text:
Former hedonist started with Samatha, worried about dukkha nanas
I really need your help as I'm, in some sort of conflict about my path. I'll try to keep things short but i need to include some info about my life experience so far.
Now I'm 25 years old and all my life i have been chasing around my own tail. I had this mindset since i child that i need to achieve something in order to be happy. I always projected a brighter future and ideal version of myself and conditions. I could never live in the present, I was always stuck in my thoughts and imagination. After reaching every material goal, be it wealth, a fine girlfriend, a luxury watch, an automobile, a good physique, I crashed very hard and became depressed because I was slowly realizing that I have been living in illusions all my life and nothing will ever bring me happiness.
I started drinking and doing cocaine until I confessed to my beloved parents about my problems and then became clean. I have been clean for 2 years now. I basically felt very empty and the only thing which had any value from that point on was my family. I dropped every goal and letting go of everything and realizing how desperate and empty my life has been, was very very freeing. I felt peace for the first time but was still meet with emptiness and boredom. I would go on walks every day and ask myself: "what is the goal? What is the endgame? Why am I living? For what?"
Then finally I got into Buddhist literature and almost teared up reading how everything explained my suffering. That fueled me with energy and simply just the explaining of the cause calmed me even more without any meditation. Knowing I'm not the only one suffering who fell for these illusions.
So then i decided to read the Pali Canon and got recommended the mind illuminated and started directly to meditate.
The results have been phenomenal in just 2 weeks. I'm living more in the present day by day, I'm getting calmer, I don't recall pain from the past anymore, I project about the future less. I walk around my city and see a pub and I don't instantly build scenarios in my head. The images which are linked to certain things are finally getting broken. The association and experience to certain things is getting weaker and weaker. I'm not as emotional.
It's sort of a dispassion to things which is very freeing. I don't get excited as easily just to crash afterwards, I don't recall memories with certain images anymore. Its insane. Its a complete different reality and for the first time I'm living in the present and acting less impulsive getting dragged by my emotions and conditioned memories and experience when seeing something.
Now my question is following:
Where will this take me in the long term?
I read some post about a longterm meditator who had a bad experience according to him which i will quote at the end and I can already see some similarities between me and him which is somewhat anxious but in my opinion this calm dispassion and being free of conditioned experience and memories is exactly what is bringing me peace for the first time but why is he explaining it in such a depressing tone? What went wrong? This post always pops up in my head and I can't progress and enjoy my new path fully when I don't know what is up with it or maybe he's simply lying? The post was posted on 4chan so it could be exaggerated for whatever purpose.
Anyway I then read about dark nights and dukkha nanas and got even more confused about all of it but i see some dukkha nanas which my life experience already showed and gained insight? Like one nana described seeing a beautiful woman and not having the instant image in your head of possessing here and I already been past that because I know it doesn't bring me happiness or are dukkha nanas only related to meditation results?
Anyway, here is the post:

"Don’t meditate. I went to a retreat and was doing 5 hours a day after
several years of doing it, and had a fxxking horrible experience. I
realized what this insidious shit is actually doing. At first you
think negative emotions and attachments are going away, that bullshit,
it’s all emotions and attachments. Every tiny aspect and association
that forms who you are is being slowly but surely chiselled away at
during meditation.
If you pursue it, you will get to the point where
it all collapses. You will look at yourself and see total absence,
just nothing. Your identity is important, and everything about it goes
away, all the things you thought mattered, all your plans for the
future just fall into this facade of one dimensional nothingness. That
is the end goal.
I don’t where all this happy shit comes from after
this, it seems like this was the endgame all along. Everything feels
dull, I feel like a zombie, I’m an empty hole and everything is just
superficial nothingness. It’s not pleasant, I feel as though I’ve
permanently damaged myself and my mind, and barely clung onto core
aspects of myself. That’s what this shit does, never forget that. It
will make you beyond a nihilist, and it won’t stop.
I can’t follow
thoughts anymore because I’ve trained my mind to stop them- you can’t
undo that. You will be unthinking, just reactionary, no judgments, no
opinions, no emotions, no attachments, like a fxxking insect. That’s
what this shit does, it makes you a fxxking insect. Like a bundle of
nerves that just responds to things, there’s nothing really there.
All
I am now is a weird fxxking void that drifts around and reacts to
things without any sort of personality involved, like a programmed
machine. I fxxking hate this so much. There would be no difference if
I was dead, I basically feel like I am. Don’t start this path. Even if
you do only like 10 minutes a day, this is the endgame, this is what
it’s slowly doing to you.

The end point of practice is liberty: not the commonly-heard but overly simplistic notion pf political liberty, but the essential principle that underpins that concept. Unfortunately, this sense of metaphysical liberty can be deeply unnerving (heck, even political liberty can be unnerving). People like limits and boundaries, whether to hide behind or push up against; having limits and boundaries makes one feel safe, and gives one definition and identity.
The author of the post you quoted ran up against this issue, and had a negative abreaction. In effect, he went into the practice thinking that Buddhism would give him an identity and a purpose; that it would place safe and comfortable limits he could live within, and give him guidance forward. I imagine he (like many others in the West) adopted Buddhism because he felt resentments or anxieties about the world at large; he transferred his expectations from the world (which failed him) to Buddhism, thinking that would be the solution. But then when he started to run up against that openness (emptiness), his mind didn't know how to cope with it — it didn't know how to move without something solid to push against — so all those resentments and anxieties resurfaced and he transfer his expectations to something else, or perhaps just collapsed into defensive nihilism. At any rate, he conflated the practice with the purpose. The practice isn't liberty, the practice is how we come to understand liberty.
Dark moments come whenever the mind realizes it is not the master of something it thought it had in the bag; when it realizes that something it relies on isn't so simplistically reliable. One of the presumed boundaries of the world disappears, and it throws the mind off balance. C'est la vie... But when one has seen through all the boundaries, one lives in a perpetual state of balance.

what is meant by "metaphysical reality"? thanks

@Dhammadhatu: Nothing much is meant by it. Mainly I wanted to ward people away from the typical (and superficial) 'freedom from' and 'freedom to' type discussions, which are all based in ego-identity. I'm pointing at the idea that proper liberty is the absence of tanhā, where whatever actions one might take are not predicated on distorted understandings and perceptions. If you think that phrase is misleading, I can replace it; that's just the words that popped into my head while i was hand-waving at something experiential.

actually, i don't know what "metaphysical reality" means because the term metaphysical is used in many different ways, often as something to be avoided. personally, i try to use the language of Buddhism rather the language of other philosophies

@Dhammadhatu: Fair enough. What do you think the bet way to put this in Buddhist language would be? I mean, I'm sure you get the drift of what I'm saying, and I'm happy to adjust my language. I'll put some thought into it myself. I do have a tendency to speak off the cuff, I know...

i don't know because i have never worked about what the term "metaphysical" means. You have used the word in a positive or insight orientated way. As I said, others have used it other ways. Possibly you are referring to "psychological reality". Regards

Hello dear friend. I may have confused you aswell because of my bad text structure. Everything prior to the quote about the negative meditation experience is mine. So far i have zero bad experience in meditation, only the little anxiety because of that quote which confused me, because that dispassion he describes and being free of preconditioned reactions is what is bringing me freedom, instead of terrror as he is describing. Anyway thank you for taking your time to help!

@Aziz: I understood your post — your writing is not nearly as bad as you seem to think — and I'm happy to hear that you've had no dark moments. But that trace of anxiety is telling: it speaks to expectations and attachments that you have't yet confronted. IT would be worth your while to step into that feeling and see where it leads (the essence of dukkha nana).

@Aziz: Also, I personally avoid affections like 'dear friend'. I know that it's an innocuous bit of cultural glue (mainly on the Indian subcontinent) — just something people say to each other — but I don't want you to be mislead into thinking I wrote this answer as a friend. It's just an offering from the sangha, and a sangha isn't built of friendship. If you impose a relationship that doesn't exist, you are fostering dukkha.

Understood, thanks for all your replies

@Dhammadhatu: Metaphysics merely refers to first (usually transcendent) principles. In other words, the Four Noble Truths are metaphysical principles: principles that define the origins of suffering and its cessation. It's not 'psychological', except in the sense that it's a human principle that must be experienced. But the phrase isn't necessary, so I'll remove it.

You should never compare your personal path with others. Buddhism makes it very clear some people enter the Path and others do not. As Jesus said: "two men will be cultivating a field. One is taken away, the other is left behind" (Matthew 24:40-42).
It is best to avoid the ideas of "dark nights and dukkha nanas". Generally, these terms are used by individuals who wish to claim their mental illness is enlightenment or stream-entry.
The common arising of certain difficult existential emotions, such as "fear & dread", when one is practising solitude, are not any special "ñāṇa (insight knowledge)". While understanding such emotions are impermanent and understanding how to pass through them is a type of knowledge, this knowledge is not anything profound or special. It is merely understanding how to deal with a hindrance. Real insight knowledge results in a bliss, peace & freedom the ordinary person cannot even imagine can exist.
When the later day Buddhist literature refers to "bhaya ñana (knowledge of fear)", this does not refer to emotional fear but refers to the fearful nature of impermanent phenomena; that these impermanent phenomena will cause suffering if they are craved & attached to.
To see a beautiful woman and not having the instant image in your head of possessing her is not anything special. Instead, it is the most basic form of morality. Prior to the Cultural Marxist Sexual Revolution & its birth control of the 1960s, most men did not think of having sex with every beautiful woman they saw. Instead, most men understood with proper morality that marriage was the only place for sex.
Try to imagine you lived 70 or 100 years ago, when no women had the birth control pill. Do you think those women would have promiscuous sex? Do you think you yourself would entertain sexual thoughts without fear of causing pregnancy?
Have you not seen clearly all of the neurotic women in the current world, including beautiful ones? How can one even consider having sex with such neurotics and adding more harm to that which already exists?
In summary, what you are posting about are not  "ñāṇa (insight knowledge)". About what is actually "right ñāṇa", the older scriptures describe a special knowledge that can only arise when a practitioner has developed right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right mindfulness, right concentration, etc:

Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge (sammā ñāṇa), right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors and the arahant with ten.
MN 117

If you aspire to practice the Buddha's Noble Path:

You must learn the Noble Eightfold Path, quoted above. Notice how the Noble Path includes Right Resolve and Right Action, which includes the resolve to harmlessness, the resolve to not engage in harmful sexuality and the action of harmless sexual conduct (such as mutual commitment to marriage) or, otherwise, celibacy.

You must associate with Noble Friends who understand the Noble Path.

If the Noble Eightfold Path is practised as intended, the mind will become calm and, as concentration develops, the mind will become blissful, buoyant & radiant.

As for the blogger quote you posted, as I said at the beginning of my answer, meditation is not suitable for all people. Some people have engaged in too much bad kamma in the past and damaged their brain, thus meditation will take them straight to "hell", where they experience the results of their prior harmful deeds Some people have not developed enough sacrificial virtue, goodness & unselfishness to enable them to let go and be non-attached in meditation. Or some people are simply not genetically predisposed for the practise of meditation and their lust for life or self-survival instinct is too strong.
In conclusion, if your practise of Buddhism has brought good results for you, you should continue it. You should not compare yourself to others.

"If your practice of buddhism has brought good results for, continue" i think thats a great last statement. Thank you so much.

There is some truth to what this person wrote and I can imagine one can end up like he/she did but I don't think it is caused by meditation itself.
I read a sutta a while ago and I just can't seem to find it. The gist of it as I recall it was that a disciple of Buddha was accused of being hopeless and to not have faith in the Buddha. Asked by Buddha about it he affirms it and explains it as having attained equanimity and being absolutely certain that Buddha was right.
So the question is: Why is hopelessness a good thing?
All to many people never really become hopeless in the sense that they are indifferent. To most people hopelessness means not ever having a chance at getting/becoming what they want.
The hopelessness we are talking about is what can be experienced if you make your wildest dreams come true. Reaching the greenest pastures so to speak. In this moment I guess anybody would be overwhelmed by all the realizations this comes with. At first mostly disappointment. But later on lacking goals really starts to bug you. You always strived for something and now you know it is all worthless and a waste of time. What to do next?
At this stage there are two possibilities. One: find a new goal in search of fulfillment and the other: free yourself of this need. Sadly starting with meditation can be used for both. In the realization that material needs and outward sensations don't fulfill, some may try to "better" themselves. Become more than they are. But the thing is: You can't or at least not in this sense.
That is where this person is stuck. It became the new goal in life. It was supposed to add to him/her. In the end it didn't live up to this persons expectations which led to despair.
So back to hopelessness. What if in the end no state of the world would be superior to any other state? Wouldn't this mean freedom? So if nothing matters and there is nothing to lose why not go to town? That is why! You have nothing to gain either. You don't need to kill because the world won't become a better place without whatever being annoyes you. You don't need to steal because being richer won't do you any good. You don't have to lie and cheat because it won't do you any good. And with time it will lead to less hurt inflicted on you and people around you.
That is why if meditation is hard on you maybe try starting off with refraining from causing hurtful acts by keeping the Precepts. Less regret is always a good way to cultivate a clearer mind until maybe it won't be so hard to bear with.

Hey friend! You may be confusing things because of my bad english or text structure. As i said meditation is great on me so far, im just anxious it may become hard and lead to that quote  in the end.. the story and the text in general all of it prior to that quote is me. Does it make sense now? Kind regards

What is the end game? Is it to become a mindless zombie?
The fully liberated ones (called arahants) do not experience any kind of mental suffering. They may experience physical pain which they endure and not suffer mentally from.
They do not have latent tendencies (anusaya), defilements (kilesa), effluents (asava), fetters (samyojana), the five hindrances (pañca nīvaraṇāni), craving (tanha), clinging (upadana) and the fourteen unwholesome mental factors from the Abhidhamma. They do not have the 3 poisons (greed/ lust, aversion and delusion).
They may plan to do something (see this answer), but they never plan to become something or somebody. They don't brood about the past or, dream or worry about the future.
Where the unenlightened feel boredom due to inactivity or feel loneliness due to lack of company, the arahants feel completely at ease and peaceful, and even prefer this. Their mental state is peaceful, free of "noise" and mental agitation of any kind.
They eat or take care of their health only out of necessity for maintenance and not with desires for sensual pleasures or to become something or somebody.
Each of the technical terms mentioned like fetters, hindrances, effluents, defilements, craving, clinging, unwholesome mental factors, 3 poisons etc. are all very detailed and often expand into further lists and definitions - you can search for them on Buddhism.SE.
But if you want a super short summary - it's bliss and peace all the time.
Also please see Dhammapada chapter 7.

Having studied theravadin canon and a lot of commentary i can advise you in short.
Don't overcomplicate your training by using non-canonical expressions like 'dark night' and 'insight knowledges'. These are commentarial developments and are controversial.
The way meditation is streamlined and made into a cookie-cutter method by ie the Goenka & Mahasi traditions, is a seemingly neat & convenient attempt at making a one size fit all and this one needs in order to train mass amounts of people with little to no instruction. However the theory as it is thus presented is at best incomplete and at worst a misinterpretation of the texts.
Basically both the Goenka and Mahasi traditions are rather niche traditions that became popular due to that massive streamlining of 'vipassana' and are based on commentary interpretations & systematizations on which there is little to no agreement.
Focus instead on studying the teacher's instruction and you will probably see that the method of expression is supreme and is optimized for the training such that no additional systems of going through insight knowledges and dark nights are required.
In no discourses of the Buddha will one read about a person resolving on or going through the insight knowledges & stages of insight, nor being instructed to do so.


text:
What to focus on in the practise of sati?
Recently, I started to be aware of my actions as stated in Sathipattana sutta.
Today, I was aware about my movements when I moving a object. And I placed it in a wrong place. This happened multiple times.
Before this practise, I aware about where to put the object but not movements. But today, the opposite.
What am I doing wrong here?

The Satipatthana Sutta does not instruct to be aware of bodily movements.
Instead, the Satipatthana Sutta instructs to know what you are doing according to the Dhamma when there are bodily movements. The Satipatthana Sutta says:

Furthermore, a monks acts with situational wisdom when going out and
coming back; when looking ahead and aside; when bending and extending
the limbs; when bearing the outer robe, bowl and robes; when eating,
drinking, chewing and tasting; when urinating and defecating; when
walking, standing, sitting, sleeping, waking, speaking and keeping
silent.
Puna caparaṃ, bhikkhave, bhikkhu abhikkante paṭikkante sampajānakārī
hoti, ālokite vilokite sampajānakārī hoti, samiñjite pasārite
sampajānakārī hoti, saṅghāṭipattacīvaradhāraṇe sampajānakārī hoti,
asite pīte khāyite sāyite sampajānakārī hoti, uccārapassāvakamme
sampajānakārī hoti, gate ṭhite nisinne sutte jāgarite bhāsite
tuṇhībhāve sampajānakārī hoti.
MN 10

For example, if you are perfectly aware of your bodily movements during the act of keeping silence and preparing a rifle to murder another person, this is not the practise of situational wisdom (sampajāna) because the bodily movements and actions are contrary to the path of Dhamma.
Again, if you are perfectly aware of your bodily movements during the act of taking drugs, engaging in sexual misconduct or maintaining the perfect quiet of a burglar robbing a rich man's house at night, this is not the practise of situational wisdom (sampajāna) because the bodily movements and actions are contrary to the path of Dhamma.
What the Satipatthana Sutta is instructing is meditating upon the body to ensure the body is engaged in wholesome dhammic bodily actions.

Who is responsible for that MN 10 translation?

You have to practice four Satipathana. Contemplation on the body, feeling, thought, and Dhamma. The way you practice at the moment is not correct. It took me seven years just to scratch the surface of meditation. Just be patient, speak to a good teacher. Goenka's Ten days Vipassana course is a good way to start. There is a YouTube video series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz7QHNvNFfA

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What does "this" stands for in the observation "This is suffering."?
This is suffering is one of the noble truths. But it is not clear what does "this" stands for ?
Similarly in the statement "This is the way leading to the cessation of suffering." , it is not clear what does "this" stands for?

We see this phrase in SN 56.11 (Sutta on Rolling Forth the Wheel of Dhamma, translated by Ven. Bodhi).

“‘This is the noble truth of suffering’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to
things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom,
true knowledge, and light.
‘Idaṃ dukkhaṃ ariyasaccan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṃ udapādi, ñāṇaṃ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi,
āloko udapādi.

What is "this"?
It's explained in the same sutta:

“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering:
Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ—
Birth is
suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is
suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation
from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is
suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are
suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na
labhati tampi dukkhaṃ—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

Also, "All conditioned phenomena are suffering" (sabbe sankhara dukkha) from Dhp 278.

Something you might want to add to your comment, which I upvoted: one of the seals of the Dharma, namely that "All formations are duḥkha" (sarvasaṁskārā duḥkhāḥ).

@Caoimhghin Added. But it should be "all conditioned phenomena is suffering". In this context, sankhara is not just formations

Makes sense, and I've heard this said before and don't dispute it. That Gautama Buddha says "saṁskārā" and not "saṁskṛtāḥ" always struck me as a curiosity of the early Prākrit Buddhavacana, if we'll forgive my using Sanskrit instead of Prākrit.

"This" stands for anything that is conditioned or any particular conditioned element.
We know this because that which is suffering is defined in the texts.

In that context, "this" refers to "direct knowledge and seeing". It means you see dukkha, the factors it emerges from, the possibility of prevention, and the way to implement it in real life - you see all of this as it actually is, directly in your immediate first-hand experience.

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


text:
Can volition be without craving? We love and serve because we intend to?
As Observer
Say I observe systems around me --- economics of suffering, arising of crime, even the Dependent Origination --- without craving to maintain, defend, modify, control or destroy the systems.
I do have an inquisitive mind that intends (not craves) to observe, trace through and understand the systems. I'm a studious person.
Am I free of craving?
As Participant
Say I act to reduce suffering according to my understanding of the above-mentioned systems.
Can I say I don't crave but do intend to better the lives of my wards?
That may sound strange, so let me explain my community service.
The wards in my community service include elderly, criminals, intoxication substance users, and more.
I explain the category of "elderly" because an irony within is more illustrative than straightforward categories like "criminals".
Most elderly folks end up alone because of bad choices made when younger. Whether they were bad parents, abusive personalities, or sometimes merely (obsessively?) hardworking due to economic hardship, their choices were made, and the various systems in life continue to process those choices.
The point of what we do in community service, shocking to many, is that we don't aim to solve every problem. We merely reduce suffering, and only in rare cases where opportunities present do we reduce suffering to the point of its elimination.
Perhaps a quick detour into "Harm Reduction" can make this illustration more concrete.
Harm Reduction vs Positive Alternative
The Harm Reduction Model could be applied to our work in community service, since we don't turn down anyone who is not yet ready to take on solutions in life.
At the same time, our country's treasury is so well-managed that the country builds numerous "Positive Alternatives" (education, gainful livelihood, etc). (There is no such term as "Positive Alternatives Model", sorry for not giving you something to read on this!)
It is easily observed that the Harm Reduction Model takes a whole lot less resources than the Positive Alternatives Model. It is a lot cheaper to distribute clean needles to drug addicts than it is to build entire schools to facilitate gainful employment. But I don't argue for one model versus the other; it all depends on how much resources we have on hand.
Our specific work includes such "harm reduction" techniques as provision for social needs (regular visits, chats, counseling), provision for basic physical needs (rations), and so on.
As Policy Maker
The tricky part of all this non-craving is how policy makers are often admonished for spending on lost causes.
Granted, a lot of community service work draws from volunteerism, so spending isn't that big an issue.
Unfortunately, even the resource that is volunteerism is also finite (like any other resource in this material plane).
Without going into academic discussions on how Harm Reduction gives respite from suffering such that there is a window of calm for rational behavior and real solutions, it is clear that Harm Reduction reduces (if not removes) suffering.
Key questions
Is a non-discriminatory intention to alleviate suffering an unwise action? (We do detain people with dangerous behavior, but we still spend effort and resources to serve even the most hardcore criminals.)
(Suffering is indeed a good teacher, but I don't believe it is my duty to mete out suffering. The real world already has a system that dishes out suffering.)
Can the intention to alleviate suffering be volitional without craving?
It's actually difficult to explain why I even bother to alleviate suffering, rather than amass pleasure for myself. The closest I can explain is a Chinese proverb: 物尽其用, 人尽其才. Which brings me to the next key question.
Is it wrong to intend to build up our own faculties without craving to? Will such intention to amass strength and capabilities be seen as attachment?
The above questions come about because of my longstanding (internal?) debate between "sitting all day long in meditative sessions" and "going out to do stuff". Many temples I visit have large TV screens, in front of which many monks... well... sit in "meditative sessions" all day long; popular media plays on these TV screens. Even long-drawn proper lectures don't interest me (consider how speed reading has higher throughput than video for knowledge transfer).
Because of my natural tendency towards "love and service", I've been accused of clinging and craving.

In Udana 6.1, we see the Buddha having intentions and making plans for the afternoon - this showed that he still had mental formations, volition and intention as a living arahant. So, he still had sankhara.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near
Vesālī at the Gabled Hall in the Great Forest. Then, early in the
morning, he adjusted his under robe and — carrying his bowl & robes —
went into Vesālī for alms. Then, having gone for alms in Vesālī, after
the meal, returning from his alms round, he addressed Ven. Ānanda,
"Get a sitting cloth, Ānanda. We will go to the Pāvāla shrine for the
day's abiding."
Responding, "As you say, lord," to the Blessed One, Ven. Ānanda
followed along behind the Blessed One, carrying the sitting cloth.
Then the Blessed One went to the Pāvāla shrine and, on arrival, sat
down on the seat laid out.
Seated, the Blessed One addressed Ven. Ānanda, "Vesālī is refreshing,
Ānanda. Refreshing, too, are the Udena shrine, the Gotamaka shrine,
the Sattamba shrine, the ManySon shrine, the Sāranda shrine, the
Pāvāla shrine.

In SN 12.38, we read that intention and planning alone are insufficient for the continuation of suffering. There must also be latent tendencies (anusaya). This was discussed in this answer.
So, living arahants still have sankhara. What they do not have is latent tendencies (anusaya), defilements (kilesa), effluents (asava), fetters (samyojana), craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana).
More precisely, living arahants have the aggregate of sankhara but not the clinging-aggregate of sankhara, because they have stopped clinging. See SN 22.48.
Also, Thanissaro Bhikkhu's commentary of Iti 44 implies that living arahants still have the five aggregates operating till physical death (sa-upadisesa), but there is no continuation of suffering or clinging or craving from the point of their enlightenment.
Not just this, the enlightened ones can experience most, if not all, of the 25 beautiful mental factors mentioned in this answer, including compassion (karuna). These beautiful mental factors do not arise because of the latent tendencies (anusaya).

So "clinging" taints an aggregate? For "end of suffering", it seems we must also give up intention and planning. Should we then starve to death from inactivity, esp those who already understood non-attachment? (Those who crossed the "river" and should give up the "boat" that is the Dhamma itself?)

"Should we then starve to death from inactivity" -> No. Just look at the examples of the Buddha and his chief disciples who did not starve themselves to death from inactivity. If someone is telling you otherwise, then ask them to kindly look at the examples of the Buddha and his chief disciples.

There's a great koan from the Blue Cliff record that goes something like this.  I think it speaks directly to your situation:

Yunyan asked Daowu, "What use does the great Bodhisattva of Mercy
make of all those hands and eyes?" Daowu said, "It is like a man
straightening his pillow with his outstretched hand in the middle of
the night." Yunyan said, "I have understood." Daowu said, "How
do you understand?" Yunyan said, "The whole body is hand and
eye." Daowu said, "You have had your say, but you have given only
eight-tenths of the truth." Yunyan sai, "How would you put
it?" Daowu said, "The entire body is hand and eye."

Who better to alleviate the suffering of the world than the Bodhisattva of Mercy?  Who better to act in the world with her innumerable hands holding implements that would meet every need?  But how does she meet the suffering of the world?  Does she go out looking for someone to save?  Does she cultivate her skills and build up her faculties in order to serve?
The actions of the Bodhisattvas are rarified - so much higher than our conventional understanding.  But in order to understand their motivations, the koan asks us to investigate something so simple - what it means to act like a man straightening his pillow in the middle of the night.  How is the great compassion of a Bodhisattva like a man straightening his pillow?  How is all true action in the world complete, entire, whole, and without remainder?
If you can be like that man, reaching for his pillow, you will know what it is to see with Kanon's many eyes and possess the many hands that will save all sentient beings without volition.

Can volition be without craving?

Yes. For example, about himself, the Buddha is reported to have said:

There is the case where a teacher teaches the Dhamma to his students
sympathetically, seeking their well-being, out of sympathy: 'This is
for your well-being; this is for your happiness.'
Maha-suññata Sutta

Yet the Buddha declared in his 1st words attaining the destruction of craving, as follows:

O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My
mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of
craving

Dhammapada

Say I observe systems around me --- economics of suffering, arising of
crime, even the Dependent Origination --- without craving to maintain,
defend, modify, control or destroy the systems.

Dependent origination is about the arising of mental suffering and nothing else.

Unsullied intentions are indeed a requirement of the Noble Eightfold Path.

AN10.20:9.1: And how does a mendicant have unsullied intentions?
AN10.20:9.2: It’s when a mendicant has given up intentions of sensuality, malice, and cruelty.

Because of my natural tendency towards "love and service", I've been accused of clinging and craving.
Love and service do generate merit and are worthy of praise. However, there is one further consideration:

AN10.91:20.2: They seek for wealth using legitimate, non-coercive means. This is the first ground for praise.
AN10.91:20.3: They make themselves happy and pleased. This is the second ground for praise.
AN10.91:20.4: They share it and make merit. This is the third ground for praise.
AN10.91:20.5: They enjoy that wealth tied, infatuated, attached, blind to the drawbacks, and not understanding the escape. This is the one ground for criticism.

For example, if we have a good job and share our wealth, that is wonderful. But if we start counting and comparing the amount we share, then perhaps we have become infatuated and attached to feeling "I am good".

DN15:9.1: So it is, Ānanda, that feeling is a cause of craving. Craving is a cause of seeking. Seeking is a cause of gaining material possessions. Gaining material possessions is a cause of assessing. Assessing is a cause of desire and lust. Desire and lust is a cause of attachment. Attachment is a cause of possessiveness. Possessiveness is a cause of stinginess. Stinginess is a cause of safeguarding.

I had the impression that the OP and your answer is also concerned with the gaining of spiritual wealth i.e., 'merit' ... are your citations from sutta about wealth also applicable for spiritual wealth and not just material possessions?

Yes. If merit is heavenly, then we should also be aware that > SN56.108-110:1.1: “… the sentient beings who die as gods and are reborn as gods are few, while those who die as gods and are reborn in hell, or the animal realm, or the ghost realm are many.”


text:
Is this forum a place for Buddhist Hermeneutics?
Buddhist Hermeneutics could be the objective study of Buddhist texts (from my limited understanding).
Is hermeneutics possible in Buddhism? There are so many allegories and parables in Buddhist texts, I feel that an objective study of these texts would be a good first step towards proper interpretation. Am I wrong?
Even if we can't make sense of all of Buddhist teaching, at least we can read the texts properly (in proper contexts).

The teachings of the Buddha are "literal". The first description of the teachings are they are "well-spoken". Others verses from the Pali scriptures support this, such as:

Bhikkhus, the Dhamma well proclaimed by me thus is clear, open,
evident, and free of patchwork.
MN 22
I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric
and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the
teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of
a teacher who keeps some things back.
DN 16

For hundreds of years it appears most Buddhists are not interested in being honest about the scriptures.
For example, if an objective literal approach is taken towards the Teachings, as examples:

In the 1st Noble Truth, the Buddha said: "In summary, the five aggregates subject to attachment is dukkha". Yet maybe 0.1% of Buddhists will say all dukkha was summarised by the Buddha as attachment. Where as, the 99.9% will say life is dukkha or rebirth is dukkha rather than attachment is dukkha or birth is a type of attachment.

In the Dependent Origination, "birth" is literally defined as "the birth of various beings in a category of beings"; where the scriptures elsewhere literally define "a being" as a "view" or "convention". Yet maybe 0.1% of Buddhists will say "birth" in Dependent Origination refers to views or conventions of social or self-identities. Where as the 99.9% will say "birth" means "child-birth".

The original (Pali) scriptures literally say Dependent Origination is about twelve conditions leading to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, despair and the whole mass of suffering. But most Buddhists will not say this. Most Buddhists will say Dependent Origination is about reincarnation or about the causality of all things in the universe.

In summary, the core teachings of the Buddha are literal and clearly defined.

Your 1st point is so illuminating! Relates to my question on craving vs loving: https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/44171/20644 . So, a tendency towards loving and serving people around us won't be classified as "attachment amounting to dukkha"? I'm so glad this forum gives such literal (non-superstitious) answers! Thank you! I'll dig into the other points soon.

Still haven't had time to dig into your other points, but will do so soon! I agree that humans have a tendency to extend knowledge as much as possible to "get most bang for buck", often extending knowledge beyond its intended context. For eg, many people believe that Da Vinci's painting revealed his musical talent. If you have any modicum of music training, you'd be hard pressed to consider the composition "learned and intentional".

You're going to find two schools of thought on this:

Fundamentalist sects will hold that the original teachings of Gautama Buddha are 'perfect', and that anything which appears to be revisionism is an aberration or misunderstanding
Progressive sects will hold that any written expression is limited and flawed, so the teachings of Gautama Buddha must adapt to changing contexts and climates as the world moves forward

Neither position is right, and neither is wrong; they reflect different worries about the preservation of the teachings, and as such are inherently dukkha. The teachings will fade away, and they will be recovered in a different form. Clinging to the future, clinging to the present, clinging to the past... the operative word is 'clinging'.
Everyone who encounters the dharma will go through a period of hermeneutics, be it formal or informal. We all try to grasp the dharma intellectually, one way or another. That intellectual struggle is a way of tending a field (clearing, hoeing, weeding) in which understanding can grow. Understanding is not something we create through these efforts — like any crop we can prep the field, but then we have to sit and wait to see what grows — but the hermeneutic process helps. Some hermeneutic paths lead to fundamentalism, some lead to progressivism, some lead elsewhere... The point to remember is that all paths are meant to lead beyond the teaching to bone-deep understanding.
Don't think of hermeneutics as objective. Hermeneutics is intra-subjective: a way of engaging in dialog with a teacher to reach a common worldview. The intention shouldn't be to learn, i.e., accumulate objective knowledge. The intention should be to see: to un-cloud our eyes and gain perspective.

"a way of engaging in dialog with a teacher to reach a common worldview". Does that mean Hermeneutics cannot grasp at reality? But Hermeneutics involves semiotics: gathering of all parts of a message (verbal, non-verbal, contexts, etc) so that we don't miss any part of the message. The intention of Hermeneutics is to "fully understand the message as perceived/intended by the communicator of the message". And the best way to do that is to have a literal interpretation of all parts of the message.

"two schools of thought". Did the Buddha claim all His teachings are perfect, such that Fundamentalism has cause to preserve His teachings verbatim? (There's also the question of why the Buddha didn't come during a time when writing was invented and verifiable formal discourse was fully facilitated.)
Why must the Buddha's teaching be adapted by Progressive sects? Did He explicitly state His knowledge is imperfect? Facts about reality apply to all contexts. Gravity, for eg, applies the same to all cultures and times (assuming it is fully and correctly defined).

@jhannwong: Finger pointing at the moon. Do you believe that the entirety of the Buddha's worldview was contained in the words he spoke, or do you believe that the words the Buddha spoke pointed at something he wished people to see and understand? (rhetorical question...) The point of hermeneutics is to interpret the text as a self-consistent whole, in order to reach or recover that intrinsic 'thing being pointed at'. But the 'thing being pointed at' is in no way identical to the literal words that are doing the pointing. That's as true of gravity as it is of the dharma.

I didn't know about that finger and moon! Will ask another question to discuss it. Thanks! In linguistics, all communication tools are "the finger" that point to the concepts discussed, "the moon". To understand "what is perceived/intended by the communicator" is hermeneutics/semiotics. Whether the communicator intended to reference the "moon" or to throw up "smoke and mirrors" is not for us to judge, but to simply know. The first step of communication is to receive the message in its entirety, hence "all parts of the message" in hermeneutics. Gravity is a language.

(Gosh, comments are so short!). The "finger", whether a labeling language or a observational instrument, can be refined over time (because we imperfect folks invented imperfect tools). That "finger" has become powerful telescopes that helped us discover that the moon isn't "a tiny light bulb", for eg. A perfect Buddha could've helped create a better language/lens to give a more intimate account of the "moon". Instead, I'm left wondering why the Buddha didn't consider inventing writing to facilitate learning and investigation. But I merely aim to know the Buddha.

The idea of Buddhist hermeneutics can be found in the Pali Canon, as seen in the quotes below.
Traditional commentaries in Pali and other supporting texts such as the Visuddhimagga also developed as an interpretive framework. Traditionally, the Abhidhamma is said to have been taught by the Buddha, but others see it as a supporting interpretive framework too.
AN 2.23-25 (below) is useful for this topic.

“Mendicants, these two misrepresent the Realized One. What two? One
who explains what was not spoken by the Realized One as spoken by him.
And one who explains what was spoken by the Realized One as not spoken
by him. These two misrepresent the Realized One.
These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One. What two? One who
explains what was not spoken by the Realized One as not spoken by him.
And one who explains what was spoken by the Realized One as spoken by
him. These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One.”
“Mendicants, these two misrepresent the Realized One (the Buddha). What two? One
who explains a discourse in need of interpretation as a discourse
whose meaning is explicit. And one who explains a discourse whose
meaning is explicit as a discourse in need of interpretation. These
two misrepresent the Realized One.”
“These two don’t misrepresent the Realized One (the Buddha). What two? One who
explains a discourse in need of interpretation as a discourse in need
of interpretation. And one who explains a discourse whose meaning is
explicit as a discourse whose meaning is explicit. These two don’t
misrepresent the Realized One.”

The other useful thing, is the four great references of AN 4.180 (below). Please also see this answer.

Take another mendicant who says: ‘Reverend, I have heard and learned
this in the presence of the Buddha: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training. If they are included in the discourses and found in the
texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly
this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully
awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by that mendicant.’
You should remember it. This is the first great reference.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery lives a
Saṅgha with seniors and leaders. I’ve heard and learned this in the
presence of that Saṅgha: this is the teaching, this is the training,
this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither approve nor
dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should carefully
memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re included in
the discourses or found in the texts on monastic training. If they are
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the word of
the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha. It has
been correctly memorized by that Saṅgha.’ You should remember it. This
is the second great reference.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery there are
several senior mendicants who are very learned, knowledgeable in the
scriptures, who remember the teachings, the texts on monastic
training, and the outlines. I’ve heard and learned this in the
presence of those senior mendicants: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
training. If they are included in the discourses and found in the
texts on monastic training, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly
this is the word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully
awakened Buddha. It has been correctly memorized by those senior
mendicants.’ You should remember it. This is the third great
reference.
Take another mendicant who says: ‘In such-and-such monastery there is
a single senior mendicant who is very learned and knowledgeable in the
scriptures, who has memorized the teachings, the texts on monastic
discipline, and the outlines. I’ve heard and learned this in the
presence of that senior mendicant: this is the teaching, this is the
training, this is the Teacher’s instruction.’ You should neither
approve nor dismiss that mendicant’s statement. Instead, you should
carefully memorize those words and phrases, then check if they’re
included in the discourses and found in the texts on monastic
discipline. If they are included in the discourses and found in the
monastic law, you should draw the conclusion: ‘Clearly this is the
word of the Blessed One, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha.
It has been correctly memorized by that senior mendicant.’ You should
remember it. This is the fourth great reference.
These are the four great references.”

"One who explains a discourse in need of interpretation as a discourse whose meaning is explicit". Oh wow, this is interesting! Did the Buddha say this Himself? Did He anticipate that some of His teachings would lack explicit details such that interpretation is required? Why omit details, when language at the time was obviously advanced enough to be explicit in prose, clear as textbooks today would be? I'm also curious why the Buddha left many questions answered with effectively a "it's none of the above" instead of  "I won't answer an irrelevant question". In formal discourse too!

The Four Great References is interesting too! All that because writing and signatures weren't invented yet. What a difficult time to teach! It seems the Four Great References were strictly for recording purposes? Did the Buddha say something to the effect of "I'm awakened (didn't say fully), so hear me out, but please test everything I say"? Today, good scholars know that it takes a lot of imperfectly awakened persons (cross-checkers, fact-checkers, at least) working together to have any hope of arriving at truths; "singular heroes" isn't erroneously relied on (peer reviews).

But is there really one proper interpretation? Or two? If this were so, then why would the texts have erred on the side of allegories and/or parables?
As noted above, (absolute) language is flawed and inadequate (some more so than others) in describing any spiritual experience - i.e. anything pertaining to the inner world. Anyone who has had experiences and tried to share them with others knows this. Indeed, language itself has evolved phrases to illustrate this stark shortcoming: "I'm speechless", "There are no words....", "Words are not enough...", "I'm at a loss of words", "I can't find the words to...", "A picture is a thousand words...". And even with language, we gesticulate now and then when we're at a loss of words to render an exact experience with no details spared. (Which is why telepathy is a thing, if you believe in such things).
You are missing one thing. Understanding does not come through intellectual discourse... Or words read in a book/on paper. Understanding comes through direct individual experience. Hence the teachings are really a "guide" (which explains the parables/allegories), and people that 'teach' us are not really "teachers" in the Western sense of the word, but rather "guides".
Thus, a parable being a "picture with words", and a picture being a thousand words, what better way to 'teach*' than to paint a (verbal) picture...? - Indeed, we do it today when someone does not "get" us: we use "analogies", "scenarios" or descriptions prefaced with "let me paint you a picture...".
All of Bhudda's teachings merely point us along a direction, and Bhudda's teachings were different for different people. - Because people ARE different.
Interpretations are as diverse as opinions and subjective experiences, and yet, any of them that leads (read: guides) anyone to enlightenment is a "proper interpretation".
But be aware that reading alone, or "interpretation" alone will get one nowhere. Beyond reading, there is practice. And practice is more important than reading. Or any interpretation. Bhuddism after all is a "way of life".
If we "can't make sense" of Bhudda's teachings, it might be because we spend more time reading, than we do practicing....
"Even if we can't make sense of all of Buddhist teaching, at least we can read the texts properly (in proper contexts)."

Reading is not a prerequisite to Bhuddism, nor to enlightenment???

As for a desire for objective study of the teachings, Enlightenment is not an objective experience, It is a very subjective one, and there is no one sole path that leads to it exclusively.. Nor can we lead anyone else to enlightenment, short of pointing them the way... So, which is more important? The study of it or the experience of it?

"Understanding does not come through intellectual discourse". The Buddha needed to teach what he knew, so He used words (unfortunately not in writing, but this question doesn't ask why He didn't invent writing). Words need to be processed and understood. If the words Buddha put forth weren't clear enough, eg ambiguous that they spawn multiple interpretations, then a valid question would ask "why Buddha didn't speak more clearly". And that relates to this question of hermeneutics: to understand Buddha's words clearly. (I didn't downvote anyone! FYI.)

Thank you! Bhudda gave his teachings, using words (the only way possible) to GUIDE us. But it is only through practicing, through experiencing that we will understand his words. He himself attained nirvana without the need to study words - because of his practices. The words alone, without understanding through practice are like empty seeds clanging around in a gourd. They make one seem learned, but they won't by themselves lead to Nirvana. Many Bhuddists leave to other religions/countries bcos their practice (and hence understanding) wasn't genuine and as such produced no results for them.

"Hermeneutics : to understand Bhudda's words clearly". Borrowing your words, if Bhudda intended this, he would have spoken clearly, and not ambiguously. And yet he didn't - for a reason (known to him). But we seem to want to be wiser than him and speak clearly where he did not - in other words, distort his teachings with our own interpretations. Whereas his words become clear to all who practice, genuinely, because true understanding comes from within, from experiencing, and not from being tossed about by opinions. But this is my personal view, and many seem to disagree with me.. which is ok.

If Buddha intended to speak "not clearly", then He should know that his audience will receive His lessons "not clearly" as well, right? Without clear communication, there is no way the audience can receive His messages. I don't think His audiences want to "be wiser than Him"; we're all just trying to understand Him! Thank u for helping me out with this question, nonetheless. I'm still confused and searching, given your claim that the Buddha intended to speak "not clearly".

It wouldn't be possible to become, say, a traditional Chinese of certain province by just reading and without intensive direct and physical association. Every of them would recognize one soon as a common fake.
How could one manage to become a Noble One only on words read?
This tradition is like a skill profession, requiring a student, master relation, i.e. a real threefold Refuge.
As for a/the forum: a forum can not act. As for if association with members, watch out careful and start with thinking whether a Noble One would accept being/getting bond on common and commercial rules... not to speak about virtue at forst place.


text:
Thinking vs Talking in mind
Sometimes, I caught me on talking in mind. Sometimes my tongue moves according to it. Sometimes I talk to myself. This feels very fast and hard to control.
There also intuition like thinking. For a example, to move a hand we don't have to say to move. Also I can read a book without moving the tongue. (mind talking) This feels very calm. I like to be in this state. When I want start a work, I need to make my mind silent.
What is going on here?

Talking mind is from accumulation of emotion-creating past actions & tendencies.
Silent intuitive mind is a right concentration when performing what is necessary to perform.
Possibly MN 19 can help in understanding the different layers of the mind.
As MN 117 refers to wrong thought (resolve) vs right thought (resolve).
Every human life is born with unwholesome and wholesome tendencies. This is what is going on here. Thus the Buddha distinguished mental phenomena (dhammas) as wholesome and unwholesome. Refer to MN 9 and "the elements" in MN 115.


text:
How do I slow down and start living according to my values? How do I change the direction of my life?
For some time, I have been practising different types of meditation and yoga, and I have also tried to study a bit of Buddhism, from which I have got the main values that guide my life (I cannot say I am a Buddhist, but I believe the teachings of the little Buddhism I know have been my main source of well-being, together with the love of the people around me).
Still, I live trapped in my particular little daily samsara in which my work determines the shape of my days, and I don't see a way out of it. I live in Madrid, I am finishing my PhD in a university and planning to move for a post-doc abroad very soon. Ever since I started studying at the university, I feel like I have been in a continuous race, always moving to new goals. This has not been my decisions, but rather what I thought best at the moment to make a living. I have never had other options or I have not known how to see them. I do not have any professional or academic ambition (which makes me feel peaceful), my needs are very simple, I do not spend much money -but yet, one has to pay rent and food, and for me the PhD and now the postdoc have been the best options for a work which seemingly offered the best way to harmonize my work with my personal life. My work, however, eats away a big part of my days, and I haven't had real holidays in years. I am not unhappy, but I do not wish to be doomed to more years of this meaningless cycle of pursuing goals, working on projects and then get home drained of energy from working on something "competitive", as is academia. I do not want to earn more money, I just want a more simple life. I have no idea, however, which work could I look  for, or what changes should I try. I just want to have my horizon depleted of projects and plans. I have researched, for example, how to grow my own food, which is not entirely easy on a small apartment on a city, but even so I have to pay housing, which is expensive, and forces me to keep working. I don't see to have a way out, I do not have the resources to "start a new life", and the only thing I want is to find a way to restructure my life and live a more simple life, in accordance with the Buddhist teachings I have so far gathered, not having always new projects to fight for, not having my life defined by my work. The Buddha, apparently, just went out there "into the wild", so as to speak, which is unthinkable for me. I do not even have the resources or knowledge to survive if I give up my job and house, but I would do the closest thing to that that is possible.

I'd take it with a grain of salt that a prince living inside a palace his entire life up and left and survived in the wilderness with no help.

You might think this facetious and in fact, it's vital; prolly more vital than dropping the value-based comparisons in your final sentence.
Start by taking the very same Question above and breaking it down into paragraphs.
Having done that - even if you keep exactly the same words and "merely" add spaces - apply the same technique to everything else in life.
If you doubt me, ask your meditation and yoga teaches what they think…

"I have researched, for example, how to grow my own food" for you, is this a goal, a wish or a method?

That's an interesting question :)  I would say that, actually, it is three times at the same time: It is a goal (something I am approaching), a wish (something I want / I consider desirable and enjoyable) and a method (a method for the greater goal of a simpler, more peaceful and more sustainable life)

My answer is small. Despite the many insightful suggestions I think there is one thing you may still need to consider. The solution is to do it. After much analysis and asking of advice you have all there is . Whether it is starting a new garden or a new life, all that remains is for you to do it. Of course I'm not saying it's easy. I'm still hoarding advice and looking for more. But at some point you will need to take steps, small or large, and make some changes. . Blessing on you.

Beautiful question, one of the best questions I ever encountered on this site - at least for me, because I can relate to it in my own life, too.
Without going into too many personal details, aren't most of "successful" people in the modern "West"-style society defined and driven by their jobs and careers? And wouldn't it be nice if life were simple and pure, oh dear.
For me, an answer to this most important question of "what are we living for", an answer I was seeking for years, an answer  I slowly matured into, is that the pace, the color, the overall atmosphere and the very meaning of our life are not defined by our job or location but only by our attitude, our personal mental/emotional stance so to speak.
You see, I have studied Buddhism for a quarter century now, and to my surprise what I came to realize is that being in authentic harmony with one's own values and indeed with one's heart - is the unquestionably highest pinnacle of the most advanced parts of the Buddhist teaching.
In other words, if you live contrary to this principle, no matter how successful your outward life and career is - you will be unhappy. It's a mathematical law, there's no happiness when you are in conflict with yourself. And vice versa, if you don't have any inner conflict at all, which is to say if your every step and every word and even every breath is an expression of your true authentic being, then no matter what shape your external life takes, your actual living reality will be peaceful and harmonious.
In other words, the answer to your question is already right there in the title. Slow down and live according to your values, there's nothing else that you need, you just have to find the guts to live like that every second of every minute of every hour of every day, regardless of circumstances. You don't need to move to the Himalayas, you must create Himalayas in your life by being who you really are in the midst of your current situation.
In practice this means that when you face a choice between living according to your authentic being and bending over backwards to satisfy a requirement of the samsaric flow - you must choose the real thing, even if it means failing on an external commitment or losing your job or whatever other "scary" thing that could happen. The circumstances will change accordingly, the things you don't need will fall-off, and what is left will be in harmony with your being - because that's what you'll keep on choosing.
I swear I spent years scrutinizing every Buddhist teaching I could lay my hands on and this is what I came to. I mean, there's being a good person, good karma and all, there's non-attachment, there's emptiness - all of these things are valid and true. But being fearlessly True and Authentic despite the constant pressure of everyday things is the real Enlightenment I have found.
If I could do it, you can do it. I promise you won't regret :)

This is a very raw, honest and human answer to a question that shares the same qualities.

And one last thing: it's not something you can/should expect to be able to achieve in just one moment. To get that level of consistency and character requires practice and more practice, just as with any other excellent skill.

Thank you for a beautiful hope-giving answer :)  It is not only helpful and wise, it is also kind and warm. I think (I hope) I am on a path towards what you describe, and for that I feel peaceful.

My work, however, eats away a big part of my day...

Try viewing your work not as something that takes you away from a peaceful life but as part of that peaceful life itself.  Your work is the work.  Try living your slow, peaceful life while you are working.  Notice what your breathing is like while you're working.  Notice anything that takes you away from that peaceful feeling.  Meditate before you begin work for the day so that you have a baseline with which to compare.

The Buddha was a monk, which means he went on alms round for food. His society allowed him to do this because he could live in forests and because there was a culture where people offered food and other requisites to monks. Therefore, the Buddha did not actually "go into the wild" because there was always a safety net in terms of receiving material requisites from the religious society.
The Buddha also advised laypeople to develop a profession to earn a living. You should finish your studies to prepare yourself to earn a living. Surely, your studies will end in the near future rather than go on forever. They will not be permanent. Earning a living is part of the Buddha's noble eightfold path.

"Vast learning, skill in handicrafts, well grounded in discipline, and pleasant speech — this is the highest blessing.

"To support one's father and mother; to cherish one's wife and children, and to be engaged in peaceful occupations — this is the
highest blessing.

Maha-mangala
Sutta

Andrei's answer is wonderful & spot on and I'd like to elaborate on it by sharing my own interpretation:
You describe a sense of meaninglessness, which over time can easily turn into depression and a great deal of pain; You've learned that the fast paced, achievement oriented nature of much of the world does not interest you and so in some sense, you seem bored/uninterested/disgusted with it. Similarly, you've learned that you would rather live a simpler slower paced life.
But essentially you are trying to find out what to actually do about this, how to make it happen - It's difficult to just get up and make that lifestyle change, seemingly impossible from where you currently stand.
It's good to have this goal in mind and if that is really what you want, you can try to make it happen, all the while, you need to learn how to make peace with your current situation, otherwise it will drag you down and hinder your ability to do what you want in your life.
How to actually make peace with it? You need to make space inside yourself for your current lifestyle. Welcome it, see the positive in it, learn to love it in every way you can. If you find yourself making conflict with something in your life, see if you can immediately welcome it instead, welcome that conflict, accept it, play with it and see if you can make friends with it.
Make a home inside you for all this meaningless stuff and see how long it wants to stay; It won't stay forever.
Those feelings of meaninglessness are coming up to bother you, to try and get you to do something about it, to go live that simpler life, which fine, if you go do that, you might be happier and you might be happier for some time, but there's no guarantee that life there won't become meaningless too... it's a gamble. There's a phrase - "Wherever you go, there you are".
So, welcome those feelings instead, try not to them bother you, and just watch and see how over time, those feelings don't stick around for as long. They aren't getting from you what they want, so they will just leave and try again another time. After a while, those feelings will be so starved from your lack of being bothered, that they will have no reason to keep arising and will eventually just fade away.
If you practice in this way towards your feelings, making peace with them, making peace with your living situation, you can still live that simpler life somewhere else... or maybe at that point you'll realize that you are already living it.

The point is to learn how to feel.
You are aware of your values but find it hard to live them, in a difficult world, because you cannot feel those values, you only know them.
Once you have taken your values into you feelings, you will have no choice, but to find a way, because your feelings will react against anything that is not coherent with your values.
However, learning to feel is not easy, it means turning to face all the idiosyncrasies, peculiarities, insanities and difficult things about yourself - the things you probably started meditating to try to overcome - getting to know you, in the flesh, the impure, as well as you in the purity of the mind's ideal.
The mind is a contradiction, to realise your ideal you must face in yourself what is far from ideal, in fact probably intolerable.  The nature of the mind is contradiction, and the mind finds those contradictions intolerable, which is why we must face them.
We must face the intolerable contradictions to be able to feel, and most importantly, live, the true beauty we are looking for.

Some tips from my own experience (somewhat in similar shoes, though I am a few decades past your point in life):

First of all, what you are trying to describe seems to be Secular Buddhism, i.e. the techniques and philosophies, but without the more traditional eastern religious aspects. This is useful and good - even just the meditation and mindfulness techniques from Buddhism are great without any kind of religious beliefs at all. That stuff works, period, no matter what you believe (and you can prove/experiment with that for yourself easily to verify it).
Unless you find a way to live without money, make it so that what you are doing to get money is something that you like to do. This might mean finding something out of academia, but it might also just mean to change your mindset a bit. Meditation can help with that. It should not be the whole semester that is weighing you down, it should be just the situation right now that should be on your plate.
Find ways to be, well, relaxed, even when you are pursuing a goal. For me personally, whenever I feel that I am getting hectic, I start writing things down, so I can forget them. In the distant past, we had something like "getting things done", which was a science in itself, but these days you can just get a beautiful fountain pen and nice little booklet, and keep a "bullet point journal". That's beautifully low-tech and relaxing and can be almost meditative in itself.
The main point of the previous hint is to only have very few items that you need to have in mind "now", which directly leads into the Buddhist/meditative idea of caring about the now, not the past or future. And ruthlessly strike away things that are somehow on your TODO list but not something you want to do.
You complain about the circular way of things, the endless cycle of pursuing goals. That's literally life. The goals are only "heavy" for you because you give them more meaning that they need to have. The problem is not that there are goals, but that you are worrying about them all the time. The goal is to not worry, but just do what you are doing right now. As soon as you let go of the idea that goals have any meaning, you can be much more happy, while still eventually ending up at them. Even the purest solitary monk deep in the Thai forrest needs to have the daily goal of finding something to eat; his mind will be in a state where that does not matter at all, but he will still do whatever needs to be done.
Finally, there are jobs out there which are mindless and rote, where you can punch in and out, and never worry about anything. Nobody keeps you from looking for one like that and switching careers. Many of them have a bad image but are not actually that bad, which makes it not unlikely that you might actually get a position... look around a bit.

I have to give you a contrarian answer.
The orthodox Buddhist path diverges into the lay householder path, and the path of the renunciate (anagarika / "homeless ones", samanera / novice, bhikkhu / monk). Please see this answer.
The path of the lay householder is in accordance with the five precepts and Right Livelihood (AN 5.177). It involves working in a profession or doing business, growing wealth and may include having a family. Please see the question "Can a Buddhist own and run a billion dollar business?".
The renunciate typically joins the monastic community (which typically is not in the "wild", but usually a suburban or rural monastery near civilization) and observes the eight precepts (as a anagarika / "homeless ones"), the ten precepts (as a novice monk / samanera) or the monastic rules of the Vinaya (as a full fledged monk / bhikkhu).
The renunciate is like a full time professional practitioner of the teachings. The "holy life" is basically the monastic life focused full time on the study and practice of Buddhism, aiming to reach enlightenment.
From the Dhammapada XI:

Those who in youth have not led the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, languish like old cranes in the pond without fish.

Those who in youth have not lead the holy life, or have failed to acquire wealth, lie sighing over the past, like worn out arrows (shot
from) a bow.

So crafting an easy and relaxed lifestyle of your choice, which is neither the holy life, nor the productive lay life, is not in accordance with orthodox Buddhist principles. Beware not to mistaken an idyllic, relaxed, retired life for Buddhism.
Please see this advice by Ven. Ajaan Fuang from "Awareness Itself", to a lay person:

Another student disappeared for several months, and on her return told
Ajaan Fuang, "The reason I didn't show up is that my boss sent me to
night school for a semester, so I didn't have any time to meditate at
all. But now that the course is over, I don't want to do anything but
meditate — no work, no study, just let the mind be still."
She thought he'd be pleased to hear how intent she still was on
meditating, but he disappointed her. "So you don't want to work —
that's a defilement, isn't it? Whoever said that people can't work and
meditate at the same time?"

My answer is small. Despite the many insightful suggestions I think there is one thing you may still need to consider. The solution is to do it. After much analysis and asking of advice you have all there is . Whether it is starting a new garden or a new life, all that remains is for you to do it. Of course I'm not saying it's easy. I'm still hoarding advice and looking for more. But at some point you will need to take steps, small or large, and make some changes.
. Blessing on you.

@Elliot Did you intend to write this as a separate new answer instead of as a comment to my answer?

Yes, I did. I just joined to put this in but did not have enough points(?) to make an answer. I missed that it was a comment to your answer. Thanks

I'm not a Buddhist but, for me, it is the best of religions. In my twenties (I'm now in my mid-seventies), I found myself in a similar situation to you. I had permanent muscle tension around my neck and shoulders and rushed everywhere. By luck, one of the professors was a Buddhist and held informal weekly lunchtime chats for about half a dozen interested students.
I came up with a solution for myself: Whenever I had a coffee break, I would change mode. If I had fifteen minutes I would see it as a long holiday. I would relax at the start and drift through the time. I don't mean being lazy, I mean I would remove all pressure and simply do the things I wanted to do as though unhurriedly drifting along a river that happened to be going in the direction I wanted. I found that, subjectively, a 15 minute break could seem like an hour of almost bliss. With practice I could switch this state on and off almost instantly.
I would urge to to learn how to do this. Step in and out of the river at will, even for a few seconds at a time.
Now that I'm retired, I can look back and see that, although I never had the desire or even the willpower to sit and meditate, these periods of moving meditation made a huge difference.
Important: The best parts about my retirement are
(1) I used some of my earnings to build up a modest pension. My material wants are not huge but I can buy things and get things repaired easily when needed. I constantly see homeless people on the street who have not provided for their old age. I'm glad I didn't go that way.
(2) I have overcome my fear of death. This would take more than a paragraph to explain but it is very much related to understanding that "I" am living now - not in the future, not in the past. I die every second and am reincarnated every instant.  This relates back to the lesson I derived from those informal Buddhist sessions 50 or so years ago. Nevertheless be compassionate towards the future you and make sure they will be able to have a comfortable life.
Advice?
You don't have to have a high-pressure job. You can do something mundane 9-5 with no out-of-hours working or responsibility. Then you can leave it behind at the instant you leave the premises. Live simply and put a bit away each day for old age and in case of sickness.


text:
Madhyamaka, theravada and mahayana
Why is Mahayana Buddhism not a form of solipsism (epistemological, methodological, metaphysical) if the first school of Mahayana Buddhism was the Madhyamaka school from which then yogachara originated, which is considered solipsism? It turns out that the Madhyamaka school should be solipsism like Mahayana Buddhism itself, or I don't understand something? Also, why is theravada Buddhism not solipsism (methodological, epistemological, or metaphysical) if the Terevada doctrine is completely dependent on one's own experience and awareness? Thanks you

Why do you keep asking new questions that ask more or less the same as previous questions on solipsism? Are you not satisfied with the answers to those questions?

Please see What is the difference between Buddhism, Hinduism and Solipsism?, Why wasn't the Buddha a solipsist?, Is Buddhism methodological solipsism?

Recently a Buddhist told me that Buddhism is solipsism.
Theravada is methodological solipsism, yogashara is epistemological, and Mahayama is metaphysical. I want to know if this is true or have I been deceived?

Please read the answers to previous versions of this question.

so•lip•sism sŏl′ĭp-sĭz″əm, sō′lĭp-►
n.    The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and
verified.
n. The view that the self is the only reality.
n. The belief
or proposition that the person entertaining it alone exists and that
other people exist only as ideas in his mind

That being the definition of Solipsism non of the schools of Buddhism will have anything to do with it.
The Buddha refuted most of the solipsistic schools in his time and taught non-self.


text:
Finding the balance of thinking and working
Today I realized that I am an overthinker. I postpone things because of thinking, planning. I missed lot of time due it.
But by thinking I found lot of new stuff. Those thinking is the main cause for the posts in this forum.
I think there should be a balance. Without thinking, we may go in the wrong path. With overthinking, work won't complete.
What are the suttas which states this balance? I know the story of Arahant Sona about effort. I really like to know about balance of thinking and working?

Thinking is an essential activity, of course, and it's impossible to avoid doing any thinking.  The key is balance between being centered in the activity of your mind and being centered in your body.  The more time you spend feeling the feelings of your body, gradually the thinking activity will settle down a bit.

With overthinking, work won't complete.
What are the suttas which states this balance?

An 5.73
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard & studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues, narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question & answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
...
Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you."


text:
Does regret help us to correct our faults?
Does regret / guilt help us to correct our faults? Doesn't the pain from our faults push us to the correct path?

In the Abhidhamma, regret and remorse over the past is considered an unwholesome mental factor.

Worry (kukkucca) is remorse, brooding, and repenting over evil acts
done in the past or good acts left undone.

The following theme for reflection from AN 5.57 (quoted below) can prevent the arising of unarisen unwholesome states. It encourages shame of evil (hiri) and fear of evil (otappa), which are mentioned as beautiful mental factors in the Abhidhamma.
So, remorse and regret over the past is unwholesome. But shame of evil and fear of evil, or basically moral shame (hiri) and fear of wrongdoing (otappa), for the future, is wholesome.

“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished. It is for the sake of
this benefit that a woman or a man, a householder or one gone forth,
should often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my
kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my
resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do.’

Hiri and otappa are explained below in Ven. Bodhi's "The Guardians of the World" :

The Buddha points to two mental qualities as the underlying safeguards
of morality, thus as the protectors of both the individual and society
as a whole. These two qualities are called in Pali hiri and ottappa.
Hiri is an innate sense of shame over moral transgression; ottappa is
moral dread, fear of the results of wrongdoing. The Buddha calls these
two states the bright guardians of the world (sukka lokapala). He
gives them this designation because as long as these two states
prevail in people's hearts the moral standards of the world remain
intact, while when their influence wanes the human world falls into
unabashed promiscuity and violence, becoming almost indistinguishable
from the animal realm (Itiv. 42).
While moral shame and fear of wrongdoing are united in the common task
of protecting the mind from moral defilement, they differ in their
individual characteristics and modes of operation. Hiri, the sense of
shame, has an internal reference; it is rooted in self-respect and
induces us to shrink from wrongdoing out of a feeling of personal
honor. Ottappa, fear of wrongdoing, has an external orientation. It is
the voice of conscience that warns us of the dire consequences of
moral transgression: blame and punishment by others, the painful
kammic results of evil deeds, the impediment to our desire for
liberation from suffering. Acariya Buddhaghosa illustrates the
difference between the two with the simile of an iron rod smeared with
excrement at one end and heated to a glow at the other end: hiri is
like one's disgust at grabbing the rod in the place where it is
smeared with excrement, ottappa is like one's fear of grabbing it in
the place where it is red hot.

And from Iti 42:

"Bhikkhus, these two bright principles protect the world. What are the
two? Shame and fear of wrongdoing. If, bhikkhus, these two bright
principles did not protect the world, there would not be discerned
respect for mother or maternal aunt or maternal uncle's wife or a
teacher's wife or the wives of other honored persons, and the world
would have fallen into promiscuity, as with goats, sheep, chickens,
pigs, dogs, and jackals. But as these two bright principles protect
the world, there is discerned respect for mother... and the wives of
other honored persons."
Those in whom shame and fear of wrong
Are not consistently found
Have deviated from the bright root
And are led back to birth and death.
But those in whom shame and fear of wrong
Are consistently ever present,
Peaceful, mature in the holy life,
They put an end to renewal of being.

I think you are confusing the two english words 'regret' and 'guilt' that are not the same thing. The latter is what is described as unwholesome. The former can be very important.

@YesheTenley The idea is that brooding over the past is unskillful. Feeling ashamed to commit evil in the future is skillful.

Yes, that’s it :)

Isnt the pain from our faults push us to the correct path?

Pain and suffering certainly pushes people towards religion and spirituality in search for answers and a possible solution. At the same time pain and suffering, if used correctly as vehicles, can become fertilizer for spiritual growth.
What pushes us further on the (correct) path is clarity of mind, to see clearly, also known as Right View (Sammā-Diṭṭhi).

Welcome to the site. If you need to learn more about the site, please read the help section. And good answer by the way! ;-)

@NeuroMax. Thank you.

Suppose a person was working under the sun for a hard days toil. He grew thirsty and went inside to find something to quench his thirst. Upon the table he saw a clear glass of liquid and assuming it was water that his wife prepared for him, he rushed and carelessly gulped down the whole thing. From the odd taste he quickly suspected something was wrong. Turning the glass around in his hand he noticed a poison symbol. The glass was previously full of a household cleaning solution. Instantly, the man was filled with immense regret of a very profound sort.
Rushing to the hospital his mind would not be consumed with an ounce of guilt, but rather would be full of regret. He would survive this experience and the regret he felt would act as a protection against committing the same mistake in the future. From then on, his regret acted as a cause for him to always check the label before gulping down a glass of liquid.
This is the difference between regret and guilt and the above story is how regret should be understood and disambiguated from guilt. Regret for committing non-virtuous acts or for failing to commit virtuous acts can act as the protector of repeating the same mistake in the future. On the other hand, guilt is a useless non-virtuous emotion tending to revel in self-loathing with no positive purpose.
It is very important to understand the difference between regret and guilt. Think of the poison analogy whenever you have feelings where you are confused as to whether regret or guilt is being felt and you are trying to discern which is which.
Hope this helps!


text:
In what suttas are the "4 resolves" (adhiṭṭhānī) discussed?
I have heard this list discussed in Dharma talks like this one:
Gil Fronsdal: The Four Resolves (Recorded: Monday, June 12, 2017)
But when I tried to find suttas on this subject, I could only find 1 in which the existence of the "4 resolves" was mentioned.
DN 33: Saṅgāti Sutta

MN 140.

Bhikkhu, this person has four foundations.’ So it was said. And with
reference to what was this said? There are the foundation of wisdom,
the foundation of truth, the foundation of relinquishment, and the
foundation of peace. So it was with reference to this that it was
said: ‘Bhikkhu, this person has four foundations.’
'One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, should
cultivate relinquishment, and should train for peace.’ So it was said.
And with reference to what was this said?


text:
Is there any place for Omens in Buddhism?
An omen is viewed as a sign from the natural world that delivers a message of some sort. Typically this message is seen as an indicator of coming good or evil events.
I know this has nothing to do with the Noble path and Buddhist practice in general, but I know that some lamas or highly attained monks from other traditions demonstrate psychic powers. Also, there are various rituals in Vajrayana which are performed to attain certain spiritual and mystical energies states.
So can we train our minds to read omens? Also, can we make use of omens to grow spiritually? Like for e.g. in India. if a black cat crosses our path we consider it as a bad omen and usually abort what we were set to do or become more cautious doing it.

Omen reading, astrology, palmistry and other such things are considered "animal arts" and wrong livelihood for monks in DN 2 quoted below. In general, even for laypersons, this would be considered "animal arts", and therefore unskillful or unwholesome.

"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and
signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets];
interpreting dreams; reading features of the body [e.g., phrenology];
reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations,
oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains,
ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering
blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips;
geomancy; making predictions for state officials; laying demons in a
cemetery; placing spells on spirits; earth-skills [divining water and
gems?]; snake-skills, poison-skills, scorpion-skills, rat-skills,
bird-skills, crow-skills; predicting life spans; giving protective
charms; casting horoscopes — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: determining lucky and unlucky gems, staffs, garments, swords,
arrows, bows, and other weapons; women, men, boys, girls, male slaves,
female slaves; elephants, horses, buffaloes, bulls, cows, goats, rams,
fowl, quails, lizards, rabbits, tortoises, and other animals — he
abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: the rulers will march forth; the rulers will not
march forth; our rulers will attack, and their rulers will retreat;
their rulers will attack, and our rulers will retreat; there will be
triumph for our rulers and defeat for their rulers; there will be
triumph for their rulers and defeat for our rulers; thus there will be
triumph this one, defeat for that one — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be a lunar eclipse; there will be a solar
eclipse; there will be an occultation of [a conjunction of the moon or
a planet with] an asterism; the sun and moon will be favorable; the
sun and moon will be unfavorable; the asterisms will be favorable; the
asterisms will be unfavorable; there will be a meteor shower; there
will be a flickering light on the horizon [an aurora?]; there will be
an earthquake; there will be thunder coming from dry clouds; there
will be a rising, a setting, a darkening, a brightening of the sun,
moon, and asterisms; such will be the result of the lunar eclipse ...
the rising, setting, darkening, brightening of the sun, moon, and
asterisms — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such
as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as [forecasting]: there will be abundant rain; there will be a
drought; there will be plenty; there will be famine; there will be
rest and security; there will be danger; there will be disease; there
will be freedom from disease; or they earn their living by accounting,
counting, calculation, composing poetry, or teaching hedonistic arts
and doctrines [lokāyata] — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from
"animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: calculating auspicious dates for marriages — both those in which
the bride is brought home and those in which she is sent out;
calculating auspicious dates for betrothals and divorces; for
collecting debts or making investments and loans; reciting charms to
make people attractive or unattractive; curing women who have
undergone miscarriages or abortions; reciting spells to bind a man's
tongue, to paralyze his jaws, to make him lose control over his hands,
or to bring on deafness; getting oracular answers to questions
addressed to a spirit in a mirror, in a young girl, or to a spirit
medium; worshipping the sun, worshipping the Great Brahmā, bringing
forth flames from the mouth, invoking the goddess of luck — he
abstains from wrong livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these.
"Whereas some contemplatives & brahmans, living off food given in
faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such "animal" arts
as: promising gifts to deities in return for favors; fulfilling such
promises; demonology; reciting spells in earth houses [see earth
skills, above]; inducing virility and impotence; preparing sites for
construction; consecrating sites for construction; giving ceremonial
mouthwashes and ceremonial baths; offering sacrificial fires;
administering emetics, purges, purges from above, purges from below,
head-purges; ear-oil, eye-drops, treatments through the nose,
ointments, and counter-ointments; practicing eye-surgery [or:
extractive surgery], general surgery, pediatrics; administering
root-medicines and binding medicinal herbs — he abstains from wrong
livelihood, from "animal" arts such as these. This, too, is part of
his virtue."

The birth of a Bodhisatta is traditionally held to be associated with omens.
There are plenty of omens in the sutta texts.
For e.g. the Bodhisatta had prophetic dreams which can be taken to be omens in AN 5.196.
Furthermore in Itivuttaka 83, there is talk of omens:

“Monks, when a god is about to pass away from the company of gods, five omens appear: his flower garlands wither, his clothes become soiled, sweat comes out of his armpits, his bodily radiance fades, and he no longer delights in his heavenly mansion.

As to whether one can make use of it beyond recognizing these, this i doubt because if it is a true omen then it is basically prophetic in nature and there is nothing to be done as it is a precursor to an event which will occur.
If it is a precursor to something that might occur, then of course one could use it to avoid bad events.
However this, as i see it, is essentially like crossing a road and taking the traffic lights to be an omen.
A true omen, as exemplified by the texts i referenced, guarantees an eventuality whereas traffic lights may or may not ensure safe passage.
Therefore when we talk about omens and using omens, we have to be very precise as to differentiate between the various kinds of omens.
One should understand that some eventualities become inevitable, ie a car going at full speed towards a wall might or might not have time to stop, at some point the collision becomes inevitable.
Likewise a calamity or an auspicious eventuality to be experienced can become inevitable and might be preceeded by precursory signs.
The problem with precursory events is when people see a sign in what is not a sign. This is simply a result classical behavioral conditioning.
When dogs are trained with classical conditioning one will condition words to preceed agreeable & disagreeable events and the dog seeing these chains of events will eventually take the words to be prophetic of treats & punishment.
Likewise if due to randomness an event is preceeded by some sign then this might classically condition a person to think that there is a connection.
In a way people are by default victimized by randomness and become insane [supersticious] because of it.
I can make a parallel to conditioning a dog with e-collar to not cross a boundary and that by simply  shocking the dog whenever it goes to cross the boundary. The dog will learn that bad things happen when he goes there and even if you were to take the collar off the dog would resist going to the boundary even if no pain will follow.
Here the dog is basically made confused and that to think crossing the boundary is a bad omen. The dog is made supersticious and in that insane.

I was looking for that conditioning aspect in the answers. Otherwise, I was going to make the effort to answer myself with that in mind, amongst other things. What I had in mind regarding conditioning wasn't as thorough and concise as your answer.

It is one if my favorite topics because it ties to probability theory and behavioral conditioning. The implications of this have immense influence on how a person makes evaluations & decisions.