text:
Confused about partner's practices. Need advice
My partner has an active interest in Buddhism and I have been confused about his state of mind for two years. Kindly help us out. The past two years have been a depression time for my family and myself and I'm coping with it with the help of God and only God.
This person has had loads of problems in his life. He stayed in a bad marriage for years before leaving. He had a high profile job which he quit and moved back to his home town. Just after moving back he was diagnosed with Non-Hogdkins lymphoma and underwent surgery and five rounds of chemotherapy.
He has never been well since he has gone back home. We entered into a relationship nearly two years ago and I frequently seen his wrath, anger, jealousy  and many more problems which I can only attribute to his traumatic history. He has never been able to get back into a job. He used to be interested in a vast array of things from photography to painting and since three years he finds nothing interesting. He has stopped talking with all his friends because he says that they "don't understand" him. He has pretty much locked himself in his house under the pretext that he has to "take care of his old parents".
During his chemotherapy he told me he was suicidal which he vehemently denies now.
I tried to help him as much as I could. I have approached one of his gurus for help. I tried getting to get him to see a Buddhist psychotherapist. He has refused help.
The reason he refuses help is because he says he is on the verge of enlightenment and that normal therapists cannot do anything to help him. He says he frequently speaks to God but when I say I speak to God too he rejects it outright.
He has weight issues because he binge eats when he is depressed.
He keeps imagining he has liver diseases, coeliac disease or cancer relapse symptoms. Each time the tests come out negative and his doctors constantly tell him he will not have a relapse.
He says he's conquered all fear and anger and negativity but I have seen first hand his massive anger issues. He has deep resentment against his parents and there has not been one day that he has not complained about them. He says he has deep anger issues against his father who he says was not good to his mother when he was in the womb or because of past life karma. He openly told his parents one day that they should not have even given birth to him.
He says he feels love and compassion for everyone and then he made the statement "attachment is for idiots".
My parents too have tried to support him. They have been nice to him until they lost their cool too about him just sitting at home being depressed and not doing anything about it. He then accused my father of abusing him and calling him names. My parents have yelled at him, yes but they are not the kind to ever call anyone names.
He's had issues against my past relationships which caused a major rift between us for a major portion of the last two years. He got extremely jealous and even now he says he finds it difficult to be intimate with me because he has images of other men with me.
He says the cancer has not affected him, his past relationship has not caused him trauma and it was meditation that guided him to not have mental issues. He frequently compares himself to other cancer patients and how their mental states were affected during their treatment. He almost gloats about it without seeing that he too is mentally unwell.
Another day he said that the reason he pushes me away is because he has lost so many things in life - a marriage, a career, good health even though he worked hard for it that he is scared of losing this too. He says that being detached like this is his way of not feeling any more pain.
Each time I try to help him he accuses me of being unkind to him and trying to change the way he is.
Today he mentioned that he is worthless and when I asked him persistently to talk to God and tell God why he felt worthless he called the cops on me and tried to have me attested.
He denies that he is depressed but every person I have spoken to tells me that he shows clear signs of depression. I have spoken to at least three therapists about him and even they agree that he is depressed.
My questions are:

Is this behaviour justified for a person who is on the verge of enlightenment?
Does non attachment mean giving up things you love?
Is attachment for idiots?
It the fear of losing things you love the right reason for being non attached?
Does non attachment mean having a strong sense of detest for modern life like malls, the cinema etc?
Does non attachment mean you have to stop talking with your friends who are different from you?

Thank you very much for your question and welcome to the site. There is a lot going on in this question and in your life - i wish you all the best with it. As far as the question goes I think you would get the best response if you asked a number of different questions to cover the different questions you have about attachment. I do appreciate they all come from the same issues for you and may make most sense to you if you ask them like this - but you might not get someone who is able or willing to cover all the areas you raise. Just a suggestion and all the best

How do you intend to use the answers to these questions? It is obvious that you try to help and understand your friend, but having these information just so you can say to him "you are not right" will not help him or you as a team. What you can do is help him see you are on his side by listening to him and validating his feelings. And take care of yourself. Find a suport group for family members of cancer pacients. I hope somenone will answer you questions. Just be aware how you use them. Be well.

Do you have access to a Psychologist or Psychiatrist who is also a practicing Buddhist well versed in the Buddhist texts? If you are in London I can recommend someone for the both of you to go and have a talk.

@user7631 wrath, anger, jealousy, harsh word (idiot) --> this is quite a clear sign that he is not near to enlightenment. What i can see u are quite in love with him. Just 2 my cents, I guess no others can help him, it's very tough and ensure it's worth it out for you too. One way is to study Buddhism with him but "not convert" so you can understand what is in his mind in every aspects, then it would give you clue how to solve it.

In short, Buddhism and Christianity quite a different "language" and easily to have contradiction of ideas in your case. Speak Buddhism or the right "language" could help you out. This is normally how i manage my Christian partner to keep us in peace in most conversation. Brother @ChrisW this question doesnt accept anymore answer?

As a (roughly) beginner practitioner, who has had a share of problems as well, I feel I can contribute.  Mostly, my answer would fall in line with Andrei.  Presuming this is accurate, this sounds like someone who has some large internal stress, and is possibly using "enlightenment" as a defense for his actions, rather than letting actions spring from some wisdom.  This person sounds like they need to talk to someone, but is also pushing everyone away.
But I answer instead of comment to give you perhaps a beginners perspective.  To speak to your questions in order:

Is this behaviour justified for a person who is on the verge of enlightenment?

Having never been on the verge of enlightenment I can't say for sure what it's like.  Most of what I hear relates to peacefulness, and this does not sound anything like peace.

Does non attachment mean giving up things you love?

It can.  Some kinds of love aren't as deep as we imagine them to be.  Some things we call love are actually just selfish little habits.  I would call those things attachments, the first that should go, or at least thought about so they can be understood.  Letting go would be very different than pushing away.  People I hold close I cannot imagine pushing away.  I can imagine stepping back, looking at how I treat them, what I might be doing that's harmful or selfish, like clinging to what I like or want from that bond.  That does not sound like what you are talking about though.

Is attachment for idiots?

Erm.  Attachment is human.  It's what we do.  Sometimes it's instinct.  Sometimes it's learned.  It doesn't mean someone is stupid.  Maybe a better way to say it is that too much attachment can nudge people into doing the wrong things.

It the fear of losing things you love the right reason for being non attached?

I feel most lost in this question, so maybe the better experts can say.  But I would say fear is a strong motivator into doing the wrong things.  And I would also say avoiding attachment purely to avoid fear or avoid that wrong thing is also the wrong thing; that's just translation into a fear of fear.  I would say understanding and letting go of fear is way more important than letting go of people.

Does non attachment mean having a strong sense of detest for modern life like malls, the cinema etc?

Another erm.  I'm a bit of a hermit.  I do have a strong detest for malls, and more for the endless advertising that comes with them, or occasionally shoveled into my mailbox.  I think I just reject the materialism of it.  Doesn't mean that I would just stay home if there was an opportunity to meet a friend.  Doesn't mean I wouldn't go to a cinema if I thought there was a good story to see, or something to learn.  My impulse, or detest, is actually attachment, a desire that the world isn't the way I want it to be.  That shouldn't lead me to reject the world, I'm in it, aren't I?  If I want (and yes, there's that word again) more of what I'd like to see in the world, I should start putting some of it out there.  That's the difference, as I see it, between wrong actions and right actions.  It's more complicated than that, but I'm rambling, and I think I've said it close enough.

Does non attachment mean you have to stop talking with your friends who are different from you?

Nope.  It would first mean you have to not be attached to the idea of them being who you want them to be.  Seeking enlightenment isn't a way to fix everyone else.  It might be a way to fix yourself, but even that's an attachment.  Before anything else, and especially at my level, it's about being aware of yourself, and all the little impulses that experience has built inside you, and letting go of those.  Only starting from that foundation would that depth of awareness spread outward, to your surroundings and other people.  If it doesn't start that way, your conceptions, your intent, your attachments, are still in the way, and they will be all you see.
I hope this was helpful.

1. Is this behaviour justified for a person who is on the verge of enlightenment?
From your explanations above it sounds like this person is very disturbed, not almost enlightened. You could be reading it wrong, but here I will go with the assumption that your observations are precise.
Questions 2-6
From my perspective (Mahayana), such behavior is unhealthy but rather typical for a beginner in a so-called phase of "dharma-fever". When a person has a very strong but pretty limited idea of "right" and when the real world (obviously) mismatches it most of the time, then on the basis of this attachment and this mismatch a strong sense of wrongness is generated. This sense of wrongness can get very painful and overwhelming as to make the person want to avoid any exposure to the "wrong" experiences.
What this person would need to do is to learn to give up their attachment to their idea of right, while at the same time learning to self-reflect (through mindfulness and meditation) until they see the mechanism of "attachment to should => is/should mismatch => pain" first hand.

Is this behaviour justified for a person who is on the verge of enlightenment? Meditators can seem antisocial but this person described here seems to have the wrong view on how we do certain things in Buddhism but meditators can often have the wrong view.
Does non attachment mean giving up things you love? It means giving up things one likes alot and giving up attatchent that unfortunately can often be mixed in with love.
Is attachment for idiots? Nobody calls people "idiots" with ill-will in they're hearts and are still in harmony with Buddhism. Attatchment is like when one spouse can't let the other spouse leave because they fear they might find someone else or cheat. Love is when one spouse wants they're love to be happy and therefore lets them go anywhere they want to go. I like this song that is called "If you love someone, set them free".
Is the fear of losing things you love the right reason for being non attached? Not at all. The fear of losing the things you love or the fear of losing anything is itself attatchment. Detatchment is about neither liking nor disliking things or having no partiality(if that was what was meant by "non attachment")
Does non attachment mean having a strong sense of detest for modern life like malls, the cinema etc? A meditator will try to avoid(avoid not necessarily with  attatchment) worldly places like malls and cinema but to have any partiality for or against anything is attatchment. To "detest" shopping malls and cinema sounds like having partiality or attatchment against shopping malls and cinema, although I could be wrong as some advanced meditators or those rumoured to be enlightened sometimes seem to speak kind of rough about worldly things.
Does non attachment mean you have to stop talking with your friends who are different from you? No, but this often happens with beginning mediators.This doesn't necessarily mean that the meditator no longer likes or loves these friends at all. Generally, this is the meditator learning the value of conseptual truth and silence(some have called silence, "the language of God").
Then again, if the friends arent really friends then it is totally in harmony with Buddhism to end such a relationship.
Romantic love is different from love in a Buddhist context. Buddhist love is to love all beings unconditionally and to  be partial to one's spouse and Mother Theresa but not partial to someone like Adolf Hitler is not unconditional love.
If we can't love or have compassion for someone like Hitler then, I think its safe to say that we want to be seperate from a certain part of humanity just as Hitler wanted to be seperate from a certain part of humanity. -May you be happy

Is this behaviour justified for a person who is on the verge of enlightenment?
My experience of a vaguely analogous situation was that doctors were not willing to diagnose mental illness (e.g. "depression") of someone they hadn't interviewed.
Further experience of people having marital disagreement is that two people see things differently, remember different things, and overlook (ignore or edit out) different things from their story.
It isn't that I don't believe you, but for these kinds of reason I want to judge neither your description of "this behaviour", nor judge the partner.
You sound disturbed by what you're describing, if I may say that.
My advice to anyone whose family member may be incompetent due to mental illness, is to talk with a real professional if you can: i.e. a medical doctor (family/general practice or psychiatrist), and/or a lawyer, who may be able to advise on how to proceed.
Does non attachment mean giving up things you love?
Maybe not exactly. Instead I think that what Buddhism teaches about attachment is that:

The things you love are subject to change (they may be called impermanent): for example the person you married (and the feeling you had when you married them) isn't exactly the same now as they were before.
Attachment within Buddhism is defined as a type of desire, especially a desire for something that is known.
A fundamental problem is that known things change, and if you're attached to (if you desire) what you used to know in the past, what they used to be, rather than what they are now, then that attachment is a cause of suffering.
I suspect it may be a cause of ignorance also, i.e. the attachment to what it used to be interferes with perceiving it as it is actually.

The italic words above are key/fundamental Buddhist technical terms.
In other words:

The things you love/loved change (or even cease), whether you want them to or not.
Attachment to how they used to be is a cause of suffering, and prevents you from seeing them as they are now.

Is attachment for idiots?
I wouldn't say that, because "idiot" sounds like a harsh word, to me.
For example, here is a definition of 'Right Speech' -- it recommends speaking gently and affectionately rather than harshly.
I wouldn't even call a dog a idiot (instead a dog is a sentient being, with feelings).
There is a style of Buddhist practice in which one might speak angrily emphatically or powerfully -- see for example What is a wrathful Buddha? I think that the intention of that might be to protect. An example of that I found amusing once was some relatives, who live on a tidal estuary, talking about their children, saying:

"Oh yes, the children would never take the boats out without permission, without telling us. They know we'd kill them!"

I'm not sure though how much wrath is necessary and/or skillful (if indeed it ever is). It could be used as an excuse venting anger (which, typically isn't skillful) or used to protect the wrong thing (e.g. to try to dissuade someone for selfish rather than altruistic reasons). I avoid it!
Having said all that though, about "idiot", it is true that Buddhism does recommend that it's better not be to be attached, for the reason given in item #2 above. On the other hand that doesn't mean that Buddhism is anti-everything (it's arguably not meant to be nihilistic), so being in some sense attached to being virtuous (good) might be regarded as a correct form of attachment.
To be honest it might be worth remembering that Buddhism is also known as a doctrine of the Middle Way between extremes: i.e. an extreme attachment or an extreme detachment might each be more-or-less inappropriate, especially within a lay relationship or marriage (conversely a reason why some people become monks or nuns might be because they want a life which allows them to practice with more detachment, a different collection of social responsibilities).
It the fear of losing things you love the right reason for being non attached?
Well attachment is defined/understood as being a cause of suffering and a result of ignorance (e.g. ignorance of the fact that things are impermanent). Conversely, enlightenment might be defined as a state of non-attachment, non-ignorance, and non-suffering.
Furthermore (but this is a subject on which different schools of Buddhism may have disagreed), some people like to ask whether your wanting to become enlightened is in order to benefit yourself, or, to benefit others (or to benefit both self and others).
Does non attachment mean having a strong sense of detest for modern life like malls, the cinema etc?
I suspect it might manifest that way:

"I'm so sick of consumer society, shopping, of having to earn money in order to spend it on stuff that doesn't make me happy, I wish I could detach from that."

Note that's backwards to the way you said it though, for what it's worth: it's not that detachment causes hatred -- it's that suffering may cause a desire for detachment (given that unskillful attachment is a cause of suffering).

Question :01 -
No he is not enlightened or even close to it. He seems to be an angry person just making excuses to justify his behavior. Remember he might actually believe this stuff, so be careful when you try to have your little debates.
The best way to get him out of this would be to make him realize what's wrong in his own head.
There is a way to do that, stop showing any offence to his ideology and provide him his needs for few days without question and afterwards ask for his teaching and guidance and say "now i feel what you seek, help me learn too". As he teach you ask very logical questions on very fair situations. You will see that he struggle with his efforts and you should not interfere.
If you feel like you do not know what to ask from him we can help, There is a Kind monk among us here in this site called "Ven. Samana Johann" and you can start a chat with him if you like and i'm sure he will help. or you could ask any of us.
Question :02 -
Giving up attachments does not mean complete disregard for family and loved ones. If a person needs that kind of freedom Lord Buddha clearly asked such people to be monks. If a Buddhist stay in a household he must give the love and affection to his loved ones and Lord Buddha clearly said that.
Question :03 -
Lord Buddha did not expected all beings to give up all hope and wander like zombies. letting go means understanding that everything is temporary and living with that realization. Not calling other Dumb. Tell him attachment not only exist with the things he love but also with the things he hate. And also tell him that anger is also a product of attachment and therefore in his own version of right and wrong he is an idiot too.
Question :04 -
No, The reason you walk away from greed,lust is that it eventually brings discomfort.And as Buddhists believe it brings more and more lives to suffer in samsara.
Question :05 -
Detachment has nothing to do with modern or old. It is simply an understanding of things being temporary. And being detached does not mean that a person should run away from society. Tell him that Kings who were way above in the path ruled kingdoms just fine without the whole drama that he is putting out.
Question :06 -
Madam let me break it very simply for you as you seem to be the person that's most harmed by his actions. What you partner preach and what he pretends t be is not Buddhism.And there is no point trying to explain his wrongs to him as he is clearly wanting to lash out his decades of rage o something or someone, and he just found a way to do it and he has some strong excuses this time.
Either him or his sub-conscious knows that no one will fight back at his anger because of his condition and his belief. I even have doubts about his need to be a Buddhist. Because this might as well be another way that he found to make himself different from the rest as he seems to be very fond of that concept.

If you want to help him....
There are two ways.

The soft way

Find some time and go together on a getaway. Not the regular, go to a monastery. If you tell us where you live we might be able to provide you with a location near your city. There learn true Buddhism together and have small discussions with monks about what you learn and other topics while he is present and make him talk in front of the monks and directly ask about his belief and their truthfulness from the monks.

The backhand

As I see it you have taken a lot of damage from all of this and because you love and care you have not told him the true pain he has caused to you. But now might be the time to do just that. This would be nice if this discussion happens over a dinner table of a regular place that you two go to (may be where you had your first date). Tell him what you really feel and do not try to make him feel bad. Just mention what you feel and tell him that you need a little time to find some relief. Don't be afraid i'm not trying to break a pair, sometimes people take the closest people for granted and they never realize what they have until it goes away. We are doing this to give him some alone time because he must learn to tame his anger without making other collateral damage.

Last but not least I have a simple recommendation to you. There is a movie you two must watch and do not be fooled by it's cast or cover. It might look like a comedy at first but it is about the same issue that your partner has and how a man get over it. The movie is called "A Thousand Words". make sure he watch it from the beginning to the end and be there with him.

For your own safety,remember if someone clearly needs help and continue to refuse it while the condition is getting worse that is clearly not going to end well. There is a reason why people abandon ships and jump into the sea, Because until the ship can be saved you can try, but if it is clear that it is going to sink your staying will only cost your life and you will obviously go down with it.

In Buddhism there is a path called the Three Trainings. This is the first thing to understand about Buddhism: even before the Four Noble Truths! But most people do not know it and apply it. They are:

Morality: get your life together, be virtuous, be loving, get rid of anger issues, etc., have a livelihood, etc.
Concentration: to be done AFTER THE 1st TRAINING IS RELATIVELY WELL-ADDRESSED.
Insight: to be done after the 2nd training is somewhat established.

What is the overall idea here?
A person should be doing intensive meditation until he/she can live as a good person (with or without Buddhism). He/she should not rely on the advanced practices of Buddhism until he fixes his heart.
If this rule is not followed, then the person will escape into all sorts of fantasies and poisons for oneself and others!
I suggest you get your friend to read "Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha" (it's a free ebook, google it) and ask him to really dive into the book and ask himself if he has these basic things before he goes off thinking he is Enlightened or talking to "God."

It's quite possible to have serious mental problems even at high levels of spiritual practice. Do you remember, for example, Christian literature, where Christ and Saints were tempted by demons, had horrifying demonic visions etc. I myself was hospitalized in a mental facility just half a year before a major breakthrough in my spiritual practice.
So the problem exists, but I don't think that a solution is about confronting such practitioner. I guess his problem relates to a state of conflict, an opposition, both inner and outer.
Inner opposition results in much tension, which causes fatigue, feeling of being in a deadlock, and "laziness". "Laziness" is actually a sign of inner disharmony, such as disalignment between logic and feelings, or between different intentions, which clash in an inner conflict.
Outer opposition is a mutual problem, because you - and virtually everyone else - aren't free from oppositions too. You want to help, but you try to move in a direction of opposing his ideas and behavior, rather than finding there deep meanings and trying to help to realize them in better ways.
If you want more help from me, please message / comment, I will try to help if I could. For now, I'll just say very briefly:
Your friend have focused on a very hard problem - of illusory oppositions, and illusions in general.
If you want to help, try to remove oppositions - any time, as well as you could.
I would advise you to get a book by Nossrat Peseschkian, The Merchant and the Parrot, and donate it to your friend. And get such book for yourself and read it. It describes how we can find useful meanings even in problematic behavior. This way we move from opposing to cooperating.
Good health to all sentient beings!

Once someone sets forth on the Buddhist path there is a great energy that surrounds such a person that starts setting them on the path for better or for worse... energies that "marry" them to the path. Those energies are basically the same as standard wedding vows... once that Bodhi seed is planted there's no way off of the path until it is accomplished.
The main problem today with Buddhism is monastics monastics monastics, not much is said in discourse about householder so much so that there was a huge debate and still is that it is impossible(extreme) for a householder to achieve the goal of Buddhahood however it is a very very very quick path to Buddhahood as it is obstacle after obstacle to if he were to see every moment his teacher he would then be able to swallow himself and become selfless in his duties to well the kamma or cause and effect that he has grown by all of the previous actions you have listed.
Problem is? You see all of those steps as steps down and he sees all of those steps as steps up... it is a prime example of inverted thinking, on who's end? I cannot say; As taking sides is not how to mediate a situation to any resolution... when each word, deed born from thought become more fuel for an already burned down house? Who is carrying and chopping the wood... everyone is by the sound of it.
Security is the most important thing for all involved in an intimate relationship between two or however many people involved with their ears to what is meant to only be seen with four eyes? To feel safe and protected, when the tongue wants to become a sword there is harm when one speaks of suffering; how is that not a direct pointing at the noble truths? Everyone is suffering in the situation by the sound of it... fortunately there is really not such thing as an extreme so extreme that the situation wont eventually unbind or let go all by itself to resolution.
When that occurs? The characteristic of Impermanence is known... impermanence is a blessing and very noble for just that reason; the dam bursts as pinning up what should flow on and on in a smooth cycle is an extreme. It is also a sign that life still exists that sentience is not lost... otherwise it would be like two statues dreaming the entire thing due to the life that went into carving them as karma and they just imagine throwing rocks at each others heads to unborn what made them statues trying to become "whole" again.
Like the dam it is easier to withstand the test of time and become sand than trying for more accumulation.
Spiritual not religious is a very common term; as religion like politics make people more crazy than sane. Passive aggressive behavior occurs within an individual in a good cop bad cop trope it manipulates feelings like a child do what a want you to do wah wah wah wah and then it will be ideal. Honestly that is everyone alive that wants something or happiness out of anyone other than oneself.
He's swearing fealty to his parents... yeah so what does he want out of them; that he and yourself were building before the move? What do you want out of him if not the suburban dream of house, white picket fence, and 2.5 children?
Parents that believe in "god" in the Christian sense expect everyone in their family to be living in the that great gated community in the sky; that social experiment already occurred in the 1950's those trying to go back to that, see it as ideal and that has been the cause or rise of what gets called: Big Brother.
Well yeah for families it is ideal a nice quiet neighborhood and all the children are around the same age to remove "bad influences" etc. etc. it's very cultist to be honest and that what gated communities are started to do typically centered around golf courses. It's what monastics do centered around a statue as well... it's what military does centered around the way of the gun as a higher power when countries get passive aggressive.
There is no higher power than Yoga it means restraint control of who? Oneself. No one else; wanna know something funny? His desire for you is mirroring in his actions... if you take good care of yourself he is saying no no no eat like a pig get fat and sassy like me the man in the mirror so I wont be threatened by other males that see you as I see you. They say men can't communicate because they can't listen; a man that can listen is the rarest thing on earth... a woman that can see what a man is saying by seeing him as a mirror? Is the second rarest thing on earth.
That's all I have to say about male female relationships... in "getting each other" you learn to read him like a mirror and hopefully he learns to listen... I've known women spending over 10 years trying to get a man any man to hear a single sentence of what they have said directly to the heart without going completely out of their mind in doing so... no I am not exaggerating see that for oneself if you haven't already.
If you have seen this? Then I have said absolutely nothing of any value; just bow to your inner self and go home.


text:
Relationships : What is Love?
Recently i was wondering about Love and these thoughts came to my mind, i want to know if they are correct or not.

As to Buddhism all sorts of love is "Attachment".
And the is no such thing called a person.
So essentially the "Love" we fall in can be explained as...

Example :-

Part 01 :- Sam saw Jenny and he fell for her the second he saw her.
(Sam's eyes saw light which was recognized by his brain+mind as a woman. His mind remembers that Sam is straight so it immediately start to examine Jenny's body. There is an understanding in Sam's mind about his taste and it sees Jenny is a perfect fit. As Sam hast lust+attachments for such a body,mind starts a stream of thoughts signaling that there is a hot girl nearby.)
Part 02 :- They date for sometime and go to a serious relationship.
(Sam and Jenny both find their attachments in real life and decide to hold onto it.)
Part 03 :- Sam and Jenny are married now and its been 9 years.
(They both did not wanted to loose what they found because of the strong attachment they built in their own minds. The attachment and fear of loosing+fear of not finding a substitute kept them together for nine years.)

What i see is that there are two minds at work trying to find attachments in real life. And then two minds find those in the image of two bodies. Then the attachments grow and the minds get more attached to each other's bodies as it works as the Identity.

Is this correct according to the teaching or is it wrong?
If there are wrong details what are the correct forms of them?

There 3 things interplay here:

Kama Raga - attachment to sensual objects or objects arousing lust
Chanda Raga - attachments to people (lovers, loved one's, family, friends)
Suba Sanna - perception of beauty in the shape of the body

So when you see a person the following can happen:

Pleasure, displeasure, neutral sensation on how you perceive the person based on

Previous interaction and perception formed as friend or not or a person who matters or not or good person or bad person or likable or not
Perception of looks of the person

Relative to one's looks
As an object of desire

So when you see a person of the opposite sex the 1st time, what you get is Kama Raga and Suba Sanna. This is in seeking of pleasure born of such interactions.
Though Kama Raga heavily influences Chanda Raga, the main thing is that the person is influential in you life / perceived world. As the "puppet master" of the perceived world you get pleasure from the "puppets" in the show when they seem to go according to your expectations.
Chanda Raga is what might keep a relationship going even when Kama Raga subsides with time and into old age when Suba Sanna wanes off.
Though in seeking pleasure we get the above 3, in fact these give diverse sensations: pleasure, displeasure, neutral due to impermanent nature and non self nature of existance. All the experience you can derive from it is Dukkha (pain - Dukkha Dukkha, pleasure - Viparinama Dukkha, neutral - Sankhara Dukkha). So to understand the 4 Noble Truths contemplate on the arising and passing of sensations.

If there's dukkha then it is attachment, if not then it is love , at the end !

Love is also Dukkha. Love always is attachment.

I wish good for a lot of people. I think i love them. When i get enough or more than my requirement i offer everything in my reach to them. When i don't get enough, i do not become sad for not being able to offer/give something to them, or even i do not become sad for getting nothing in return(expectation) from them. I just keep loving them and try to make life a beautiful experience, day to day. How it is dukkha or how it can turn into a dukkha for sure!

@jitin , first part of the sentence is right from your comment. But as Lord Buddha taught "There is no love without suffering"

@jitin , What you are saying is that you have "Meththa". It is not love. And your wishes are good.

Very good answer suminda , Thanks!.  Should we add "Rupa raga" to this as well?

Regarding "The attachment and fear of loosing+fear of not finding a substitute kept them together for nine years", really? I doubt people married for 9+ years would see it that way.

@user3169 Different people have different experiences of marriage. And it's better if possible to post an answer than a comment.

"That's the way it is, householder. That's the way it is — for sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are born from one who is dear,
  come springing from one who is dear."

...

"That's the way it is, householder [said the gamblers]. That's the way
  it is. Happiness & joy are born from one who is dear, come springing
  from one who is dear."

...

So the householder left, thinking, "I agree with the gamblers."

Piyajatika Sutta: From One Who Is Dear
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

There may be other bases for (i.e. causes of or types of) 'love': for example, compassion or mudita.
You might find this difficult to practice without attachment and/or lust, even so your description of love seemed to me one-sided, only describing negatives (defilements).
See also, Any authentic sutta from any tradition that gives guidance on what kind of partner to choose?
Plus, there are other topics tagged marriage and/or relationship.

I meant the "Romantic version" of Love : ) But i only showed the Abhidhamma perspective, why is it negative?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What is the difference between a habit and an addiction?
Is it related to practice meditation ? Can I say that our respected individuality is a kind of 'self accepted and adopted' addiction ?

Habits are still under your control.
This is off topic, also kind of unclear what exactly you are asking.

There isn't an 'addiction' tag, though there are several questions about addiction. I think that addiction is strongly related to (is the same concept as) 'attachment', i.e.: seeking something/anything pleasurable, people attach to something which they perceive as an object or source of pleasure.

what is the difference between a habit and a addiction?

Addictions are difficult to understand. I guess I'd define an addiction as being an activity (or substance) which gives you some kind of pleasure when you do it, and which you therefore do repeatedly, even though the activity isn't helpful or useful. So I suppose examples of these might include:

Taking drugs or alcohol
Gambling (especially on slot machines)
Games (video games, pinball, getting Facebook "likes", checking email too often)

There are habits which are more purposeful, conventionally, and which it would be less usual to describe as an addiction:

Eating meals
Going to work
Being friendly

... though there may be addictive aspects, addicted behaviours, within these activities.

Is it related to practice meditation?

I think there's an extent to which all activity is habitual.
I think that Buddhism teaches, though, that we can (and should) be conscious of our action, and control (or decide) our actions and change (or choose) our habits (at least, change the bad habits).
Having a daily schedule (including specific times for meditation) might be described as habit.
"Addiction" is also a pejorative word, people wouldn't usually use it to describe a habit which they think of as a virtuous habit.

Can i say that our respected individuality is a kind of 'self accepted and adopted' addiction!

I may be wrong but I think that a defining characteristic of an addiction is that it's an activity which gives you a little jolt of pleasure. The pleasure fades, and then you want to repeat the activity to re-experience that pleasure.
Perhaps there are components of (aspects within) individuality which are like that (i.e. which are addictive jolts of pleasurable feeling): feeling pride, for example.
Another example which I don't understand well is this one from verse 3 of the Dhammapada:

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

That type of thinking seems to me like vicious circle and an addiction (harmful, repeated endlessly, seems like it ought to be behaviour people are free to choose to abandon however some people don't seem able to abandon it): however I don't understand what the pleasure in it is if any.
Maybe the so-called pleasure in this case is that people (including young children) like to get at least an equal share of something, like to see social justice, so people are wired to take pleasure in righteousness or self-righteousness, or to seek justice (selfish justice, justice for themselves) as a type of satisfaction.

More on the subject of 'self' and the feeling of pride, How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same?

It's more like an English language question. A habit is a routine of behavior that can be good, bad or neutral. From a Buddhist perspective, one can define addiction as clinging(Upadana) towards sensations. Addiction results in bad habits.
Upadana paccaya Bhava - Paticca-samuppāda

Addiction is related to sensations (Vedana) where we crave for sensation. Habit relates to Sanna where a reactive repetitively reinforced response to a stimuli surfaces. Self recognition or identification is mainly with distortions of reality (Vipallasa) in which one conceives permanence in oneself or on is in control though this is conditione hence habitual. This is reinforced by self identification with pleasure and craving for control or influence over different outcomes from which you might derive pleasure which stems from craving towards sensations.

When we try to stop a habit we will discover a certain  amount of resistance. This resistance is  addiction.
Addiction is very related to the Buddha's teaching. In the Mahasi method of meditation practice, we are supposed to be impartial to whatever we are experiencing, moment by moment. This lets us see just how much we are resistant to the little habits we have. Normally we don't see these subtle  addictions because we could always just appease them and therefore we  don't notice any resistance or addiction.
Can I say that our respected individuality is a kind of 'self accepted and adopted' addiction ?
The clinging we have for "the apparent self" or "the ego" is an addiction to a great wrong view that we all must conquer to be liberated.(Certainly we can be addicted to being an "individual" if that's what was meant.)-Metta

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


text:
How to remove dullness of mind, without sitting meditation, in regular activity?
When you have to perform a certain task, you can't meditate during that time, but mind needs clarity. I feel very dull during that time, I want to increase my awareness and alertness in that performance time.
So, how I can remove dullness of mind (while performing a certain task during which I can't meditate)? What are the causes that lead to dullness?

You can indeed meditate(Vipassana) while performing any task.
ex: if you are sweeping, keep reminding: sweeping.. sweeping..  sweeping..
Dullness or boredom is a form of aversion. Ignorance is the cause of it.
To overcome dullness, simply note it as it is without taking it as "I am bored" or "it is boring".

Dullness of mind is associated with sloth and torpor. When this happens you feel:

sleepy or drowsy
heavy

This itself is a sensation. Concentrate on the impermanence or arising and passing of this sensation. When you have this Ignorance dominates and to overcome this when sensation arises contemplate is impermanence, dispassion, ending and letting go as per advise in Pacalā Sutta. Similar advice is also found in Avijja Pahana Sutta 2, Pahāna Sutta, etc. As in the case of Pacalā Sutta you can note this but best is to avoid mental verbalisation of which is discussed in section 4 Note on noting in Giri-m-ananda Sutta commentary by Piya Tan which takes a more lenient stance; S.N. Goenka like the Thai Forest Tradition on verbal noting take a more hard stance on verbalisation or visualisation which I feel is right.

"Nothing is worth clinging to"
When this was said, the venerable Mahā Moggallāna said this to the Blessed One:
"In what way, bhante, in brief, is a monk freed through the destruction of craving, that is, one who has
  reached total perfection, the total security from bondage, the total holy life, the total consummation, the
  highest amongst gods and humans?"
"Here, Moggallāna, the monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to. And, Moggallāna, a monk has learned that nothing is worth clinging to, thus: he directly knows all things [he directly
  knows the nature of the all]. Having directly known the nature of all things, he fully understands all
  things.
Having fully understood all things, he knows whatever feelings there are, whether pleasant, painful
  or neither painful nor pleasant.
  As regards to those feelings,
  he dwells contemplating impermanence in them;
  he dwells contemplating dispassion [fading away of lust] in them;
  he dwells contemplating ending (of suffering) in them;
  he dwells contemplating letting go (of defilements).
When he dwells contemplating impermanence in them, contemplating dispassion in them, contemplating
  ending in them, contemplating letting go,
  he does not cling to anything in the world.
  Not clinging, he is not agitated; being not agitated, he himself surely attains nirvana

From meditation instructions we know that dullness happens when you suppress (forcefully restrict/constrict) yourself too much. This usually happens when you try to focus on task that has absolutely no connection with any of your goals and interests.
In meditation the usual advice is to "expand" your awareness a little to "connect" your activity with your surroundings and your goals. "Where am I, what am I doing and why?" Sometimes we need to actually go as far as to deliberately think through: "I am doing this because it will lead me to that; I need that because I want to get so and so" - etc.
Then once you have a notion of why you're doing this and how it fits with your bigger goal "loaded" into your immediate awareness, then it makes more sense to your mind - and dullness will be replaced with either a sense of gladness (if you know you're making good progress) or with a sense or worry and urgency (if you know you are not making progress).
So you can generate excitement by thinking of a realistic goal that is not too far, and thinking how you are making progress. Or you can generate urgency by thinking about a bigger goal and about the danger of what will happen if you don't make it.
By connecting what you are doing with what's important to you, you can overcome dullness. By carefully choosing the background narrative, you can control your state of mind.

Ok. Thank you @Andrei Volkov, from now I will ask 2 question when I feel dullness.. (1)WHO AM I?  (2)WHAT I REALLY WANT?... and then I start whatever with my awarness..

Sounds good, do it

A lot of good answers above. A few extra points to consider:
Being really tired, a lot of lay meditators prefer to meditate in
the morning. Get to know your circadian rhythm.
Lack of quality sleep, due to excessive snoring or sleep apnea.
Being too full, difficult to meditate on a full stomach.
The environment is not conducive, too dark, too much noise or distraction.
Ill health (diabetes, HBP, etc), obesity, nutrient deficiency.
Psychological reasons - e.g. depression.
Medications and intoxicants.
Lack of interest in the task at hand
Lack of purpose or understanding of the task at hand.

As per me, my personal observation is: mind is delicate but not stable. I meditate to stablise it by performing different-2 tasks in my day to night, unending actions. When i sleep i meditate with closed eyes & slow working senses 'but mind do not sleep and get stablised itself. I have nightmares and some precious dreams.
What i get is 'what i concentrate', a perception against distractions, pressing my will in favor of my belief , i start thinking (create a perception) that i am meditating.
When i convince myself that my dullness is my own perception, that very moment i start meditation by taking the advantage of my illusion-free mind(as all the senses are asleep), 'that very moment i feel good, breathfree, out of the body.
It is true that mind never stablises itself, it is true that mind creates a problem by creating a perception(while editing my perception), it is true that i am able to make my mind to concentrate on my belief. It is true that i can practise buddhism or any kind of perception or do meditation, everywhere, anytime. Even now, actually in present.


text:
Can a Buddhist be ambitious?
Over the last few months I've distanced myself from my sangha and from Buddhism in general. I still meditate but no longer identify as a Buddhist. One of the things I've noticed is the return of some old ambitions or longer term desires if you like. I don't think they are negative in fact they could have quite positive outcomes though I do recognise that they are driven by a restlessless sort of dissatisfaction.
In the light of my recent experience it makes me wonder if Buddhism necessarily dampens down people's ambitions? Is it possible to be ambitious (in any sense) and a Buddhist or are the two things mutually exclusive. For a Buddhist is ambition a negative thing?

There is a sort of fatalistic nihilistic theme being promoted as Buddhism today, which can and does make people think that everything is futile, and take on an attitude of hopelessness. Hopefully groups like this can help stave off such erroneous thinking. Personally, if your ambitions are grounded in compassion and wisdom then I would say go for it. Believe in kamma, that the virtuous, the generous, the compassion, the mindful, the energetic, will succeed.

Not intended as an answer to the questions, but a point of discussion:   On the one hand, you say you are no longer identifying as a “Buddhist”, but on the other, it sounds like you are still interested in practice of meditation, practice of the Dharma.  You might be interested in a couple of Stephen Batchelor’s more recent books: “Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist” & “After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age”.

LOL @Scott ... I don't think Kaveenga has that level of doubts about his belief.  I rather like his matured spirituality, and I love his response.
A 'believer' would always feel for Atheists, and have hope that they would eventually rouse (in their live times) to recognize that it's all just too beautiful to have been accidental ... or to end with our dying.

Well, Before we continue you must ask why you gave up the identity "Being a Buddhist" and you should also ask why are you still here in this SE. I am not trying to be rude.i'm saying this to make you realize the deceiving side of the mind.It is important you understand this and come up with solutions.

Now Lets talk about the ambitions part, Let me tell you a story
I learned it from a monk. this will give you a direct answer.....

One day a man (lets call him Paul) visited an old friend of him (Lets call him Tom). This friend was a farmer and he had a large piece of land which he used to farm. Paul looked around and saw that there is not much of farming going on, only a small part of Tom's land was being used for farming.
  So Paul asked Tom
"Why are you not using the whole piece of land?, You know what you shold farm the whole thing."
  "So then what should i do?"asked Tom.
Paul said "Oh, then you should start a little shop near the house and start selling some of your harvest."
"OK, looks like a good idea,so what's next" asked Tom.
"Then you should work hard and make it successful and you should start few more shops like that and get them to success too." said Paul.
"Right,then what should i do?" said Tom.
"My friend then you got good money, that would be a nice time to settle down and have a nice family" said Paul.
"Yeah,nice. So what should i do next?" asked Tom.
"Then take care of your Family and kids and once they are young teach them your business and once they are ready let them take care of your farm and business." said Paul.
"OK Paul. then what i should do?" Said Tom.
"Then what man, you got all things covered, you have a nice family and a successful business and you will be rich too. So enjoy your life and live in peace. Let your children take care of your things." said Paul.
Then Tom said something that amazed Paul, "My friend i know you mean well but here's the thing, I know i haven't farmed all my fields and i don't have a lavish life or a wife. But i'm happy with what i have and what i am. Today i have enough to live a happy life and yes i have little but this is what i always needed. There is not a single thing that i have to dream of. A simple life to live in peace is all i ever wanted and what i have right now. Why should i work so many years to pile up many things just to find peace at the end when i have peace in my life right now?"

You should ask a question from your self, and that is

"Who do i want to be, Tom or Paul?

And after that you could work your way from there. What is missing in your practice is "Not knowing what you really need".
Being a buddhist is all about understanding who you are what you are after. Until you have answers to those two questions you are obviously lost. So ask yourself what you need and choose which type of Buddhist you want to be.
There are two kinds of practices to Lay people...

The stallion :-
  This path is simple. The only goal is nirvana and there is no stopping until the target is met. you could call this "Hardcore lay person practice". These fortunate ones live simple lives and their only goal "Nirvana" is their goal.
The turtle :-
  The path is slow but shielded. These fortunate ones live happy normal lives. Their goal is also nirvana but there's a catch. They have decided to reach a higher realm and start their "Stallion stage" and until then they will obey to the "Five precepts" and live a proper Buddhist life. But they will live like any other person with worldly goals in life. The only shield they have is their "Sila (Protecting the precepts) & Shraddha (undying trust on triple gems)". They are taking a big risk here, but they are confident about their Shraddha.

Choose your life my friend....
---

Path does not make you a boring person. You have realized the true nature of the world and you are no longer driven by the lust of lavish things. This is why it does not feel the same.
But you still have attachments to live like there is no tomorrow. Party & get high not to mention the ladies.
But your mind is giving you mixed signals here. There is a reason why...
this happens because of you not deciding a life between these two. So your mind goes back and forth.

My advice is choose your life. either be a "Stallion" or a "Turtle".
--
May the triple gems bless you!

What an enriching reply.  Thank you so much for sharing it.

Immoral ambitions are the only ambitions which a Buddhist layman isn't allowed to pursue.
ex: if your ambition involves killing, stealing, lying etc. or any wrong livelihood.
There's really no valid excuse for giving up Buddhism for the sake of an ambition when a man can even be a king and a Buddhist at the same time.
ex: king Bimbisara, king Dharmasoka

If we don't have ambition to practice whatever approach to Buddhism we are practicing then we aren't going to get that far.
Ambition for things other than Dharma will tend to lessen the effectiveness of our practice although certain things are more useful than others.
Having an ambition for teaching or psychology is going to probably help our practice more than having an ambition for selling weapons or being a movie star(for example).

One needs to have ambitions to gain liberation, yes. The rest will be hindrances.
(Just for information: There is no such as "my" Sangha. [that is actually very "Buddhist", I and my making] There is only Buddhas Sangha and if spoken form it, it refers to the monastic Sangha. If you talk about your group, using parisa is most proper. So people and you do not get confused, as well as your mind does not see things wrong. Weather distance your self for the conventional Sangha nor distance your self form the ideal, will be of benefit for you. Step away for YOUR community might be a great start, although there is no physical need. Trying to be a Buddhist is of course the most wrong ambition, yet they naturally are like that. That what makes the Buddhists. If you like to walk the path, it's certainly another lane, Mr Crab Bucket.)

Buddhism helps you achieve your ambitions better. When you make decisions you are void of any -ve roots which might adversely influence your decisions. This lead to better decision which are proactive than reactive.
Distancing yourself from a crowd may help you put more time into meditation and other priorities but nevertheless Buddhism help in both your worldly and spiritual targets. Also both should be in balance. Say your destitute then you have not time or the mindset for spiritual pratice.


text:
What exactly did Lord Buddha say about Size of Atom?
I have heard that Lord Buddha wrote or discussed about the smallest indivisible particle i.e the atom. What exactly did he say. Is it mentioned in some scriptures? If yes, did he give any argument or detail of his observations.

The atom is divisible

As described in Theravada Buddhist texts of the Abhidhamma Pitaka in the Tipitaka, there is no indivisible part of the atom. Every atom is divisible. If anyone divides it infinitely, the ultimate outcome is energy = there is nothing that exists in reality, it's a mirage that we experience because of the four major qualities. And the atom is made out of four major qualities and due to those 4 major qualities, there are another four qualities are generated. The four major qualities can exist in different or equal proportions within the atom. When the proportions changes, the elements change to another element. The four major qualities are:

"patavi" - which gives the quality of roughness to the atom
"aapo"- which gives the quality of flowing (fluidity)
"thejo" - the quality which gives warmth or heat (and this accounts for the coldness too, when the heat decreases we humans feel coldness, so it is both heat and cold)
"waayo" - the quality of expansion.

Then because of those four, another sub qualities being generated:

"warna" - the quality which gives colour to atoms
"ghanda" - which gives smell
"rasa" - which gives the quality of taste
"oja" - the energy that keeps those four main qualities intact (it's like food to the atom).

And the proportions of the four major qualities in atoms are constantly changing, the change can take fraction of second in some materials, sometimes it might take uncountable years to change. And according to Buddhist texts the atom itself appears and disappears very fast and we humans can only see its existence if you don't have developed your mind to understand and see those happenings (just like our human eye see the tv screen or a video as a one motion, it actually contains many frames to make a full video, but we only see it as a one frame with people moving inside it), but Buddha have said this is a mirage we see and it is "non-eternal".
Source: I have read Abhidhamma Pitaka. And I'm a Buddhist.
P.S: if you want to know the what's really happening, my advise is, you have to read it by yourself and understand, rather than reading some English translated text.

thanks for the explanation! I am a Hindu, have not read this text!

@pretty-girl Please provide references.

Good answer. But I think 2 points need to be corrected- Buddha does not go on to say that "if anyone divides it indefinitely, it boils down to energy". In fact, he says the opposite- that there is nothing that is fundamental substance/energy/god. The "fundamental"- the concept is a mirage. Second point is about reading translated text. I partially agree with you- one should exercise caution. But it does not mean that there are no good english translations available. ANd most definitely, it does not mean one shouldnt read texts in original, if they can.

In Theravada buddhism, atoms are not the same as those found in western physics. Instead, they are

As described in Buddhist texts, it is a ‘non-eternal’ unit of the
  four elements (water, fire, earth, and air) that are impermanent and
  constantly changing... Like other seemingly
  external objects, these atoms are perceived by the senses, but do not
  truly exist beyond cognitive awareness

There really isn't much similarities between the two atoms because one can be divided and the other cannot. So what are the Buddhist atoms? They are earth, water, fire, air, color, smell, taste and  nutritive essence (food).

These eight components of matter, forming an octad (atthaka), are called “indivisible matter” or
  simply “inseparable”

they make up the
four elements, also known as the "Four Greats", spoken from the Surangama Sutra explains how we are able to see the world today. There are also two additional elements (Emptiness and consciousness) which lets the illusory forms take shape.
In the Mahayana Tradition there is a Sutra known as the Lalitavistara Sutra. It's to complicated for me to read, but I guess it does go into depth on buddhas explanation of matter. < http://iteror.org/big/Source/buddhism/Lalitavistara-ch12.html

You might be thinking of Kalapas.
Wikipedia says,

In Theravada Buddhist phenomenology, Kalapas are defined as the smallest units of physical matter.[1] Kalapas are described as tiny units of materiality, “tens of thousands of times smaller than a particle of dust,” coming into existence and disappearing in as little as a billionth of a second or a trillionth of the blink of an eye.[2][3] Kalapas are understood by some Therevada thinkers as actual subatomic particles and the smallest units of materiality.[4][5]
Kalapas are not mentioned in the earliest Buddhists texts, such as the Tripitaka, but only in the Abhidhammattha Saïgaha, an Abhidhamma commentary that was composed between the 5th and 11th centuries.[6] They are not universally accepted in Theravada Buddhism, and the Buddha never directly speaks of kalapas.[7]

See also the answers to this question: Meaning of 'kalapas'

Answer seems good but prefer direct sources rather than wikipedia citing sources

The answers which I linked to quote some (translated) sources.

Search abhidhamma pitaka english translation...
There are seven books for the abhidhamma pitaka section... abhidhamma means deep knowledge!

Why don't you quote the section of the Abhidhamma that explains this? That would be good answer.

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


text:
Is the path considered or viewed as being selfish?
As i learn more about the path and as a result about myself, i cannot wonder if it selfish or self-preserving.
I have a greater appreciation that all is connected and inter-related however it remains to be my relationship. This isn't from the perspective of you and i (duality), but from an understanding of me with the rest of the universe. Perhaps i am overlooking something that is key to further understanding and would appreciate what this may be.

For example, is the realization and actualization intended for myself
only?
If i help others and practice compassion, is it not intended to
support my karmic cycle?

In turn, are these not selfish?

Are you looking for answers from the Pali canon? And/or from Mahayana literature? And/or from users' personal experiences?

@ChrisW - Given the options, i would say all of them since it's the collective that provides the most value and context.

Chavalata Sutta: The Firebrand, see also AN 5.20; AN 4.96; AN 4.99 and most efficient of what Ms. Frying Pan had to say about this issues: The Bamboo Acrobat

+1 for the Chavalata Sutta -- IMO that's the most obvious reference from the Pali canon. They're all good references though.

...and yet so often misunderstood since it does not change the practice and the focus at all. It just a 4WD vehicle, dive and not an excuse to do otherwise.

If you are a drug addict yourself, advising other drug addicts to quit won't be much effective. You must first show by example how to quit. Then others will be inspired by you to do the same. Similarly, first you should follow the path and show how it is done before preaching to others. It's not selfish. It's the most effective way of helping others for spiritual development.
Doing good and practicing worldly compassion is good Karma for you. That is the path to heavens. If you do only that, you will just inspire others to follow the path to heavens. Not to enlightenment.
In fact, not practicing the path is the selfish thing to do. Because the more you keep away from the path, the stronger your greed, ego and clinging to the view of self would be.

When traveling the path you should abandon the world or look internally. The implication with this is you cannot concern yourself with what is around you and to some extent other beings. Hence this can be viewed as an selfish path since you always look inward than outward.

Thanks. If you are always looking inwards how can you be true about your intentions seeing that they are already selfish? Isn't the intention that the outcome be the same for all? If i continue looking at myself in the mirror (thinking Smigel here), would i not be limiting my view of all that i am connected to?

No you are not inwardly selfish but being not involved with the world makes you outwardly or apparently selfish.

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying so apologies however the way i read your comment is that as long as i'm inwardly selfless, that's all that matters. So for example, if i protect myself from danger but not attempt to save another being given i may have the opportunity, it's fine?

Yes. Something along these lines. The question is are you in a position to save someone else when you are drowning yourself.  Trying would be both of you drown. You can try to save your self 1st and then try to save the others.


text:
why i am unaware, not awake?
I made you read the explaination and you are trying to get what is not available! What is that and why we do this? Why we want to be awake when we are totally unaware of being awake-state?

When you are deep sleep (Bhavanga) you are unaware. When you are awake you do have some awareness (Ekaggata - 1 of the 7 universal mental factors) but it not penetrating awareness as you do not have enough focus (Samadhi).

From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Assu Sutta: Tears


text:
What is right gifting?
I came across this explanation by Buddha,
from the Dana Mahapphala Sutta.

THE BEST WAY TO GIVE. Or, instead of thinking, ‘When this gift of mine is given, it calms
my mind. Satisfaction and joy arise,’ he makes a gift, thinking, ‘This is an adornment for the mind, a
support for the mind.’

I couldn't understand the statement. How does one do this? What should be the state of mind when gifting? When does one start to give gift? Does one have to wait till one's moral conduct is good and has insight?

Giving material things has the purpose to learn letting go, to give up what one assumes to be his own. It's actually not an easy training and very less are really able to give. People usually give like trade, sometimes even a hug farmer joyful feeds his pigs. Neither he nor the pigs have much merits and gains in this way.
When ever you come in a situation "he/she does not have, I have" than just think of "why do I not give" if you don't do it automatically yet.
Even a short delay, listening to the defilements and you have lost:

Verse 116: One should make haste in doing good deeds; one should restrain one's mind from evil; for the mind of one who is slow in doing good tends to take delight in doing evil.
The Story of Culekasataka

It's not good to train this training for certain wordily low purposes: To reach this, to control that, to actually feed what is ones own again, or objected as such, which is mostly the case if you give somebody you are attached to. You are not really giving, but do for certain higher or lower gains.
A support for the mind means, release for the mind. If one really gives up something, the mind do no more hold on it. Whereas if you give something for your joy with it, it still clings on something and would be sad if that joy would be disturbed.
How ever, there are times and occasions where gifts are proper given, so that one has a line to follow and a security to do not unaware foster backyard defilements: Kaladana Sutta: Seasonable Gifts
Atma would not recommend Piya Tan in regard of such issues, since he has certain wrong views and does not understand the training of letting go yet.
A general overview of Dana you may find on the Path to Freedom and if you seek for more "technical" explaining Abhidhamma in Daily Life, by Ashin Janakanbhivamsa [pdf] (or online, switch language) is recommended. How ever, the best way to find out and learn is always doing by one self and by doing it, looking what's going on in oneself, what are the hindrances, what are the results. Is a practice that needs certain mindfulness and wisdom and to maintain and develop such. There are really less people, especially in modern world, who can be even called slaves of Dana (doing it for the great joy by giving), not to speak of people who are masters of Dana, may they have trained (or thought that they do) meditation for many many years, most have not even started to work on the gross defilement, so greedy are they. Yet stinginess is an obstacle fo even reach any Jhanic state...
Here is one useful talk: Sensitivity through generosity. It's not out of reason that the Buddha tells: association with people of right view, joy in giving, hostility, sharing merits... is the foundation for success to gain right view for oneself, yet it requires much sacrify to even come in contact with such people, stay with them.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.)

In the definition of Parikkhāra I'm drawn to the second meaning, i.e.,

(b) In a special sense and in very early use it refers to the "set of necessaries" of a Buddhist monk & comprises the 4 indispensable instruments of a mendicant, enumd in stock phrase "cīvara -- piṇḍapāta -- senāsana -- gilānapaccayabhesajja -- p." i. e. robe, alms -- bowl, seat & bed, medicine as help in illness. Thus freq. found in Canon, e. g. at Vin iii.132; D iii.268; S iv.288, 291; Nd2 523 (as 1st part of "yañña"); also unspecified, but to be understood as these 4 (different Vin Texts iii.343 which take it to mean the 8 requisites: see below) at Vin ii.267. -- Later we find another set of mendicants' requisites designated as "aṭṭha parikkhārā," the 8 requirements. They are enumd in verse at J i.65= DA i.206, viz. ticīvaraŋ, patto, vāsi, sūci, (kāya -- ) bandhanaŋ, parissāvana, i. e. the 3 robes, the bowl, a razor, a needle, the girdle, a water -- strainer. They are expld in detail DA i.206 sq. Cp. also J iv.342 (aṭṭhaparikkhāra -- dhara); v.254 (kāyabandhana -- parissāvanasūci -- vāsi -- satthakāni; the last -- named article being "scissors" instead of a razor); DhA ii.61 (˚dhara thera).

So not "adornment", like 'decoration', but rather "requisite" or "necessity" or perhaps "tool" or sine qua non.
So I think it's saying, "give with the understanding that the giving is necessary for the mind" (instead of for example, "give with the hope of getting something, like 'calmness', in return").

I asked myself the same question.  This sutta Buddha told ven. Sariputta reasons why people give gifts and results from that foundation.  i cross reference checked where else Buddha mentioned "ornament of mind" but couldn't find any that explains the word in different way or example of people who gave gifts as ornament of mind, or even example of Bramaha God who gave gifts in such a way when he was in this world.
"adornment (or ornament) of mind is not the same thing as gift of mine is given, it calms my mind. Satisfaction and joy arise".  They are in two separate categories.  it might have been lost in translation somewhere.
 I personally believe giving as an ornament of mind is when you gift to reduce a feeling of self, mine, or belong.  Like when you feel a penny in your pocket is yours, so you give it away to reduce or even eliminate the feeling of "my penny".  my opinion.
from danna sutta  7 reasons why people give gifts and results:

Giving gifts and want something in return, after death, he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings and then return to the world.
Giving gifts because it's a good thing, after death, he reappears in the company of the Devas of the Thirty-three and then return to the world.
Giving gifts because of tradition, after death, he reappears in the company of the Devas of the Hours and then return to the world.
Giving gifts because because wanting to help those in need, after death, he reappears in the company of the Contented Devas and then return to the world.
Giving gifts just as there were the great sacrifices of the sages of the past, after death, he reappears in the company of the devas who delight in creation and then return to the world. (there is no further explanation of this category by Buddha.)
Giving gifts because  it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise, after death, he reappears in the company of the devas who have power over the creations of others and then return to the world.

And lastly, your question:

Giving gifts as an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' , after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.

i agree with Sama Johann, giving as ornament of mind is letting go of things.

i cross reference checked where else Buddha mentioned "ornament of mind" but couldn't find any -- see footnote 6 on the first page of this PDF referring to Cittâlakra,citta,parikkhr’attha -- and here is the PTS dictionary definition for Parikkhāra

i should have said, "mentioned or explained in other sutta in a different way."  Same thing as you help me out before with vibhava thanha, it is too mentioned in many suttas but in a same way and we only understand it in a sense of definition of the word or explanation by someone else which isnt confirmed by Buddha.  Unlike some other words like "anatta", buddha mentioned it in different ways, give different supportive examples etc.  "ornament of mind" appears in a few sutta but in a same way, there is no explanation of it or example of any contemporary disciple who gave gift this way.

In the PDF quoted in the OP, Piya Tan seems willing to translate it as "calm" -- he wrote, need some level of mastery in calm [“adornment”] and insight [“support”] -- I guess possibly because according to the PTS dictionary entry it's also used in the expression, samādhiparikkhārā.

yes.  thats why i think it might be a lost in translation somewhere.   Because according to what Buddha told Ven Sarriputta, giving for calm, gratification & joy arise is not in the same as category as ornament of mind.

PS. , from my study, all of those who were born in Brahman world during Buddha's time, they practiced to remove defilement  from their minds one way or the other, such as meditation of all 9 levels,  4 Brahma Viharas, or giving gift as ornament of mind etc. That's why i believe "ornament of mind" is related to removing defilement, qualification or prerequisite to be Brahman deva.  Again, my observation.

There are two main pints two your question, And Lord Buddha directly answered both of those and here is the extended answer.....

What is the correct detachment?

An example from lord Buddha......
One day the king visited Lord Buddha in an unlikely hour, So Lord Buddha asked why. King replied "Today the richest noble in my kingdom died, he has no offspring so i went to his house to claim his wealth to my treasury. I just finished that and came to see the fortunate one."
The king continued "That man never wore any good clothes and he never enjoyed any luxury, he ate like a poor man. Today seeing his immense wealth i am in a question lord. Why does someone live like this having so much wealth and never loosing it?"
Lord Buddha Told him the earlier life story which gained the diseased noble the karma to be a noble in this life. As Lord Buddha explained even though he managed to give up he could not be happy afterwards and second guessed the decision to donate.
Then Lord Buddha explained why it happened.....  "The noble was able to give in his earlier life so he received nobility and wealth but he could not keep his mind from regretting that decision.Because of that he could not enjoy the wealth he owned."

So the simpler explanation is that one must give happily with detachment and he or she must keep the happiness of giving before giving,while giving and even afterwards. That is the correct detachment.

What is the most noble giving?

Lord Buddha gave a direct answer to that question...

The most noble giving of all is giving "Dhamma (the teaching of lord Buddha)."

The reason is, any other gift even education is only good for one life and afterwards it does not help anyone. But the teaching takes living ones away from the danger of "Samsara" and gives them refuge for life times to come and even complete freedom from samsara.

There are 2 parts here

ornament of the mind
support of the mind

I would think ornament of the mind means to develop Beautiful Consciousness (Sobana). Develop Initial and Sustained contemplation on your action developing Calm. Do it with Metta, Karuna, Mudita and Upekkha. This way convert your citta into a Great Wholesome Mind (mahā-kusala cittas).
I think supporting the mind is if the Mind is Prompted (this includes when you hold yourself back due to laziness or attachment) make it into an Unprompted mind. Being Unprompted means you you have to guard your mind so if does not get disheartened after giving. Reinforce your understanding of Karma so your Mind is a Mind with the Right View. Also ensure defilements not arise and also keep redeveloping new wholesome thoughts by concentrating on the Gift and the Brahmavihara furthering the state and intensity of your volition and mind. Also developing wisdom by contemplating on the feelings (arising and passing and the unsatisfactoriness in the feelings and the non self nature of the experience or what is felt) associated with the object, the recipient, what prompted the volition to give and how the recipient received it.
An interesting read would be UNRAVELLING the MYSTERIES of MIND & BODY through ABHIDHAMMA by Sayalay Susila, page 8 - 10.

At the end of sutta, said that the last dāna-method, your quote, is dāna of anāgāmi-ariya:

with the body’s breaking up, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma’s Retinue. Then, having exhausted that karma, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.

So, in this sutta's commentary said:

"an adornment for the mind, a support for the mind" means a support
  for concentration-meditation-mind and insight-meditation-mind.

Because, anāgāmi-ariya completely & perfectly escaped five strands of sensuality, kāma-attachment, so his attachment in his gift can't arise anymore, too, because gift is five strands. So, dāna in the last method are the best, because it is giving as alike as anāgāmi-ariya's and arahanta-ariya's giving. These two ariya just give for meditation, mind development.
To understand tipitaka deeply, reciting & memorizing tipitaka are strongly required.

Bhikkhu Sujato's translation for AN 7.52:

They don’t give a gift thinking, ‘When giving this gift my mind
  becomes clear, and I become happy and joyful.’ But they give a gift
  thinking, ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind.’ They give
  to ascetics or brahmins such things as food, drink, clothing,
  vehicles; garlands, fragrance, and makeup; and bed, house, and
  lighting. What do you think, Sāriputta, don’t some people give gifts
  in this way?” “Yes, sir.”
“Sāriputta, someone who gives gifts, not for any other reason, but
  thinking, ‘This is an adornment and requisite for the mind’, when
  their body breaks up, after death, is reborn among the gods of
  Brahmā’s Host. When that deed, success, fame, and sovereignty is spent
  they are a non-returner; they do not return to this state of
  existence.

It's clear that in one case, reward is expected (‘When giving this gift my mind becomes clear, and I become happy and joyful.’)
In the other case, reward is not expected, and giving the gift is simply treated as a requisite (or support or tool) for the mind.
The Pali words here are "citta ālaṅkāra citta parikkhāraṃ". "parikkhāra" is translated as support or requisite, while "ālaṅkāra" is translated as adornment.
Why adornment? Adornment makes something more beautiful. There is a reference to beauty in Ajaniya Sutta, which equates beauty of mind to virtue:

"And how is a monk consummate in beauty? There is the case where a
  monk is virtuous. He dwells restrained in accordance with the
  Patimokkha, consummate in his behavior & sphere of activity. He trains
  himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the
  slightest fault. This is how a monk is consummate in beauty.

So, this means that giving a gift makes the mind virtuous. The purpose of virtue is in AN 10.1.

As i understand it decisions
associated with concern
associated with sympathy
associated with appreciation
associated with compassion
are conducive to the proper development of what can be wrongly grasped to be a one's own and what can be wrongly grasped to be a one's own by another .
results of these decisions are associated with non-ill will, non cruelty, concern and sympathy to what can be wrongly grasped to be a one's self and what can be wrongly grasped to be a one's own by another.

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


text:
Any cure for blurred vision after sitting with eyes half-open?
I get slightly blurred vision after a long sit during which I have my eyes half-closed (as in Zazen style). It can last for more than an hour and is a practical drag, and also creates a slightly woozy feeling.
Any re-focusing eye exercise anyone know of?
Thank you
Joe

Hi, interested to find out the benefits of keeping eyes half closed.

My recommendation would be that visit your GP, an ophthalmologist or at least an optometrist. Blurred vision for more than an hour is not a good sign.

Hi Kaveenga: the half-closed technique is seen as preventing the sitter from falling asleep, or indulging too much in inner fantasy etc., balancing the inner and outer experiences etc. At least that's my understanding. It seems to be a particular requirement of Zazen, i.e. Japanese Zen sitting.

Close them, would be maybe the most practical.

Happens to me too.  It's most noticeable when the room I sit in is very dark.  I've never had that happen to me during the day, for instance, or when we have an altar set up at the zendo.  It might help to light a candle or to plug in a nightlight.  I also find that my eyes are most problematic when I look at a computer screen shortly after sitting.  Like the doctor advising a patient who felt pain when he raised his arm, the simple solution is to just not do that!  Give your eyes some time to readjust to focusing before putting a screen in front of them.


text:
What does Buddhism teach about fear of success?
Sometimes people have fear of success, i. e. get agitated and nervous, when, for example,

some important person behaves exactly like they wanted (and they didn't expect it), or
they achieve a minor success, which indicates that their plan is working.

Think of a small business owner, who creates a successful advertising campaign and then gets upset about too many clients.
What actionable recommendations (protocols) does Buddhism in general and Diamond Way Buddhism in particular have for people, who want to overcome such fears?

I'm not sure I understand your definition of "fear of success". Do you mean, fear after a slight success? Is it the same thing as fear of eventual failure? Are these ('Causes') better examples of what you were asking about?

No, it's not fear of eventual failure. Let's take the example of that small business owner. Let's say it's a hot dog stand. All at once, there are more customers than usual. Right action: Either expand the business - server more customers (hire additional people, open a second stand nearby) or offer premium product at a higher price to fewer customers (high-end hot dogs, particularly healthy hot dogs, whatever). Wrong (self-sabotaging) action: Stop that campaign that brought him or her additional business, or do a stupid mistake (e. g. bad service) so that new customers go away.

Another manifestation of fear of success may be procrastination. Often, the only thing someone (blogger, author) has to do to achieve success is to churn out as much content as possible. If they don't do it (despite having a lot of time and obvious talent for that thing), it may be because they fear to be successful.

Do any of the 'causes' I referenced ring a bell: might these be reasons for the 'fear' you're asking about?

One of them probably applies to me, namely this one: Fear of the sense of responsibility that often attends recognizing our own greatness, talents, potentials. But it's not only responsibility, but also the fear of collapsing because of a lot of work. Or the fear of wasting a unique opportunity because of weakness or stupidity.

Another cause is this: Imagine, I talk with an important person 10 times. 10 out of 10 conversations run in a bad way. I build model in my mind: "Person X is always treating me bad." Let's say I do another attempt, the 11th one and that conversation runs measurably better. This makes my previously valid model inadequate and I have to create a new model.

Theravada Buddhist answer, based in the Burmese Method.
It is still just fear, no matter what context it is experienced in.
It's an impersonal phenomena that arise and cease on its own accord, without it being amenable to ones will.
It should be observed and noted, in order to learn about the phenomena, i.e. to see its characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and uncontrollability.
When one truly sees that feelings and emotions cannot be controlled, one begins to let go of them. They are just processes. There is no experiencing entity behind the phenomena.
One comes to see that its not really the fear that is the "problem". Its ones own aversion to that fear.

Restlessness is it called, this hindrance. Restlessness and Remorse, in the "Five Mental Hindrances and Their Conquest"
It can be of course used for worldly purposes, but actually it not meant for such, its not meant to be a winner of others in the world, but to win something beyond that, Mr. Dmitri Pisarenko.

Dmitri congrats. I would have thought you were the reason why Buddha spoke of this sutta.  shop-keeper.
Buddha pointed out 3 key factors to be a successful businessman,

good vision
good management
good benefactors (merchant with good vision and management attracts investors who would love to invest money with him.)

Second half of sutta, Buddha used those 3 factors that you can probably related to very well, with dharma or mental development.

your question is loaded and probably will not be answered with just one sutta or two.  I would follow shopkeeper sutta and follow the formula.  the last one is collecting sutta and knowledge in buddha's lectures and teachings.

well in this discourse the image of a shopkeeper is only employed as a source of analogy to how a monk should go about his training, and so this is not necessarily meant to be an advice on business management

here Dhammapada comes to mind, from chapter 16 Piyavagga

Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.

Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or unloved.

From attachment springs grief, from attachment springs fear. From him who is wholly free from attachment there is no grief, whence then fear?

From craving springs grief, from craving springs fear. From him who is wholly free from craving there is no grief; whence then fear?

authors: Баян Купи-ка


text:
To what level can be said that Buddha 'followed' the dzogchen?
The Dzogchen-tradition first appeared in the first half of the 9th century. According to tradition, the Dzogchen teachings were brought to Tibet by Padmasambhava in the late 8th and early 9th centuries.
Dzogchen is the understanding that enlightemeht cann't be found outside a person, but is immediatally present in a persons mind and consciensness.
When I read it like that it seems te me that Buddha was actionally a Dzogchen (avant la lettre). But if so (i'm not sure) why is there a different separate tradition born?

Dzogchen is the understanding that enlightenment can't be found outside a person
Not the best definition - most other schools would agree with this - doesn't make them Dzogchen.
Dzogchen (Dzog-pa Chen-po) means Ultimate Completeness or Great Perfection. Dzogchen is the understanding that everything is already perfect, everything is the way it is for objective reasons, the world at large is in balance, there is a great harmony behind everything whether we see it as good or bad. All so-called "problems" are just manifestations of higher-level principles at work, which by themselves are not problems. With this understanding, why look for Enlightenment? What other Nirvana do you need?
In what sense can we say that Buddha 'followed' the Dzogchen? The idea is, that after his Enlightenment, Buddha has awakened to the view of the Great Perfection. So his "internal state" (if we can speak of a state of a non-abiding Buddha) was not different from Dzogchen. But of course he understood that most people are driven by their emotions, attachments, illusions to a large degree - so they can't enjoy the Great Perfection as is. Therefore he taught them the path to clean their minds of the taints, until they get lucid enough that they can "awaken" (budd) to the Great Perfection.
The reason it's a separate tradition is because most Buddhists obsess over the path of purification - they can't seem to accept the simplicity of the result. So the various schools of Buddhism have evolved around the various practices of discipline, wisdom, and meditation. The schools that focus on the result are primarily Zen and Dzogchen.
But even Zen and Dzogchen agree that realization of completeness is not the end of story - this is only the right view - and then there is cultivation of the right view in practice of daily life.

So Dzogchen is a "tantrayana" in the sense that you defined that here -- i.e. working within a framework of the target.

That is correct, Dzogchen is tantrayana, the highest level of.


text:
Did the Buddha ever cure someone?
Perhaps you could say that by teaching his path he healed many people; but what I meant is more direct, physical healing: is there something written about that?

What is physical healing and to which extend does healing count as healing in regard of this question. Actually no body ever got healed by anyone, they all broke apart, sooner or later. And if thinking about this, whom did he not healed when having taking his medicine?

This article Ministering to the Sick and the Terminally Ill contains examples (references to suttas and the vinaya), certainly of caring for or ministering to people who are physically unwell.
There are also some accounts of people being "healed": see for example the paragraphs which begin,

It seems that those who are highly developed mentally are able to suppress illness ...

See also the paragraph which begins,

The advice given by Nakulamata to Nakulapita ...

As per a legend, Vaishali was once infested with plague and with Buddha's arrival, the plague ended. so there are many stories by later additions that Buddha was the direct cause for eradicating the plague.  Some stories originating from SE Asia, one suggests that Buddha gave his Alms bowl to ven. Ananda to make holy water to sprinkle around town.  This was probably untrue, given that in at least 13 sutta, Buddhda prohibits monks to make holy water.  This one strange sutta doesnt fit in.  Some scholars and experts believe that this story is the reason why you see today's monks sprinkle holy water in temples, especially in south east Asia countries.