the who helping do not know the root cause of pain. Buddha was requested by King Bimbisara to abandon the search, instead make service to their fellow being and be happy. But Buddha said, the root of suffering is deep. Even the path of service is temporary happiness and also last in conflict. There is subtle cause in each living being that who don't give up, are bound by law of karma to become again. Pulling out the very root is called as total remedy. But while doing so if he doing this great deeds for welfare for others, Buddha has no objection? It's your duty.

Seems like you are referring to the 2nd Noble Truth:

"And what is the noble truth of the origin of suffering?"
"It’s the craving that leads to future rebirth, mixed up with
  relishing and greed, looking for enjoyment in various different
  realms." (MN 141)

Here the word "taṇhā" is translated as craving but it's not the same as desire.
From my personal observations and experiences I've concluded that painful feelings are the cause of suffering some what similarly to dependent origination:

"Feeling is a condition for craving."
vedanāpaccayā taṇhā; (SN 12.1)

Painful feelings are not really the same as desire but can be associated.
Anything that causes painful feelings causes suffering but if someone were to have wishes or desires that causes pleasant feelings or leads towards arahantship it would be beneficial.
Right Effort is part of the Noble Eightfold Path and requires desire and energy in the right direction:

“And what, bhikkhus, is right effort? Here, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu
  generates desire for the nonarising of unarisen evil unwholesome
  states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and
  strives. He generates desire for the abandoning of arisen evil
  unwholesome states…. He generates desire for the arising of unarisen
  wholesome states…. He generates desire for the maintenance of arisen
  wholesome states, for their nondecay, increase, expansion, and
  fulfilment by development; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies
  his mind, and strives. This is called right effort." (SN 45.8)

The Eigthfold Path is the path towards ending suffering.
It is also mentioned that iddhi development is required for achieving arahantship, which requires desire as well:

“Mendicants, all the mendicants in the past … future … present who
  realize the undefiled freedom of heart and freedom by wisdom in this
  very life, and who live having realized it with their own insight due
  to the ending of defilements, do so by developing and cultivating the
  four bases of iddhi power." (SN 51.7)

The four bases of iddhi is defined as developing concentration founded on desire, persistence, intent, and discrimination.
The purpose in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship or enlightenment which is the highest happiness the most extreme pleasantness...and desire is required to achieve this.
Arahantship is defined as āsavakkhaya or ending of asavas.
Asavas is translated usually as "mental fermentations", "defilements", "cankers", "taints" but never as desire.
So we see the suttas supporting the idea that painful feelings and asavas could also be called the root of suffering rather than craving.
It seems to me like many modern day Buddhists have become similar to the ascetics who Gautama criticized...the ascetic practices austerities, refrains from sensual pleasures, and follows some of the same rules as modern day Buddhists but the ascetic almost never goes to heaven or any pleasant destination after death because their practices yield painful feelings.

"And what is the way of taking up practices that is painful now and
  results in future pain?...And so they live committed to practicing
  these various ways of mortifying and tormenting the body. When their
  body breaks up, after death, they’re reborn in a place of loss, a bad
  place, the underworld, hell. This is called the way of taking up
  practices that is painful now and results in future pain." (MN 45)

If someone were to merely give up on desire without generating pleasant feelings or good kamma or entering into higher states like the jhanas or developing the six higher knowledges they would probably become pretty similar to the ascetic producing painful feelings and not achieving arahantship.
It is also mentioned in MN 71 that only 1 ascetic in the past 91 eons went to heaven whereas many lay people do go to heaven so many of the lay peoples' practices are better than the ascetic's.
It also seems to me like there might be not any real arahants well-developed in the six higher knowledges that exist anymore because if they did they could easily explain the true purpose and see that Gautama was actually telling people to avoid things that causes painful feelings and embrace things that leads towards pleasant feelings...it was for the welfare and happiness of beings.
I've heard for instance some people that claim that the higher states aren't actually pleasant, how ridiculous!
If the world is empty of arahants or beings somewhat close to arahantship then the dhamma is lost! People can interpret words in any way without words assisting in achieving arahantship words don't really have any value.

I have this doubt also. But when I have this question in mind, I learned the another teaching of Buddha, which is, -  choose the 'Madhya Marga'(take the middle path) - It gave me the answer to my firs question. Being moderate in anything and everything in your life, helps you a lot. Desire is good thing, it gives a purpose to reach a goal but greed is bad, it brings you pain only.


text:
Why not becoming disillusioned toward mind?
An argument why a question "mind vs. matter" will not be given free points on:

That’s why, when it comes to this mind, an uneducated ordinary person is unable to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed.

Given that certain "Buddhist" say that matter is more secure, lasting and higher, why do they at the same time not get disillusioned about the mind?
Or what does the Buddha here say, when praising the abounding of the "more lasting" first:

But an uneducated ordinary person would be better off taking this body made up of the four primary elements to be their self, rather than the mind. Why is that? This body made up of the four primary elements is seen (perceived) to last for a year, or for two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or a hundred years, or even longer.

May there be not-uninstucted and masters of Vipassana, who could enlighten the topic a little, for those who had abound "the longer lasting" already.
(Note that this pixles here will by far not last as long as your mental imprints beyound it, so be quick in penetrating)

From SN 12.61:

"It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to
  hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the
  mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four
  great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four,
  five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But
  what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by
  night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey,
  swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of
  it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one.
  Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's
  called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night
  arises as one thing and ceases as another.

The body appears to last for many years, and then becomes old, ill and drops off. If one associates his self with the body, at least, he will see that the body must drop off and will become disillusioned with the body.
But the mind (including intellect and consciousness) changes much more frequently than the body, but has a seamless appearance. It is therefore not unusual, that one considers his same consciousness wanders on from youth to old age in this body and then wanders on to another body in future. This is what the monk Sati mistakenly thought in MN 38.
So, if one cannot see that the mind or intellect or consciousness is not permanent, then he does not have a reason to become disillusioned with it.
No religion preaches the immortality of the physical body, because it obviously perishes. However, many religions preach the eternity of the soul and the continuity of consciousness through the eternal soul in other bodies, which are physical or celestial. They say you can meet and talk to your loved ones in heaven, after you have passed away. The reason for this is that they cannot see how consciousness is impermanent. That's because it's not obvious.
MN 38 has a discussion on the impermanence of consciousness (i.e. eye-consciousness, intellect-consciousness etc.).
Everyone tries to find something permanent to associate their self with, so that they can be permanent. You can find a discussion of this in the River Sutta.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is/are the cause/s of becoming "perceiveless", an unconsciouse-being?
Althought as most not desired existence sometimes quoted, there seems to be less information about the cause why one gains the existence of an "not-perceiving-being", Unconscious beings (asaññasatta). [explained as "only body 'no' mind" often]
What is the cause, what is the required tendency to gain a asaññasatta-existence, state? Which kind of training should one go after to gain this long lasting state (which causes one to become a "fortuitous-arising-ists" (DN1), or a materialist, when falling from there)
Maybe some experts or googlyanika (those living dependency of teacher google) here are willing to elaborate about the being and coming into being of such beings.
(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks or entertaining, but as a tiny emergency-question for a timely exit from this wheel nourishing on delusion)

SN 23.2 defines "a being" ("satta") as strong clinging to one or more of the five aggregates. One the meanings of the word "satta" is "clinging". To cling requires a mind. Therefore, it appears there can be no such thing as an unconscious "being".
In my search, I only found the term asaññasattā in AN 9.24 plus the DN and, in the sequence of the teaching, appears related to the 4th jhana. The 4th jhana is obviously not "unconscious". It follows it appears the term "asaññasattā" needs to be examined carefully, for what it really means. The impression is "asaññasattā" means not having any salient perception because the mind only has equanimity as its object. It appears "asaññasattā" does not mean "unconscious".
Regardless, these types of teachings found in the Anguttara Nikaya & Digha Nikaya are often suspicious and, imo, best ignored.

According to the chapter "The Higher Jhanas" by Bhikkhu Henepola Gunaratana:

Corresponding to the fourth (material) jhana there are seven realms:
  the Realm of Great Reward, the Realm of Non-percipient Beings, and the
  five Pure Abodes. With this jhana the rebirth pattern deviates from
  the former one. It seems that all beings who practice the fourth jhana
  of the mundane level without reaching any supramundane attainment are
  reborn in the realm of Great Reward. There is no differentiation by
  way of inferior, moderate or superior grades of development. The Realm
  of Non-percipient Beings is reached by those who, after attaining the
  fourth jhana, then use the power of their meditation to take rebirth
  with only material bodies; they do not acquire consciousness again
  until they pass away from this realm. The five Pure Abodes are open
  only to non-returners (anagamis), noble disciples at the penultimate
  stage of liberation who have eradicated the fetters binding them to
  the sense-sphere and thence automatically take rebirth in higher
  realms, where they attain arahatship and reach final deliverance.

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


text:
Escaping alone is not enough
I am attached to my parents, children and other close family members quite heavily. Me alone escaping the suffering is not enough. I want to make sure they are on track to escape suffering as well. What are my options?

Share with them the Buddha's Teaching. In case no one is interested, you can always cultivate yourself and try to be a living example of what's good and wholesome. It's like a source of warm bright light which people will naturally be drawn toward and emulate its good attributes.

The only option is to escape alone, for only then are you qualified to help others do the same. This is not to disagree with santa100 in any way.

I asked maybe a similar question -- How to explain what Buddhism is?

I don't have a complete knowledge in Buddhist teachings.
There is a quote which says,
'No one can save us but ourselves. No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path.'
So we can just help them show the path, but they have to walk their own path.

That quote is from quite an old translation (link).

If you want to share the Buddha's teachings (also known as "the Dhamma") with your family members and friends, you may do so, if you believe that they would be willing to listen.
Of course, if they are not interested or not ready to listen, then you must be willing to let them be.
According to Iti 100:

"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.
"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of
  material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is
  supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

But to teach someone the Dhamma, you must have some qualifications, according to the Udayi Sutta (AN 5.159):

"It's not easy to teach the Dhamma to others, Ananda. The Dhamma
  should be taught to others only when five qualities are established
  within the person teaching. Which five?
"(1) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  step-by-step.'
"(2) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  explaining the sequence [of cause & effect].'
"(3) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak out
  of compassion.'
"(4) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak not
  for the purpose of material reward.'
"(5) The Dhamma should be taught with the thought, 'I will speak
  without hurting myself or others.'
Note: According to the Commentary, "hurting oneself" means exalting
  oneself. "Hurting others" means putting other people down.

the best you can do is becoming some arhant with the power of mind reading and the power to explain the dhamma well. Do not forget that some people who hear the dhamma from the buddha do not even get enlightened.
if you want to prepare them to hear the dhamma, you can watch bikkhu bodhi about the sutta ''being fit to talk to'' about the dhamma
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdbCBfI0I2E

Almost every man/woman/child you meet in life has been your parents, family, children in the past. It's just that you don't remember them. Your current family will be no different when you die. You have done the family thing countless times in the past and doing it again one more time wont help in ending anybody's suffering. That is why prince Siddhartha left his family. So wanting to save your family is no excuse for not getting ordained or not going to a monastery for long time meditation.
Then again, monk-life is not for everybody. Unless you have strong determination and courage, you are going to struggle to keep up with that lifestyle. Besides, you don't have to leave the lay life to become enlightened, it's just that the process is comparatively slow because of all the distractions and temptations.
So here are some options available for you:

Leave the lay life, achieve your goal, come back and help the family members to end their suffering like how the Buddha did.
Stay in lay life, go to a good meditation retreat every now and then with your family members, stay there for at least couple of weeks at a time.
Meet a good meditation teacher and get meditation advice, go back to lay life, find a time of the day when everyone can meditate together. Enforce some house rules at that time for everybody to participate or at least stay quiet. Or you could incorporate meditation in all your day to day activities depending on the type of meditation you do.

Option 1 would be the most effective, but most people are too weak for that big of a leap. Nevertheless, option 2 and 3 can get the job done too albeit being less effective.

Thanks. For me it is hard to believe that everyone that I meet had been my parent/etc in an early life. If you just take all the combinations in to account it enormous and time required is exceptionally large. Instead, I feel that beings typically cluster together for various reasons. I have practically seen something like that happening although I cant prove.

@Peter do you think any number of combinations is bigger than infinity? If there is no starting point in Samsara. It can accommodate any number.

Some options:
Focus on the buddhist ideas of brahmaviharas for the sake of your surrounding.
Also, buddhism doesnt have exklusive rights to compassion or kindness. So option two would be the general humane stuff we do for each other.
Option three: There is a chance you're already doing enough for your loved ones, seeing as it is a topic you’re attentive to. In that case, keep being yourself.

Putting your family "on track" might succeed or it might backfire. Each of us has our own "track". If others choose our tracks for us, resentment might arise.
However, if one offers compassion and understanding when others approach in a moment of suffering, one might reveal a door for them to choose on their own.
Recently a friend sought my advice, complaining of agitation, uncertainty and anxiety. I suggested that she simply close her eyes and count her breaths for one minute as one might do for MN10 Mindfulness Meditation. After that minute her day went much better and an hour later, laughing, she thanked me for that help.
Be there for your family. Let go of the track.

Surely, householder, it's hard to leave home, follow the Buddha and his disciples, their leader and many others previous in same situation but could have been able to see the higher benefit for all and could let go.
Once a householder asked the Buddha having same bonds of debts:

"We are lay people enjoying sensuality; living crowded with spouses & children; using Kasi fabrics & sandalwood; wearing garlands, scents, & creams; handling gold & silver. May the Blessed One teach the Dhamma for those like us, for our happiness & well-being in this life, for our happiness & well-being in lives to come."
[The Blessed One said:] "There are these four qualities, TigerPaw, that lead to a lay person's happiness and well-being in this life. Which four? Being consummate in initiative, being consummate in vigilance, admirable friendship, and maintaining one's livelihood in tune. ...To Dighajanu

Find more on householders practice and family here and if no access to clean your self in frequently meeting the monks, this might be a tiny possibility to stay often in borderlands.
(Note that this is not given for stacks, trade, exchange or entertainment, but toward escape and to get more near to a possibility)

Follow the Path, and those who see it will follow also.

No options. No need to become attached to some Buddhist ideal that a very small percentage of Buddhists, let alone people in general, achieve.


text:
How do time and space exist?
I have a questions and I hope someone could help.
Regarding time and space, I have seen different views: do they exist independently of our mind perceiving them, or is that all mind (inside mind)?
I would love to hear both views Mahayana and Theravada. I really want to understand what they say, about time both existing subjectively in the mind or outside in the World -- and same about space, is it inside our mind or does it exist outside our mind independently?
I think Theravada Buddhism doesn't say anything about time or space -- I may be wrong, hope somebody could clarify it, I want to be clear. But isn't it important to understand what kind of relation time have to impermanence?
In the Mahayana tradition Nagarjuna's theory seems to say that time is dependently arisen just as any phenomena and therefore doesn't exist. Does he mean that time doesn't exist subjectively in our mind, or does he mean that time doesn't exist for the universe?
In my opinion, Mahayana's view of reality is that subject-object inter-are -- while Theravada does not talk about the nature of the universe, but instead focuses on what the cause and cessation of suffering is, without saying anything about time -- but isn't that important to understand for liberation?
If there is nothing about in the scriptures then I will accept it and no problem, but I just want to know.

A question about what "sankhara" means might be already asked and answered here -- Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?

I'm not sure which existing topic is a good explanation of sañña -- maybe this one: What's the difference between perception and consciousness?

So maybe these topics already help to answer the questions about sankhara and sanna -- and maybe it's better to post one question at a time -- so I edited your question, so that it now only asks about space and time. If you would still like to ask another question (a more specific question) about sankhara and sanna, perhaps you could post that as a new/separate question. Thanks!

In the original Pali scriptures, the term "dependently arisen" is used to refer to conditions related to the arising of "suffering" or "sorrow & grief". It is not used for any "causality" related to the laws of physics.

Dwelling at Savatthi... "Monks, I will describe & analyze dependent
co-arising for you.
And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite
condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite
condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite
condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition
come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite
condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes
feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From
craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/.. From clinging as a
requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite
condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging
& death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into
play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress &
suffering.
SN
12.2

As for the idea of "time", this can obviously relate to "craving" or "mental wanting" (such as thinking about the past & having expectations of the future, as described in MN 131). However this "mentally constructed time" (in MN 131) is obviously unrelated to the "time & space" of physics; as found in the following verse:

‘As the days and nights flit by, what sort of person am I becoming?’
AN 10.48

As for "space", it is one of the six elements (dhatu):

There are these six elements: the elements of earth, water, fire, air,
space and consciousness.
When a mendicant knows and sees these six elements, they’re qualified
to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.
MN 115

The reason a teaching about "space" is provided is so "space" is not clung to, as follows:

And what is the space element?
The space element may be interior or exterior.
And what is the interior space element?
Anything that’s space, spacious and organic that’s internal,
pertaining to an individual. This includes: the ear canals, nostrils,
and mouth; and the space for swallowing what is eaten and drunk, the
space where it stays, and the space for excreting it from the nether
regions. This is called the interior space element.
The interior space element and the exterior space element are just the
space element. This should be truly seen with right understanding like
this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
When you truly see with right understanding, you reject the space
element, detaching the mind from the space element.
MN 62

....................

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

Buddhism teaches about Pathavi,Apo.tejo,Vayo,Akasa (Sapace) and Vinnana (consciousness)
Buddhism does not talk above the time even though it discusses the past, present and the future.
The way I understand there is no absolute thing call time. Time is what we perceive when things change. Perhaps the closest Buddhist term for time is the word "Anicca" or impermanence.

Thank you for your answer.

I think Theravada Buddhism doesn't say anything about time or space-- I may be wrong

yes you're wrong, according to Buddhism space does exist, it is one of the six elements. But time is something made up by mind(according to my understanding).
And don't mix the ideas with Science, then you'll be in trouble to understand things.

Thank you for your answer in other Words that is different from Advaita who says that space is not outside there in the World but a mental projection of our mind. Thank you for confirming for me that time is only in our mind and not a property of the universe could you eloborate why that is true?

If nothing around you changes there is no time. For instance, if you wake up from a coma you do not know that the time has passed.

@StudyingBuddhism, i think that time is a measurement for changing of something.

The best source for Mahayana is usually Nagarjuna. He proves that nothing really exists including time and space. He does not prove they do not exist but that it would not be correct to state positively that they do or do not exist. This is true for non-dualism generally. It is a doctrine of Unity so never endorses a distinction or division at a metaphysical level. All extreme views would have to be abandoned.
To understand why it would be incorrect to state that space-time either does or does not exist one would need to study Nagarjuna's Two Truths doctrine and his division of Reality into the Conventional and Ultimate realms or levels of description.
A doctrine of Unity requires that we never endorse an extreme or positive metaphysical theory, all of which Nagarjuna proves are logically indefensible. This is the reason why the language of mysticism has a contradictory and paradoxical appearance. For non-dualism true words seem paradoxical, as noted by Lao Tsu and explained by Nagarjuna. When Heraclitus says 'We are and are-not' he is also saying time and space are and are-not. This use of contradiction makes nondualism quite easy to spot where it appears.
Space-time would exist conventionally, as a component of our conventional world, but would be reducible thus not truly real. (It may be useful here to think about 'existence' and 'reality' as words with quite different meanings).
For a modern discussion of space-time that supports Nagarjuna's doctrine and the nondual view I'd recommend the mathematician Hermann Weyl. There's plenty of his writings online and somewhere an excellent article on his views by John Bell. He draws a distinction between time as we conceive of it in mathematics and everyday life, where it is merely a theory, and time as an intuitive or empirical continuum, which we do not experience and for which there is no evidence.
I feel it is not a good idea to ignore science, partly because the non-dual doctrine is in complete agreement with it, but scientists usually have little to say on these issues since space-time is a metaphysical explanandum. For a Buddhist discussion a recommended text would be Ven. Nyanaponika Thera's book Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time

Thank you very much Peter.

I tried to link Mahayana emptiness to Theravada emptiness in this question.
Here's what I learnt about Mahayana emptiness:

According to Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness (shunyata), all phenomena
  is empty of intrinsic essence (svabhava), and even this emptiness
  itself is empty of intrinsic essence. However, this intrinsic essence
  appears to be the essence given to phenomena by reification or
  objectification-classification (papanca). So this means that my mental
  idea of how some phenomena is, is not how it actually is.
Now, Nirvana is not a sankhara (conditioned and/or compounded thing)
  but it is also empty, in the sense that it is empty of the essence
  given to it by reification. So this means that my mental idea of how
  Nirvana is, is not how it actually is.
Even "emptiness is empty" means that my mental idea of how Mahayana
  emptiness is, is not how it actually is.
This is interesting, because it does not mean that a chair, a dog and
  Nirvana are mind-independently unreal or non-existent according to
  Madhyamaka. Rather, the mental idea that I have of a chair, a dog and
  Nirvana is unreal or non-existent.

And then about Theravada emptiness:

Now in Theravada, all suffering is related to clinging. Clinging is
  always related to the self. According to Sutta
  Nipata 4.14, the root of all reification or
  objectification-classification (papañca) is "I am the thinker".
Also from MN 1, an arahant who is fully liberated from suffering would
  see phenomena as they truly are, without reification where his mental
  idea of phenomena associates it with his self (of persons). This is
  apparently also known as tathata.
According to the Suñña Sutta, the five aggregates are empty of a self
  (of persons), including that they have no association with self (of
  persons). All reified mental ideas are mental fabrications (sankhara),
  so they too are empty of a self (of persons).

Now linking Theravada emptiness with Mahayana emptiness:

So, linking the Mahayana Madhyamaka emptiness to the Theravada
  emptiness, I can say that all phenomena is empty of a mentally reified
  intrinsic essence, where this reification or
  objectification-classification is rooted in "I am the thinker".
  Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains this as "the perception, 'I am the
  thinker' lies at the root of these classifications in that it reads
  into the immediate present a set of distinctions — I/not-I;
  being/not-being; thinker/thought; identity/non-identity — that then
  can proliferate into mental and physical conflict." I take it here
  that "I am the thinker" creates a duality between self (of persons)
  and non-self (of persons) that creates mental and physical conflict.
So, since Mahayana emptiness says that all phenomena is empty of
  mentally reified essence, and since all reification is rooted in a
  self (of persons), and Theravada emptiness states that all phenomena
  is empty of a self (of persons), then these two definitions of
  emptiness could be logically linked in this way.
Furthermore, the enlightened one who sees the Theravada emptiness of
  all phenomena through wisdom, will also simultaneously see the
  Mahayana emptiness of all phenomena, due to having his reification
  (papanca) ended, due to having his fetters concerning a self (of
  persons) uprooted. So, the enlightened one sees things as they truly
  are, which apparently is called tathata.

So, according to both Theravada and Mahayana, basically, Buddhism as a whole, it does not matter whether a chair or table or space or time or Nirvana or a cat or a tree are REALLY existing or not. All these things are definitely empty of the intrinsic essence given to it by mental reification.
There is more explanation in this answer.
For e.g. a dish of a meal consisting of meat may look like delicious food to a meat eater. At the same time it looks repulsive to a vegan. To a honey bee, it looks like a pile of dirt, because that's not its food.
So, the question is not whether delicious meal exists or repulsive food exists or dirt exists, in real life or just in your mind. That thing is simply empty of the essence given to it by the minds of a meat eater, a vegan and a honey bee.
In a way, you can say that the delicious meal only exists in the mind of the meat eater, and it does not exist outside. The repulsive food only exists in the mind of the vegan, and it does not exist outside. The piece of dirt only exists in the mind of the honey bee, and it does not exist outside. What is that which exists outside? Does it matter what it is? Does it matter how it exists?
Both Mahayana and Theravada are quite the same in my opinion. The only difference is that they focus on different perspectives of the same thing.
To the question, "How do time and space REALLY exist?", I answer, "not how you think it exists." That's the most accurate answer of Buddhism, from both Mahayana and Theravada, in my opinion.
The historical Buddha valued pragmatism over metaphysics. See the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow.

Wow thank you  really much.

I think the Pali word for time is Kāla.
See also akalika.
(the Dhamma is akalika i.e. "timeless").
A search for kala, kalika, and akalika on SuttaCentral doesn't return many entries.
It (the word akaliko) is mostly used in the context of the Dhammānussati.
The "Theravada" perspective presumably includes an Abhidhamma perspective, plus the "the post-canonical commentarial literature", in addition to what's in the suttas -- I don't know what these says about it, see perhaps (which I found using Google) Time and space: the Abhidhamma perspective:

Concept of time (Kala pannatti)
It is in the light of the distinction made between the dhammas as entities having objective reality on the one hand and pannattis as mental constructs, on the other, that we have to understand the Abhidhamma theory of time and space. On the subject of time the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka are relatively silent. However, the fact that time is not elevated to the status of a conditioned or unconditioned dhamma shows that it has not been considered as existing in a real and ultimate sense. This is in contrast to the substantialist schools of Indian philosophy, where time is recognized as an eternal, all pervading substance, the existence of which is inferred from facts of consecution and simultaneity between phenomena. It is in the post-canonical commentarial literature that the Buddhist idea of time gets more clearly articulated.
The commentary to the Dhammasangani says that time is an avijjamana-pannatti, which means that it is a conceptual construct with no corresponding objective reality, a concept based on the continuous elemental flow. It is the dhammas, the ultimate constituents of empirical existence, which arise and perish in continual succession, that serve as a basis for our construction of the notion of time. only the dhammas are real (paramattha, saccikattha); time is a conceptual construct, a product of the interpretative function of our mind (kappana-siddha). Therefore, unlike the dhammas, time has no own-nature (sabhavato avijjamana).
That there is no time without reference to events and that, therefore, time is always determined by events, is aptly summarized by the following statement which we find expressed in the same commentary:

"Chronological time denoted by reference to this or that event is only a conventional expression"

etc.


text:
Goenka's vipassana
I can not  focus in upper lip: my focus goes in to nostril. I can now watch breath in nostril, but can not stay focussed on upper lip and watch breath. I focus on entire nose and not on upper lip, and watch breath in nasal passage -- is this right ? I doubt is it controlled breathing ?
Secondly I want to learn to stay focussed on upper lip and watch breath -- please guide.

It doesn't have to be the upper lip. Pick any location around your nostrils that the sensation of in-out-breaths making contact with the skin is the most pronounced. Do not force your breath, gently stay aware of each in-out breath "brushing" the contact-point just like a carpenter watching the cut line marked on the wooden log when moving his saw back and forth to cut it.

You can watch breath in the nostril or nasal passage. You do not have to stay focused on the upper lip.
Secondly, there is no need to learn to stay focused on upper lip. The purpose of watching breathing, continuously, is to make the mind steady & calm. It does not matter exactly where the breathing is watched.
Also, if the mind follows & tracks the breathing into & within the physical body (from the nose to throat to chest to abdomen) this is also acceptable in relation to what the Buddha taught.
In higher concentration, the breathing is felt in the top of nostrils and not on the upper lip. In other words, feeling the touch of the breathing in the nostrils is better than at the upper lip.
However, for beginners, knowing the breath at the upper lip helps in experiencing the breath come in & out of the body.

When the area is bigger there is a chance you can feel the touch better
When the area is small concentration increases

The transition from from the large area to small should be gradual and based on the state of your concentration from day to day. So start with the larger area, once you feel the touch at some point in this area continuously without loss of concentration or mind wandering away narrow it down. At this point concentrate of finding touch point within the chosen area. It might take some time but persistently doing it you will start feeling the touch sensations then narrow it down again until you are left with the centre of the upper lip. At any point you cannot feel the touch concentrate on the flow. Don't narrow the area too soon. Make sure you are comfortable with the chosen area and you continuously feel the touch before narrowing. Once you consolidate move to the next stage, i.e., a smaller area. Also there may be days even when you are accomplished you cannot directly concentra on the smaller area without some "warm up" with a larger area.
Watching the breath in the nasal passage is OK when your chosen area is the top of the nose and base of the upper lip. When you narrow it down to the tip of the nose and the upper lips you should concentrate on the sensation rims of the nostril and upper lip. Once you narrow down the area upper lip then you can look for touch in the upper lip area and part of the nasal rims on the upper lip. Once you further narrow it down to the centre of the upper lip look for the touch from the base of the nasal bridge down to the about the lip area. Ignore sensations you might feel in other areas. E.g. when transitioning to large triangle area you might still feel the air within the norils, but at this point you should concentrate on sensations on the rims of the nostrils and upper lip.

Welcome back, thank you for the answer.

Thk  u suminda sirinath S. Dharmasena

Sanjay mehta,
In this case, for this case of advice, focus on where ever the touch of breath is sensed most outwardly. There are noses which do not let the air stream much upon the upper lip. If a person has a "long-nose" that such to seek could be annoying at the beginning where more raw touch is required to be able to sense. 'Place awareness where it is best to stay.'
much success
(Not given for trade, exchange or entertaining)

According to Chapter 2 "Sitting Meditation" of the book "How To Meditate" by Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu, you can try to observe movements of the abdomen, instead of nasal passage sensations:

The purpose of formal meditation is to limit our experience to the
  fewest number of objects in order to allow for easy observation
  without becoming overwhelmed or distracted. When sitting still, the
  whole body is tranquil and the only movement is when the breath enters
  and leaves the body. When the breath enters the body, there should be
  a rising motion in the abdomen. When the breath leaves the body, there
  should likewise be a falling motion. If the movement is not readily
  apparent, you can put your hand on your abdomen until it becomes
  clear.
If it is difficult to perceive the motion of the abdomen even with
  your hand, you can try lying down on your back until you are able to
  perceive it. Difficulty in finding the rising and falling motion of
  the abdomen when sitting is generally due to mental tension and
  stress; if one is patient and persistent in the practice, one’s mind
  and body will begin to relax until one is able to breathe as naturally
  sitting up as when lying down.
The most important thing to remember is that we are trying to observe
  the breath in its natural state, rather than forcing or controlling it
  in any way. In the beginning, the breath may be shallow or
  uncomfortable, but once the mind begins to let go and stops trying to
  control the breath, the rise and fall of the abdomen will become more
  clear and allow for comfortable observation.
It is this rising and falling motion that we will use as our first
  object of meditation. Once we are able to observe the motion of the
  abdomen without difficulty, it will serve as a default object of
  meditation for us to return to at any time.

In this guide, Thanissaro Bhikkhu wrote that you can focus on any place where the breath can be sensed, whether it is the nose, chest, abdomen or any other place:

Only when you have cleared the mind in this way, and set outside
  matters aside, are you ready to focus on the breath. Bring your
  attention to the sensation of breathing. Breathe in long and out long
  for a couple of times, focusing on any spot in the body where the
  breathing is easy to notice, and your mind feels comfortable focusing.
  This could be at the nose, at the chest, at the abdomen, or any spot
  at all. Stay with that spot, noticing how it feels as you breathe in
  and out. Don't force the breath, or bear down too heavily with your
  focus. Let the breath flow naturally, and simply keep track of how it
  feels. Savor it, as if it were an exquisite sensation you wanted to
  prolong. If your mind wanders off, simply bring it back. Don't get
  discouraged. If it wanders 100 times, bring it back 100 times. Show it
  that you mean business, and eventually it will listen to you.

Thk u so much If I want to learn to watch breath at nostril where should I have to focus ? On the entire nose and internal nasal passage or on a tiny spot in the naval passage?

Anywhere where you can feel the sensation or effect of the breath.

I want to watch breath at tiny spot in nostril


text:
Mahayana - Advaita - Theravada realisations
Mahayana claims that the realisation of Nirvana in Theravada is dual while Mahayana is non dual.
I have read that Advaita (the universal consciousness theory) is the same as Mahayana.

Does that mean that Mahayana claims that the universe is unreal, and that Everything is consciousness -- which means that the universe (and the time and space existing in it) is illusory, and exists only from the Point of view of the separate self but not in reality?
Or are they not as extreme as Advaita, but instead only claims that time do not exist (except) in our minds -- but Everything is consciousness -- or is there difference between Mahayana and Advaita Vedanta?

I want to learn both paths and then use both for my benefit. From what I have read the realisations are not the same and I would really like to understand the both realisations.
Thank you for your patience and your energy

Mahayana claims that the realisation of Nirvana in Theravada is dual while Mahayana is non dual.

In Theravada, Nirvana is defined as the ending of greed, hatred & delusion or the destruction of craving. In Theravada, in Nirvana, all phenomena, internal & external, including Nirvana itself, are viewed as without an inherent "self". In Theravada, in Nirvana, everything, including Nirvana itself, is viewed as mere "elements" ("dhatu"). In follows notions of "dual" & "non-dual" are not relevant to Theravada Nirvana. Theravada Nirvana acknowledges there are "internal" ("ajjhattika") and "external" ("bāhirā") phenomena (refer MN 148, for example). MN 1, for example, clearly says "oneness" ("ekatta") is not Nibbana.

I have read that Advaita (the universal consciousness theory) is the same as Mahayana.

"Mahayana" is the "Great Vehicle"; formulating teachings for the largest audience of people of different dispositions. Mahayana took many Hindu notions, such as "advaita" & various deities, and transformed them into so-called "Buddhist" & "Vajrayana" doctrines of "non-duality" & "Bodhisattvas" (such as Tara, Yellow Jambala, Medicine Buddha, Avalokiteśvara, etc) to appeal to a wider audience of people.
In Hinduism, the word "advaita" means "non-secondness" and has its roots in "idealist monism" (refer to link). Mahayana, including influenced by Chinese Taosim, adapted "advaita" to be "non-duality" or "oneness", such as in Hsin Hsin Ming sutra.

Does that mean that Mahayana claims that the universe is unreal, and that Everything is consciousness --

This might definitely be the case in the Yogachara school. Apart from that; best to ask the Mahayana gurus such as Andrei Volkov. As an adherent of Pali Buddhism, I do not waste my time with Mahayana, such as with Narjaguna & The Heart Sutra, which I regard as having wrong views.

Both Mahayana and Theravada accept sankhara - that all things (except Nirvana) are conditioned and compounded. A tree doesn't exist by itself - it needs the sun and water and support from animals etc. Nothing lasts forever. Everything depends on something else - that's conditioned.
Advaita says Brahman is eternal, and everything else is an illusion. Hindus think Buddhism says the same thing as Advaita, that Brahman is same as Nirvana (as the only thing that is eternal) or Brahman is the same as shunyata (as the unity of everything), while illusion (maya) in Advaita is same as Madhyamaka's everything is empty of inherent substance or essence, and emptiness itself is empty of inherent substance of essence.
These sound superficially the same, but they are not the same.
This is supported by Banaras Hindu University Professor T. R. V. Murti's statement (quoted below) in this book chapter:

It has been the fashion to consider that the differences between the
  Madhyamika śūnyatā and Brahman are rather superficial and even verbal,
  and that the two systems of philosophy are almost identical. At least
  Professor Radhakrishnan thinks so, and Stcherbatsky's and Dasgupta's
  views are not very different. I hold a contrary view altogether: that
  in spite of superficial similarities in form and terminology, the
  differences between them are deep and pervasive.

When you compare Shankara's Advaita with Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka:

Shankara said Brahman is eternal and absolute (see Vivekachudamani 225-231). Meanwhile, Nagarjuna said nothing is eternal and absolute.
Shankara's Brahman (clay analogy - see Vivekachudamani 225-231) implies that it is the only thing that has a true inherent substance (what Nagarjuna called svabhāva). Meanwhile, Nagarjuna says nothing has inherent substance.
Shankara's Brahman is the material cause (again, clay analogy) of the universe (see Vivekachudamani 225-231). Meanwhile, Nagarjuna's emptiness nor Nirvana is not a material cause for anything including itself.
Shankara said that the universe depends on Brahman as its substratum (what Nagarjuna called para-bhāva) (see Vivekachudamani 235, 289). Meanwhile, Nagarjuna said there is no other inherent substance (para-bhāva) i.e. no substratum for anything else.
Shankara's Brahman is the Ultimate Reality that is the Transcendental Absolute Reality. Meanwhile, Nagarjuna's Ultimate Reality is an "emptiness of emptiness" that is devoid of transcendental or absolute reality.

Advaita and Mahayana couldn't be more dissimilar.

Vivekachudamani 216 and Bhagavad Gita 2.20 talk about the individual soul (atman) being eternal. This is refuted by all Buddhist schools.
German indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp wrote in his essay "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study":

In the light of these researches, all attempts to give to the Atman a
  place in the Buddhist doctrine, appear to be quite antiquated. We know
  now that all Hinayana (sic) and Mahayana schools are based on the
  anatma-dharma theory. ... Nirvana being a dharma, is likewise anatta,
  just as the transitory, conditioned dharmas ... Nirvana is no
  individual entity which could act independently. For it is the basic
  idea of the entire system that all dharmas are devoid of Atman, and
  without cogent reasons we cannot assume that the Buddha himself has
  thought something different from that which since more than 2000
  years, his followers have considered to be the quintessence of their
  doctrine.

And

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
  (true substance)," or similarly.

Madhyamaka says that everything is empty of inherent substance and even this emptiness is empty of inherent substance.
But what is this inherent substance?
After digging deep into this, I found that it is simply the essence or substance given to things by mental reification. It doesn't mean that a chair doesn't exist or that a chair is an illusion or the chair simply exists in my mind. It simply means that it doesn't exist the way my mind has mentally objectified and classified it. My mental idea of a chair has no inherent substance. This is perfectly supported by Theravada and the Pali suttas.
Without the thought of "I am the thinker", the mind would not be able to objectify and classify things relative to the self (observer). In this way, Theravada and Mahayana are completely united.
Advaita's eternal Brahman, which is the substratum of all reality and the material cause of reality, cannot be found in Buddhism.
Nagarjuna's greatest genius is proving that when you make use of the Buddha's teachings as metaphysics and philosophy, you turn it into mental reification that has no inherent substance. You talk about Nirvana, but that's only your mental idea of Nirvana, not how it really is.

Mahayana makes use of a lot of grandiose literary language. For e.g. the Eternal Buddha sounds a lot like Eternal Brahman.
But if you dig deeper into it, you find, that the Eternal Buddha in Mahayana refers to his Dharma Body.
The Dharma Body comes from the Vakkali Sutta (from the Theravada Pali Canon):

"For a long time, Lord, I have wanted to come and set eyes on the
  Blessed One, but I had not the strength in this body to come and see
  the Blessed One."
"Enough, Vakkali! What is there to see in this vile body? He who sees
  Dhamma, Vakkali, sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma. Truly seeing
  Dhamma, one sees me; seeing me one sees Dhamma."

Vakkali wanted to see the Buddha's form, thinking he is special. But the Buddha used rhetorical speech to say that if you want to know what is special about the Buddha, understand the Dharma (the teachings of the Buddha). Mahayana took this to an extreme end and came out with Eternal Buddha.
Those who do not understand this, think Eternal Buddha is some God-person of some kind.
Similarly, Mahayana and Theravada are the same, if you look deeply enough, beyond the fancy language.
If you don't look deeply enough beyond the fancy language, Advaita and Mahayana appear to be the same, when it actual fact, they are only superficially the same.

Advaita is non-dual.
Non-dualism in Advaita is summarized by "Brahman (God) is real, the universe is an illusion. The jiva (individual soul) is Brahman itself and not different." (Brahmajnanavalimala 20)
In Advaita, Brahman (God) is the eternal, permanent and unchanging reality. But through ignorance, it appears as the changing universe and the individual soul. Remove ignorance, and Brahman is all that there is.
Both Mahayana and Theravada, are very much the same, and are non-dual too. But Buddhism is non-dual in a different way from Advaita.
In Buddhism, there is the duality of the self and the non-self. This is me, and this is my car and that is not my car. Everything perceived through the six senses (include the intellect and its sense objects - thoughts) is objectified and classified, relative to its relationship to the self.
As I wrote in another answer, a plate of cooked meat looks like delicious food to a meat eater, but it instead looks repulsive to a vegan. To a honey bee, it looks like dirt, because that is not its food. In this way, that plate of cooked meat is objectified and classified differently, relative to its relationship to the self.
The non-duality of Buddhism is that ultimately there is no self in all phenomena, and ultimately there is no inherent essence in all phenomena, as given to it by mental objectification and classification (relative to the self). Remove ignorance, and the duality of self and non-self falls apart.
In my opinion, Mahayana and Theravada are pretty much the same, just that Mahayana is more philosophical in its analysis and literary in its presentation, while Theravada is more pragmatic in its analysis and straightforward in its presentation.
Advaita on the other hand, is totally different, and is focused on the non-duality of God and non-God.

When I remove the objectification that I am creating in my mind how should I see people,my self and objects? is it to see them like processes instead of entities?

Thank you for your posts you are helping me alot. Isn't Mahayana Buddhism claiming that there is a unity to Everything just like advaita vedanta does wtih Brahman? that is what makes me confused or I may be wrong

Apologies, really, but I feel the need to downvote to indicate that there is much here to argue about. The idea  that Mahayana is 'much the same' as Therevade and both are apposed to advaita is odd and I doubt many Therevadans, Mahayanists of Advaitans would agree. I feel that @StudyingBuddhism is right to think that advaita and Mahayana teach a doctrine of Unity.and are thus distinct from Therevada. I would also question whether in Buddhism there is a duality between self and not-self, and would disagree strongly that Theravada is non-dual.teaching.  ,  . .   . . .

@StudyingBuddhism The Buddha says to see everything as it is, without self-identification, craving, clinging, greed/ lust, aversion and delusion.

I have updated my answer to support my position.

Mahayana claims that the realisation of Nirvana in Theravada is dual while Mahayana is non dual.

Then it logically follows that one can only find out the answer after s/he's truly realized Nibbana for themselves. Any claim from anyone short of that attainment would be speculation at best. Now, the road toward Nibbana is pretty similar regardless of Mahayana or Theravada, since most Buddhist schools do share most of the important tenets: 4NT, 8FNP, 12DO, the precepts, etc. One can pick one that's better suitable for one's orientation and helps with the cultivation of their Sila/Samadhi/Panna.

Not all Buddhists agree about this. For me advaita, Mahayana, Philosophical Taoism, Sufism and in general the 'Perennial' philosophy is non-dual. This is not monism, which is why it is called advaita. Rather, it is a doctrine of Unity for which all that exists (or seems to) is created and only dependently-existent.
As Dhammadhatu notes Therevada rejects this view. On this site, which seems to be mostly Therevadan in its leanings, one needs to be a little careful about what is said about Mahayana. The answer by santa100 usefully points out that all the methods head in the same direction, so perhaps it's only when we are quite well advanced that the differences are likely to be important to the practitioner. To the analytical philosopher, however, the difference are crucial right from the start.
When it comes to metaphysics the differences between Buddhist schools matter. Non-dualism works in metaphysics, being consistent with logic and reason and explaining the results of analysis. This is shown by Nagarjuna but also by almost every philosopher of note. We all find that metaphysical problems are undecidable and this is because all positive theories are logically indefensible. Nondualism is the only global doctrine offering us an explanation for this. All others fail in metaphysics, which is to say when they are subjected to logical analysis.
What Nagarjuna proves is that all theories that endorse extreme views are logically incoherent. The only neutral theory is non-dualism and this is the only one his analysis leaves standing. He proposes that this is the correct interpretation of the Buddha's teachings, and this would be my conclusion. In this case Buddhist teachings would line up with those of advaita.
Regardless of opinion and belief, if we want to reconcile Buddhism with the rest of mysticism and make sense of metaphysics then we must assume that Nagarjuna's explanation of the results of metaphysics is correct. If we do not, then we have no explanation. We would have to assume that Buddhism is unique in its understanding of the world and all other traditions have got it wrong. I don't feel this is a plausible idea even for a moment.
What is plausible is that Mahayana, advaita, Taoism, Sufism and other doctrines of Unity share the same metaphysical foundation, as they would if they are true and verifiable as such.
I do not know why Theravada rejects this metaphysical view. It seems to be something to do with tradition and a judgements as to the relative authority of different texts rather than anything to do with philosophical analysis or reported experience, but I'm still unclear on this question.
What it means is that some Buddhists think that advaita is the same teaching and some don't. Those who don't must find grounds for rejecting Nagarjuna's logical analysis. It is commonly thought that he wrote his proof to address doctrinal differences that were arising between different schools and bring them together under one roof, but it seems he failed.

The Buddha discouraged indulgence in philosophical speculation and intellectual gymnastics, because it does not contribute towards the goal of ending suffering. There are many suttas to support this - the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow (Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta), the Parable of the Simsapa Leaves (Simsapa Sutta), the Discourse on The All (Sabba Sutta), and the Discourse on the Unconjecturables (Acintita Sutta).

In the Acintita Sutta, the Buddha taught: ""Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."

@ruben2020 - Very true. But if we are unsure whether Buddhist doctrine makes sense, as most people are, then metaphysics is invaluable. It is a way of verifying the unity of religion, a unity that is not obvious in the higher level teachings. Nagarjuna considered it a way to bring unanimity to the sangha, and so do I. Differences of opinion tend to flourish where metaphysics is ignored,  and I suspect they are sometimes preserved by a deliberate avoidance of it. . .


text:
What lasts longer: the Cheesburger or a perception of it?
What lasts longer: the Cheesburger or a perception of it?

What's more real? Where to put into de-veloping?

This question "What lasts longer: the Cheeseburger or a perception of it?" will last longer than both the cheeseburger and the perception of it.

I see so many user accounts by the same name. Any reason why?

@SankhaKulathantille He has said that he doesn't want to register an account, because an account is "not offered" and also perhaps because he disapproves of this site. With an unregistered account, the account depends on cookies in the device's browser (instead of depending on the user's email address), and a new account is created every time he clears the device's cookies (which is frequently).

Asking what is real or not is a worthless question clung to by philosophers. The suttas say:

I will not engage in talk that is base, vulgar, common, ignoble,
  unbeneficial, that does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion,
  cessation, calm, direct knowledge, self-awakening, or Unbinding —
  i.e., talk about kings, robbers & ministers of state; armies, alarms,
  & battles; food & drink; clothing, furniture, garlands, & scents;
  relatives; vehicles; villages, towns, cities, the countryside; women &
  heroes; the gossip of the street & the well; tales of the dead; tales
  of diversity, the creation of the world & of the sea; talk of whether
  things exist or not.' In this way he is alert there.
MN 122

The questions the Lord Buddha asked about cheeseburgers were:

Are cheeseburgers permanent or impermanent?
Do cheeseburgers bring lasting happiness or are they unsatisfactory?
Should cheeseburgers be regarded as 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?.

Hmm. Asking what is real led me to Buddhism so the idea that the question worthelss is not plausible to me. Once one is one the path then it may become worthless, but only because following the path is the way to answer the question. I feel the Buddha's advice for practitioners is not meant for sceptics and waverers.

My impression of Buddha is he was concerned with "real happiness". Kind regards

Your impression? Mine too. But why denigrate philosophers and their questions? After all, Buddhist teachings answer them. .

You seem to be inferring Samana Johann is a philosopher?

@Dhammadhatu I think Peter is inferring that he himself is a philosopher -- and that you seem to be "denigrating" philosophers and philosophy.

Yes. That's it. I cannot grasp how asking what is real can be a worthless activity, especially as it is likely to lead people to Buddhism. .

@PeterJ I think the early suttas (i.e. pre-Nagarjuna) have a theme of accepting only certain questions as being useful -- see e.g. The unanswered questions ... the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow ... the Simsapa Sutta ... also some concepts like "empty speculation is a fetter". I guess "real" comes from a "real..ideal" philosophical split (duality), or "subjective..objective"?

Without wanting to be rude to philosophers, I admire what I understand to have been the Buddha's attitude, his "solution" to that (that kind of) "problem" -- it reminds me of the famously incisive Gordian Knot solution, i.e. to dismiss or undo the problem.

@ChrisW  Yes, I get this. My point is that whether a question is useful depends on  who we are and what stage we're at. The Buddha spoke to an audience.of monks, For most people asking what is real would be one the most valuable things they could do. The alternative is to settle for naive realism. ,.

@PeterJ Personally in the past I found naive or inept introductions to Buddhism -- not Nagarjuna's, but modern paraphrases -- "X isn't real" or "X doesn't really exist" -- to be just confusing or patronising or other-worldly. So I'm grateful to have been introduced since then to the texts of the suttas, which I find relatively practical and prescriptive,

@Chris - I see what you're saying. But these sayings need not be confusing in metaphysics. They mean that X must be reduced for a fundamental theory.  Thus we could say (with the physicists)  that pianos don't really exist. An understanding of dependent-existence depends on seeing that a dependent-existent does not really exist - is composite, without substance etc., and although this is best learned 'empirically' it may also be discussed in theoretical terms and the logic examined and tested, as the Buddha advises when we are sceptical.       .

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

asking what is real or not is a worthless question clung to by philosophers addicted to rupa who fail to see that the other aggregates are more important.
What matters is what you do with vedana, sanna, vinnana, rupa and sankharas, ie to view them with sati, right view, panna and so on.

Cheeseburger is nama pannatti. Ideas about a particular cheeseburger is santhana pannatti. The physical cheeseburger is dathu which lasts only momentarily. Pannatti lasts longer than the object itself as it is not subjected to 3 characteristics as they are not real. So the pannatti lasts longer. The sanna about the cheeseburger lasts only momenterity and lasts much shorter. Same for the physical cheeseburger. Perception in your question can fit with both sanna and pannatti.

Sadhu so far Upasaka Sirinath. Let my person ask further: is pannati an aspect of nama or rupa, or both? Or in how far whould pannati not just sanna?


text:
How can watching be non-doing?
In  Vipassana meditation ,it is emphasized that one should not force the mind to concentrate on certain object or force anything to happen in particular.Its kind of letting things unfold and just watching them as they unfold .But for an untrained mind isn't watching by itself a kind of doing and if it shouldn't be a doing and is the natural state of restful alertness ,how can it be initiated without the mind feeling forced to do it.If one is driven by conditioning in a non doing state.
Ardency as I understand is an important aspect of the practice ,but doing it on the razor's edge of not falling into forcing the mind,is tricky.What is the best way to initiate it so it becomes right mindfulness?.

MN1 The Root of All Things addresses watching for the untrained ordinary person as:

They perceive the seen as the seen. But then they identify with the seen … Why is that? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say.

In contrast, for the trained mind SN35.96 we have:

...in the seen will be merely the seen;...

The simplicity of "merely the seen" is itself non-doing. Ordinarily we identify with thoughts, latch onto them with greed, aversion or delusion. That latching onto thoughts is the doing to be relinquished. Yet we perceive the latching onto thoughts as "not-doing", hence the seeming paradox.
As we practice, we start noticing the doing, the grasping. And with a measure of watchful restraint we counteract the tendency towards "doing". From AN3.60:

When there is sense restraint, one who has sense restraint has fulfilled a vital condition for ethical conduct.
  When there is ethical conduct, one who has fulfilled ethical conduct has fulfilled a vital condition for right immersion.

Find the razor's edge between doing and not-doing. Explore that.

Case 19 Nansen's "Ordinary Mind Is the Way"                          十九　平常是道
南泉、因趙州問、如何是道。
Jõshû asked Nansen, "What is the Way?"
泉云、平常心是道。
"Ordinary mind is the Way," Nansen replied.
州云、還可趣向否。
"Shall I try to seek after it?" Jõshû asked.
泉云、擬向即乖。
"If you try for it, you will become separated from it," responded Nansen.
州云、不擬爭知是道。
"How can I know the Way unless I try for it?" persisted Jõshû.
泉云、道不屬知、不屬不知。
Nansen said, "The Way is not a matter of knowing or not knowing.
知是妄覺、不知是無記。
Knowing is delusion; not knowing is confusion.
若眞達不擬之道、猶如太虚廓然洞豁。
When you have really reached the true Way beyond doubt, you will find it as vast and boundless as outer space.
豈可強是非也。
How can it be talked about on the level of right and wrong?"
州於言下頓悟。
With these words, Jõshû came to a sudden realization.
Mumon's Comment
無門曰、南泉被趙州發問、直得瓦解氷消、分疎不下。
Nansen dissolved and melted away before Jõshû's question, and could not offer a plausible explanation.
趙州縱饒悟去、更參三十年始得。
Even though Jõshû comes to a realization, he must delve into it for another thirty years before he can fully understand it.
Mumon's Verse 頌曰
春有百花秋有月    The spring flowers, the autumn moon;
夏有涼風冬有雪    Summer breezes, winter snow.
若無閑事挂心頭    If useless things do not clutter your mind,
更是人間好時節    You have the best days of your life.
                                *          *          *

Letting go is ultimately a volitional act, but unlike other acts of volition, it does not give rise to subsequent mental formations.  Seeking and trying are dead ends.  A good way to put this kind of perception into practice is to avoid the tendency to see meditation as a kind of special state.  Any attempts to conjure something "extraordinary" or "concentrated" or even "bare" or "relaxed" is just another act of willful imposition.  Just let your mind be ordinary.  To paraphrase Suzuki, mindfulness is nothing special.

When a loud sound is heard, is this hearing "doing"? When the bright sun is seen, is this seeing "doing"? When a smell is smelt, is this smelling "doing"?
None of the above are "doing". Therefore, why would the automatic natural knowing of internal bodily & mental states be "doing"?

One isn't necessarily aware of the beauty of the sun when he sees it ,he can be thinking about something else .Yes bare witnessing happens without doing but if your normal state is in conditioned unawareness these moments of witnessing are few.Now the question is in meditation how can one initiate the watching naturally without trying to do it ?

If you want to end suffering (attain Nibbana), you need to develop wisdom which comes from developing the Noble Eight Fold Path. Not by looking at some object.
By developing the Noble Eight Fold Path, you understand the Four Noble Truths.
Just by looking at some object will not bring you any Wisdom. See for yourself if that develops any understanding of the Noble Truth of Suffering? The Origin of Suffering? The Cessation or the Path leading to the cessation of suffering? Sure your mind will be concentrated but without any Wisdom (about the Four Noble Truths). Therefore, such concentration is not the Right Concentration.
In the Great Forty discourse, Buddha clearly shows what Right Concentration is with all the 7 preceding parts (starting with Right View) as their requisite condition. And what is the right view? The understanding of the Four Noble Truths.
Therefore, start with that. Buddha said in the Noble Truth of Suffering that Birth, Aging, Sickness, Death is suffering.
Focus on Birth - contemplate in terms of where one can be born in - hell, animal womb, plane of the departed, human world, divine world & brahma worlds. Contemplate suffering in each of those planes. And ask yourself this being the case, is there any place for me be born and call it a happy destination?
Then look at yourself, aging - compare to how it was when you were a child and how you have aged now. Contemplate on various sickness in the world and how the next moment you can get the same.
Then contemplate on Death. As Buddha said, contemplate on a dead body left out there for days, oozing, eaten by insects and animals, contemplate the disgusting nature of that and think such is the nature of "my" body. I have not escaped this.
Then ask yourself, what is the Origin of such a Form? How did I get this disgusting thing? Then use this below Concentration Discourse and meditate on the arising and passing away phenomena.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.5/en/bodhi

“And what, bhikkhus, is the origin of form? What is the origin of
  feeling? What is the origin of perception? What is the origin of
  volitional formations? What is the origin of consciousness?
“Here, bhikkhus, one seeks delight, one welcomes, one remains holding.
  And what is it that one seeks delight in, what does one welcome, to
  what does one remain holding? One seeks delight in form, welcomes it,
  and remains holding to it. As a consequence of this, delight arises.
  Delight in form is clinging. With one’s clinging as condition,
  existence comes to be; with existence as condition, birth; with birth
  as condition, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure,
  and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of
  suffering.

Take your own example and ask do I seek delight in form? Do I eat anything on the table or do I seek something I like? Do I eat and say it's tasty? Do I welcome it? Do I remain holding? Having seen a person do I say he or she is beautiful? Like this just observe by looking at your examples. Then see as a result do I cling to it? The next day also do I want the same thing? Like this contemplate all the way to Birth. This is how I got this mass of suffering.
Now you can contemplate on the passing away phenomena - what is the cessation? See if you did not seek delight in form, did not welcome it, did not remain holding, won't the delight cease? If there's no delight will there be any clinging? Like this contemplate and you see there is a cessation of this form.
Try to understand the Dependent Origination. What it means when the Buddha said "with Existence as a condition, Birth" or because of Craving, Suffering come to be.
This is how you should understand impermanence. By understanding the arising and passing away phenomena of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness.
The commonly accepted Vipassana techniques today are all polluted with non-Buddha teachings (mainly due to Commentaries esp. Visuddhimagga and Abhidhammatta Sangaha - both works of non-attainers).
Everything that the Buddha teaches is towards the goal of Nibbana. The whole doctrine is within the Four Noble Truths.
If not for a great Dhamma Teacher I too would be in your boat. Therefore with much compassion I write these details for you to also try contemplating on Dhamma and see the results.
Full meditation I mentioned above can be found here


text:
How did Arya Nagarjuna reached the direct perception of Emptiness?
our Sangha is trying to find through a lot of ancient books about the story of Arya Nagarjuna reaching a level of direct perception of Emptiness, and we couldn't find anything in the scriptures yet.
If someone has information on a following topics with quotes, please let us know.
Thank you.
EDIT: What I meant is that he reached an Arya level, and we are looking for details about his direct perception of Emptiness.

What "following topics"?

It seems a slightly odd question. Presumably he employed some combination of the usual methods. A direct perception of emptiness is not an unusual accomplishment. The profundity of his understanding is another matter.

@Lanka I expect that means a "relevant" topic -- a topic that follows from the question.

@PeterJ, exactly.  Direct perception of emptiness is basically entry level practice.  It's significant, just like a child's first steps are, but it's not anything unusual or profound.

Arya Nagarjuna as a scholar, only dispelled the arguments of the reificationists or the annihilationalists. In doing so, he conceptualized sunyata- sunyata is itself sunya (sunyatasunyata). It is merely an analytical tool (certainly of the gretest importance and very profound) to go beyond the obstructs of conceptual thinking- go beyond thinking to the direct experience of reality of mind-body phenomenon in its entirety.
Arya Nagarjuna reached the "perception of emptiness" by the same way as all Budhhas, Boddhisattvas, Arihants have reached and we can reach- by the technique of Vipassana- by the direct experiential insight into the phenomenon of mind-body, which is empty of all conceptual constructs.
But I am sorry to say that I myself do not know of any scrpitures which discuss the meditative experiences of Arya Nagarjuna.
EDITED- It may help you to look at Tsong Kha pa's "The Great Treatise on the States of the Path to Enlightenment". In fact, if you already have not, you may try searching through the Lamrims. Although, I doubt whether it particularly deals with an account of Arya Nagarjuna's meditative expriences. But they may help you make correct inferences and deductions (much Like I have done in this answer).
EDITED (2nd)- It will be very useful for you to look at Arya Candrakirti's The Entry into the Middle Way. In some translations, Stage one "The Joyous" is associated with the direct perception of sunyata.


text:
Right knowledge and right relase or right release and right knowledge
In ten Noble path the sequence is right knowledge and right release. (Samma Nana and samma vimutti)
In SN 12.23 it says:
Dispassion is a vital condition for freedom.
virāgūpanisā vimutti,
Freedom is a vital condition for the knowledge of ending.
vimuttūpanisaṃ khayeñāṇaṃ.
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.23/en/sujato

SN 12.23 says:

Khayeñāṇaṃ (knowledge of destruction of defilements) has freedom (from defilements) as its condition.
Freedom (from defilements) has dispassion, disillusionment & yathābhūtañāṇadassanan (truly knowing and seeing) as its conditions.

Therefore, if following the sequence of dhammas in SN 12.23, "right knowledge" ("samma ñāṇa") in MN 117 would be yathābhūtañāṇadassanan and not khayeñāṇaṃ.

Right Knowledge (sammāñāṇaṃ) come first. Then come Right Release (sammāvimutti). However those two are only for an Arahat. For the sekha person (one who is practicing the Noble Eight Fold Path) the first eight.
https://suttacentral.net/mn117/en/bodhi

“Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view
  come first? In one of right view, right intention comes into being; in
  one of right intention, right speech comes into being; in one of right
  speech, right action comes into being; in one of right action, right
  livelihood comes into being; in one of right livelihood, right effort
  comes into being; in one of right effort, right mindfulness comes into
  being; in one of right mindfulness, right concentration comes into
  being; in one of right concentration, right knowledge comes into
  being; in one of right knowledge, right deliverance comes into being.
  Thus, bhikkhus, the path of the disciple in higher training possesses
  eight factors, the arahant possesses ten factors.

If you want to learn how to develop the Noble Eight Fold Path, take a look at this

Upasaka, interested,
Knowledge of release khayeñāṇa, or Dukkha-nirodha-gāminiyā paṭipadāya ñāṇaṃ (Knowledge of the way leading to the cessation of suffering), is the effect of the path. Now knowing this, of cause needs to attain certain liberation vimutti at first place. Once attained this knowledge guiding to certain vimutti, can be reproduced.
There is no such as a contradiction, but is simply a change of perspective, one toward fruit, and one having left fruit behind.
Other then mentioned in other answers, release and knowledge of release are not only something that occurs only to an Arahat, but to certain extent for all other stages of awakening. In full extant and so also full repeat-able, of course only for an Arahat. Knowledge at the "end", with the breaking up of the body, will then be abounded and final ceto-vimutti, pañña-vimutti attained. Release is the only left then.
(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment but as a means toward escape from this wheel here)

Venerable Johann. "Khayeñāṇa" means "knowledge of destruction". Regards

Or "knowledge of ending", yes, Brahman Dhammadhatu.


text:
Disclosing Spiritual Experiences
I've read that the Dalai Lama tends not to disclose his own spiritual experiences.
Is it bad to disclose meditative or spiritual experiences as visions and such? Is there a difference between monks and lay practitioners in this respect? Again for monks and lay holders: what occurs if someone is lying or inauthentic about a spiritual experience?
Also, how does one know if a spiritual experience is a genuine one?
Thank you

This may be a duplicate of When and how should a layperson declare their achievements?

From AN8.67, this is ignoble:

Saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, but you haven’t. And saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have

From AN8.68, this is noble:

Saying you haven’t seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you haven’t. And saying you’ve seen, heard, thought, or known something, and you have.

Together, these two considerations create a powerful disincentive to make claims, simply because one might be speaking out of delusion and would therefore be speaking ignoble expressions. Essentially, not saying anything about personal attainments is wisest.
Yet even with this in mind, one might assert a personal experience--how can a listener know the truth of such?

You can get to know a person’s ethics by living with them. But only after a long time, not casually; only when paying attention, not when inattentive; and only by the wise, not the witless.

One comes to know the truth of oneself and others in deeds rather than speech. For more detail, study AN5.100, which discusses the claims of different kinds of teachers including the Buddha himself:

A person will be recognized by their own deeds.

According to the Patimokkha rules:

Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, claim a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision, as present in
  himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless
  of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he — being
  remorseful and desirous of purification — might say, "Friends, not
  knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see — vainly, falsely,
  idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no
  longer in affiliation.
Should any bhikkhu report (his own) superior human state to an unordained person, when it is factual, it is to be confessed.

The first rule means that monks who deliberately lie about their spiritual achievements to anyone, are defeated (immediate and irreversible expulsion from the monastic order).
The second rule means that monks are not allowed to reveal their spiritual achievements to lay people, even if it is factual.
In addition, for monks and lay people alike, the precept of not telling untruth applies.