text:
How can you see suffering in the breath?
In his book Breath by Breath, Larry Rosenberg says that being mindful of the breath, as in the Anapanasati Sutta, is a complete practice and can lead to complete liberation. Following on from that I would think it should be possible to experience all three marks of existence in the breath.
From my own practice I can feel both the impermanence and no-self aspects of the breath. They seem fairly evident even with access or just momentary levels of concentration. However I don't see the other mark of conditioned existence i.e. suffering. How can one see suffering in the breath? How does this come about? Are there any traditional or contemporary writings on the subject?
Many thanks for any all help

Maybe important to note that dukkha is also translated as unsatisfactoriness. Thus the breath, like all dhammas, carries the sign of "not enough".

Please hold your breath until you can't hold on anymore - didn't you just suffer? I like ChrisW's answer, it's goes into this in more detail. Besides, your desire to know, that led you to post here is suffering in itself. :-)

I believe both @Bakmoon and @santa100 have touched on it in their answers; @santa100 gives some traditional writings on the subject.
Very briefly, all three of these marks of existence are intertwined in their meaning, understanding, and relation (they're "three sides of the same coin" to completely mess up an idiom!)...
Let's start with impermanence: The idea that nothing just is, that it's instead always changing. Pretty simple fact of physics, mainly. Next, consider Anatta or non-self, which is a way of saying that even what we might call a 'self' isn't permanent, it too is impermanent; meaning, there isn't one (a 'self'), because that would be something! Finally, Dukkha or suffering: That 'suffering' or 'unsatisfactoriness' arises because our mind's habit is to imagine that some things actually are permanent, or that we have selves.
Really, that's it.
So when meditating on the breath, if you 'get' impermanence, then you also automatically get non-self (as you've said) and suffering (because suffering is just the illusion that things are permanent in any way, shape, or form).
Finally, the way I would answer this most simply, is to say that in whatever way to feel you understand impermanence, that would be very closely related to how you understand suffering; suffering is just the 'auto pilot' or 'habit of mind' that arises from not understanding impermanence, at every moment, of every day.
When you're following your breath, you likely have some (slight) expectation that it will continue to go out, or change from out to in, come flowing back in, or finally change from in to out. That expectation has in it the seed of dissatisfaction. At some point, on some breath you take, it will do none of those things; it will stop. Just that slight expectation is an illusion. (Not to mention all the times your mind might wander and 'expect' or want different things from your past or future.)
I (and others, including scholars) feel that 'suffering' is an unfortunate translation and choice of word, particularly in the West, although it is a literal translation of the term used in Pali, Sanskrit, or Tibetan. In the Wikipedia article you link to, the linked article to suffering (Dukkha), includes this gloss, re: neither pessimistic nor optimistic which I find helpful to understand a more nuanced definition of 'suffering' as Buddhists define it. (The above link has changed substantially--so I've edited the link so it now links to the older version as it existed when I wrote this answer. Here is the current page on Dukkha, as it is now.)

The three characteristics are very deep and profound subjects, and often our understanding of them is very superficial. For example, people often think that they understand impermanence because they understand it to mean that all conditioned things will eventually end, when in fact impermanence means much more than that.
In order to see the three characteristics through anapanasati it is nessisary to make sure that one is practicing it in a way that is specifically developing insight, and to do this it is necessary to meditate just on the bare experiences of breathing rather than on the breath itself. For example, one could use the feelings of air moving against the inside of the nose and the subtle feelings of heat and cold, or on the throat, or the expansion and contraction of the body during breathing.
After one is able to meditate like this then one will be able to start to see the three characteristics in a deeper way than before. One will be able to see how all experience is made up of parts that arise and cease, and gradually a person will be able to understand impermanence through direct perception in meditation instead of the conceptual way that most people are used to, and as this direct understanding of impermanence ripens the meditator will be able to directly perceive the characteristics of dukkha and nonself.

How can one see suffering in the breath?

Is a personal opinion/answer OK?
There are different types of dukkha and I think you can see aspects of any/all of these in breathing.

Birth: baby's first breath, associated with life (and crying and a whole unsatisfactory life ahead)
Sickness, old age, death: you're dying, and you die when you can't breathe
Getting what you don't want: you can't stop yourself from breathing ... even if you're underwater; and even when you do breathe as well as you can, you're still subject/vulnerable to CO2 and fatigue poisons (which is why, for example, you cannot sprint indefinitely)
Not being able to hold onto what is desirable: after inhaling, you must exhale, etc.; similarly, after eating you must eat again, etc.; and your body is temporary
Not getting what you do want: you're never free from the need to breathe; also any anxiety is (I find) palpable as a tightness or an uneasiness in breathing; and breathing is necessary but not sufficient.
All-pervasive suffering: I would kind of rather not be conscious of my breathing

Many thanks for any all help

I find it strange that trying to tell someone how to see dukkha might be viewed as "helpful", but... <sigh>.
FWIW some of my most enjoyable experiences of breathing are;

On a bicycle, after about the first 20 minutes and I have 'warmed up': then my breathing is deeper and more satisfying.
When I was a child there were a few occasions when I was asleep and dreaming and still conscious of (feeling) my body's breathing: and in my dream I could run or even swim/stay/breathe under water and my breathing would remain unaffected. Because in reality I was physically asleep my breathing was relaxed, and sufficient.
I could mention a Tai Chi form as well: e.g. I learned the Chen-style 'first form' in a way that's compatible with breathing, i.e. each movement of the form is associated with an inhale or exhale

I guess that if you experience dukkha you can also sometimes experience the cessation or absence of dukkha.

+1 for "Any anxiety is (I find) palpable as a tightness or an uneasiness in breathing" - and are we ever completely free from fundamental anxiety about life?

Beside the regular suffering, there're 2 deeper levels of suffering as taught in SN 38.14:

"Friend Sāriputta, it is said, ‘suffering, suffering.’ What now is suffering?”
  “There are, friend, these three kinds of suffering: the suffering due to pain, the suffering due to formations, the suffering due to change. These are the three kinds of suffering.”
  “But, friend, is there a path, is there a way for the full understanding of these three kinds of suffering?”
  “There is a path, friend, there is a way ... this Noble Eightfold Path….”

And Ven. Bodhi's note in his book "Connected Discourses":

The three types are explained at Vism 499,14–21 (Ppn 16:34–35). Briefly, suffering due to pain (dukkhadukkhatā ) is painful bodily and mental feeling; suffering due to the formations (saṅkhāradukkhatā) is all conditioned phenomena of the three planes, because they are oppressed by rise and fall; and suffering due to change (viparināmadukkhtā̄) is pleasant feeling, which brings suffering when it comes to an end.

The way I understand observing dukkha in the breath:

Dukkha-dukkha: eg. observing the pain in the body caused by in-out breaths.
Vipariṇāma-dukkha: eg. a observing a pleasant breath becoming not-so-pleasant or painful, and vice-versa.
Saṃkhāra-dukkha: eg. observing the breath as insufficient; something that does not carry what one looks for, the ultimate goal; something unable to truly, deeply and permanently satisfy.

Crab bucket, if only you have taken the "impermanence" and "anatta" aspects a bit further into your meditation, you would have arrived at the "Suffering" aspect of it. Let me explain this to you...
Being fully concentrated on anapanasati, he now dwells ardent, with full awareness, and clear comprehension of impermanence. With the base of this awareness, established in anicca (impermanence), he develops an understanding of his own life, the impermanent nature of others who breathe and live, and the impermanent nature of material form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness (the five aggregates of clinging).
Thus, he observes the impermanent characteristic of phenomenal existence, internally and externally. He does not see a difference in him and the outer world. He sees the characteristic of phenomenal existence as subject to cause and effect. Now he is gaining knowledge, and his comprehension is increasing. He sees things as they really are, in whatever material form: whether past, present or future, far or near, external or internal. He sees the impermanence even of the rapture and pleasure that he is experiencing in breathing mindfully. Now, based on the impermanent breath, he understands the impermanent nature of the five aggregates of clinging.
He realizes that whatever is impermanent and subject to change, is suffering (dukkha). And, whatever is impermanent is without self (anatta). It is through this insight that the true nature of the aggregates is clearly seen; in the light of three signs (ti-lakkhana): impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha) and without self (anatta).
He sees the impermanent, suffering and no-self nature of all conditioned and component things. As a result, he knows there is no “I”, no self, or anything pertaining to a self. When he trains himself to breathe in and out focusing on impermanence, he understands that anything taken as ‘mine’ is impermanent; anything taken as ‘I am’ is impermanent; and anything that is taken as ‘my self’ is impermanent. He realizes that whatever is impermanent, is without self. That which is without self, is not ‘mine’, not ‘I am’, and is not ‘my self’. Thus he sees everything as it really is – with wisdom.

Buddha said, when mind is still, dhamma reveals itself.
When you are at the presence, one dhamma that opens up is all things end as time passes (even just one second ago) and what is the characteristic of things in the past? It has less value to you.
For example, when you had your heart broken the first time.  I imagine that it doesn't effect you any more.
So when you see that all things will come to an end even if it's just one second, it won't matter much to you, so you start to let go and stop  clinging to it. Buddha compared it to bubbles.  We don't cry over burst bubbles because we know they don't last forever.

Mr. Crab Bucket. Stop breathing for a while, just two minutes or so. It should be clear then.

Ven Sir, are you trying to explain something akin to the Ven. Sun Lun Sayadaw's method? Perhaps you can try to elaborate this in a bit more detail in line with the question above to to the benefit of many.

Not consciously, valued Upasaka Suminda. But maybe Upasaka is able to to give a share of the remembered similarity.
The meaning was more, that if one is used to have joy with a certain object, one might not realize it's real characteristic. Now if somebody cuts of this object of pleasure, one, reminding that breath is not sure, would see that one breath causes the birth of the next. Death within every breath. There are certain methods in this regard and as we know even the Buddha made his final investigation, to totally change the way of his practice by stopping the breath.

I am not very familiar with this tradition myself. I did add an answer but left out any reference to the tradition so I would not inadvertently misrepresent any tenets in it.

Gross level (olārika)

Impermanence - each breath has a start and an end
Unsatisfactoriness - If you try to control you breath there is pain and suffering
Non self - Your breath is not in your control, you cannot stop it indefinitely and you cannot always manipulate it as you want (like prolong the in breath to x days)

Subtle level (sukhuma)

Impermanence - if you take the touch of the breath this is arising and passing with great rapidity
Unsatisfactoriness - any sensation born from the breathing process can be at times painful when say you have a stuffy nose,  in case you experience blize this also passes away, the fact that this process keeps creating conditioned existance for the future itself open your up to further stress and suffering
Non self - the feeling and fabrication arising from breathing is not in your control. Say you experience a neutral feeling and you are not aware of the arising and passing of phenomena which is felt with equanimity you are in the process of creating future existance as the process creating new fabrication has not stopped.

The 2nd mark of conditioned phenomena (not 'existence') is 'unsatisfactoriness' rather than 'suffering'. When the mind sees the breath, due to its impermanence, cannot be relied on for true happiness, it sees 'dukkha'. I suppose if the mind also sees due to impermanence, if the mind clings to the breath, this clinging will bring suffering because the clung-to breath will change & disappear, this can also count as seeing 'dukkha' in the breath (I suppose, if we cheat a little).

When you breathe out you can notice a subtle sensation of discomfort just before you breathe in again. You need to be quite concentrated to notice it. It's kind of like the body almost gasping for the next breath.


text:
Avoiding Back Pain
I'm brand-new to meditation! I have just completed one week of daily vipassana meditation -- 10 minutes twice daily; once in the morning, once in the evening. I'm unfortunately experiencing extremely uncomfortable back pain from meditating, and would appreciate some advice on how to fix the problem:
The Details:

I'm flexible enough for a comfortable half-lotus, but have been utilizing Burmese position, as it lets me breathe deeper. I also really like the visual symmetry it provides.
The pain is in my mid to lower back, slightly above my kidneys, and just below the back of my ribcage.
I've used video / photography to verify that my posture is good going into meditation. I know I sometimes slouch a little after a few moments, but I usually correct myself upon noticing any slouching. I currently sit on a folded pillow, and have ordered myself a zafu-style cushion.
The pain is typically  minimal to absent during the meditation itself, but sets in around three-four hours afterwards and often lasts the remainder of the day. I wake up feeling pretty sore, but not in "pain."
I have poor posture during my non-meditative moments, though I am working on improving it. Still, I have never experienced back pain before; are my back-muscles just weak from adjusting to a new sitting-style?

Any thoughts? Is this just a beginner's phase that I have to power through, or should I meditate in a chair for a few days to give my muscles a break? Maybe a different posture? Thicker cushion / no cushion? Alternatively, any ideas on how I might better diagnose the problem?
Really appreciate your thoughts.
Best,
Ian

It sounds to me like it's definitely a muscle problem. The back muscles don't usually get much use unless a person does a lot of lifting or sitting on the floor, and the dead giveaway is that the pain only starts after sitting in meditation.
This kind of problem should go away after your muscles have strengthened, so I would just continue sitting in whatever way you prefer, and it should go away in about a month. If it doesn't get better by then, switching to a chair would be better.

Based on your list of details, I can share some of your experiences. I meditate in Burmese position, I get pain in my mid-to-lower back, and I also have poor posture in general. So here are some suggestions:
Hard Carpet
My preference is to meditate on a hard carpet and you might also find it beneficial. Cushions and thick carpets can both throw off our balance and cause us to over-exert the back or some other set of muscles. And on the other hand, meditation on a hardwood or worse, concrete floor presents its own set of problems.
Next, we have a pretty standard approach to back pain:
Apply the meditation practice to the back pain.
This is sort of like powering through it as you suggested, but it's powering through it with the right set of tools. You don't want to make yourself miserable.
For example: Usually pain arises first; then we identify with the pain; disliking arises; then we identify with that; thoughts, narratives, stories arise; and it keeps going on and on. The untrained mind creates suffering out of a natural phenomenon.
So try to catch it at the very beginning: Observe the pain as pain. Should that fail and you move on to disliking, observe the disliking. If you move on to anything else, observe that, ad infinitum.
While this doesn't seem to address the problem of how to avoid back pain, it actually does in two ways:

Like Bakmoon said, this help your back
muscles to strengthen over time. During the sitting posture you
are breaking down the muscles the same way an athlete strengthens his or
her whole body; and when you sleep the muscles rebuild and come back
stronger than before. And like Bakmoon says, it will probably take a
month or even several months.
Your mind will learn to stop making it worse. By seeing the back pain just as it is (nothing more, nothing
less), your aversion and thus your desire to avoid the pain will
decrease. When your mind is not making the problem worse, the body will have more resources it can devote to healing and general upkeep. And then, if your back really needs something, you
will probably see that more clearly too.

I would also suggest to try sitting for longer periods of time, like 15 minutes, or even 20, 25, 30 if your mind can tolerate it. 10 minutes at a time may not be enough for your back muscles, or for your mind, to really get the point.
Don't take my word for it anyway, as I'm still learning and we all have to figure this out for ourselves. Hopefully this is helpful.

i selected Bakmoon's answer as it most directly and clinically addressed my question. However, I definitely appreciate the meditation suggestion (both the contemplation you suggested and increasing the time) and will bear it in mind. Thanks!

You need to check if the pain is caused by (sore) muscles or spine. If this is a muscle problem then doing some back excercises should help in two or three weeks time. Also you may try some streching after meditation to relieve muscle tension if there is any.
If this is a spine problem then you need to check with a doctor because that may be sign of some deeper problems.

Can you advise how to "check if the pain is caused by (sore) muscles or spine"?

@ChrisW, it probably depends on person but generally spine pain is located more to the middle of your back whereas muscle pain is located where the muscle is. Also you can check if this is a muscle pain by stretching muscles and observing how the sensation changes. But I am no doctor and this is only my experience that I share here. One shoudl always consult a doctor if he or she has any suspicions.

Where the pain is happening is really important in determining how to adjust your sitting posture.  If the pain is in your lower back, believe it or not, you are probably fine.  That is an indication of poor muscular strength which will gradually improve as you practice.  Judging by how your pain creeps up on you afterwards, this sounds like it might be what's going on.  What you are feeling may be delayed onset muscle soreness.  It's no different than what a bodybuilder might feel after squatting heavy.  The next day, walking gets tricky!
If the pain is not in your lower back, but rather in your middle and upper back, your issues are probably posture related.  Most people rightly try to maintain an upright sitting position.  What they may be doing may even look perfectly fine.  Nevertheless, there can sometimes be a subtle curving of the spine that will result in pain that radiates throughout the middle of the back or shoulders.  The best advice I ever got on how to fix this was to lean back ever so slightly.  Don't go overboard, obviously.  You should go back just until you begin to feel your chin lift.  This is one of the easiest ways to ensure that your shoulders are aligned over your hips and that everything is coming down in a straight line and into the cushion.

You could stand, lay down flat on your back or on your side like the Buddha. Maybe a monk wouldn't do it but sitting on a Zafu in a recliner is nice on the back. Laying down and sitting in recliners can lead to falling aslee-p more often but one can sort of keep a mindful eye on the first signs of of falling asleep and conquer falling asleep. I know you can practice mindfulness in any position. Have you tried walking meditation? One pointed meditation obviously needs a steady and stable posture.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If Buddha stayed unanswered on this matter, why do his followers preach that soul doesn't exist?
Almost every Buddhist I've met sincerely believes in non-existence of self or soul. Especially, the vipassana practitioners say that scanning the body and finding no atman or self in it is proof that self doesn't exist. But what about the practitioner himself who is scanning or performing the vipassana? Doesn't that imply that he himself is the soul?
Also, I found today that Buddha himself stayed unanswered on this matter:

The Buddha states that it is unwise to be attached to both views of having and perceiving a self and views about not having a self.

So, how can you argue that soul doesn't exist when Buddha himself didn't deny it (or accept it either)? Are there any branches of Buddhism that believes in existence of soul?

Hmm, why not simply accept, that on one hand he says "it is unwise to be attached to " (so talking about attachedness here) and on the other hand says "there is no permanent, no unchangable self, such a thing cannot be found". Why should I not say on one hand, "I#ve not enough money to buy me that car" and on the other hand to say "It's not good to be attached to the problem of matters of money and discuss it all-the-time"?

"there is no permanent, no unchangable self" - Well, saying there is no permanent self doesn't translate to the same as there is absolutely no self at all. If there is no self, then what is it that re-incarnates and experiences things during each rebirth? I think what is meant here is that all things have a temporal nature, nothing is permanent or unchanging.

@GottfriedHelms - To give an analogy, every cell in our body organs are constantly destroyed and getting re-generated. You might have heard that every seven years, the entire body is renewed with new cells. So, the cells are not permanent and ever changing, though at a higher level the body structure remains intact.

Dear Prahlad - what actually are you asking/teaching me? Did I in any way indicate that I do see things differently (than in your second comment)?

This thing of no permanent self I find really confusing and self-contradictory to all what the Buddha taught and preached. Becasue in my views if there is no permanent self then who benefits from all this meditation and end of suffering? There has to be something eternal and permanent which has to seek end of its duffering. And that permanenet and eternal is the soul.

Buddhism teaches that everything is 'conditioned', and so there is no independent/eternal self:

The concept of no-self or anatman or emptiness of self is that it is not possible to identify an independent, inherently existing self; that the self only exists in dependence upon causes and conditions.

You mention "the practitioner himself who is scanning", however 'consciousness' too is seen as conditioned:

There are four paramatthas; three conditioned, one unconditioned:

Material phenomena (rūpa, form)
Mental factors (the nama-factors sensation, perception and formation)
Consciousness
Nibbāna

I think this might be a difference between Hinduism and Buddhism:

Hinduism sees liberation/salvation in identifying an eternal self; for example, 'Tat Tvam Asi' or

You are that, God himself; Meditate this within yourself.

Buddhism sees liberation/salvation in dis-identifying: for example 'Identity view (sakkāya-diṭṭhi)'

According to the Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta the reason why the Buddha was reluctant to talk about it was that having various (one or more) views about the self did not result in the cessation of dukkha:

"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if he holds the view 'the cosmos is eternal...'... 'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist: only this is true, anything otherwise is worthless,' he says '...no...' in each case. Seeing what drawback, then, is Master Gotama thus entirely dissociated from each of these ten positions?"
"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding.

Instead the cessation of dukkha results from the view that everything is impermanent:

"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."

The Buddha did explicitly refute the notion of a permanent self in the Ananda Sutta. He says that if he had said that there is a permanent self then that would conflict with the statement that "all phenomena is not self".

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a
self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming
with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism.
If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self —
were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with
those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism.
If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self —
were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the
arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" "No, lord."
"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no
self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered
Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used
to have now not exist?'"

The concept of eternalism says that there is a permanent self and it is undying. The concept of annihilationism says there is no self at all and at death it all ceases.
Buddha's teaching is of the middle way stating there is a self that "emerges", as a result of the dependency on the inter-working of the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness. Each of these five aggregates also have dependencies. This is what is meant by the Buddha's statement, "all conditioned things are impermanent", in other words, all these things that have dependencies are not permanent.
However, there is no single self that is the charioteer or agent of the five aggregates. Imagine you hurt your hand and say "I hurt myself". But if your hand is chopped off, does your self disappear? No. So, applying this one by one, you realize that your self is neither form, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness. But beyond this, there is nothing more to yourself. That is what is meant by the Buddha's statement, "all phenomena is not self".
This is just an overly-generalized summary. More info can be found on the topic of dependent origination.
Now according to the concept of annihilationism, there should be no continuity at all and no rebirth, but there is. If there is no permanent self then what is it that is reborn? The idea is that "information" or chain of dependent processes that never ceases, and keeps reappearing, so long as the desire and attachment to exist does not cease.
This is described here (Milindapanha 3.5.5):

The king asked: "Venerable Nagasena, is it so that one does not
transmigrate and one is reborn?" "Yes, your majesty, one does
not transmigrate and one is reborn." "How, venerable Nagasena, is it
that one does not transmigrate and one is reborn? Give me an analogy."
"Just as, your majesty, if someone kindled one lamp from another, is
it indeed so, your majesty, that the lamp would transmigrate from the
other lamp?" "Certainly not, venerable sir." "Indeed just so, your
majesty, one does not transmigrate and one is reborn." "Give me
another analogy." "Do you remember, your majesty, when you were a boy
learning some verse from a teacher?" "Yes, venerable sir." "Your
majesty, did this verse transmigrate from the teacher?" "Certainly
not, venerable sir." "Indeed just so, your majesty, one does not
transmigrate and one is reborn."

Thanks for the excellent elucidation, the candle analogy is mind-illuminating. I have one query: "The idea keeps reappearing, so long as the desire and attachment to exist does not cease." - If so, then how can one remember their past lives? The Buddha himself remembered all his past lives even after attaining nirvana. Does that mean some part of that information still stays as a Dhamma or Consciousness? If so, what to make of that - A semi-permanent part of self that keeps re-candling itself?

I'm not sure. But if I were to guess, I don't think that the Buddha carried around the memories of his past lives. Instead, as part of his enlightenment, he could probably "see" the chains of karmic link backwards, and it can extend past the current life into the previous lives. But this is only my conjecture. For e.g. you hurt somebody because you got angry, you got angry because ... (keep extending backwards)

"Especially, the vipassana practitioners say that scanning the body and finding no atman or self in it is proof that self doesn't exist."
The reasoning of said practitioners is flawed -- otherwise, I could claim absurdities like "there is no sun" after scanning my body and not finding a burning star in it.
"But what about the practitioner himself who is scanning or performing the vipassana? Doesn't that imply that he himself is the soul?"
If you regard soul to be a "fixed, non-changing, eternal self, ...", it doesn't. The implication would only hold if you'd show that "it" is fixed, non-changing, eternal, under your complete control ("may it be thus", "may it not be thus"), and not a source of dukkha. These are the characteristics often ascribed to atman.
"So, how can you argue that soul doesn't exist when Buddha himself didn't deny it (or accept it either)?"
More was said about this:

“Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it.
-- Alagaddūpama Sutta, MN 22

"Are there any branches of Buddhism that believes in existence of soul?"
I've read about some old schools that did so (but not without going through some philosophical hoops to avoid clash with the suttas and inspiring rebuttals from other schools), however I don't quite remember and one has to dig a little to see who they were and what was their doctrine (whose texts may not have survived to this day). I don't know of any current school who advocate atma doctrine.

Great! I was looking for MN 22 and couldn't find it.

Asking if "is there a soul in me?" or "is there not a soul?" are questions coming from a wrong framework to begin with. It's like asking "Does batman have a wife or does he not?". This question is invalid in the real world, because Batman only exists in the DC universe.
Also, when you ask "is there a soul?", you have to first clarify 'is'. Are you referring to form? or is it feelings? or perception, mental formations, awareness? According to the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta, none of those qualify as a self. See if you can experience any reality that doesn't fall into those 5 categories?

But what about the practitioner himself who is scanning or performing
  the vipassana? Doesn't that imply that he himself is the soul?

What is scanning? It means awareness. If awareness is a self, you should be able to be aware of things at will. Why do you need to develop Sati? Why does awareness disappear without your consent? Why can't you be aware of sights without the eyes? Why can't you be aware of sound without the ears? So is awareness worthy of being considered as a self?
Finally, the Buddha not answering the question in certain instances does not imply that there is a soul. It could be because answering it could have confused the person even more. Anatta Lakkhana Sutta was preached to Sotapanna, Anagami theros. They were well into the path and had little dust in their eyes. It is certainly not a topic for the average layman and not the best entry point to Buddhism for a beginner.

Once you get into the concept of the soul in Buddhism, you have essentially entered into Advaita Vedanta of Hinduism. India largely was converted to Buddhism at one point, which meant they were rejecting the Vedas, the holy scriptures of Hinduism. From a Hindu perspective, the Buddha incarnated for the specific purpose of rejecting the Vedas, because they were being abused by the priests and the teachings were being distorted. So the Buddha incarnated and presented a path in which it cultivated all the qualities necessary for nirvana, without dependence on the concept of God and Atman, which is essentially how people related to the Vedas. Then Adi Shankaracharya came to India and argued against Buddhist philosophy, by asking who is the one seeking nirvana? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63TPsywU5Rw
His arguments restored faith in the Vedas, and that is why India is predominantly a Hindu culture again. His teachings are essentially Buddhism with the Atma. I am not saying that you have to accept these arguments. Ultimately your spiritual path should be defined by where your heart is, and where you find your master. There is nothing wrong with investigating this path of Advaita Vedanta. Both are very powerful traditions that generally respect each other, and lead to the same results at the end. From a beginner's perspective they can seem highly different, but the longer you stay in one path you will realize that they are leading to the same place. Whichever path you choose, you need to find a genuine teacher who embodies the teachings completely, and is a manifestation of compassion.
Philosophy of reality is only as important as it brings us to knowledge. Buddhism is just saying like you say, the Atma is not important. Meditate, be compassionate, that is the emphasis in Buddhism. Advaita Vedanta holds meditation to be very important, but it also places an emphasis on cultivating devotion to the divine in order to realize the Atma and the divine are nondifferent. Ultimately, the experience of Nirvana and Brahman I believe are they same. Krishna in the famous Bhagavad Gita refers to nirvana in that exact word, prior to the Buddha. You will see so much similarity in Buddhism and Hinduism, even some of the deities are practically identical, they are just drawn differently because of a different culture. They both use sanskrit and puja to deities. No need to worry or be upset about this. You can gain success in either way. Find the way where you experience the most love and devotion, that is your path. They are both excellent, respected ways. Just be careful, there are false gurus in either path.
Ultimately, the truth will be found through cultivation of dharma, i.e. good qualities, abstaining from harming others, and sincere meditation.

The Buddha did not remain silent on this matter. He only remained silent to those who would misunderstand. As stated in the Ananda Sutta, the questioner of the Buddha was "befuddled" & "confused". To quote: "the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered".
As for 'nihilism', it is a 'self-view', which believes "I" will die or "others make me suffer". Relevant suttas that explain this are: Brahmajala Sutta, Held by Views (Itivuttaka) and Acela Sutta (refer to footnote).

So, what did the Buddha say about soul?

This is an ancient debate that will not get settled today.
The problem is that any self we can identify automatically takes on - in our mind's eye - qualities like permanence and continuity. These qualities are false.
On the other hand - saying there is no self at all is also clearly false. It was a rare kind of nihilism to fall into in Buddha's day, but in a community like this it's more likely.
Anyhow: you´ll have to study the various schools of Buddhist philosophy to get a handle on the many ways this question has been answered.
You may want to start here: http://contemporarybuddhism.com/cyclic-existence-emptiness/

What is meant by "non-existent" is that it doesn't exist in the way we naturally presume it exists (inherently existent). Instead, the "self" exists as all conditioned phenomena, comprised of various causes and conditions i.e it is dependently originated.

You could expand on your point somewhat, especially since at first glance the sentence "Non-existence of self is an extreme" appears to clash with other answers given here.

In my opinion this is a very cut and dry issue that requires little explanation because the essential problem here is one of definition. I did remove the initial statement to make the answer even more direct though, thanks.

Fair enough. I do like your edit.

A useful guide for those who are merely interested of how those concepts are used on Buddhas path rather to take any stand: Selves & Not-self Of course it will not prevent those who are seeking for stands to nourish their stand.
As a Ajahn once said: "To be or not to be. That is no question." It makes you simply to become again and again.

Buddhism believes in the mindstream (santana), but the mindstream is not a thing (atta). This is the difference. The Dalai Lama has a little book called Buddha Nature that explains this perfectly.

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

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


text:
Do our habits prevent us from seeing things as they really are?
Each phenomenon (how impersonal and indifferent it is) is always looking to sustain itself.
Am I right when I say that—in the same way—our habit patterns are obstacles that prevent/hinder us from seeing things as they really are because they fuel the fire of self?

I've changed the title to reflect the question. Feel free to correct if you think I've misunderstood. I suggest also changing the wording to use more ordinary language as I'm not sure what you mean by "system" and "evil energy".

@qweilun - hope I made it clearer.

so, in other words, "our habits reinforce our belief in self, therefore our habits prevent us from seeing things as they really are." is this the same meaning as what you are asking?

@qweilun - that's what I'm asking. Thanks for your help.

Habits and patterns are like the water streams carving paths on earth when it rains. So when it rains again, the water follows the same paths. There's no self in the rainwater that made the paths and the rainwater that followed the existing paths. It's a process of causes and effect.
If habits are self, why is it hard to get rid of them? ex: smoking, drinking etc.
And why do good habits need to be cultivated?

Am I right when I say that—in the same way—our habit patterns are obstacles that prevent/hinder us from seeing things as they really are because they fuel the fire of self?

What you call habit patterns are basically your Karma (or Kamma in pali). Every action you perform with ego generates a force (similar to every action has a reaction concept in physics). However, this force may not materialize itself instantly, but depending on the conditions, its seeds are sown into your psyche. Then onwards, whenever these seeds bear their fruits, you will feel them becoming habit patterns in your life.
The fact is that you are constantly undergoing this process of sowing seeds and obtaining fruits all your life, as this is what samsara is all about. This cycle will continue for ages, in fact many lifetimes, unless you yourself decide to walk the noble eight-fold path and surrender your ego and five aggregates into the fire of Nirvana.

Am I right when I say that—in the same way—our habit patterns are obstacles that prevent/hinder us from seeing things as they really are because they fuel the fire of self?
The Self itself is a habit.
We only believe in a permanent separate self because we have conditioned the mind over and over and over again through infinite aeons that it's real.Habits are repeated actions.So if you act repeatedly it becomes like second nature.Now we don't even question it.We have been thinking that there is a permanent separate self for a very very long time,almost beginningless.That's why it's ingrained deeply.
Not all habits fuel the fire of self though.As you may have a habit of practicing vippassanna or contemplate the Dhamma that works to counteract the strong belief in a separate permanent self.

Having self-view is a latent tendency, which lead to craving. Tanhā Jālinī Sutta. Craving fuels the cycle of Dependent Arising.
Latent tendency ignorance arise from self-view. So self-view hinders our ability to see things as they are.
(1) Where does the latent tendency of sensual lust lie latent?
The latent tendency of sensual lust lies latent here in the two feelings [pleasant and neutral] of
the sense-sphere.
(2) Where does the latent tendency of aversion lie latent?
The latent tendency of aversion lies latent in painful (bodily and mental) feeling.
(3) Where does the latent tendency of conceit lie latent?
The latent tendency of conceit lies latent here in the two feelings of the sense-sphere, and in
those of the form sphereand the formless sphere.
(4) Where does the latent tendency of views lie latent?
The latent tendency of views lies latent in all states related to identity (sakkāya).
(5) Where does the latent tendency of doubt lie latent?
The latent tendency of doubt lies latent in all states related to identity (sakkāya).
(6) Where does the latent tendency of lust for existence lie latent?
The latent tendency of lust for existence lies latent in the form sphere and the formless
sphere.
(7) Where does the latent tendency of ignorance lie latent?
The latent tendency of ignorance lies latent in all states related to identity (sakkāya)

(Yam 268; cf Nyanatiloka 1971: 104)

Secondary source: Anusaya by Piya Tan


text:
Dilemma caused by differing viewpoints regarding soul and karma
I'm a spiritual aspirant who likes to practice meditation to attain the ultimate goal of nirvana or moksha. The trouble is I've read too many differing doctrines and theories regarding epistemology of the soul and spiritual science.
Firstly, the Hindu doctrine advocates the existence of soul as defined by the scriptures/vedas. So, any meditation along these lines (such as Patanjali yoga sutras, Ramakrishna society, etc.) will mostly involve concentration on at least an object. I've practiced patanjali style of dharana-dhyana-samadhi meditation briefly in the past.
On the other hand, I've also read about the Vipassana and Buddhist doctrines, having already done a 10 day vipassana course in the past. This view is diemetrically opposite to the former, as it clearly denies the existence of a permanent self. More importantly, it also says there is no absolute Brahman or God, so meditation along these lines will involve NOT having any mental objects including a brahman.
Now, as a spiritual aspirant, I'm TOTALLY CONFUSED! I just don't know what kind of meditation to perform. As far as faith is concerned, I have faith in both - I have read the vedas and found them to be full of truth. And at the same time I don't find anything wrong with Buddha's teachings either.
But as regards meditation, this has caused me a dilemma! Request advanced practitioners with experience here to suggest me what to do.
NOTE: I'd practiced Anapanasati during my Vipassana course which was very helpful and tranquil experience. However, the patanjali style of meditation was also equally beneficial.

I suggest you read further about both doctrines and chose your path. You can find english translations of the 4 main collections of buddhist suttas (Dhiga, Majjjima, Samyutta, Anguttara) in english here

I suggest you not read further. Disregard everything you have read, and do what seems best to you right now. You have, by your own admission, already read too much. My Guru cautions against "spiritual indigestion" from too many views, and especially from changing practices, or God forbid: mixing them. You are already on your path. You cannot not be. Walk On!

I find it ok to be of two minds on subjects that are ultimately unknowable.

A concrete, substantial self implies inherent existence. Inherent existence is the lens of delusion through which we naturally view the world. Buddhism teaches dependent origination, which helps free you from this root delusion.
To believe in the Hindu scriptures, you have to rely on faith. Buddhism's principles become self-evident through honest introspection, not faith.
The purpose of meditation is to free beings from suffering, at least from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective. If you are still clinging to cyclical existence, this ultimate end seems impossible as you are still heavily under the spell of the root delusion.

+1 for not relying on faith. It gets you started, then it is not very helpful after that. Experience is helpful, because it is undeniable. Anything that comes from outside yourself is a cause for confusion. "All knowledge begins and ends with the self."

The root evil in these types of view points / perceptions / notions is the view point / perception / notion itself (See: Skandha). This perception off Sanna creates fabrication by reacting.
When you put aside perception about self / karma relate views, then by this you are liberated from this fabrication (karmic formation) related to these view. Developing a perception off no self can be conducive to dissolve ego but also can be a hindrance as this can lead to clinging to the view. So you have to let go of this also.
Hindu techniques can take you upto the lever that there is neither perception nor perception and with some residual sensations (called Passadhi in Buddhism). Buddhism deals even eradicating the last residual bit off perception and sensations and to there you can have very mild for of clinging.
As with both Hindu and Buddhism the breath is the body conditioner. In the Pranayama you control the breath to created desired effects on the body and life. These could be extreme pleasantness of even very tranquil feelings. In the Buddhism version of Breath meditation there are 16 stages out off which the 1st 4 deals with calming the bodily fabrication as opposed to creating new bodily fabrications. By calming the bodily fabrication also you get tranquillity but this is born out of the process of calming as well as dissolving unwholesome fabrication than creating fabrications. In Buddhism there are 3 evil roots or poisons: loba, dosa and moha. Dosa generally creates uneasy feeling but based on loba and moha (action based on perception) can create Piti and Passadhi respectively. (See: 7 factors of enlightenment). So the road the Patanjali / Vedic system and Buddhism is taking are different roads.

According to Advaita Vedanta, there is no multiplicity of things. Ultimately, only one thing exists, that is permanent, that is eternal, that is the base or core of all phenomena, like the projection of ever-changing movies on a permanent and eternal white wall. That is also the thing that was never born and will never die. This being or entity or reality is called Brahman. Moksha is becoming one with the only thing that is permanent. In Bhagavad Gita 12.3, "... the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman;". In addition, other texts use "neti neti" (not this, not this) to say that Brahman is indescribable or all that is not impermanent.
On the other hand, according to Buddhism, all conditioned things are impermanent. In other words, nothing is permanent.  Nirvana is becoming detached and liberated from everything that isn't permanent.
In the next part, I quote another question of mine which describes Nirvana which is not an entity or being or thing:
Nirvana is described in Samyutta Nikaya 43 as "the unfabricated (unborn?), the uninclined, the truth, the far shore, the subtle, the very difficult to see, the unaging (eternal?), the stable, the unintegrating, the unmanifest, the unproliferated (nippapancan), the peaceful, the deathless, the sublime, the auspicious, the secure, the destruction of craving, the wonderful, the amazing, the unailing, the unailing state, Nibbana, the unafflicted, dispassion, purity, freedom, the unadhesive, the island, the shelter, the asylum, the refuge, the destination."
Also from another source in Buddhism Stack Exchange, I see Samyutta Nikaya 43 as quoting Buddha as saying "There is, monks, that base where there is neither earth, nor water, nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness, nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world; neither sun nor moon. Here, monks, I say there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support. Just this is the end of suffering."
So, here you can see that both Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism have got something in common - both say that there is something that is permanent. It's just that in Buddhism, that something is nothing. While in Advaita you aim to reach Brahman, in Buddhism, you aim to reach Nirvana. And the description of both Brahman and Nirvana appear similar.
But are they different? Well, according to Buddhism, there is no base or core for all phenomena. Moksha was defined as becoming one with "the only thing that is permanent." Buddhism says that there is no such thing as "the only thing that is permanent."
But as said before, both say that there is something permanent for you to reach. So, keeping that in mind, you should not need to have a dilemma. In Buddhist meditation, in order to reach that which is permanent (Nirvana), vipassana eliminates all that is not permanent. Or at least, that is my understanding. I am not an experienced practitioner.

There are two types of meditations.

Samantha - tranquility meditation
Vipassana - insight meditation

Samatha leads to concentration, mental absorptions, bliss and calmness whereas Vipassana leads to insight, wisdom and ultimately liberation from suffering. Samatha techniques can be found in Hinduism as well. What is special about Buddhist meditation is Vipassana. Anapanasati usually means a Samatha meditation. You have to turn it into Vipassana to notice a significant difference from meditations taught in Hinduism.
If you are not comfortable with letting go of hindu concepts like god, brahma, atman etc. don't bother too much about them. Focus on yourself and do meditation that is authentic to Buddhism and find out for yourself.

Buddhist doctrine is somewhat confusing and a little bit self-contradictory in nature. Possibly Buddha wanted to show a way to atheists so he omitted any gods from his doctrine but even Buddha talked about karma and reincarnation. What seems like self-contradictory to me in Buddhist teachings is on one hand it says there is no permanent self and on the other hand Buddha talks of ending human suffering. So the question arises is who benefits from end of suffering if there is no permanenet self? Obviously there has to be something permanenet which has to end its suffering. And that permanenet self is the soul. Other than that I can say that Buddhist teachings make sense and Buddhist practices of meditation will help.

Asking "who benefits from the end of suffering?" is quite amusing. The very thought should bring people up short. Unfortunately, it does not.


text:
What are the commonalities between Jewish and Buddhist thought?
I've pondered for a while on the possible links between Jewish and Buddhist thought. I have been on Buddhist retreat with people who identify as Jews. Also there is the Buddhist Jew phenomena as exemplified by Leonard Cohen. In addition some of my favorite authors appear to have Jewish background - Sharon Salzberg, Larry Rosenberg, Jack Kornfield etc...
So leading on from this and also inspired by this answer - is it possible to summarise what Buddhist and Jewish thought have in common. I appreciate that this is a big topic but I wonder is it possible to put together the main 3 or 4 points that they might have in common and why there appears to be such a connection between Judaism and Buddhism.

Note that Jews are substantially over-represented in new religious movements, especially Eastern ones. This is attributed to the low religiosity of many Jews. (Melton, 1999, Sharot, 2011)

I'm glad to see my previous answer proved inspiring / thought-provoking.
Following up on that:
I'm speaking from the Jewish perspective, specifically the Hasidic perspective. My knowledge of Buddhism is pretty limited, so I will not really be able to give too many points, and I'm sure if you dig into my answers you find specifics that don't line up in the two faiths. I know that there are probably more points where Buddhism and Judaism differ strongly, noticeably when it comes to religious cosmology, attitudes towards deities/G-d, and views on an individual's purpose in life. The same is probably true for almost any two religions -- the specifics are often VERY different.
However, I do feel that Buddhism and Judaism have these broader themes in common:

The concept of an enlightened individual who serves as an exemplary model: In Judaism we have the Tzadik, akin perhaps to the Bodhisattva. Both are individuals who have attained a special degree of awareness about the reality of existence, which somehow "pulls them out" from the normal frame of reference perceived by normal humans. Both are truly selfless individuals (i.e. individuals devoid of personal ego), who possess the potential to abandon the confines of human existence, and yet who nonetheless persist in engaging in the human world for the sake of others. Both are individuals who attain a clarity of vision which gives them far deeper insight into the cosmic order.
An emphasis on self-refinement through specific practices: The laws (mitzvot) associated with Jewish observance are akin the Noble Eightfold Path, both of which provide the individual with a means to increase their spiritual refinement and sensitivity. Diverging from these practices is seen in both religions as only deepening our enslavement to the very things we wish to escape.
A strong emphasis on mental/intellectual cultivation as a means to promote righteous action: Particularly in the Hasidic movement Chabad-Lubavitch, with which I am affiliated, we place huge emphasis on training one's mental faculties to control the emotional faculties. The specifics of this abstract idea are of course complicated, but I find it VERY similar to the concept of Mindfulness, which promotes a rational, objective viewpoint that gives one the clarity to pursue true, meaningful things, while avoiding vain pursuits of personal passions. Mindfulness is a concept which I find so relevant to Jewish observance, that I've gained tremendous personal spiritual inspiration by incorporating it into my own worldview.

I suspect a large part of the reason why many Jews are involved in Buddhism, and one of the reasons I know I find Buddhism more "approachable" than other religions, is that Buddhism presents an extremely existential, personal, non-judgmental system, and human-oriented approach to spiritually, which does not immediately seem to conflict with Judaism's very concrete, objective presentation of a Deity-oriented reality.
Quoting Bhante Gunaratana from Mindfulness in Plain English (from which I have admittedly gotten almost all of my knowledge of Buddhism): "[Buddhism's] flavor is intensely clinical, much more akin to what we might call psychology than to what we would usually call religion." I suppose that "flavor" is less of a turn-off than that of another, say Abrahamic religion, all of which have very specific, belief-oriented models of the universe.
Hope this helps!

A very nice and thoughtful compilation, thanks for that (although I'm not the asker of the question... :-) ). In some sense I see more "compatible" aspects, so to say. One, for instance, is the rule for regular, periodical times for reflection and self-reflection, which I recognize as a cultural achievement, like the time for sabbat which must be free from worldly business to allow to really concentrate on spiritual matters, for daily pray corresponding in monastic buddhism to a fixed daily scheme for meditation, listening to spiritual talks, and the two-weekly nightly uposaka-ceremony...

... for reflection and self-reflection of possibly un-"healthy" steps in the open social. Also there is a somehow sophisticated discussion about a basic difference in the mentality between the hebraic and (for instance) the hellenistic approach to the world, where I feel, that the (ancient) buddistic approach is more with that (as I understood the discussions) "hebraic mind" than with the "hellenistic mind" in which contemplation of idealistic concepts play a very basic role for the modeling of the experienced and interpreted world. Sometimes I see even a bit more, but am not yet "expert" ...

... enough to say here more. (However: in general I think, this Q&A-site is for more focused questions/answers, but well, sometimes one (i.e. me at this moment) shows more interest than surely it should be expected...)

I had no idea there was such a thing as the Tzadik in the Jewish traditions.  You have opened my eyes to a world of wonderment.  Thank you.

@sova glad to help! the term "tzadik" is often used colloquially to mean a good person, but it is also a specific, spiritual concept. happy to answer any questions you may have on it. best!

I am curious Ian what your opinion of  "Bread of Shame" is in relation to Buddhism?

@user29568 “bread of shame” refers to the fact that unearned attainments are not rewarding the same way that things you work hard for are. Part of noble eightfold path is exerting effort to attaining enlightenment— i.e. YOU must work for it.

"Working hard for something" is a concept though. One can just claim to have worked hard for it, but in reality earning something is a reflection of cultural standard. For example, attaining enlightenment, isn't thought of as a goal that you can "work for"; it is just there and it's been there forever - one just has to see it. This doesn't mean enlightenment doesn't involve work, it does. The concept of earning is only rewarding insofar as it feeds our pride vis-a-vis the notion of achievement, the idea that "I" earned it-- a form of spiritual egoism. Don't you think?

My impression of Judaism & Jews is they are constantly reinventing themselves; to the point that it is difficult to specify what exactly is 'Jewish thought'. Whereas Buddhism has remained unchanged for 2,600 years (apart from some degeneration). In Buddhism, we are stilling falling back on the old ancient scriptures as our reference point.
If Buddhist thought was compared to Jewish thought at 600BC, there would be little in common, apart from some basic morals, which were even held by very primitive religions. The very fact that Judaism rejected Christianity at the time of Christ and was still stoning sinners to death & crucifying blasphemers shows little in common with Buddhism in ancient times.
Yet with the growth of Buddhism, Christianity & Islam, particularly with the Jewish religion becoming centred in places such as Alexandria & Persia (eg. Babylonian Talmud), obviously Judaism kept reinventing itself to keep up with the world religions.
A uniqueness of being "Jewish" is you don't necessarily have to be religious. For example, the founders & leaders of Zionism were generally atheists, yet still call themselves "Jewish".
Thus, this Jewish tendency towards reinvention has seen many Jews invent many new revolutionary philosophies, such as Communism, which, while being staunchy atheist, has a remarkable resemblance to Old Testament monotheism & classless society.
I get the impression Jews are brought up to study, learn, lead, talk, display their knowledge & even market. Thus the Jewish-Buddhist phenomena in the US-vipassana lay community. However, I am personally not aware of many Jewish monks, apart from Bhikkhu Bodhi, who is a scholar.

Interestingly this is in line with Jewish historical experts say of themselves.
http://iishj.org/publications/a-provocative-people/


text:
Can advances in neuroscience help attain enlightenment? Will it make Buddhist traditions obsolete?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that Buddhists view enlightenment as a state of mind. As neuroscience progresses, we have more and more control over human brain, so inducing particular states of mind seems to be just a matter of time. Does it mean that at some point in the future, assuming that the science continues to progress, we will be able to cause enlightenment by neurosurgical means? Or is there something in enlightenment that would make it impossible?
If we reach that stage, will it make all the Buddhist traditions and scriptures obsolete? After all, enlightened people can see things clearly for themselves, so there would be no point in relying on such very old sources with unknown reliability, which were heavily influenced by their cultural contexts.

I think you are wrong; enlightenment was, as I understood it, actually meant as bodhi which means awakening, not enlightenment. Moreover, the specific buddhistic understanding of being awakened was also embedded into a set of compassion, ethics ("sila") and practice of that two basic things. There was even more (too much to put it into my humble words and even in a comment-box); much more than neuroscience is dealing with. "Neuroscience", besides its idealistic foundations is also embedded in big, and of course as well in small, business and thus bound to the priority of profit.

Enlightenment is not a state of mind.

Google "contemplative neuroscience".

The brain is matter(Rupa). If the defilements are caused by the brain, a being should attain Nibbana when he dies as the brain stops functioning. If Nibbana is caused by the brain, a Sotapanna being should lose his attainment when he dies. According to Buddhism, neither is true. So your assumption is not compatible with Buddhism.

Yes, the brain is matter (rūpa). But the modern science is not limited to influencing matter. For example, some drugs may influence your sensations (vedanā) and perceptions (saññā). I don't see why it couldn't influence also other things and, for example, cause nibbāna.

A drug may be able to make one see things. But it can't make one pay wise attention to it. Even inducing thoughts of impermanence would be like digging up a hole in the ground, putting water to it and calling it a well. But that isn't really a well. You have to keep digging until you reach the water source.

Serious question (I'm new to this stack exchange): Is the Buddhism stack exchange about the religion, or the philosophy? Or both? (To me, religion is more about belief, while philosophy is about how to live or models for understanding.)

@piojo, you can ask that in the meta site. The short answer is, it's about anything that is related to Buddhism

I think that if someone has a brain disease that is interfering with their practice neuroscience may be able to fix their disease allowing them to practice, but apart from that I don't see much help it can do.
Enlightenment isn't a peaceful state of mind. It is the product of gaining very deep insight into the very nature of reality itself, and I can't see how neuroscience can implant even ordinary knowledge in a person, so how much less possible would it be to artificially create in a person the profound non-conceptual direct perception necessary to reach Nirvana.

To take a slightly different example, psychiatric medication tend to suppress or modify parts of the brain's activity to control the symptoms of mental diseases. You can read about the mechanism of action of antipsychotics for example. More often than not, when the drugs are stopped, the symptoms of the disease returns. I have a friend who is on psychiatric medication, and to me, it seems that a part of his personality is missing, perhaps switched off, along with his mental disease, which is still there but simply suppressed. I felt sorry to notice that a part of him is missing.
On the other hand, recent research reveals that mindfulness and Buddhist meditation can help patients go off long term medication according to this article:

"We've seen this in the clinical domain for many years. People, in
  concert with their physicians... actually going off their medications
  for pain, for anxiety, for depression, as they begin to learn the
  self-regulatory elements of mindfulness," said Kabat-Zinn. "They
  discover that the things that used to be symptomatically problematic
  for them are no longer arising at the same level."

So, if you ask me, I think that the 2,500 year old techniques taught by the Buddha, referenced from very old sources like the Anapanasati Sutta are hardly being made obsolete by modern neuroscience and psychiatry.
Casts and crutches only help a man while his fractures heal naturally and then would in due time be discarded.
Similarly, neurosurgical and pharmacological interventions should be seen as temporary aids while man heals himself by natural means. In this case, meditation may help man discover how to control and self-regulate his mind, and become detached from repetitive thoughts that ail him. Of course, in very serious cases, meditation won't be possible.
On the other hand, if modifying our neural networks is enough to reach nirvana, then this implies that all that we are is contained in the physical body and there is nothing beyond. This means that when the physical body perishes, the self would be completely destroyed. Rebirth would not be possible. This seems to be leaning towards annihilationism, which has been refuted by the Buddha as a wrong view.

Please note that the quote said, "in concert with their physicians", and it didn't claim that mindfulness will cure psychosis.

You're right. I'll change my answer later

We are sum total off our Sankara. 1st stage of enlightenment happens when all the Sankara leading to a lower birth has been depleted though Vippassana and you experience something beyond the aggregates.
So if at all the advancement needed is something that can change your Sankara and also something to stop you from creating new Sankara. I do not think that any scientific innovation can lead to such discovery or innovation. We cannot identify and quantify Karma scientifically.

I'm sure the brain sciences can greatly accelerate/enhance the process of "enlightenement" or "awakening", inducing certain heightened states of mind/consciousness that would make the rest of the process easier/more efficient to perfect/attain. It could make meditation somewhat redundant in the near future i.e. Jhanic states could be induced by Deep-Brain-Stimulation OR some neurohacking tech can make it easier for you to meditate/enter Jhanas (by enhancing prefrontal cortex function maybe), and this may make it much faster to cultivate the positive qualities normally attributed to enlightened/awakened beings as well (i.e. enhanced sense of morality, equipoise, refined charisma/speech and inter-relations with others, unlimited compassion, and so on, etc).
Future neurotech (another hypothetical device is the "Exocortex") could also enhance greater access to subconscious processes, attaining greater number of deep creative insights and solutions to problems in the real world, enhanced memory and other cognitive functions. Hypothetically we could become "even more enlightened" - surpassing the Buddha's own mind in many ways we never dreamed possible in his day or even today. There's still so much more to explore and we should not impose limitations based on old ancient tradition and outdated belief systems/dogma, etc. Ultimately we should even go beyond the Buddha himself, and not attach ourselves to any one teacher. We should strive to become "a light unto ourselves" as the Buddha posited.
Seek the middle path- not the extremes of spiritual attachment or the extremes of material attachment. Applying scientific method to unlocking the secrets of the mind, guided with sound rationality, skepticism, and logic, coupled with genuine curiosity for discovery and deep observation into the various states of subjective experience, unhindered by immediate bias and dismissal or imposed fixated beliefs/views, and willingness for continuous experimentation and making modifications/alterations, pushing our notions beyond the edge of what's possible and challenging our notions of reality and what we currently believe to be true, will be the key to progress of understanding the nature of the mind, and enhancing our relationship with reality. This could be the ultimate form of "spirituality".
Perhaps the future enlightened beings would be neuroscientists, neuroengineers, neurohackers, and the likes, and in far greater numbers than at any other point in history. And they would greatly accelerate and enhance scientific and technological contributions, progress, discovery, and implementation, that will help mankind and all living beings and the health of the planet, with much more efficiency and efficacy than ever before.

Its an open question as to whether or not enlightenment can be attained by artificial means ( some type of machine-body interface, the use of some drugs, or some combination thereof). The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali state that enlightenment can be obtained by several means, one of them is stated to be drugs. Now that we live in the "Atomic Age"and we are advancing in the electronic sciences, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that we might develop some kind of "electronic nirvana" device( I'm going to include crystal devices here for all you Atlanteans). But I highly doubt that it would be a totally passive system where you could just sit or lie down and have the machine do all the work, I'm guessing there will still be an element self discipline required to still the mind to the point where one can become self-realized.

Our current neuroscience beliefs state that our memories are stored chemically in the brain and disappear at death, therefore you can't simply attain enlightenment by neurosurgical means, because our mind is not physical.
Think of our brain as an interface to our non-physical mind (consciousness). So enlightenment is not something that can be invoked physically, the same as cutting Einstein's brain won't give you any intelligence gains, no matter how our neuroscience would progresses.
Enlightenment can be achieved only by a state of mind of your spiritual progress.
As our neuroscience accelerates, we can only enhance our brain circuitry to process more data (like photographic memory, abstract thoughts, etc.), as our current brains only handle an narrow amount of the information that is constantly being fed at the unconscious level, but it's nothing to do with attaining enlightenment.