text:
Avalokitesvara real miracles?
I have read in the lotus-sutra that chanting the name of avalokitesvara can for example break sticks if one is about to get beaten. Are there recorded miracles that happened to people out there?

I don't think recorded miracles will help you much for even if there're detailed records, there'll always be 2 camps: the skeptics will always have their own explanation/interpretation while the believers will always believe it their way. So the best way is to practice and see it in your own experience. Check out Ven. Hsuan Hua's great commentary on the Lotus Sutra at http://www.cttbusa.org/dfs25/dfs25.asp . And per his explanation from the website, if one chants/recites half-heartedly simply for the sake of "testing it out", then s/he's gonna be disappointed.

At that time, the farmer did not remember that E shi yun was a line from the Great Compassion Mantra. After the man left, he remembered, "He is a Dharma Protector in the Great Compassion Mantra!" This is an inconceivable state manifest from the Great Compassion Mantra. But if you recite it just to test it out, E Shi Yun is not going to show up. It is only if you recite and believe in the Mantra that unlucky circumstances can be turned into lucky ones. If you run into E Shi Yun, be sure to recognize him. Do not be like the farmer who did not remember who he was until he was gone."


text:
Mahasi Sayadaw / Yuttadhammo noting question
When I'm sitting, I have a lot of trouble making it through all the touching points.
One issue I'm thinking that I might be having is that maybe the progression of objects is incorrect: I do rising-falling-sitting-touching and then repeat for the entire hour that I sit. Maybe I am supposed to be doing: rising-falling-sitting and then rising-falling-touching and repeat those two progressions alternatively?
Assuming the former is correct - is it ever permissible to, I'm weary about using the word but, ignore very subtle objects of awareness and continue noting through the progression? I just feel like I'm forcing it every time I make it to a touching point. I try to be as mindful as possible but it's hard to feel like I'm doing it correctly when I can't even make it to a touching point. feels like it's creating needless doubts. and maybe I'm just practicing incorrectly.
Thanks in advance!

I just feel like I'm forcing it every time I make it to a touching
point. I try to be as mindful as possible but it's hard to feel like
I'm doing it correctly when I can't even make it to a touching point.
feels like it's creating needless doubts. and maybe I'm just
practicing incorrectly.

You're experiencing disenchantment and dispassion which comes about through the recognition of transience, suffering and not-self. What you claim as a setback is the actual knowledge to be understood.
In your quote above there is classic transience, suffering and not-self mostly through seeking continuity of practice and becoming frustrated that its continuity has been lost. That's the knowledge right there.
It is not a mechanistic understanding governed by conventional learning, it is a wisdom-understanding governed by how the mind has been previously exposed to practice.

One issue I'm thinking that I might be having is that maybe the progression of objects is incorrect: I do rising-falling-sitting-touching and then repeat for the entire hour that I sit. Maybe I am supposed to be doing: rising-falling-sitting and then rising-falling-touching and repeat those two progressions alternatively?

The former is the way Ven. Yuttadhammo teaches. The other method isn't wrong imo.

Assuming the former is correct - is it ever permissible to, I'm weary about using the word but, ignore very subtle objects of awareness and continue noting through the progression? I just feel like I'm forcing it every time I make it to a touching point. I try to be as mindful as possible but it's hard to feel like I'm doing it correctly when I can't even make it to a touching point. feels like it's creating needless doubts. and maybe I'm just practicing incorrectly.

Much of the purpose of noting the sequence is to keep the mind focused and to stop distracting thoughts as one would using the the classic counting method for anapanasati.
You can do the whole sequence or only do rising - falling or rising - falling - sitting or do all the touching points, neither is wrong and you can do as you see fit.
Imo you should take notice of when thoughts of doubt appear, you should then overcome that hindrance and still these thoughts. You can contemplate the hindrance and direct mind accordingly to a different theme than the one you were paying attention when the hindrance beset you, ie simplify your 'method', solve the controversy, set things aside, or do a different contemplation/meditation not associated with doubt.
Contemplation of the hindrances is a part of satipatthana training but afaik there's little to no emphasis on contemplation in Yuttadhammo's popularized method.
There usually one would at that time note either 'doubt' or 'thinking', however it appeared, then return to the risefall-sitting-touching & whatnot.
Then just waiting to see if it goes away, maybe note aversion & whatnot, then maybe try not paying attention

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
About suffering, expectations and unfalsifiable beliefs
I've been wondering if it's possible to "progress" towards enlightenment if one has certain set of beliefs which may (or may not) be false (or illogical), but which do not generate conflict between expectations and experience. If we understand dukkha as the result of a dissonance between worldview and experience, one could a priori think that unfalsifiable theories may not generate such dissonances (and therefore, may not contribute to the perpetuation of the conditions of dukkha), because there's no experience that can disprove such notions.
For example, if one says that "our true self is formless, without comprehensible features", how could this view be a hindrance in the path? After all, that belief does not seem to necessarily contradicts the essence of anattā, because no khandha can be considered that alleged "true self", and so, non-attachment to khandhas may also be the path to attain that "true self".
Being more general: can someone attain Nibbana while still holding some false notions about self or reality?
Kind regards!

The Buddhist problematic isn't about whether beliefs are true or false, or provable or unprovable. It's about whether we cling to beliefs, because the clinging itself creates dukkha.
So for instance, let's take your statement: "Our true self is formless, without comprehensible features." You adopt this belief, and like it, and it doesn't seem to interfere with your meditation or other practices. Fine. But then along comes another Buddhist, who says: "No, no no: that's not right.  What I believe is this...". Suddenly you find yourself involved in an intellectual dispute, wrestling (good-naturedly) with another practitioner about whose perspective is better, and which of you has more experience to back up their view. One way or another (unless you're very careful) someone's ego is going to get bruised. And then along comes some decidedly less enlightened person who says: "You two are a pair of blowhards and it's all a crock of sh*t anyway, so stop pretending you're so high and mighty." So not only did your statement make you a target for abuse, it gave this poor guy something concrete to vent about.
Fixed beliefs — even innocuous-seeming ones, and particularly ones that are not otherwise decidable — are focal points for conflict. Just think about the Christian faith, where a fixed, undecidable belief in a loving God indirectly fills the world with anger, resentment, and hate. I'm not going to go so far as to say that a belief like this is an obstacle, because beliefs like this are useful tools at certain stages of spiritual development. But in the end, even beliefs like this will have be released.

“ Being more general: can someone attain Nibbana while still holding some false notions about self or reality?”
No, in the same way and for the same reason that one cannot wake up from a dream without being entirely sure that the experience is a dream. If you still have some doubt or hold some false notion that the experience is not a dream you simply cannot wake up to the fact that it is. In just the same way one cannot “wake up” from this waking life without being thoroughly convinced and sure - even more directly perceiving it! - that this is just like a dream, a mirage, the flame of a lamp, an illusion, a drop of dew, a bubble, a flash of lightning. This is the teaching of the Buddha.

The answer to your question is specific to the person in yr example. We could weigh the amount of damage this being produced by maintaining this view. For instance if this being took sentient beings money to help them but doesnt deliver or isnt accountable and causes someone to stumble or kill themself this should lead to distress in the being. This would assume the being has had initial enlightenment and is at minimum bodhisattva. How the being deals with the consequences of his actions is his karma so he could still attain full enlightenment at death.

That I am a woman is my wrongview and false belief right? I'm trans and I was assigned male at birth. So in a sense I am a man. But a judge declared that I am female. This government views me as female. 99% of people who interact with me on a given day claim I am female! But sometimes my mom uses male pronouns! The horror! The dissonance! The dysphoria!! How I deal with this pain is my karma I work toward complete and perfect enlightenment motivated by love for The Great Buddha and compassion for all who love Him.

I'm not sure I can answer this well; but to attempt an answer, in note form:

It's difficult for me personally (e.g. given my training) to see an unfalsifiable belief as being even a belief at all. It seems that it isn't "right view", nor "wrong view" -- that instead it is "not even wrong".

We're told in MN 22 (this was Dharmafarer's translation of that):

Bhikshus, you may well cling to the self-doctrine that would not cause sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair to arise in one who clings to it. But do you see any such possession, bhikshus?”
“No, bhante.”
“Good, bhikshus. I, too, do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair in one who clings to it.

We might be meant to beware of clinging to views perhaps especially in later stages of enlightenment (see e.g. the parable of the raft)

Buddhist doctrine often seems to judge a view by its effect -- does it lead to morality and to unbinding? If so then good and if not then not -- which is a circular answer to the question.

This might be an orthodox answer here -- i.e. that some inchoate sense-of-self might continue to arise occasionally until a person becomes fully and finally enlightened, but that (perhaps by definition) a semi-enlightened person will not "hold" that as a "view".

I've been wondering if it's possible to "progress" towards enlightenment if one has certain set of beliefs which may (or may not) be false (or illogical), but which do not generate conflict between expectations and experience.

That's why the Dhamma is not an armchair philosophy. One doesn't make progress toward enlightenment by starting out with all the correct views and beliefs. The validity of the particular view will need to be tested over and over again by applying it in real life. So, using your example, "true self is formless, without comprehensive features", ok, sounds good in theory. But one'd need to do a lot more to see how it fares when the rubber meets the road, ie. does it still hold when one's being touched by the soft and warm body of a young voluptuous woman? or being showered with all kinds of flowery words? with wealth, fame, beauty, or prestige? So right view will be attained, developed, AND re-inforced as one makes the actual climb toward the mountain top. For a right view without implementation can quickly and easily slide back toward the wrong side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YbMqcQK0k4

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


text:
Intensifying sensations during meditation after switching to an Ayuverdic lifestyle
I've been a Vipassana meditator for some time (2 10-day retreats and regular meditation on a near-daily basis). I've found it tremendously helpful and life changing. I'm also a type-1 diabetic.
I sought the advice of a good Ayuverda doctor near me and started following his guidelines for what to eat/not to in accordance with my "prakriti".
I eat mostly vegetables and rarely ever touch meat. I've been eating very healthy and have noticed a lot of improvements in overall wellbeing.
However, I have been experiencing some bizarre things in my meditation. Extremely intense emotions and sensations began to arise in my body and it makes me wonder if a cleaner diet had anything to do with it. I feel a constant clenching and tightness in my whole neck which goes up to the left side of my head up the jaw. I feel much more from the left side of my chest. Various sensations have begun to arise from there and it makes me wonder if this is a natural evolution when one goes along the path.
I am constantly in touch with my healthcare team and have a clean bill of health even after many years with diabetes. I feel much more in my body, but cannot describe it to my doctors as i feel this has something to do with my awarenss gained from meditation. Unfortunately, I use cannabis (trying to quit) and feel that the cannabis greatly intensifies very unpleasant sensations, particularly in the chest area where I even feel some stabbing pain and burning.
Does eating vegetables increase the "sharpness" of meditation? Should I quit drinking coffee/using cannabis? I am intrigued by what is happening in my body and have no clue which person I should consult about these sort of things. I am a vata/pitta individual living in the Netherlands.

First, good to hear that you have your health in check thanks to the medical care you mention. With their attention, we could likely rule out the medical aspect of your sensations. However, i can't tell from your description if they have been consulted about the tightness in the neck and head you describe.

Does eating vegetables increase the "sharpness" of meditation?

It's more likely that eating vegetables keeps you from being dull or drowsy, by staying away from food that requires a lot of energy to digest. In fact, the sixth buddhist precept has this particular purpose.

Should I quit drinking coffee/using cannabis?

According to buddhism, substances keeps us in an unbalanced way of life due to craving (tanha). If you manage to reduce your craving habits it will help you develop better karma for yourself, in turn helping calm and concentration in accordance with the fifth buddhist precept.
This goes primarily for cannabis, as it is altering your perception/concentration, but also to a lesser extent coffee, since caffeine can prevent you from developing samatha or tranquility during meditation.

I am intrigued by what is happening in my body and have no clue which person I should consult about these sort of things. I am a vata/pitta individual living in the Netherlands.

The experiences you have are addressed in many different traditions of thought. Buddhism very much provides a framework for understanding and dealing with your questions, but may/may not correspond to ayurvedic practice (i know practically nothing about those things).
Put shortly, what you are experiencing could be considered citta sankhara, or formations of perception as a result of your habits, generally speaking. Provided it's not a medical cause for your sensations, they will probably be stilled if you continue your meditation practice.

The Noble Eightfold Path is conditioned but can be grasped too tightly from a desire for rapid progress or attainments. Embrace slow, steady and gentle practices and observances. Observances and practices that lead to obsession are not skillful. Find a middle ground that leads to less craving, less aversion and less delusion. In the practice of Buddhism, we let go of our cravings. We don't grasp them.

Thag16.7:6.1: Today I am fortunate, persistent,  happy with the scraps in my bowl:  Bhaddiya son of Godhā practices absorption without grasping.

Regarding diet, when I wore a glucose monitor, what I noticed is that subtle changes in diet have great impact on glucose levels. Eating a banana alone causes a glucose spike. Eating a banana with peanut butter smooths out the spike. So it's not just what we eat, it's also how and when we eat. Be gentle with your body and observe it mindfully and carefully in consultation with good doctors and teachers.

Many people have described "spiritual" or energetic feelings after changing their diet, particularly vegetarian/fruitarian diets, without those people necessarily practising meditation or following a relgious practise. Buddhist monks have sometimes been encouraged to eat meat if their health was poor/they were sick, and the Shaolin  monastery monks practising kung fu eat meat as part of their training, although their meditational practise may be limited. Although I have not personally noticed any changes in my Buddhist practise from reducing my meat/fish intake, it is possible that, as another user has said, that you are more focused because plant food digests more quickly. It may well have made you more sensitive, but I have no proof of that. However embrace these changes as something positive. As you diet becomes cleaner, you may react to those unclean parts of your diet: eg coffee/cannabis and quite naturally want to reduce them. This has happened to me with regard to my coffee intake. As my diet has cleaned up, coffee occasiaonlly tastes toxic to me, even though I generally love it from and have been addicted to it for a long time.


text:
Is there a reason that monasticism is an afterthought?
In the same way that Mahayana is an afterthought. Does it matter that something comes second not first does that make it less valid? Chicken or the egg?
Asking for a friend

Some trust that the foremost is the foremost, some find it out, some will always not recognice it right. A matter of faith and wisdom, assosiation with fools or wise.

This is the answer to my question please post as an answer

Someone answered my question in a comment
Some trust that the foremost is the foremost, some find it out, some will always not recognice it right. A matter of faith and wisdom, assosiation with fools or wise. – Samana Johann


text:
What is the self cherishing attitude?
And to whom does it arise?
As spoken about by Dr. Berzin?
Listen to Seven Point Mind Training by Study Buddhism on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.com/studybuddhism/7-point-mind-training

It's described in a couple of pages of The Complete Foundation: The Systematic Approach to Training the Mind by HH the Dalai Lama.
I paraphrase:

It is the one object of all blame -- the source of all miseries therefore the only object to be blamed for all misfortune.
Normally we blame others because we are self-righteous
Problems come from the kind of body we assume, which is contaminated and a product of actions -- we possess that body because of attachment to self -- therefore it's attachment to self that gives rise to suffering.
"The self-cherishing and self-grasping attitudes abide strongly fortified in the mind, we have never been able to shake the in the least."
It leads to wars (globally) and problems within the family.
It also leads to arguments between people with one assuming they have more truth than the other.
The chronic disease of cherishing myself
  is the cause of unwanted suffering
  Perceiving this, may I be inspired
  To blame, begrudge, and destroy
  This self-cherishing demon.

When I read a bit of https://www.google.com/search?q=%22self-cherishing+attitude%22 it seems to include both what Theravada calls "conceit" (e.g. "I am better than you") and other vices, e.g. attachments (and I don't know about comfort-seeking too ... and presumably "becoming" and "birth" and so too).
It possibly doesn't include "the view of a real personal identity" which (as in Theravada) might be stated as a separate problem.
"Bodhicitta" is maybe meant to be the antidote, to the "self-cherishing attitude". I've also seen on video his holiness say that he sees himself as "not special" and "just, like everyone else" -- because otherwise he would be/feel imprisoned (in/by his identity).
Combining the last two paragraphs above, I wonder if sunyata rather than Bodhicitta is the antidote to "the view of a real personal identity" -- but sunyata (without Bodhicitta) isn't enough by itself to get rid of the "self-cherishing attitude".

What theravada calls conceit? Can conceit walk on earth? You saw the topic in which Ven Yuttadhammo described "conceit", it's also described here on Wikipedia: Māna. Among other things it's identified as a major cause of sectarian argument (e.g. "I know better than you do" etc.).

Separate problem? Separate from what and what? I was saying that, although HH describes the "self-cherishing attitude" as the only problem or the root problem, in another text I saw it identified as one of two problems -- with the other problem being "the view of a real personal identity".

Are you calling HH dalai lama conceited? No the opposite -- his saying that "I see myself as being like everyone else" (and not "better than everyone else") seems to be the opposite or absence of conceit.

I doubt one could develop proper bodhicitta without doing sunyata As you might have seen, the Theravada doctrine is that "identity view" is the first to be eradicated (i.e. before "conceit" is). I guess they might be both a little-by-little step-by-step -- and "gradual training" includes generosity (dana) early on, that is, before "stream-entry".

I'm saying Theravada doctrine identifies a fetter called "identity view" which might correspond to what Mahayana doctrine calls "the view of a real personal identity". And Theravada identifies several other fetters, which including "conceit" and others -- and that these may all correspond to or be different aspects of what Lojong calls "self-cherishing attitude".


text:
How does a Buddhist care for others' suffering?
Please forgive me, I know really little about buddhism. From what I heard, the Buddhist will try to find relief from suffering by meditation and trying to be selfless. But what about others that are suffering? Does the Buddhist value more attaining enlightenment for himself or helping others in need? Also what if others do not have the skills to practice to go towards enlightenment? Is the Buddhist concerned?
I'd like to understand more the relationship between the Buddhist and the suffering of other people.

What one learns one can teach it. Teaching others to understand suffering and dissatisfaction can be the greatest gift.

The bamboo acrobat may answer the question.

When a person is sick, due to knowing they are sick, they act to visit a doctor. To be a doctor, a person must study medicine at university for at least 5 years, before they can help sick people.
Similarly, a person who is suffering must, via their own initiative, seek out a solution. Similarly, to be a Buddhist that can help others end suffering, a person must train for enlightenment.
An enlightened Buddhist makes themselves available to help others. However, others must learn to help themselves by following the advice of Buddhism.

I guess it broadly happens in three ways.

There's a focus on behaving ethically or virtuously -- keeping the precepts (or monks have stricter rules). These include no killing, no stealing, no lying, and more (e.g. no seducing their family).
That protects other people from misbehaviour.
More broadly there's some degree of emotional control as well as behavioural control. So "no anger" and "no coveting" as well as "no killing" and "no stealing".
And IMO that helps protect other people from emotional contagion (of afflictive emotions).
There's helping people in mundane ways. Being a good member of the family and of society, friend and employer. Earning an honest living. Being prudent, being generous, being thrifty not dissipated.
In that way you're able to help people in some worldly ways.
You're better able to help other people find their own liberation, perhaps by formal teaching or more generally perhaps by simply behaving (practising) as a good example.

There may be a step beyond that i.e. "bodhisattva" -- which is not a feature of the form of Buddhism which I've studied so far, maybe the three ways listed above are at least a good beginning, possibly sufficient.
Does the Buddhist value more attaining enlightenment for himself or helping others in need?
That question might assume things about identity which may be non-obvious from a Buddhist perspective -- Buddhism identifies selfishness as a problem, a cause or even the cause of "suffering".
Someone might answer that enlightenment is helping all beings (i.e. that the question is a false dichotomy).
Some of the doctrine in the suttas is like,

Even as a mother protects with her life
      Her child, her only child,
  So with a boundless heart
      Should one cherish all living beings;
  Radiating kindness over the entire world:

There's also What is the difference between 'compassion' and 'pity'?
Buddhism also mentions intention (what you're trying to do) and skill (how well or successfully you do it).
I think some of the elementary doctrine includes "skillful virtue results in lack of remorse" -- and "helping others in need" might belong to the category of actions which you don't regret -- and therefore helping someone is a little taste of enlightenment.
Together with "selfishness", "greed" is a problem (there are other problems too). I think that generosity is recommended even as part of the elementary training in virtue.
Also what if others do t have the skills to practice to go towards enlightenment?
I'd like to hope that everyone has the skill.
I'm not sure everyone has the right environment or circumstance (or society), though, maybe history (training) too -- perhaps their environment is part of what you affect (improve) by your own practice.

"We’re going to have depend on one another. And one way to make sure that other people will be happy to help you is that you help them. You keep them in mind. Here’s why I keep saying: At the end of the day when you’ve done what you have to do, don’t just think about what you want to do now. Ask yourself: “Do I have a little energy to do at least one more thing for someone else’s well-being?” Make that a habit. That kind of habit then becomes something you can depend on."
~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu "Owners of Our Actions" https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Published/Meditations10/200405_Owners_of_Our_Actions.pdf


text:
Is HH Dalai Lama conceited?
I heard that Theravada presupposes HH Dalai Lama is not even reached initial bodhisattva enlightenment and that His existence is mocked. Is it not so?

This invites unnecessary controversy

For whom is it unnecessary? I say that if there is one for whom it is unnecessary there is also one for whom it is necessary

@4N4G4M1N This is one site for all schools/traditions of Buddhism. The community here doesn't/didn't want it to be used for topics where one school criticises another, and so this form of question is off-topic. See also Hostile and Broad Comparisons in the Moderation policies for Questions and especially the Minimizing controversy sections of the FAQ index (summary of site policies).

It seems a simple matter of fact whether or not Theravadans say this, so I cannot see a problem with the question. No judgement or comparison is called for.

Its often best to avoid comparing Theravada to Mahayana.
For example, in Theravada there is no notion of 'bodhisattva enlightenment'. In Theravada, the word 'bodhisattva' is never used, apart from referring to Gotama prior to his Awakening. For example, in the Pali suttas, there is the stock phrase:

Bhikkhus, before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, it occurred to me:...
https://suttacentral.net/mn19/en/bodhi

As for HH Dalai Lama, his former political role as leader of Tibet is somewhat alien to Theravada monasticism. Therefore, occasionally, Theravada people criticize the Dalai Lama; including for some of his political decisions & actions.
This said, if HH Dalai Lama has inwardly realised not-self (anatta) & eradicated identity belief (sakkaya ditthi) then he has reached one of the four levels of enlightenment according to Theravada. Personally, I believe he has enlightenment.

@4N4G4M1N This site is principally for asking and answering questions about Buddhist doctrine and practice. In theory one might use it to criticise people, to quote them out of context, and to carry arguments over from one topic to another -- but almost nobody does, and please, you really mustn't. And please avoid posting too many comments too.

@4N4G4M1N: Doctrine is philosophical; dogma is ideological. It's a question of one's attitude towards the text.

This is the answer to my question. Thank you, dear Ted.

@4N4G4M1N I use "doctrine" to mean "what is taught" -- from the Latin docere (to teach) and doctor (teacher). And "dogma" is a belief or opinion, which someone holds but which they may not have 'proven' to your satisfaction -- from the Greek dokein (to seem good, to think) and dogma (opinion) -- I view "dogma" as being possibly a bit pejorative (used to refer to unreasonable religious beliefs and arguments) but people also use it as a synonym for "axiom" or "an article of faith".


text:
How many different techniques of meditation did Buddha teach?
I was just wondering how many different types of meditation techniques did Buddha teach?
I know the below
Anapana,
Vipassana,
Charnal Ground,
Metta Bhavana,
I am looking for a list of meditations for my research purpose.

Anapana, Vipassana, 32 body parts meditation, Metta Bhavana,
I am looking for a list of meditations for my research purpose.

They're parts of what's called the Kammatthana, the Forty objects of meditation as classified in the Visuddhimagga. The wiki page also gives a pretty good summary about them.

The Buddha described practice in several different ways. For example:
The phrase "practice like this" occurs in at least 26 suttas: sn54.10 sn54.1 sn54.13 an10.29 sn54.9 sn54.8 sn54.7 sn54.6 sn54.5 sn54.4 sn54.3 sn54.20 an3.60
The phrase "practice the meditation" occurs in at least 2 suttas: MN151 MN121
The phrase "practicing the right way" occurs in at least 1 sutta: MN139
The phrase "here we will" occurs in at least 1 sutta: MN8
The phrase "immersion that does not lean forward" occurs in at least 1 sutta: AN9.37
The phrase "with teeth clenched" occurs in at least 4 suttas: MN20 MN100 MN36 MN85
There are no doubt many others...to find them please read the suttas. That is what researchers themselves do.


text:
Discovering Pureland Faith
I'm an older male, actually a grandfather, and a Western convert to Buddhism. I came to Buddhism through meditation and interest in 60's mysticism - Alan Watts, D T Suzuki and the like. I read many books and for many years maintained a regular daily sitting practice, which has rather fallen by the wayside of late. But I think the meditation side of Buddhism was very important to me, I'm naturally drawn to mysticism and feel I intuitively understand it, even though most people think it's just nonsense.
I discovered a Pureland (Jodo Shinshu) sangha in my neighborhood about mid last year. I have gone to the service regularly since then. Actually the Venerable is very pleased to have a new convert as it seems to me converts are very few and far between. I very much like the Teacher and the aesthetics of the liturgy and ceremonies, albeit much is in Japanese (although some teachings are always given in English too.)
It seems to me that if you accept this path, though, you basically give up Buddhism as a kind of D-I-Y path to enlightenment. Pureland is very critical of meditation, which is 'self-power' and doomed to fail - 'only one in a million' can follow the 'path of sages'. Basically part of the message is, don't do it. A recent dharma talk made an explicit point of this.
The thing that drew me to Pureland is that I know I am not a virtuous sage, but just a flawed human with bad habits and problematical behaviours. I actually do believe there is a life beyond (and a life previous) and that I have allowed myself to become corrupted by the culture into which I've been born.
But the obstacle I have with Jodo Shinshu is that in this sense it's very like the Christian religion that I thought I had left - it requires unswerving faith, but you will never know, this side of death, whether the Western paradise is a reality and not simply a cherished belief. It was exactly that which caused me to leave Christianity. One of the reasons I chose to study Buddhism in the first place was that one could arrive at a higher understanding through meditation, even though I have since found out I have an indelible tendency to sabotage my own aspirational goals.
Accordingly, the notion that we're bombu, spiritually inept individuals who can never succeed under their own power, definitely rings true. So it's a bit of a quandary at this point. I have a small Buddhist altar which is my practice place, I have been endeavouring to practice with a Sōtō Zen type of attitude. I feel as though I should continue to make the effort to sit zazen. Not because I will succeed through it, but 'sitting just to sit', as I've always done.
It's not so much a question, as the need to discuss some of this with other practitioners and get their perspectives.

What purpose can wisdom serve if it's not used for this very same life, right here-&-now? If you don't save yourself from suffering and dissatisfaction, can someone else do it for you?

One of the most detailed explanations I've read on this site about Pure Land doctrine was in this answer (and so I recommend that). Maybe that will make sense to you, or maybe you'll have another question about that perspective.

That is indeed a great answer ChrisW.

I don't know if you like grammar, there's something called perfect (etymologically "completely made", maybe "already finished"), which is more formal in some languages than others, but more-or-less exists in English too. Anyway Methexis' answer saying, "already-having-been-saved", reminded me of that type of "perfect". That "knowledge of the accomplishment" shows up in the Pali SN 56.11 too, incidentally.

There is something to that, that I've felt for a long time. It's that the whole aim of practice is to awaken gratitude for what has already been given, not to act from a sense of lack or need.

I was a minister's assistant in Jodo Shinshu. Traditionally Jodo/Jodo Shinshu did not teach meditation as it is commonly understood, relying instead on faith in tariki (other power). But practices like sutra chanting and monpo (deep listening) can be thought of as a form of meditation. So it is not meditation that they frown on, but using the Nembutsu as a form of meditation.
It is good to realize that you are a flawed person. The three requirements for rebirth in Sukhavati is (1) belief in Amida Buddha, (2) understanding that you need Amida Buddha, (3) desire for his pureland. Note that these terms are not explained. I think understanding comes with maturity. But the main thing is faith in tariki. This faith may seem similar to Christianity, but that similarity is just on the surface.
I used to be Catholic, but had difficulty believing in atonement through blood. It made no sense for a loving god to be brutal. The very first time I encountered the nembutsu I had a vision of great light. So, I have never doubted Amida. I practice monpo as a form listening to Amida. I practice nembutsu to take refuge and give gratitude. Namu Amida Butsu

Dont pay so much attention to vocabulary and linguistic labels just do. The invitation that begins with « better not to start. once started better to finish » Is the invitation worth accepting. I urge u to follow this thing whatever it is that u are describing. Keep it up no matter how impossible it seems to be the one being in a sea of a million sentient beings. Also PS u will never find ascetics in a monastery only Bhukuni and Bhiku....where does one go to find an ascetic i wonder?
Youre quote made me laugh « higher understanding » what is understood remains the same but the one who understands makes it higher or lower. Cant get to where you are going without meeting one or two obstacles!


text:
What is kriyacitta according to various Buddhist schools?
And to whom does it arise?
Also know as the Smile of the Arahant (hard to look On google)
Asking for a friend. Pass this on wont you?

My guess is that it is some kind of conceit or wrong self view?

A later Abhidhamma invention, Nyom http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/kiriya.htm (Brah google knows ones usual desires...)

See also a deeper discussion: "'The Kamma of Arahants'!!

kiriya might contain useful crosslinks.

No, that's just conventional knowlegde. But to distinguish good and bad, of course a ordinary person whould not easily know, yet could take on it in faith at first place.

Arahants have neither conceit nor wrong view

Worldling aren't able to recognice such even in themselfs: something to consider...

At least they do not take what isn't given, and don't speak in praise of what is based on wrong view, encourage others to wong doing: something that could be of help for ordinary people to observe...

Kriya citta is functional consciousness, meaning it performs a function without being karmically potent. In an arahant, it replaces kusala citta. An arahant does not create karma so their seemingly wholesome mind states are called kriya (functional).
Specifically, there are eight types of sahetuka-kāmāvacara-kriyā-citta - functional consciousness in the sensual sphere which have wholesome roots (non-greed, non-anger, non-delusion) and nine sahetuka-kriyā--jhāna-citta corresponding to the nine jhāna which also have wholesome roots. All of these arise only in arahants.
There are three additional ahetuka-kriyā-citta (rootless functional consciousness), one of which is the smile producing consciousness that occurs only to arahants. The other two are the adverting consciousnesses present in every mind process.

So only for an arahant then? Kriya citta does not arise to a monastic?

It's good to mention that it is an Abhidhamma and post canon term, not really finding a justification in this use in the Suttas, good Brahman.

The last two types mentioned occur in everyone, the rest only occur in arahants (including buddhas and private buddhas).


text:
Relationship between the 5 higher fetters and the Three Characteristics or the Three Doors
I use the definition of Three Doors posted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/6rrbl8/any_commentaries_on_the_three_doors_of_liberation/dl7h0e1/
To me, it looks like there is a connection:

Desire for existence in the realm of form
Desire for existence in the immaterial realms

They are about the tension between being and non-being. In other words, existence or non existence of the self, and that pretty much is Emptiness of the self.

Conceit

The conceit "I am... (this or that)". This looks related to Signlessness (there are no inherent attributes).

Restlessness

Seems related to Wishlessness.

Ignorance

This kind of encompasses everything.
Of course, the Three Doors are related to the Three Characteristics too.

Emptiness -> no-self.
Signlessness -> impermanence.
Wishlessness -> unsatisfactoriness.

I am understanding the fetters wrong and making up the relation or does this makes sense? I'm trying to understand them as good as I can.

Like they say on reddit, the 3 doors are not in the suttas. The 3 doors are some inventions from the commentators of some mix of commentaries, abidhammas, and suttas.
Those are not the dhamma. Even the mix of commentaries, abidhammas, and suttas on which they comment is not the dhamma. Even the suttas alone can be  blindly said to be the dhamma.
So first, the usual way use of doors is the ''guarding of the sense doors''.
For the signless, there is plenty of that in the suttas, but there is not much about them, just like for ''desire for non-existence''. They are just listed and zero explanation. This is great for commentators who can tack their various speculations in their teachings, but at the end of the day, nobody knows what those means.
So for the signless like here https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.11.irel.html
the note says

The Signless (animitta) is one of the three Deliverances (vimokkha) by which beings are liberated from the world. The other two
  are Desirelessness (appanihita) and Emptiness (sunnata). The Signless
  is connected with the idea of impermanence of all conditioned things
  (cf. Visuddhi Magga, XXI 67f).

This is the usual interpretation of those weird signless, desirelessness and emptiness liberations. You can read the Visuddhi Magga to read more on this, but the Visuddhi Magga is not the dhamma, only a some commentary by some people.
The usual connection with the fetters is with the births, ie Breaking the first 5 fetters frees you from rebirth in the sense-world, and breaking the remaining 5 higher fetters, frees you from being reborn in the form world and the formless world.
So the non-returners have broken the 5 lower fetters and if they fail to reach nibanna as humans, they get to be reborn as some non-returner devas. Now the difference between those nonfully enlightened devas and the normal devas is here https://suttacentral.net/an4.123/en/sujato
https://suttacentral.net/an4.124/en/sujato
that the normal devas delight in whatever world they live, then they are reborn in hell sooner or later (like any non enlightened people), and the enlightened devas just die like the human arahants.
So to link anicca dukkha and anatta to the fetters, you link them to the realms of births and you can say that the five higher fetters are failure to see anicca, dukkha, anatta  of those higher realms , plus the failure to see that what is anicca about those realm is also dukkha, and to fail to see that what is dukkha about those realms is also anatta [ie to to crave for them].

I think you may be over-analyzing. Remember, the ten fetters (and the three doors, and the eight precepts, and the three jewels, and the four noble truths: Buddhists really love lists...) are pointers to a single common attitude. It isn't that we try to achieve emptiness and singleness and wishlessness; it's not a conjunction of different efforts. We try to find that inner state from which emptiness, singleness, and wishlessness all naturally arise. There's nothing wrong with drawing a bead between (say) 'emptiness' and 'no-self', I suppose, except that it might cloud the fact that 'emptiness' informs all of the doors and all of the fetters.


text:
I am finding myself being unable to enjoy things, my mind keeps going to meditation
I have noticed that while watching TV or trying to do work, my mind keeps getting caught up in the feeling of my breath, or the random noises around me. These are the exact things that I notice while meditating, and while meditating I allow myself to notice those things and observe myself noticing them. But, when I want to read a book I am finding that I am now noticing those things instead of reading the book, like I am going back to meditating without meaning to.
I’m having a hard time getting into a flow state at work or while doing something enjoyable. It’s bothering me. I don’t want to stop meditating, but if this keeps happening then I will have to stop.

Trying to find lifelihood that matches as base for a meditative life isn't wrong at all, good householder. Blessed if the mind goes after refined "entertainings", harmless to obtain.

Skill at anapanasati means being able to read & work with awareness of breathing. Here, the tempo or pace of reading & work adjusts to conform with the rhythm of the breathing.

There are six kinds of immersion:

DN33:1.10.120: Three kinds of immersion. Immersion with placing the mind and keeping it connected. Immersion without placing the mind, but just keeping it connected. Immersion without placing the mind or keeping it connected. Another three kinds of immersion: emptiness, signless, and undirected.

The last five are advanced and require skill in the first, which is placing the mind and keeping it connected. As you meditate, you keep your mind connected with your breath and that is immersive. As householders, we have to work and this introduces a challenge of attending to breath while we work or read. The attention becomes split and one ends up feeling conflicted in focus.
There's actually a simple solution that works quite well and results in better work or reading. The simple solution is to work and read with each exhalation. Attend to the breath on each inhalation.  For example, during Zen retreats, our Roshi instructed us to do calligraphy with a single breath. With this simple technique we can harmonize our breathing with our daily activities. It will feel odd at first but then one notices an overall improvement in our work and reading. Clarity emerges attending to the breath while working and with anything we do.

When I meditate, if I notice that I'm distracted then I return to the breath. It's not really "bad" to get distracted, so no need to be harsh. With love, I return to the breath.
During daily life it's the same, if I get distracted, then I return to what I was doing.

Anyway, if it is becoming a habit so strong that it's interfering with your life, maybe you can mix in other meditations to try to get enough change to brake the habit. Maybe try some body scan. Or some breath and some body scan each day.
I hope you solve this problem.

You should practice Vipassana walking meditation instead of Samatha meditation.

The OP complains that they are now "noticing those things instead of reading the book" -- do you think that practising Vipassana instead would help with that problem, and if so how or why?

Itjs actually Vipassana which has lead to such observane... neither is the answer understandable nor the comment on it, but maybe both of you would do a good for one self to train in focus on the frams rather then to give advices. What do you think (mindful on it)?

It appears to me this practitioner has overcome by Sloth and Topher (Thina Middha) or the fifth Mara. Please refer the attached link.https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel026.html


text:
Understanding Saṅkhāra in dependent origination as *choices* of body, speech and mind?
Continuing to try to understand Dependent Origination from my own reading of the suttas as well trying to grok the understanding of other skilled practitioners and I've come across an interesting debate. The second nidana of D.O. is commonly translated as 'volitional factors' or 'choices' as seen by this translation of SN 12.2:

And what are choices? There are three kinds of choices. Choices by way
  of body, speech, and mind. These are called choices.

However, I've detected that maybe not all skilled practitioners on this forum agree that this is an accurate translation? It has been suggested that the best means of figuring this out - as the Buddha instructed! - is to put it to empirical test in personal meditation practice. Marvelous suggestion and I'm hoping to conduct just such an experiment!
However, I want to nail down the actual disagreement if there is one - I'm still not entirely sure there is - and to figure out how to setup the experiment to reveal the truth.
First, I've seen alternative translations on this site which omit the 'volitional' or 'choices' connotation and use the alternative 'accumulated tendencies' to describe the Saṅkhāra. Is it agreed by Theravada that this is the proper translation? How about by Mahayana?
I've found support for the proposition that not all Saṅkhāra is intentional from SN 12.38:

If you don’t intend or plan, but still have underlying tendencies,
  this becomes a support for the continuation of consciousness. When
  this support exists, consciousness becomes established. When
  consciousness is established and grows, there is rebirth into a new
  state of existence in the future. When there is rebirth into a new
  state of existence in the future, future rebirth, old age, and death
  come to be, as do sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.
  That is how this entire mass of suffering originates.

Second, what is the proper translation? ... assuming there is disagreement that 'accumulated tendencies' is the proper translation - even though it omits the connotation of choice. Could it simply be 'actions resulting from ignorance?'
Third, is it proper to think of the labored breathing that comes from the arising of disturbing emotions as Saṅkhāra? It does seem to me to be non-volitional... Is this right?
Fourth, is it an accumulated tendency? Perhaps some Saṅkhāra are accumulated habits that may involve some measure of choice and some are simply non-volitional and have nothing to do with 'accumulation' per se? The labored breathing or change in breathing that comes involuntarily from the arising of disturbing emotions... the fact of it itself does not seem to me to be accumulated? Perhaps the 'accumulation' refers to some aspect of it - the extent or intensity - that could very well be accumulated? Like some people might have a very slight ripple while others - because of accumulated tendencies - might hyperventilate?
Fifth, it's been suggested that when one attains a certain proficiency in meditation the true definition of Saṅkhāra can be seen, but what level of proficiency is necessary to reveal the truth and in what form of meditation? What is the minimum level of competence necessary to verify this and the kind of type of meditation necessary?
Visualizing the experiment... I imagine one must be able to calm the mind to a sufficient degree that one can witness the waves generated when a disturbing emotion arises in much the same way we are easily be able to notice the waves generated when a rock hits a still pond. The waves would be the Saṅkhāra (some action of breath or speech or mind?) and the question would be whether there was choice involved or if any aspect of the wave was a characteristic reinforced through accumulation?
Help or ideas appreciated!

skilled practitioners

Yes.

The second nidana of D.O. is commonly translated as 'volitional factors' or 'choices'

The above is wrong. "Volition" is 1st mentioned at nama-rupa.

There are three kinds of choices. Choices by way of body, speech, and mind. These are called choices.

The Pali is kaya, vaci & citta sankhara, which are defined in MN 44 as in & out breathing; initial & sustained thought; and perception & feeling.
Breathing conditions the state of the body = kaya sankharo = body conditioner.
Thought conditions speech = vaci sankharo = verbal conditioner.
Perception & feeling condition the state of the mind = citta sankhara = mind conditioner.

I've detected that maybe not all skilled practitioners on this forum agree that this is an accurate translation?

D.O. was hijacked to create a theory of reincarnation to provide moral teachings to people. Not all practitioners teach D.O. the same because some monks deliberately don't teach the truth but teach skillful means.

It has been suggested that the best means of figuring this out - as the Buddha instructed! - is to put it to empirical test in personal meditation practice.

Yes. My explanation accords with meditation practice.

I've found support for the proposition that not all Saṅkhāra is intentional from SN 12.38:

The above is irrelevant because it is not about the 2nd condition sankhara. It is about "becoming" or "patiṭṭhā
 viññāṇa", similar to AN 3.76. It says:

When consciousness is established and grows, there is production of a new state of existence (bhavā) in the future.

Note: Bhikkhu Sujato translations are often ignored by serious scholars; particularly anything about dependent origination.

Second, what is the proper translation? ... assuming there is disagreement that 'accumulated tendencies' is the proper translation - even though it omits the connotation of choice. Could it simply be 'actions resulting from ignorance?'

You are bouncing too far ahead, from ignorance to kamma. Kamma does not occur until volition, which starts at nama-rupa and then starts again at attachment.
The word "anusaya" means "underlying tendencies" and is often mentioned after contact, such as in MN 148. My point is the use of the word "anusaya" does not indicate any of the specific 12 conditions.
While "anusaya" is part of ignorance; the word "anusaya" is used in different places in the teachings.

Third, is it proper to think of the labored breathing that comes from the arising of disturbing emotions as Saṅkhāra? It does seem to me to be non-volitional... Is this right?

Correct. This is the correct view of kaya-sankhara, as confirmed by meditation.

Fourth, is it an accumulated tendency?

No. The underlying tendencies are part of ignorance (AN 7.11). They "asava" or "flow out" at ignorance (MN 9). They cause the breathing (kaya sankhara) to become laboured and also can trigger discursive thoughts & memories (vaci & citta sankhara).

Perhaps some Saṅkhāra are accumulated habits

No. Please do not use Mahayana to interpret Pali. Nagarjuna was wrong about sankhara, the same as most Theravada commentators are wrong.
"Accumulated tendencies", which is an energetic drive, form part of ignorance. The "sankhara" they trigger may be classed as "habitual thoughts" however the underlying drive or tendency is part of ignorance.
In meditation, when you crush a discursive thought, the pulsating energy can still remain.
The discursive thought is "sankhara". The pulsating underlying energy is part of "ignorance", as clearly described in MN 9. Read MN 9, the very end of the sutta.

that may involve some measure of choice

No. There is no choice at sankhara. Sankhara is the opposite. It is non-choice. The choice occurs at nama-rupa, when nama-rupa feels, perceives & has contact with the sankhara. Refer to MN 19, which clearly describes how Buddha made a choice to end the discursive thoughts.

and some are simply non-volitional

Sankhara are non-volitional.

and have nothing to do with 'accumulation' per se?

Not all underlying tendencies are "accumulated" from the past. Some underlying tendencies are in-born (refer to MN 64, beginning of sutta).

The labored breathing or change in breathing that comes involuntarily from the arising of disturbing emotions...

Yes!

the fact of it itself does not seem to me to be accumulated?

The ignorant emotion may be accumulated and "stored". But the sankhara is not accumulated. Each sankhara is a new sankhara.

Perhaps the 'accumulation' refers to some aspect of it -

Pali does not use the term "accumulated". Forget this term.

Fifth, it's been suggested that when one attains a certain proficiency in meditation the true definition of Saṅkhāra can be seen

Indeed.

but what level of proficiency is necessary to reveal the truth and in what form of meditation?

Clear mind established in breathing.
Clear mind must be able to see the arise of discursive thoughts out of relative empty or thoughtless mind.

Visualizing the experiment... I imagine one must be able to calm the mind to a sufficient degree that one can witness the waves generated when a disturbing emotion arises

Yes!

in much the same way we are easily be able to notice the waves generated when a rock hits a still pond.

Yes!

The waves would be the Saṅkhāra (some action of breath or speech or mind?)

Waves are formed by energy. The energy is from ignorance. The waves are sankhara.
Its not "action". Its "motion" of breath, thought or feeling/perception.

and the question would be whether there was choice involved

There is no choice at this level. You should already understand when distracting thoughts arise in meditation (when you want to concentrate) they are not a "choice".

or if any aspect of the wave was a characteristic reinforced through accumulation?

No. They are not reinforced at "sankhara".
They are reinforced at nama-rupa, when nama "chooses" to give "attention" to those sankhara. Remember, "nama" is "feeling, perception, intention/choice, contact & attention".
Again, read MN 19, the part where the Buddha mentions "inclination of mind". The word "inclination" is "namati", the verb of "nama".
The ignorant sankhara is either reinforced at nama-rupa, by giving attention to the ignorant sankhara; or, otherwise, the ignorant sankhara is cut & stopped at nama-rupa.

Help or ideas appreciated!

Study very carefully or meditatively page 3 to 6 of this link: Shape of Suffering by Bhikkhu Thanissaro.
Or read my blog: Dependent origination: Namarupa and here: Dependent origination: Sankhara

Upādānaparipavattasutta (SN 22.56) says saṅkhārā are choices

No. SN 22,56 says sankhara khandha is choices. The word sankhara is used in many contexts in the suttas. For example, SN 41.6 says kaya-sankhara is the breathing.

Creation of Sankara - Mental Formation only through - Thought, Words and Action with clinging (Upaadana) to create cause (karma) if equanimity no Karma created.
Paticca Samupada (D.O.) - only after feeling - craving it moves to Jaana stage where Sankara upaadaana creates Karma -
Consciousness - no continuation
Anicca = nothing is permanent therefore nothing continues
There is no re-incarnation in Budhha Dharma - it is re-birth process
What method of meditation you practise and the Kamatahan you received from your teacher?
Anyway, all kinds of thoughts arise during meditative practice but that is natural, as long as you know and acknowledge each thought and get back to your main breathing meditation -  you will go through four stages if you are practicing Sati Pattana
For your information no waves are accumulated... they are impressions only.
Nama - Rupa cannot generate Sankara... Sankara is created only from Mental Formation aggregate... Nama Rupa is basically Mind+ Body which arises after consciousness in D.O.
The five aggregates arise with Craving...and \Sankara to create Karma it would have to be Sankaara with Upaadana, because even Arahant can have sankaara but that is with equanimity and those Sankaaras do not create Karma (cause)
Hope these answers would help you

In English language "impression" means "press in", like when you have a flat piece of soft clay and you press a shape into it, which leaves a mark. This is the meaning of the word "impression". It means, something is left behind, something stays (the mark). When something happens again and again, it leaves many marks (many impressions). Leaving many marks means the impressions are "accumulated". So for example, when the baby sees the mother again and again, those impressions are accumulated until there is recognition: "This has happened before. It gives milk." - mental formation.

exactly that's what it is, induced.... many things you will not understand at this stage, that's why it is also call mental impression...  - for instance information is induced, it cannot be accumilated since it's not a material phenomena and your example for the baby is not correct either. If  I may ask you where do you think these so call waves are accumilating?

Of course information can be accumulated. When you study Dharma is that not accumulation of information? I don't know what waves you're talking about.

I am referring to the answers of Dhammadatu regarding waves in his answers to the original questions. – where he says that waves are accumulated  -you can read it then you will understand what it says.
I like to know from you, how you accumulate the information or karma  or anything and where are they been stored/kept according to you?
It seems you have not managed to comprehend the mechanism of Chuti Chitta to prathisandhi process and if you did you should know nothing can be accumulated.

The comments under this answer are accumulating, so I will stop.

The involvement of intention need not be ones own:

DN33:1.11.171: Four kinds of reincarnation. There is a reincarnation where only one’s own intention is effective, not that of others. There is a reincarnation where only the intention of others is effective, not one’s own.  There is a reincarnation where both one’s own and others’ intentions are effective.  There is a reincarnation where neither one’s own nor others’ intentions are effective.

If we are awoken and killed by robbers in our own homes and horrified by that killing, then that kamma is driven by the intentions of others interacting with our own underlying clinging to life.
This example is a bit dramatic but it points out the fallacy that intention arises locally out of self. Therefore our experiments must include acceptance of what is experienced without underlying tendencies.


text:
Rejecting clinging to both pleasure and displeasure
I recently listened to a talk by Ajahn Chah, in which he mentions (@ ~14:20-14:53) that wisdom is found when one clings to neither pleasure nor displeasure. This really created a dilemma in my head about why to practice. Clearly, it makes sense that one would not want to cling to displeasure. Indeed, it seems a Buddhist practitioner can get quite far one this idea alone.
It seems natural that the whole reason one begins the path is to learn to not cling to displeasure. Learning to let go of what is bothersome to you is easier, as Ajahn Chah says. I don't believe many people start on the path to also not cling to happiness. Even Ajahn Chah states that those who truly practice also learn to not cling to happiness. How this can be done in the layman's world?
I cannot quite understand why one would want to reject clinging to pleasurable feelings. It seems our very survival as humans is based around our brain giving us pleasurable feelings to reinforce behaviors that keep us surviving. I.e. eating sweet food gives dopamine because it correlates (not necessarily entails) with us sustaining our survival. If I decide to do something purely for pleasure, does that mean that I have clung to that pleasure? I.e. I took a bath tonight for the reason of enjoying it and I did enjoy it. Does that entail that I've clung to the pleasure since my purpose for taking the bath was for pleasure? How would I know if I've clung to it?
At least in my life, my whole idea of having my career is based on the fact that it makes me happy and it's what I want to do (I do it for the purpose of pleasure). Why would I reject this? And if so, how could I even do so without becoming a monk and dedicating my life only to the goal of rejection of both pleasure and displeasure while only caring for my basic needs of survival (food, clothing, shelter, sleep). In a paradoxical sense, it even seems plausible that one's reasoning for becoming a monk would be for the pleasure one derives in the idea of working toward enlightenment. If not for the pleasure resulting from a task (or subsequent result), why would one do it?
Tangentially, it seems the quickest way to end both pleasure and displeasure would be suicide. I'm not suicidal myself, but I just ask in a theoretical sense. Why would one not just do this? I presume the answer is related in some way to rebirth, but I am not sure.

There are several questions tagged [tag:suicide] already, which may already have answers just to that part of the question.

It misses that one also needs to let go of indifferent feelings. Many disciples of Venerable Chah get stuck right there.

Not clinging to pleasure does not mean there is no pleasure. It is the opposite. The more there is non-clinging, there more there is pleasure. For example, the suttas say the pleasure of 'jhana' ('meditative absorption') is reached by making 'non-clinging' the meditation object (SN 48.10). Or the suttas say Nibbana is the supreme pleasure (Dhammapada 204).
When Ajahn Chah refers to the word 'like', this is not synonymous with the words 'pleasure' & 'happiness'. 'Pleasure' is a 'feeling'. Where as 'like' is a 'view' or 'opinion'.

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

Dhammadatu gave an excellent answer that I wholeheartedly suggest you reflect on, but here is something a bit more personal that may also be helpful.
For a long time, I had much the same question about Buddhadharma that you have. There was something compelling and wise that struck me about it, but there were also aspects I found puzzling and concerning. It seemed to me, for quite a long time, that the Buddha’s answer to Tennyson’s claim, “‘Tis better to have loved and lost then to never have loved at all!” was in fact, “No! It isn’t.” This disturbed me as I’ve always thought Tennyson was correct.
When I told this to my teacher he laughed gregariously and told me that I misunderstood the Buddha’s teaching and to reflect some more. He said it was quite the opposite in fact. That the Buddha instructed us to practice love to an extent that we make it immeasurable. The problem was that we stupid beings don’t know what “love” actually is :)
It took me a long time to understand this in a non-intellectual way. To get a brief glimpse of what the Buddha might be intending. Suffice to say, I think my teacher was correct. The Buddha Dharma is all about increasing happiness and love and beneficial qualities. Here is what gave me a brief glimpse...
I’ve always been particularly attracted to dogs. From a very early age I seemed unusually drawn to them to an uncommon extent. It would not be off the mark to say that I am attached to dogs and the notion of them and to individual dogs as well. Anyway, I’ve owned many dogs over the course of my life and befriended nearly all that I have come across. It is extremely common that when I am walking down the street and encounter a dog - on leash or free - that I won’t stop to greet the animal and share a brief moment of joy connecting with it. In those moments, there is great pleasure and joy I feel.
What I came to realize is that I have befriended thousands and thousands of dogs this way. For the vast majority, I have one interaction and then never see them again. I do not purposefully go out to meet dogs or seek them out by walking in dog friendly neighborhoods or anything. I don’t have any expectation that when I meet a dog like this that I will ever see them again. It does not bother me in the slightest that I most likely will not. I don’t walk away from these encounters with a tinge of sadness reflecting that I won’t meet them again. The moments are full of joy with little overt clinging or attachment to the individual dogs at least. I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that I love these dogs.
Now, my own dog is another matter. And all that I have owned in the past as well. There is great attachment to them and when I inevitably lose them due to age or sickness or karma there is unimaginable grief and suffering. I am attached to them in every sense. When I leave them for a trip or vacation there is longing for them. I miss them terribly. Our reunions are exaggerated and I project onto them all kinds of mental fabrications.
The difference between the two experiences has led to a good amount of reflection. It is not a perfect example or analogy, but put simply I think the former exhibit lots of joy and pleasure without clinging while the latter is chock full of clinging and attachment and the overall imprimatur of it is one of suffering.
Maybe reflect and see if there isn’t something analogous in your life. Moments of spontaneous pleasure that you’re not consciously seeking out and that doesn’t result in gross clinging or attachment. Reflect and see if there are other moments of a similar kind that are subject to gross clinging. What is the character of each? How does the mind work in each? What emotions result? Are they comfortable or strained and disturbing?
Anyway, I now have some faith that what my teacher said was correct. It is my own misunderstanding to think that Buddha Dharma does not result in happiness and joy or that the Buddha was somehow counseling that we give up all love and pleasure and renounce happiness. What the Buddha wants us to do is realize that our stupid notions of love and happiness and pleasure are full of misunderstandings that lead to nothing but suffering for ourselves and others. It’s our job to investigate according to the Buddha’s instruction to find the truth about these things.
Hope this is helpful!

I met a literal "stream-entrant" yesterday on my bike ride: I saw a little kid was crying alone off the path by the river, and when I slowed to see what was the matter I saw a head in the river holding its nose above water -- which, that was the mum, she had jumped in to rescue their puppy, and said to me she couldn't climb out again because the bank was so steep (and muddy; and she was holding a puppy) so I lent a hand which was easily done.

This is interesting and helpful. Do you think there is any way you could own a dog without becoming attached to the pleasure of owning it? That is, do something because it is pleasurable to you without becoming attached to said pleasure?

I do. The Buddha Dharma is replete with myriad technics and tactics focused on doing just that: diminishing and reducing clinging and attachment and ultimately extinguishing it. Looked at another way it is full of practices to increase happiness and joy and ultimately to perfect it.

"... I lent a hand which was easily done..." Sadhu

Rejecting clinging to both pleasure and displeasure

Herein lies your main misunderstanding of Buddhist (and Taoist) thought, namely in thinking that the expression pain-and-pleasure is referring to two separate concepts (as is evident from the placing of the word both before the aforementioned phrase), instead of one indivisible unit (as is actually the case).

wisdom is found when one clings to neither pleasure nor displeasure.

That's because pain and pleasure are two sides of the same coin, inasmuch as the same underlying infrastructure (or mental faculty) is ultimately responsible for enabling us to perceive either aspect of this intrinsically dual or twofold reality. To do away with one is to do away with the other, and to embrace one is to embrace the other, the two facets being thus inexorably linked to each other. Picture, if you will, two convicts, with a rope tied around their neck, standing on a single scaffold. By removing the common foundation from underneath their feet, both simultaneously fall to their death.

I cannot quite understand why one would want to reject clinging to pleasurable feelings.

Because (obsessive) clinging, in time, engenders addiction (bhava), whose inevitable end is depression (dukkha), as can be glanced from the chain of causality illustrated by the Twelve Nidanas.

the quickest way to end both pleasure and displeasure would be suicide.

Highly doubtful, since the inability to fulfill one's carnal cravings constitutes nothing less than sheer and utter torment for the disembodied (but not dispassionate) mind.

If I decide to do something purely for pleasure, does that mean that I have clung to that pleasure?
You got it. Doing anything merely for pleasure is a trap, because like you yourself said, pleasure is the superficial appearance that quite often is a false indicator of the long-term benefits of the underlying activity.
Buddhism teaches us to not be fooled by the superficial appearances ("illusions") because they are misleading and thus conducive to suffering. To not be fooled means, to not take them at their face value. Pleasure is one such instance out of the broad class of superficial appearances that we should learn to not reify. To not reify means to not assume that the appearance is reality. (In Buddhist context when we say "to cling" it means "to reify", "to confuse appearance for reality", and therefore "to build a system of expectations on the illusory foundation".)
one's reasoning for becoming a monk would be for the pleasure one derives in the idea of working toward enlightenment
Yes, of course. This is an established fact in Buddhism, that the very confusion of reification is exactly what motivates us to seek Enlightenment in the first place. Reifying the imaginary Enlightenment as something awesome and cool is the useful mistake that makes the path to Enlightenment possible.
the quickest way to end both pleasure and displeasure...
...would be to stop overgeneralizing phenomena based on their identifying characteristics, to stop reifying those generalizations as something real, and to stop allowing those reifications to motivate one's daily activity.
How this can be done in the layman's world?
Getting back to the topic of not clinging to pleasure and displeasure, this means to stop confusing pleasure/displeasure on one hand with benefit or harm on the other. When you act with the long term benefit as the goal, pleasure or displeasure are not your primary concerns.

There is a distinction between feeling and clinging to that we should appreciate here. If I stub a toe, I feel displeasure; if I eat a good meal I feel pleasure. These are simple arisings from the biology of form, which are more or less unavoidable so long as we have form. But if ten minutes after I stub my toe I'm still angry about it, and berating that stupid chair for getting in my way... If the next time I want to eat my brain is buzzing around planning out how to acquire something 'delicious' instead of that regular old boring food... This is clinging to pain and pleasure.
People talk about avoiding suffering because it's a simple, direct, and easy concept. It's like that old joke where a patient says to a doctor "My arm hurts when I do this" and the doctor responds "Well, don't do that!" What most people don't realize is that clinging to pleasure is the source of a tremendous amount of suffering. I mean, think what happens if you get the idea of a perfect meal stuck in your head, such that ever meal you eat fails by comparison? Perfectly good meals that would otherwise fill you with pleasure now suddenly seem drab, boring, and displeasurable. You grind your way through meal after meal, barely tasting them, because your mind's eye is focused on that grand prize of succulent succotash.
If you simply allow yourself to feel pleasure and pain as it arises without being attached, most of what you experience will be pleasurable; life is (on the whole) good. If you are attached to seeking out pleasure and avoiding pain, you will inflict a lot of misery on yourself and others. It sounds paradoxical, almost self-contradictory, but reflect on it and you'll see the sense in it.

OP: Rejecting clinging to both pleasure and displeasure
(1) the latent tendency to lust reinforced by being attached to pleasant feelings;
(2) the latent tendency to aversion reinforced by rejecting painful feelings;
(3) the latent tendency to ignorance reinforced by ignoring neutral feelings.

Pahāna Sutta
Similarly,

The latent tendency of lust rāgânusaya lies in a pleasant feeling.
The latent tendency of aversion paṭighânusaya lies in a painful feeling.
The latent tendency of ignorance avijjā’nusaya lies in a neutral feeling.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta

OP: How this can be done in the layman's world?

Whatever feeling on feels one should:

If he feels a pleasant feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a painful feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a neutral feeling,

he understands that it is impermanent;
he understands that it is not to be clung to;
he understands that there is no delight in it.

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.
If he feels a neutral feeling, he feels it in a detached manner.

Dhātu Vibhaṅga Sutta
For a more detailed explanation see this answer.

It can not be done in housholders world, one needs to leave home first. Otherwise one would just try to dwell in householderequanimity. Else: Sadhu

The first time I read Buddhist doctrine it said something like, "Suffering is wanting to have what you can't have, wanting to keep what you can't keep, the craving to live, even the craving to die." Perhaps that isn't the most accurate translation, but it's not a bad paraphrase, so perhaps you can see from that why "clinging" is unfortunate.
Perhaps it's clinging which provides an object for craving ("I enjoyed my previous bath so now I want another").
It can be problematic too if pleasure conflicts with duty or virtue -- maybe addiction is when you cling to doing something because it was pleasurable, but to the detriment of what it's better to do.

How would I know if I've clung to it?

One might more-or-less assume that's so, as a lay-person -- in an absolute sense -- and perhaps by definition even in the early stages of enlightenment.
You might be more-or-less content with behaviour which is (relatively) harmless and not immoral, even if it is clingy (in my opinion).

Why would I reject this?

I think laypeople maybe don't, by definition (with a few exceptions).

In a paradoxical sense, it even etc

Yes that paradox is the subject of the Brahmana Sutta (SN 51.15).
And this may be a related topic, or at least an interesting read: Why do the Noble Truths talk about 'craving', instead of about 'attachment'?

Have you heard of the old South Indian Monkey Trap (from this article)?

In Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig’s
  bonkers-but-brilliant philosophical novel that turns 40 this year, he
  describes “the old South Indian Monkey Trap”. ... The trap
  “consists of a hollowed-out coconut, chained to a stake. The coconut
  has some rice inside which can be grabbed through a small hole”. The
  monkey’s hand fits through the hole, but his clenched fist can’t fit
  back out. “The monkey is suddenly trapped.” But not by anything
  physical. He’s trapped by an idea, unable to see that a principle that
  served him well – “when you see rice, hold on tight!” – has become
  lethal.

The monkey must let go of the rice in order to free himself from his suffering. The way to end his suffering, is to end his craving for rice. He got stuck in the trap in the first place due to his craving for rice.
But in order to end his craving for rice, he must first understand how his hand is stuck inside the coconut. When the monkey overcomes his ignorance of how the trap works, he would let go of his craving for rice, and release his clenched fist. With this, he would become free from his suffering.
Similarly, you don't let go of clinging to both pleasure and pain by forcing yourself e.g. by avoiding taking a hot bath or eating good food or pursuing a career. Instead, you have to cultivate wisdom to overcome ignorance. When ignorance is uprooted, craving would be overcome, and suffering would be ended.
The Buddha discovered that both over-indulgence in pleasures and extreme asceticism do not lead to freedom from suffering. Rather, one must seek the Middle Way through the Noble Eightfold Path (see SN 56.11). The Noble Eightfold Path leads to cultivation of wisdom that would result in the uprooting of ignorance, and with that, craving.

(Illustration above: Paul Thurlby for the Guardian)

By clinging to pleasure, inevitably you will cling into an unpleasant state.
The moment you cling to pleasure, it's gone.
Happiness can only be realized in retrospect.
When you cling to pleasure, you cling to displeasure.

You have to first read and understand the three universal characteristics of all phenomenal existence -  Anicca, Dukka and Anatta (Buddha's complete teaching is based on this discovery). Only then you will realize the reason why clinging creates re-birth. Since 'Anatta' means not-self ( there is no 'I' or 'me' in ultimate reality/ truth - the so called ‘I’ or ‘ you’  are a nothing more than a  combination of five skandhas - or five aggregates), and it is because of clinging which created 'I' (me and my or mine) the ‘ego’, and the moment you let go of 'ego' you will realize that it is just an illusory world (called conventional world) created due to ignorance, this clinging- wanting pleasure and rejecting displeasure (duality) originate due to craving. 'Dukka' (un-satisfactory condition and suffering) arises because of 'Anicca' ( impermanence - ever-changing) and 'Anatta' not-self('ego', conditioning of craving ). It is the Mental formation with clinging (Sanskara - Upadana) that creates re-birth/Cause which acts as the force that pushes to the next existence.  Therefore the mental formation without clinging to pleasure or displeasure which is called equanimity will not create re-birth, and this can be achieved only by observation and not getting involved to create cause (karma), the art of cultivating equanimity is to observe the five precepts and to practise  Dana ( donate – giving without expecting anything in return, - let go process) , Seela  - physical and mental discipline cultivating  loving kindness ( Ethical and high  moral values –have consideration  for all living beings including environment  ) and  Bhavana – meditative practises to develop wholesome mental qualities.  All these will finally lead to eightfold path.
In order to fully understand Dharma and to have faith in Dharma, you need to completely understand about the re-birth process as well as ‘Samsara’ or never ending process’/ cycle of existence. Since all existences are  un-satisfactory, and bring suffering the only way to liberate from that is attaining Nibbhana. (energy cannot be destroyed however can stop generating energy)
Once you understand this, then you will need the effort and nothing but the effort to live according to Dharma. Knowing Dharma has no purpose if you cannot live according to Dharma. It’s like having a prescription for your illness with you but not taking the medicine that was prescribed due to many reasons.
Asking all these questions has no purpose without knowing the basics. It is like wanting to know the route to the moon without even having a rocket or become an astronaut.
The major part of Buddha Dharma is the path to purify your mind, since it is the mind that is the forerunner of all evil.
Only in Buddha’s Teaching it says that the life existence is a combination of Mind and matter phenomena, where matter/ the Body consist of the five sense sphere. It is through these five sense sphere that everybody is trying to find pleasure and the sixth sense 'mind' that end up suffering more times than the matter.  This happens because of ignorance and not understanding ‘Anicca’ and ‘Anatta’.

Because clinging to positive things leads to more greed, more mental instability and discomfort as whatever your cling to will one day disapear or change, making you uneasy. Enjoying your bath isn't the issue as it is obviously trivial, the issue is believing in chasing the pleasures/satisfaction of life which are all impermanent.
This is one of the 3 marks of existence : anicca, which means inability to maintain things to your satisfaction.
This will ultimately lead to constant rebirth, immoral acts, and rebirth in the lower realms, as you might be tempted to do immoral things to satisfy your cravings (if not in this life then in the next).
So basically, you don't want to cling to positive things too much because it will ultimately lead you to hell. The opposite is also true, it will make you closer to nibanna.
Your question is funny as it represents the typical samsara mindset, where one wants less of what one dislikes and more of what one likes.

You can do things for pleasure, but don't 'cling' to them and dont be greedy. Do things knowing that whether its pleasure or displeasure, it is impermanent. Whenever you're going through something good or bad, don't cling and don't be averted, because clinging and aversion is what feeds our 'vinyana' and keeps us going through samsara.
Also, by letting go you get the ultimate happiness. I suggest that you read Ajahn Brahm's books 'Mindfulless, Bliss and Beyound' and 'Opening the Door of Your Heart'. You can also watch S.N. Goenka's meditation retreats on YouTube.


text:
Nothing is satisfying. Everything feels shallow, meaningless
Nothing is satisfying. Everything feels shallow, meaningless. There is no joy in eating, sleeping, working, reading, entertainment, social media, relationships, or sexual pleasures. I don't know why I am doing all this? Maybe just for the sake of it. But surely all the glamour and attraction in the above things is very superficial. The ego is never satisfied. So what is the use of doing all this?
I am trying to find something which never desires, is always satisfied, is Deep and  meaningful. Or should I work on making these superficial things satisfying? I feel lost in this material world. Suffering more than I enjoyed. Suddenly everything seems bull shit. Desires have become a pain in the ass, making me do the things I don't want to do, at least I don't feel satisfied after doing them. Show the question comes up again, why am I doing these things?
I would very much like to eliminate all this things in my life but they are a compulsion to human life. Other people are craving these things and satisfying themselves but for me all this has become stupidity. And on the other side I feel a lot of freedom of choice.
And even after realising this I can't seem to get out of this rut. What do I do?

OP: Nothing is satisfying. Everything feels shallow, meaningless. There is no joy in eating, ...

The whole sphere of experiances are either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral and all such experiences are unsatisfactory

pleasant feeling is pleasant when it persists, painful when it changes;
painful feeling is painful when it persists, pleasant when it changes;
neutral feeling is pleasant when there is knowledge of it, painful when there is no knowledge of it.

Cūla Vedalla Sutta
Each type of sensation corresponds to the 3 categories of dukkha:

Unpleasant feelings - Dukkha-dukkha, the duḥkha of painful experiences. This includes the physical and mental sufferings of birth, aging, illness, dying; distress from what is not desirable.
Pleasant feelings - Viparinama-dukkha, the duḥkha of pleasant or happy experiences changing to unpleasant when the causes and conditions that produced the pleasant experiences cease.
Neural or neither pleasant not unpleasant feelings - Sankhara-dukkha, the duḥkha of conditioned experience. This includes "a basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all existence, all forms of life, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance." On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.

OP: And even after realising this I can't seem to get out of this rut. What do I do?

One should use

pleasant feelings to abandon lust,
unpleasant feelings to abandon aversion
neutral feelings to abandon ignorance

by being

equanimous to them and
seeing their impermanence

For more details what needs to be done see this answer.
This is condensing the instruction of more than 10 days into above. Best is attend a course to get to know the exact details of the practice. For that you can try a course at:

Vipassana Meditation: As taught by S.N. Goenka in the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin or
International Vipassana Meditation Centre: In the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin and Mother Sayamagyi

Suddenly everything seems bull shit. Desires have become a pain in the ass, making me do the things I don't want to do, at least I don't feel satisfied after doing them. Show the question comes up again, why am I doing these things?

Because you ( and humans in general )'ve been doing these things since countless lives and it's become second nature. The Buddha didn't call our realm the Kama-Loka for no reason. Kinda like a chainsmoker who's fully aware of all the terrible effects of smoking doing to his own body and yet he still smokes a few packs a day. That's why Dhamma cultivation is not a sprint. It's a marathon where one has to put in lots of time and energy to get rid of old nasty habits and build new wholesome ones day by day, bit by bit. There's no shortcut to it.

So, you've realized that everything is shallow and meaningless... Ok.
Now stop and think: Isn't the conviction that everything is shallow and meaningless also shallow and meaningless? You are depressed and angry because you expect the world to be deeply meaningful, but (as far as you can see) it isn't. And why do you expect that? Because you've bought into a story that the world offers certain kinds of meaningfulness, and you see other people running around doing shallow, meaningless things as thought those things are deep and meaningful, and looking like they are having a grand old time.
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe those people find those things just as shallow and meaningless as you do, but that they can't see the potential for depth as clearly as you, or that they keep lying to themselves in the hopes that someday the lie will become true? Or maybe not; maybe they really do find those things deep and meaningful. I'm not sure which would be more worthy of compassion...
If you can slough off the expectation, do it; it's not doing you any good. When you give up the expectation that the world is going to hand you depth and meaning, then you'll start to see that depth and meaning is a natural, organic part of being alive. Even the cry that life is shallow and meaningless is filled with depth and meaning. You have merely fixed your gaze at the wrong thing.

For laypeople, the Buddhist path adheres to at least five precepts plus excludes strong vices. In other words, behaviours related to compulsive desires (which oppress, enslave & drag the mind down) are not engaged in, such as:

Casual & uncommitted sex
Pornography
Drugs & alcohol
Night life
Gambling
Etc

Once the above are out of the picture, then a clearer perspective exists about life's options.
My impression of life is inner-conflict about "compulsive desires" occurs in relation to the vices listed above rather than in relation to simple pleasures.

If we all get all what we want will world run this race? The suffering exists because there are needs or desires.
Why needs and desires are exists? because we born.
Why and how we born? The procedure is deeply explained in 'Patichcha samuppada'.
How to stop suffering? Stop the birth.
How to stop the birth? Follow 'Arya ashtangika marga'
When the suffering ends by following it? As much as you follow and understand, your suffering will be disappeared. Not after your death, As you live.
Suffering is with you until you realize that 'There is nothing to be called as ME!'
Follow the way. You will realize the body you think as 'Me' built by foods and drinks. You do not call water bottle as 'Me'. but you still call 'Me' after you drinking that water bottle. What is me? with drunk water or exclusive it?
Sorry, I'm not fluent in English. but need to shed you some light to find the path in Buddhism to end all the suffering.